Alan Johnston was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the
good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the
BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the
project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the
BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Scotland and
Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic
Palestine region, the
Palestinian people and the
State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting
the project page, where you can add your name to the
list of members where you can contribute to the
discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
According to the BBC World Service, he's been released...
Article has now been updated, thanks!
–Chacor 01:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
According to BBC News 24 Alan is being taken by Hamas to meet the PM.
The PM? Not likely he is in Palestine,
SqueakBox 01:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Remember, please: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alan Johnston article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."
–Chacor 01:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, I'm pretty sure he is being taken to meet the PM. The PM of the Hamas led government of course
Nil Einne 07:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
gunmen? how about "terroist hijakers"? Nah, can't have it in our doublespeak world.
The image of him is not very good, the images within the article are better
The old image we used is no longer applicable under fair-use. And since the other images in the article under fair-use are meant to describe the sections they're currently in I'm hesitant to make them the main image. Thoughts?
–Chacor 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Hmm, looking at it the button banner might be usable in the infobox.
–Chacor 01:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
It really needs a new picture. A picture of where he works is no where NEAR up to what should be our standards.
Siddonie 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
A fair use image in the infobox would violate our policies, as a free image could reasonably be found or created, now that he has been released.
J Milburn 11:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
If we can find one that would be great but an infobox of a bio needs a pic of the subject or no pic at all, a poic of a BBC building is not acceptable in the info box,
SqueakBox 00:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Separate article on kidnapping needed
I'm very happy to hear he has been released. However, this article is supposed to be about the man's life and his work but instead is almost completely about his kidnapping. Once things settle down, I suggest that the ==Kidnapping== section to be spun into its own article at
Kidnapping of Alan Johnston and a several paragraph summary of the event left here under a ==Kidnapping and release== section (per
WP:SUMMARY). More focus should then be directed to the other parts of his life and work. --
mav 03:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Well,
Olaf Wiig and
Steve Centanni articles aren't much about them, either, although granted the bit about Johnston's kidnapping is 'large', to say the least.
–Chacor 03:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This article was created on March 16th 2007. Its existence on Wikipedia is due to his kidnapping, not his "life and work". If Johnston wasn't considered notable in his own right before the kidnapping then I don't see why he should be now.
Dino246 06:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Alan Johnston is IMHO clearly noteable due to his life work. Just because an article was not yet created, doesn't mean he was not noteable. It is fairly common, especially for non-Americans, that noteable but not extremely noteable people have articles created for them after some big event they were involved in. (Similarly, several of the victims of the Vtech shooting spree had articles created for them after the event, only those who were otherwise noteable were preserved.) In this case, the lead says it all, he was the only Western journalist permanently based on Gaza which in itself is probably ground for noteablity (this isn't the only thing that makes him noteable but it's sufficient). If he were not noteable due to his life work, but only his kidnapping then this article should be renamed to
Alan Johnston kidnapping or something similar. We should not have articles about non-noteable people. As it stands, the article needs to be expanding to include more on Alan Johnston. After that, if the kidnapping section is still too large it can be spun off.
Nil Einne 07:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I would support splitting this into separate articles. He is a notable journalist, as he has won numerous awards for his work. The kidnapping section would be better suited to a new article, as it is very detailed and perhaps slightly too large for an article that should focus on his work.
Dave101→
talk 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
In the coming days, a big refactoring is necessary to improve the article. At the moment it is a big data dump with poor narrative. Great that he got released though. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
193.26.4.35 (
talk •
contribs)
Given his intention to "return to obscurity" I think we should move the article to something like
Kidnapping of Alan Johnston,
SqueakBox 17:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Perhaps, I still think a bio article is merited though even if it's fairly short
Nil Einne 19:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure whether a new article is needed or not, but either way, the content of the 'Kidnapping' section really needs to be cut down and/or rewritten, as to have that much detail in an article with a comparatively small biography section is ridiculous. --
Mark(
Talk) 19:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Only ridiculous in a bio but not in an article on the kidnapping,
SqueakBox 19:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree with you...that's pretty much what I meant even if I said it badly. Cheers,
Mark(
Talk) 16:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC).reply
One thing that people have to be very careful when splitting is the references. Refs will end up being broken if it's just a copy-and-paste split. I was going to split it myself earlier until I thought about the refs. Probably still best to wait for everything to die down before splitting though.
–Chacor 11:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree. Wait for the article to stabilise in a few weeks and then plan carefully how to edit it down into an encyclopaedia entry rather than the soap opera episode review that it is at the moment. I'm still not convinced that stripped of the kidnapping, Johnston's bio is any more notable than hundreds of other journalists who don't have Wikipedia articles about them.
Dino246 12:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
We could just change the article name and make the majority of the article about the kidnapping, and less about his personal history.
Paulthemime 15:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Johnston clearly is notable enough (meets
WP:N) without the kidnapping, given the awards he's won for his work, so a biographical article on him existing is still preferred.
