Talk:Alan Johnston/Archive 1

message: Why is this part of arts and entertainment? – Chacor 04:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. He's a news reporter/journalist, not a comedian or actor? --Jatkins 19:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uh...

message: :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)
thread_title:  Continued abduction 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Possible Execution

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed "palestinian activists" 

message: 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)
thread_title: GA assessment - failed at this time

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  BBC sources and reliability