Why is this part of arts and entertainment? – Chacor 04:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Continued abduction is obviously unusual English. Continued captivity or something would be better. The Palestinian source however does use these words but it's not a direct quote. Should we leave it as is or change it? Nil Einne
Is it right to mark him as dead yet as we don't have any proof yet that he has been killed? 88.109.20.208 17:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone explain how he could have entered Gaza from Jerusalem? How is that possible?
Sidenote: All my edits where reverted. While I apologize for having violated Wikipedia’s policies by adding my opinion to the YNET news source I would like to note that the source is highly questionable (citation # 93). Those who read the report will immediately know why, not to mention the fact that YNET news is as reliable as Sky or Fox. Again, those who are familiar will understand. Lastly, it doesn't make sense that a moderator reverts ALL the edits of a person that has "vandalized" one paragraph. I hope these reverts are not made by a robot, or worse, a human who thinks like one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.187.54.109 ( talk) 01:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
The article had read that he was kidnapped by "an unknown group palestinian activists." But since the identity of the group is *unknown*, we don't know that they were activists. Their motives may well have been purely personal or financial and had nothing to do with any sort of "activism." Furthermore, we don't even know for sure that they were Palestinian. It's generally presumed that they were, but they could well have been terrorists from some other country who were opperating there in Gaza. So for now it's probably best to just leave it as "an unknown group of gunmen," as that shows what we do know - that there was a group of them and they had guns - that's about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.121.7.145 ( talk) 08:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
I've partially reverted Humus sapiens' changes. Specifically, the one that says he has an "apparent pro-Palestinian bias". Firstly, "apparent" is a weasel word. Just because it's Johnston's "job to bring us day after day reports of the Palestinian predicament in the Gaza Strip" does not mean Johnston has a pro-PA bias. Please find a reliable source that says Johnston may have a pro-PA bias before readding. To assume he has a pro-PA bias because of his job description, imo, is original research. – Chacor 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous examples of his supporters saying that he is pro-Palestinian, from a BBC employee saying "It is his job to bring us day after day reports of the Palestinian predicament in the Gaza Strip." (when, as a BBC employee, his job is to be impartial) to the comments on the Free-Alan website. Dhimwit 20:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I support zagrebo, you cannot claim someone has a bias unless that is uncommonly obvious. When it is a political matter very often you get critisised for bias if you only support a certain case more then someone else. Journalists on location as a general rule of dumb do this, because they see this " predication" , so they understand the matter for concerned people is a deadly serious affair. otoh i would guess (from my 'bias') to a certain extend every western reporter might be considered a spy, and in that sense someone with a bias against... (in this case palestineans) , it is so subjective. It would be nice to see some definiton of his political viewpoints (or perhaps his more revealing journalist statements) in the article though. I looked through it for it, and couldn't find anything easily.(proof he is a spy btw;) 77.248.56.242 11:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry but this article simply isn't stable enough to undertake a full assessment and therefore must fail under quick fail criteria. Even its name is under scrutiny and adjustment - and when you combine that with the fact that it is a current event (open to many POV issues) then the task is made almost impossible. I will be happy to reassess when the event reaches stability. Please let me know on my talk page and I will try to lift it up to the top of my personal list of GA assessments to be completed (given that it has waited a month or so already). I hope this decision does not disappoint nominees too much?-- VS talk 08:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
From what I know, most news outlets don't make their kidnapped reporters frontpage news. But the BBC doesn't follow such a policy. Is there a reason for this? -Northridge02:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting that the BBC didn't care about Johnston. It's just when other news outlets are confronted with such situations, they under-report the kidnappings because 1) they are part of the story and 2) they don't want to embolden the kidnappers. From what I recall, the Christian Science Monitor and Fox News did low-key news on their kidnapped reporters (Jill Carroll, Olaf Wiig, and Steve Centanni) during their respective incarcerations. -Northridge23:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the massive coverage given to Johnston by the BBC lies in stark contrast to the coverage given to the other man currently held hostage in Gaza, (allegedly by the same group), Israeli Gilad Shalit. I don't believe that this is consistant with the impartiality expected of a respected international news agency. Their coverage of the Alan Johnston kidnapping is driven by personal motives rather than that of presenting the news. Dino246 08:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
THIS TALK PAGE IS TO BE USED SOLELY TO DISCUSS THE ARTICLE, PER WIKIPEDIA POLICY. TAKE ALL YOUR PERSONAL POINTS OF VIEW ELSEWHERE. Thank you. – Chacor 09:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I do think that the BBC's impartiality on this subject is relevant though in as much as we are all agreed that the BBC has a personal agenda to some degree with regard to the story of Alan Johnston. References from BBC sources should be treated with caution as it could be argued that they are a primary source that is not without bias or good reason to hide or alter facts. Dino246 11:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
References from BBC sources should be treated with caution as it could be argued that they are a primary source that is not without bias or good reason to hide or alter facts.
