Comments:'Where is your god now?': London policemen on trial accused of beating Muslim

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

I really do not appreciate the title, "Where is your God now?" I could not think of a more offensive title. It is so rude. I don't know what else to say about it, but I'd prefer you guys weren't using Wikimedia for shock routines. The appropriate title would be something like, "London police on trial for murder." I'm not expressing it but am particularly unimpressed by this. Sorry if you guys are doing a good job or whatever... RTG (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The title is in quotes because it is, AFAIK, what one of the policemen on trial is supposed to have said while beating the Muslim.

BTW, this page is for opinions on the story - comments on the article should go on the talk page.

I don't think the headline is inappropriate—of course the quote itself is completely horrific, but I certainly don't think it is being sensationalist, merely explaining the terrible nature of the story. Wikinews is not censored, and we don't make any apology for explaining what happens, sometimes in more detail than other news websites which prefer not to go into the details, but I don't think it is the case here that we have been purposefully sensationalist.

Okay, is the article about the developing investigation into a persons unnaccidental death, or is it a monologue on somebodys words or indeed the actual death itself? If it is about an investigation into an unnacidental death and goes by the headline, "Where is your god now?" I have some reservations no matter if it is a quote or who said it. To refer me to censorship makes me intend to insult your intelligence directly. That line is simply not the appropriate title for reporting on this event. It is certainly sensationalist wether intentionally so or not and sensationalism in all but the most light hearted reporting is always cansidered rude at best. This could be appropriate for a more in depth follow up article but as a way to say, "Muslim probably killed by these cops!" it is inflammatory.

Why have neither of you commented on my suggestion, "London police on trial for murder."? Because you'd have to admit first off yes that would have been more acceptable.

And, if I were searching for this article, the title would certainly not help me, or anybody else, at which note I begin to be particularly annoyed with it. What are you trying to achieve here if not that?

You would still find it if you searched for terms related to it. The headline is "'Where is your god now?': London policemen on trial accused of beating Muslim", not just the offending quote. If you think the headline is sensationalist, you are free to do that—just as I am free to think it is not.

It is the very definition of sensationalism. If you know what sensationalism is not, let's see what you think it is and we will see if in fact it is the same. There can be no other reason to highlight that quote than to highlight the emotion it causes, or, *the sensation*. Or what other reason is there? Because it was the popular quote to highlight? And for what reason was it popular as such? Because of the sensation it produced. It's like the paradox of the chicken and the egg. There were eggs a lot longer than there have been chickens. Case closed?

If you read the article you'll find two things: 1) the man survived and 2) these are among the most serious allegations I have seen directed against policemen in the last year or so in the UK - and I have been watching. I feel the quote is needed to quickly portray the seriousness of these alleged offences. If you read the whole piece - not to mention news reports that came out the following day reporting on Ahmed's testimony - you'll find a particularly grim tale unfolding.

I kind of detest 1) not being considered intelligent enough as a member of the public for events to portray their own seriousness without manipulation. The emphasis should have been in words such as, "extremely serious assault." or "critical injuries", not, "And the attackers favorite quote of the day is..." 2) one was enough.

I have neither read the article or intend to, much as in might have interested me, had I not been able to draw a conclusion (any conclusion) about the authors before letting my interest guide me into it. Blood Red Sandmans comment, for instance, is 1) an excuse, but it is also 2) a motive. There is absolutely no need for excuses or motives in this or any other article. It can belie nothing only manipulation. I understand the motive full well, isn't it well founded? But, I'd have thought that here on Wikinews that sensationalism was skillfully avoided and with foresight and guidance. Surely half the folk reading and writing around here are budding journalists, be that professional or otherwise. Sensationalism, manipulation, is always the yukky stick.

I cannot recall the last time I was so bemused that I pulled a second cigarette from the box without even lighting the first one as I have just now so I am going to go and think about giving up smoking. If someone from Wikinews could go away and think about never ever being accused of sensationalism, that events speak for themsevles, that human nature is true and resolves itself only when we do not select the emotions of others to exaggerate and aggitate when they are obviously having their own emotions already. It is in this type of case that we really need to keep peoples emotions in check and if that doesn't ring true, if you are like, "Yes, but this is why we did it and let's do it again..." or "No, we want to manipulate peoples emotions when we find them running high, because we know the *best* ways to do it..."

