Talk:Alan Johnston/Archive 1

Uh...

Why is this part of arts and entertainment? – Chacor 04:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. He's a news reporter/journalist, not a comedian or actor? --Jatkins 19:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued abduction

It was reported the same day that about one thousand British journalists would send protest emails to Abbas over the continued abduction of Johnston.[59]

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

You're right. I only used that term because it was used in the source, but it does read a bit awkward, so... – Chacor 08:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Execution

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)[reply]

Under no circumstances though the claim of execution is fine to put in, as has been done, SqueakBox 18:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this detail to the introduction specifying that the report remains unconfirmed. It is too significant not to be in the resumé, especially as no group has admitted responsibility for Johnston's abduction. Philip Cross 19:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies

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).[reply]

Regarding Jerusalem, I've double-checked the source, which now uses "Israel" rather than "Jerusalem", so I've changed that. However, YNET meets WP:RS. As long as they meet Wikipedia policy to be a reliable source, we can use them. An individual's assessment (POV) of the credibility of news sources is not to be used as a factor in deciding if a source is reliable. Cheers. – Chacor 13:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "palestinian activists"

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).[reply]

I agree. However, I've had to revert your latest edit, as it removed a lot of valid information which is accurately sourced. I've now gone back and made the key change, that is to not use the term "Palestinian group" in the lead. However, with the latest developments of the video, it seems all-but-certain that it is indeed a Palestinian group... – Chacor 13:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My appologies if I accidently removed other stuff - I had only intended to change "palestinian activists" to "an unknown group of gunmen," but I may have accidently edited an earlier version of the article. Sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.121.7.145 (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Johnston's supposed pro-Palestinian bias

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)[reply]

I just noticed the comment above.

Margaret Beckett: "I think it is particularly sad ... when someone who has been a long-standing friend of the people of Palestine suffers in this way..." [1]
"The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate has issued a call to release Johnston as soon as possible, saying Johnston must not be hurt as he is famous for his opinions which are supportive of the Palestinians."[2][3]
Mustafa Barghouti: "We are opposed to the kidnapping of foreign journalists who serve the Palestinian cause" [4]

Hope this answers the question. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not necessarily evidence of a pro-Palestinian bias. Clearly, he reports the Palestinian perspective, as he is based there, but that somethng very different from having an outright bias. Perhaps the above individuals believe that just having someone reporting on daily life in the Palestine is in and of itself helpful to their cause. One must also consider that this is all being said in an effort to get him released. --Benna 05:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Does that then imply any journalist who is based in Israel and reporting from within Israel is pro-Israeli? Lonewolf 1183 14:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with identifying bias is that it essentially comes down to opinion so it's not really possible to say "X has a bias" all you can really do is point out that "Y has claimed X has a bias" and citations would be needed to verify the claim. Certainly a lot of Palestinian groups have claimed Johnston as a friend to Palestinians but that's arguably simply because he reports from the occupied territories and engages with Palestinians (which I imagine some journalists don't do). --Zagrebo 10:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"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). I don't understand how this could be interpreted as bias --Zagrebo 10:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA assessment - failed at this time

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)[reply]

BBC Coverage

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)

They care for their man, and want him back? Lindsay 17:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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'm pretty-sure ITV gave considerable coverage to the plight of one of their journalists when he was kidnapped fairly recently. I certainly don't think it's a BBC thing. --Zagrebo 08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5141376.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5118748.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/06/gaza_stories.html

A significant amount of coverage there.

Incidentally, the BBC will always place emphasis on situations where British people are held hostage over those where foreigners are held hostage. Given that Johnston is both a BBC employee and British, it's perfectly understandable why they would focus on his plight in particular.

--Zagrebo 10:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed, although such arguing is alas an inevitability on any article that touches on national conflicts and political issues --Zagrebo 10:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed too, and I apologise (as a newbie). Dino246 11:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BBC sources and reliability

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article is about a sensitive ongoing event that the BBC has a vested interest in the outcome of. According to Wikipedia's own guidelines into reliable sources this surely makes the BBC themselves an inappropriate material source for the article. I haven't counted, but at a glance about 70% of the sources for this article are from the BBC themselves. All I'm saying is that alternative sources should be found to back up all the facts that are currently attributable only to the BBC. This is simply good research practice. Dino246 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that all the BBC sources be removed, just that they are treated as what they are, a biased source with very good reason to misrepresent any facts that could endanger Johnston's life or affect negotiations for his release. BBC News has for the last 3 months had what amounts to a banner ad on their homepage advertising their position on the Johnston kidnapping. This is completely understandable, he works for them, but they are by definition no longer an impartial reliable source for this article. I am just calling on all contributors to be aware of the potential for bias in BBC reporting on this subject and to all users to treat the BBC sources in this article with the caution they see fit. Dino246 15:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wow, what a tangent. Well back to the original question, I'll ask again: 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? -Northridge06:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a tangent at all. Most news outlets avoid affecting the story at all costs, preferring to merely report it. The BBC is making Johnston front page news when no other news agency considers him to be so and has therefore crossed the line that Fox and others avoided. [The Times] has accused the BBC of misreporting for the purpose of protecting Johnston and the BBC has [actively suppressed] a report on their Middle East coverage. Dino246 11:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Uh... no. The Times link is an opinion piece, it isn't news. We're all entitled to have our own opinions, and that guy has expressed his in his online Times blog (blogs do not meet WP:RS in the first place). Unless what he claims (his opinion) has been covered reliably by a news organisation as part of an investigation into the BBC's coverage or otherwise, it doesn't meet Wikipedia policy requirements. – Chacor 11:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Depends. I know I wouldn't want to read the opinion of some random person in the US in a Wikipedia article. If he's a notable person and his comments have been published in a news article outside of his blog, I don't see why not. In this case, I think a fair judge of notability would be Wikipedia itself, which does not have an article on Daniel Finkelstein (and any creation of that article just to invalidate this point would be disruption). Similarly, by reverse thinking, it might not be wrong to say that he has an anti-BBC bias, in which case should we really be citing him? Blogs should be cited only in the worst-case scenario, and not any random blog at that. – Chacor 12:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]