"Could be argued" is weasel words. Are there any cases (beyond speculation) of the BBC hiding or altering facts with regard to the Alan Johnston case? More to the point, how can you "alter" a fact? If you alter a fact then you are lying. That's quite a serious charge. -- Zagrebo 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
That the BBC have a vested interest in seeing Johnston returned safely stands to reason. I fail to understand how this would cause them to distort or hide any details of his kidnapping. I should also point out that the BBC would find themselves in breach of their charter if they lied with relation to the Johnston case (although I can't see any reason why they should). The notion that BBC sources shouldn't be used for this article is, in my opinion, completely baseless. The BBC are a respected international news source and are a valid source of citation for any other artcle on this website. The idea that they cease to be when reporting the kidnapping of one of their own employees doesn't hold water. Would you have any and all citations from Fox News removed from any article about their own journalists who were kidnapped in 2006? -- Zagrebo 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, there's nothing here [5] that would justify not using the BBC as a source (indeed plenty to indicate why one should) -- Zagrebo 14:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
One final point. Even if an incident did occur of the BBC failing to report a detail with relation to the kidnapping of Johnston, the way to deal with that would be to refer to said detail (citing a reliable, reputable source) within the article rather than removing all BBC citation. -- Zagrebo 14:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but this is pure conjecture for which you've offered not one shred of evidence beyond your opinion. Until it can be demonstratively proved via a trustworthy source that the BBC are willing to/have altered their reporting on this issue then I think editors should assume the BBC is reporting in good faith, as they should with any other news source. -- Zagrebo 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. The "Times" article might be useful as part of a new "controversy" section for this article. Regarding the "Guardian" article, it doesn't actually prove anything, it simply says that the BBC has been allowed to keep secret an internal investigation not that the BBC has been demonstratively proved to have lied/distorted etc. It could be used for no purposes except innuendo to further an anti-BBC agenda and thus serves no real purpose to us. Certainly, in the case of the Alan Johnston story it's utterly irrelevant. -- Zagrebo 11:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see that it was a blog. Sorry. Although he does refer to ongoing events in the Palestinian territories which I'd assume can be verified. The same information might appear as part of a proper news report. Nontheless, can't such opinion be cited as long as we use phrases like "suchandsuch has claimed that...." thus demonstrating that they are opinion? -- Zagrebo 11:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Valid points. There are articles on Wikipedia that cite opinion-pieces although they refer to them as such rather than as fact or news and I don't think we can seriously start a "controversy" section in this article based on nothing but a single opinion-piece. If news reports from a reputable source can be found referring to the issues referred to in the said blog piece then that might be stronger foundations to work from. -- Zagrebo 12:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, I don't think that article linked to demonstrates an anti-BBC bias. Quite the opposite in fact: "Unlike a lot of columnists, I like the BBC. I think its reporting is generally excellent, its news programmes are of high quality and its foreign correspondents are usually both brave and illuminating. Although the corporation can be high-handed in dealing with complaints (the theory that if both sides complain they must be getting something right is absurd) I think its staff does genuinely wish to be politically unbiased.". Having said that, his blog entry still doesn't qualify for the reasons you stated. -- Zagrebo 12:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)