Headline change

22:11, 21 November 2011‎ Brian McNeil (Talk | contribs)‎ m (4,253 bytes) (moved Police officers put on leave after pepper spraying protesters to California campus pepper spray police suspended: alliteration, location)

Brian McNeil's move of the perfectly appropriate and accurate title "Police officers put on leave after pepper spraying protesters" to "California campus pepper spray police suspended" makes no sense and is one of the worst title moves I've ever seen. The subject of this article primarily concerns the pepper spraying of students by police. It is not about the suspension of police. The title should not have been changed, and the change distorted the topic, giving the illusion that this controversy was about the suspension of police rather than the actions taken by police and their subsequent fallout.

I disagree...I think that the pepper spraying incident should have been its own story, and the consequences a second (or as an addendum to the first). Delaying news stories for that long just to include the suspensions would have delayed the major news item for too long, and although I'm not certain, I think the suspensions were announced at least three or four days since the pepper spraying incident occurred.

In this case I believe the headline accurately reflects the new story of what the consequences are. If the first version of this article was actually written during the time that the pepper spraying incident occurred, then the former title would have been appropriate at the time.

Also since the title still makes reference to the pepper spraying incident it contains all the relevant information, so its not hiding any focus; but rather making reference to something which should be obvious at this point. As with any news story, as it evolves over time, the focus is continually placed on new information or updates on what is occurring.

Thank you!

The issue is that, as a volunteer-run project with people contributing in their spare time, we can't always cover every up-to-the-minute piece of news. So, stories generally tend to bring in one story a little on the late side, with a good deal of background.

I don't know what your thoughts on the news are, but I'd prefer a delay in reporting that led to more comprehensive coverage, more depth, and less knee-jerk nonsense that turns out to be fake.

I am the original author of this article and I think Brian McNeil was right to change its title. In retrospect, my original title was a bit vague as "Police officers put on leave after pepper spraying protesters" gives you no information about where the incident took place, or that students were being pepper sprayed. "California campus pepper spray police suspended" is a better title because it includes the two things I forgot to put in and it makes a pretty neat use of alliteration. So thank you for the improved title, Brian.

Viriditas, I totally disagree with all of your allegations. The headline change has not distorted the information at all. If anything, it has actually made the information more precise.

Then I must take serious exception to your uncritical repeating of two false claims in the report without so much as a single rebuttal, which virtually every reliable secondary sources has criticized as unfounded and absurd. First, you repeated a claim from Charles J. Kelly who called the pepper spraying "fairly standard police procedure". In point of fact, there is no evidence that this is standard police procedure, and The San Jose Mercury News as well as many other sources have made this point many times. Strangely, except for this Kelly character, there is almost no defense of the actions of the officer at all in reliable publications, so it appears that you were repeating a fringe claim without any justification. Research shows that police officers do not pepper spray non-violent demonstrators as standard practice.

Second, you repeated Spicuzza's claim that the students had surrounded the officers and the officers were unable to leave. Virtually every independent, reliable secondary source has disputed that claim and found it to be unfounded.