[colejohnson66]

Editorialized title. The actual is:

Life Saving Therapy Inhibition by Phones Containing Magnets

The article is about the iPhone 12. Just pointing out that magnets aren’t specific to the iPhone.

[loup-vaillant]

The editorialised title is both accurate to the beginning of the article, and more informative. I would have ignored the original title. Thanks to the editorialised title, I now know that magnets can mess with pacemakers.

[bergstromm466]

> The editorialised title is both accurate to the beginning of the article, and more informative. I would have ignored the original title.

I don't understand why dang and other mods justify their gatekeeping when they edit the title to use 'expensive words', like they did here. It makes me feel so frustrated. Stop with the academia-industrial-complex and let people link to articles/papers how they want to. Stop with the PR already (removing 'iPhone').

[thih9]

I think the idea is to trust the author’s judgment and do not change the focus (here: “phones containing magnets” vs “iPhone 12”) of the original article, especially in an attempt to make the title stand out more or get more views.

[colejohnson66]

Because “editorializing” the title introduces biases (either knowingly or unknowingly). Was “iPhone 12” added in the submitted title just to make it more specific, or was it a nudge to bring on the Apple haters?

[bergstromm466]

Who cares about Apple haters? I care that it’s a super common device that a lot of people have and could therefore be dangerous

[Ensorceled]

Just because the title is editorialized doesn't mean that is a bad thing, the first line of the article is:

> The Heart Rhythm Society has issued the following information regarding the use of the new iPhone 12 Series and ICDs.

The original title is, in classic British style, quite understated, some editorializing is justified.

[Daho0n]

Editorialized is if the title express the posters opinion. It does not. If anything it makes it more clear.

[ascar]

No idea why he is downvoted. He is factually correct as can be seen in merriam-webster and the cambridge dictionary:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/editorialize

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/editoria...

As the title is just more informative, but not expressing an opinion, calling it editorialized is wrong.

And as a matter of fact, because of this comment I just learned a new word and how to use it correctly.

[thih9]

> As the title is just more informative, but not expressing an opinion

What is more informative or less informative (e.g. "phones containing magnets" vs "iPhone 12") could be an opinion itself. The "iPhone 12" title definitely stands out more; at the same time it puts a slightly different focus on the article. I think people here prefer to trust the author and their judgment (as long as the original title isn't open clickbait).