Talk:Paul Marshall Johnson Jr.

I removed the link, as they are not needed at all. Kris Classic 17:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it really fair to say that CNN reported the event? I mean, so did Yahoo!, Reuters, AP, the San Jose Mercury News.... all based on Al Arabiya, as far as I know. We probably ought to be sticking to primary sources here... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:15, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

(My bad on that. I wanted to post an announcement ASAP, and CNN was one of the first mainstream networks to announce it. Alex Libman)

The name "Paul Johnson (hostage)" isn't quite fair to him. He didn't choose to be a hostage, after all. --Geoffrey

:I don't believe "fairness" is an appropriate objection. Whether he chose to be a hostage or not (although I think it's patently obvious that he didnt) he certainly WAS a hostage. Therefore, it's a valid descriptive term. Now, if it's not in line with policy (note that Nick Berg is not Nick Berg (hostage), that's a valid objection, but I really don't think whether it's "fair" or not has anything to do with it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:45, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC) P.S. I don't think, even if "fair" was a concern, that the (hostage) descriptor is unfair.

::I think a descriptor like (American contractor) may be just as appropriate. The descriptor is to help disambiguate and help visitors find the article they're seeking. Jewbacca 18:48, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

:::I think it's fine. That's what he's famous for. User:Meelar (talk)]] 18:57, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

::::I'm moving the article to Paul Marshall Johnson, Jr. That was his name. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:36, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate for Wikipedia to link to photos of the beheading? Vesta 21:26, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

:No, it's not. Please remove them. Thank you.

:OK, I checked the Wiki entry on Nick Berg, and the compromise policy decided on there seems to be that URLs to the media can be posted, though it should not be linked. I guess this stays up, then. :/ Vesta 21:33, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

::Looks like the URLs are linked again. What happened? --Lukobe 00:08, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All due respect, I don't think "No, it's not" constitutes discussion, and certainly doesn't merit action ("Please remove them"). If anyone wants to present arguments that weren't raised during the Berg debate, please do. Otherwise we should default to the compromise position that was reached on that article. An encyclopedia should be consistent. Cribcage 00:37, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

----

The prose here has problems too -- "suggests that Johnson himself may have been a Muslim" ... Where is the attribution? Fuzheado | Talk 04:31, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please educate me.. Why do people keep putting in an example.jpg image on the page??? Jewbacca 00:08, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

: I've not really messed with uploading images to the Wiki, but maybe the documentation suggests that if you put the Image:Example tag in, it will take you to an upload form where the tag will be replaced by what you just uploaded. Or maybe people are just quirky. :) -- Vesta 02:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

::That's simply the default or example link provided by the toolbar. Dori | Talk 01:28, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

The poor man was brutally murdered and yet people post links glorifying it.Warmon 01:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

::That link didn't work so I removed.

Obviously someone owned the villa where the remains were found. Has Saudi Arabia caught the persons responsible, and have their families been forced to offer blood money? I think this piece would be better with this additional information in it. --Jackkalpakian 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nuvola apps important.svg

:Image:PaulJohnson.jpg 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

{{requested move/dated|Killing of Paul Johnson}}

:Paul Marshall Johnson Jr. → {{no redirect|Killing of Paul Johnson}} – This is something I've seen with other articles regarding beheading victims of Islamist groups. Most of their articles are better suited for "Killing of" articles with the only exceptions given that nearly all of them solely focus on their deaths, lacking notabilty either before or after (such as Kayla Mueller). Similar has already been done with Nick Berg, Kenneth Bigley, and Margaret Hassan. Others would include:

• Seif Adnan Kanaan → Killing of Seif Adnan Kanaan
• Kim Sun-il → Killing of Kim Sun-il
• Shosei Koda → Killing of Shosei Koda
• Peter Kassig → Killing of Peter Kassig
• David Haines (aid worker) → Killing of David Haines
• Piotr Stańczak → Killing of Piotr Stańczak

The aforementioned three articles differ in having the phrasings "Killing of", "Kidnapping and murder of" or "Kidnapping and killing of". I generally lean towards the former for simplicity, but wouldn't mind either of the other two. The ones killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are already listed in the "Foreign hostages in x" articles and can probably be deleted if they're not considered noteworthy enough for their own articles in hindsight.

As for the shortening of Johnson's name, it was the [https://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2004-06-18-1-1-66888002/261567.html common name] [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/american-hostage-in-saudi-arabia-beheaded-by-captors used in] [https://www.npr.org/2004/06/18/1964439/u-s-hostage-beheaded-in-saudi-arabia reporting about] [https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2004/06/18/US-reacts-to-Paul-Johnson-beheading/16951087599973/ his kidnapping and beheading], [https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/rmo/hglt/33722.htm including the U.S. Department of State] and [https://news.un.org/en/story/2004/06/107012 the UN]. He was called "Paul Marshall Johnson Jr." signifcantly less often than just "Paul Johnson" or "Paul Johnson Jr.". The new article title alone would be distinctive enough, with a redirect of "Paul Johnson (murder victim)" and an about notice linking to the disambiguation page.

The only articles that should be left standalone with their killing in the death section are journalists i.e. Daniel Pearl, James Foley, Kenji Goto, given how they seem to fulfill general notability. Rubintyrann (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose Piotr Stańczak at least, he was a notable scientist. Several sources describe him explicitly as "renowned" and "well known" and "influential". That it wasn't in the article isn't a sign that the sourcing isn't there. Even if he's more notable for being murdered, being also notable for something else means we should write it as a biography. Not sure how I feel about the other ones, without further research they could be similar cases, especially the missionaries. The ones who were only citizens probably not but I would at least check. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)