–Chacor 16:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong support for the new article. The article didnt exist till he was kidnapped so re BLP concerns we should now move the entire article to a kidnap article, otherwise we could remove the bulk of the article and afd the biop if there is strong opposition to redirecting it to a new kidnap article,
SqueakBox 00:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This article is entitled "Alan Johnston" and does not explain only the kidnapping. However, it is ridiculous to split the article when it's better to stay on one page. If the article gets too long, I will agree to it. --
AOL Alex 00:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
On second thought, it IS too long. Let's go with the splitting. --
AOL Alex 00:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I actually oppose splitting, its renaming that we should do. We should respect Alan's wishes to return to obscurity and not burden him with a wikipedia biography,
SqueakBox 00:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
There's absolutely no precedent for splitting this article.
Terry Waite was held hostage for 4 years and his kidnapping is quite adequately summed up in his bio page. The same is true of journalist
John McCarthy (5 years), writer
Brian Keenan (5 years), actress
Patty Hearst, and diplomat
Jürgen_Chrobog, to name just a few. That Johnston's was the first significant kidnapping to get 'live coverage' on Wikipedia from hundreds of well-meaning supporters does not mean that the vast article should be kept once the dust settles. This kidnapping should be described in the same brief, considered, after-the-event, encyclopaedic way that all others are.
Dino246 06:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Not true. The main article should have a summary. Anything else is to be split. To say that there is no precedent is ridiculous. See also
Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
–Chacor 06:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Those articles were created before
WP:BLP was significantly changed. They cannot be compared with this one.
MartinDK 08:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Exactly. Where is Madeleine's bio page? Clearly she is not notable enough in her own right to have a bio page that isn't about the kidnapping but none of the notable people I mentioned above do either. One person, one article. His 4 months in captivity are simply part of his bio. If it's too long it should be cut, not split. John McCarthy's article manages to sum up his journalistic career and 5 years in captivity in a page you barely need to scroll down. Why is Johnston any more notable?
Dino246 06:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The awards Johnston won would serve to give him
notability outside the kidnapping, so a stand-alone Johnston article can work. One subject does not necessarily have to have only one article; we can have
Alan Johnston and
Kidnapping of Alan Johnston and have enough sources and material for both. Check out
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as well, as the second part of your argument seems to resemble that. --
Coredesat 07:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
As
WP:BLP says cover the event not the person so a split would be the ideal solution. I see nothing wrong with keeping an article on a notable award-winning reporter in addition to
Kidnapping of Alan Johnston.
MartinDK 08:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
About the other kidnaping victims, I have no idea if there are more details about their kidnappings that we have missed and should ideally have seperate kidnapping articles for them eventually; or simply due to the time period etc there are few details about their kidnappings so there will never be a seperate article. What I do know is that this specific kidnapping has quite a few details as currently in this article. Some areas can be trimmed, e.g. the execution probably doesn't have to be as long as it is now. However even when trimmed, given the numerous things that happened there is always going to be too many details for this biography article. Therefore a seperate article will be needed
Nil Einne 20:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
There should be an article about Alan Johnston's life and work, and an article about the kidnapping (which is liable to change currently) as it is still a current event that people will read separately. Once it becomes old news, the kidnapping article can be trimmed to an overview, and then added to the Alan Johnston main entry as part of the events in his life. Gavin
87.81.209.65 12:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)reply
That's not how we work, we don't split and merge according to current events, we split and merge based on amount of content.
–Chacor 12:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Not a single source for this article existed pre-March 12th 2007. I understand the emotion people now feel for Johnston but I still maintain that stripped of the kidnapping he does not pass Wikipedia's notability requirements for a journalist. If we can't find significant non-BBC sources to describe his career that pre-date the kidnapping then we should merge this bio into the
Kidnapping of Alan JohnstonDino246 21:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)reply
He is an award winning journalist. It does not matter when the awards were won, or who covered it, as long as the sources meet
WP:RS. He meets our notability guidelines. Get over it, it's not going to be merged.
–Chacor 01:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)reply
By his own admission he was an "obscure" journalist before being made famous by his kidnapping. This is backed up by the fact that no one has found any reference to him anywhere from before the kidnapping that was not written by himself or his employer. This brief bio of a non-notable journalist should be merged with the article on his kidnapping, the only context in which the information has a place in an encyclopaedia.
Dino246 06:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Erm, he is notable, as he has won awards. Please see
WP:BIO. --
Coredesat 07:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, but prior to being kidnapped Johnston's only award was a 3rd place radio award. According to
WP:BIO he is not notable, other than as a kidnapping victim. There are no pre-kidnapping secondary sources, no independent biographies, no significant recognized awards or honors.. As a Creative Professional he passes none of the guidelines for journalists. He is undeniably famous, but as a kidnapping victim, and there is no justification according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines for him to have an entry as a notable journalist. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and editors need to be objective. I feel that people are letting their emotions override their judgement. Johnston's bio belongs as a section of the article on his kidnapping, not as an independent article. Unless this article gets backed up by pre-March 2007 sources, then it fails Wikipedia's notability policy.
Dino246 08:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Which part of "it does not matter when the awards were won" do you not understand? He's won awards since his kidnapping that would make him notable otherwise aside from the kidnapping. He's notable. Get over it.
–Chacor 13:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Edit of lead
Please disregard my edit summary. I see that the material is sourced but it makes it seem like he was kidnapped because he was the only reporter there and that doesn't really make sense. Thanks, --
Tom 22:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on
Alan Johnston. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
I have just modified one external link on
Alan Johnston. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.