Talk:Kidnapping of Alan Johnston

occured vs. began

The kidnapping did not occur on March 12th, it began then. Otherwise this article would be about the events of 1 day not 4 months. Bizarre revert or what? SqueakBox 22:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

it's proper english to use 'occurred' in regards to a kidnapping being staged. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Whilst this article is about the full 114 days of the captivity, a kidnapping can only occur as a one-time incident (the act of the kidnapping didn't last 114 days, his captivity did) and so I do think the word used should be "occurred". – Chacor 11:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you Chacor, for explaining it better than i have. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so certain this is true. I tried to review some different dictionaries, such as the OED and American Heritage, and one definition I came across was, "To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom." Because detain is part of the definition, I think that began may, in fact, be an appropriate verb to describe kidnapping. I think, further, those advocating use of "occured" undermine their own argument to say that it's a one-time thing when the sentence goes on to read, "and lasted for nearly four months." So the kidnapping "occured and lasted", but it did not "begin" on march 12? If I may propose a compromise, "The kidnapping and subsequent incarceration of Alan Johnston, a BBC journalist, by the Palestinian Durmush Hamula in Gaza City occured on March 12, 2007 and lasted for nearly four months (114 days)" I think this is wholly consistent with the "occured" crowd. Otherwise, "began" seems perfectly fine to me. I'm also not about to get in the middle of a revert war.J 12:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

standard grammar deviation rules allow for neglecting the "detained" part while still using 'lasted' to describe the extended event. in general, i'm not overly opposed to your suggestion, however you will have to spell the word as 'occurred'... anyways, i'm not sure the "subsequent incarceration" is needed actually, it's superfluous. what do others think? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but if you're suggesting that it was an extended event, then you see my point, no? That is, if it's an extended event, then "began" is a fully suitable mode for describing when the event... began. Especially in the context that the whole thing did not occur on a single day. He was abducted on March 12 - that part did occur on march 12, but the kidnapping began on March 12. Does that make what I'm suggesting clearer? I think that this is only really true in light of a definition of kidnapping that includes detaining, as that implies more than just abduction, we agree? As for eliminating "subsequent incarceration," removing it is no longer a compromise - as it goes back to the "occurred" is correct and "began" is not - which is simply not a compromise to begin with. I think it could go either way, personally, but looking at the way it's currently written, I am disagreeing with Chacor's argument, as I do not believe one can argue that given the rest of the sentence. And as for "occured" vs. "occurred" - well, I'm just embarrassed at how I spelled it incorrectly at every opportunity. Ugh. Apologies for yet another verbose response.J 14:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

At wikipedia it is defined as capture or detention, the capture occurred on one day the detention lasted 4 months. Anyway if what Chacor said were true we would have to rename the article as the article is called kidnapping of and unquestionably charts the eventys of 4 months so either accepty began or propose a title changem, nothing ielse is acceptable, SqueakBox 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox, obviously using words such as "silliness" when reverting other editors is uncivil. as for the editorial dispute, i would like to mention that there is a difference between prolonged event and the grammatical meaning of an "extended event", i can look it up on a grammar book, but i really don't see how your attitude of "nothing ielse is acceptable" is gonna change unless you accept that other wikipedians have equal valued opinion as to your own and you give way to listen more to what other editors have to say without demanding the article be renamed. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea; looking up a grammar reference for this situation if you could. I will do the same. I wasn't even going to address the "standard grammar deviation rules" because I thought my argument was compelling enough to just address that we agreed on the idea that the event was extended/prolonged. But, truth be told, I really don't buy your argument of deviation rules, nor do I buy the relevance of the functional difference between prolonged or extended for this word choice. As best I can tell, detention is part of kidnapping, as is abduction. If you accept that, then imho, 'began' not only makes sense, but is more appropriate for the article. Your focusing on ignoring the "detained" part of the definition just doesn't make sense to me. But I'd rather have resolution here on the talk page before going ahead and editing the article....J 07:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

i thought about it, and even though i believe the latter is the better one, i don't mind anymore if you use 'began' instead of 'occurred-lasted'. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alanonemonth.png

Image:Alanonemonth.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alanonemonth.png

Image:Alanonemonth.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kidnapping of 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL0869059920070508

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)