This subverse is for news from all around the world.
Be sure to check out /v/news as well!
Related Subverses:
/v/WarFollowing - Sub for all things relating to combat, terrorism, battle or war related news, stories, videos, etc. Also contains content related to dealing with war in daily life.
/v/USNews - For U.S.-central news
/v/WorldNews2 - Our less-moderated anything-goes subverse
Rules & Guidelines
[0] Removed
[1] Please report rule violations instead of debating them in the comments.
[2] News must not be older than fourteen days at the time of submission.
[3] User-editorialized titles are subject to deletion. State only the facts, not opinions or speculation.
[4] No spam, advertisements or ref-links.
[5] Removed
[6] Use correct capitalization in titles (i.e. no caps lock).
[7] Link the desktop version of an article, not its mobile version, and if you can search for an archive and link to that on https://archive.is/
[8] This should go without saying, but this is an English-language subverse. Posts and comments in other languages may be removed.
The spirit of these rules is to foster a community where dissent, free thought and open discussions are encouraged. All moderation activity should operate within this spirit.
Please do not post links in other subverses pointing to specific submissions or comments here. Cite the source directly if you are interested in the content.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 4235218? [S] ago
Yeah, "dope" is, "superstition monger" and "defender of pedophiles" are factual. "Religious extremist" also describes and fits him perfectly, is that passable?
[–] OhBlindOne 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It may be factually correct; however, it's still self-editorialized. You're editing an article to fit what you want it to say.
If the title you're providing is reflecting the content of the article (or is just a copy/paste of the article heading) then it's okay. But, if you're adding in your own personal bias (that you don't like the Pope, whether you have facts to back it up or not) then it becomes an issue with creating a misleading title.
[–] 4260829? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Agreed, re: being permitted to edit titles as long as it conveys information actually contained with in the article. Sometimes additional context is necessary or helpful, and users may do it whenever they wish. In this case, this is a valid deletion, considering it's an opinion not in the article.