You've not read the article? Pah! Then you're claiming one line is sensationalist from a position of ignorance.

"I have neither read the article or intend to..."

Well then, I have no intention of wasting my time on the rest of your comment. Ta ta for now!

"I have neither read the article [n]or intend to..."

Sorry, I'm a stickler for that particular grammatical construct =P

It's an old debate. The sensationalist is the bad guy every time. If you consider it new or original or even particular to this article it is scarcely worth debating, but it is always worth pointing out because, the sensationalist is the bad guy, every time.

He (the guy on trial) is probably in some pub right now thinking about that remark making a world headline with a smug grin. How clever he was. And why shouldn't you clap him on the back, right?

Why was the title not:-

'Fucking Bastard!':London policemen on trial accused of beating Muslim

or,

'You fucking cunt, you'll remember this day for the rest of your life.':London policemen on trial accused of beating Muslim

Because whoever wrote it was twisting it to their own design. It should read:-

London policemen on trial accused of beating Muslim

It should not have a selected quote, a selected joke, or a rating out of ten. Deep inquiry is not required to draw that conlusion or to verify it. End of story.

</ignored>

</ignoramus>

When I search the Water Cooler Policies archives for the word "sensationalism" I get 1 hit and it has nothing to do with writing for Wikinews so it's obviously something that you haven't acknowledged and apparently something with does not stir a lot of you, which is a shame.

HAVE. YOU. READ. THE. ARTICLE?

If not, piss off and troll elsewhere.

Muppet.

Once RTG has read the article, (which I guess he has, judging by his latest posts) I think there is a point to be discussed about sensationalism.

There is a distinction between informing your audience succinctly and quickly, and exploitation. I don't think this headline crosses the line, (and I would also hold that the rest of the article is not sensationalist.)

No Brian McNeil, but I've read this:Wikinews:Style_Guide#Headlines and I say:

London police begin trial for 2003 'sustained violent assault' on suspected Islamic militant

And before anyone points out how that doesn't fit in with the style guide, I've read it over, I'm more than capable of understanding it, your attitude sucks and for that reason alone I am more than happy to point out improvements in the face of it.

Is that trolling? Well they say trolling is when you are only trying to elict an emotional response and given the current topic, I am more than happy with that assessment, thank you. I am not looking for it, but hey... kind of suits you thanks. If you were a bit younger you'd know that The Muppet Show was great. At least I got a lol out of it, but still... not a particularly amusing topic to be honest.

• plonk*

Fork you, you spoon.

"If they had simply left the documents in the hands of the traditional press, much of what was revealed about the conservatory politicians in Brazil, for example, would have never been made public. The majority of the journalists choose to write about themes that had to do with their political position, and didn’t disclose any information that contradicted this view. Natalia’s independence allowed her to make sure that this information did not remain forgotten inside the drawer of private interests."

Foul behavior from the guardians of peace and order. . . What ever happened to due process, and innocent until proven guilty? Brutality is NEVER RIGHT!!

He was proven to be a Muslim. I don't see what else proof is needed.

^To the reply above me^

What a bigoted piece of s#!t you are. No one deserves brutality unless they've shown brutality, which was not the case here.

good

"Where is the justice now?"

In my own opinion, the identity/purpose/nature/intention of "god" is so far removed from our human understanding that to argue about "who, what, when, where, why, gender, number (one, two, several, many) is an exercise in extreme futility. God is like the elephant in the story of the five blind men trying to identify it. Each spoke the truth, each was right, and none of them knew what an elephant actually was. And yet we fight over it, as if our very souls depend on proving information that WE DO NOT HAVE, and probably never will have. The concept of faith is to believe what we can never know. And if we can never know it, how can we fight over it? Maybe "accepting God" means accepting the fact that other beliefs may be right too.

Group hug!!!

No wonder my peaceful Islamic brothers are hating the western countries...156.8.251.250 (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)