Isn't there a rule about modifying inflamatory titles? The article title "Top UN court orders Israel to prevent genocide in Gaza but stops short of ordering cease-fire" is less inflamatory, and will help prevent comments from going sideways.
Or you can switch to https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-braces-worl... if you want the title to match the HTML title.
I don't see how it's inflammatory. It seems strictly neutral to me, with the possible exception of the word 'demands'.
Because the ceasefire was the number one demand by the South Africa. And they lost that, but the current title completely ignores that part, and instead highlights only the part that Israel lost.
That's like exactly the definition of the opposite of neutral: ignoring the part Israel won and only focusing on the part they lost.
And the fact that it ignores the major part of the case and focuses only on the minor part, only makes it more egregious.
Even the actual news source themselves changed the title, and for some reason you consider the HTML title more important?
Ok, I've changed it to the page title, shortened to fit HN's 80 char limit. Does that work?
Much better, thank you.
Ok good, and thanks for the helpful explanation.