Talk:Cristina Odone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	To-do list for Cristina Odone:	edit - history - watch - refresh
	Find a photograph Expand all areas using articles by or about Odone; the Further Reading section has links to two lists

Contents 1 Place of birth 2 Place of birth change 3 Is this person notable? 4 points from cristina 5 Resignation etc 6 Opinions versus curriculum vitae

[edit] Place of birth

Italy as her place of birth has been disputed. I have found a new source, a newspaper article written by Odone herself, in which it is stated that she was born in Rome, Italy. Alan Pascoe 19:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually (and this is her husband Edward Lucas here) she was born in Nairobi, Kenya. She was raised in various countries because her father worked for the world bank. She is not (despite what is written here) Italian-American. Her father is Italian, her mother Swedish. 88.108.113.17 09:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now fixed the entry to reflect this Edwardlucas 20:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the location of birth to Rome, because that is supported by a credible source -- Odone herself writing in The Observer. Alan Pascoe 11:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

no her family "originates" from Italy is what she writes. I have her passport in front of me and I am married to her. She was born in Nairobi because her dad was working for the World Bank in east Africa at the time.

Also, I think it is unfair to say include these allegations of anti-semitism and homophobia. She has sued successfully and won substantial damages on this issue. Edwardlucas 23:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the allegations because they are unsourced. However, I have reverted the change to the place of birth. The source for this, an article written by Odone herself, states:

"This has catapulted Francesco and me into the role of spokespersons. The journalists were quick to overlook the fact that we were born in (foreign) Nairobi and (hated by them) Rome, respectively; we both live in London; and had spent most of our youth in the US."

The clear implication of those words is that Francesco was born in Nairobi and Cristina was born in Rome. Now, she may have made a mistake, but that's what she wrote, and that remains the best source of information. You claim to be her husband and know differently, but you have no way of proving that. Wikipedia cannot accept unsupported claims. Alan Pascoe 12:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi this is Cristina Odone here. I see I made a mistake in the article (respectively was the wrong way round) but I assure you that I was born in Nairobi. 88.108.116.183 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to point out your mistake in your Observer article about this incident. Curtains99 13:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Folks,

Odone has mentioned this in an article in the Guardian although she did not mention that it was based on her mistake in an article. See attached link. [1] Capitalistroadster 06:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's in her column from The Observer, I'm surprised we even have an article for her, when we don't for other Observer columnists who produce more interesting work. (i.e Henry Porter and William Keegan. Catchpole 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just read it. Very cheap. For the record, this is what actually happened. I edited the article on the 1st May 2006, which included the statement that Cristina Odone was born in Rome, Italy, using her IMDb entry as the source. An anonymous editor on the 18th May changed the location to Nairobi, Kenya, claiming that the IMDb entry was wrong. I found a second source to support the original entry, an article written for The Observer by Odone herself, and reinserted Rome as the place of birth. This was not challenged until the 6th August, when an anonymous editor claiming to be Edward Lucas, Odone's husband, stated on this talk page that the correct place of birth was Nairobi. User:Edwardlucas changed the article to this effect on the 7th September. I reverted to the previous version because of the quality of the source, a newspaper article written by Odone herself. User:Edwardlucas changed the place of birth back to Nairobi on the 31st August, and also on the talk page complained about (but did not remove) a statement (not added by me) that Jackie Ashley and Johann Hari had accused Odone of anti-Semitism and homophobia. I removed this statement because it was unsourced, but I changed the place of birth back to Rome. User:Edwardlucas left a message on my talk page on the 7th September, stating that he had complained to Wikipedia, and that User:David.Monniaux had replied that the problem was one of identification, which could be resolved if Odone sent me e-mail using her official e-mail address. User:Edwardlucas wrote that this was not possible because Odone was a freelance journalist, but he could send me e-mail from his official e-mail address at The Economist, and send me a photocopy of Odone's passport, which he did. On receipt of the photocopy of the passport on the 13th September, I noted that the passport stated that Odone was born in Nairobi, then promptly changed the article. Alan Pascoe 18:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As Edward Lucas is Cristina Odone's husband, I respect his right (and hers) to put the record straight. It is, however, not necessary to write "not" in capitals when you have the option of putting it in bold or italics. The misconception that Odone is Italian American stems from this article in The Observer [2] in which she wrote that Year after year, the [Irish] embassy would send me an invite addressed to Christine O'Done. No matter that I regularly sent back an RSVP explaining that I was no colleen, but an Italian-American partly educated and fully employed in Britain, to Irish eyes, I remained one of them. The fact that she is a freelance journalist is irrelevant to whether or not it is possible to have her email address - many freelancers writing newspaper columns display their email addresses, including her in the past.[3] However, she has a right to privacy, just as Wikipedians like us do. Quiensabe 17:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Place of birth change

I have a copy of Odone's passport which states that she was born in Nairobi, Kenya. I have changed the article accordingly. There is a problem in that it is not a source that anyone else can consult. I'll investigate further to find out what is appropriate in this situation. Alan Pascoe 21:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alan from Cristina and Edward Edwardlucas 04:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this person notable?

Please have a look at WP:BIO to see if Cristina Odone meets guidelines to be considered a notable person. The two relevant criteria I can find are :

The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person

and

Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work

Does this person meet either of these guidelines or any of the other guidelines in WP:BIO ? Because, otherwise I am going to nominate this page for deletion next week.

Curtains99 10:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

To answer my own question: Cristina Odone meets both criteria. Curtains99 13:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] points from cristina

I would like to point out that my entry contains a few errors: First, the Catholic Herald never dismissed me in 1995, I left the paper to concentrate on my second novel, The Perfect Wife. Second, I never told Charles Moore I loved television -- we never had a discussion about television until Sarah Sands appointed me TV critic. Third, I write regularly for The Daily Telegraph (not The Times) and am no longer a columnist for The Guardian. I would also argue that coverage of the row within the New Statesman is overblown and should be limited to a sentence or two. Cristina odone 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Ms Odone about the New Statesman. Wikipedia entries are not PR press releases for the individual; most wiki entries would make their subject uncomfortable in some ways since they should also cover criticisms of them.

Odone did indeed make allegations against Ashley and Hari, quite serious ones that I think are quite interesting and revealing, and it is worth listing them in this encyclopedia entry, along with the response from the people at whom the accusations were directed. Of course the errors she has pointed out (if they are indeed errors) should be corrected, but nobody is suggesting the NS section is in error. Simply because her behaviour may be embarrassing to Ms Odone does not give her the right to remove it from a serious encyclopedia entry about her. David r from meth productions 22:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Further to my point above, I have just found evidence that Ms Odone is either lying here, or has lied in the past.

In an interview with the Independent newspaper, Ms Odone wrote, "I had just been fired in 1995 from The Catholic Herald, which I used to edit..." Yet above she writes "the Catholic Herald never dismissed me in 1995, I left the paper to concentrate on my second novel, The Perfect Wife". Clearly one or other is a lie.

Secondly, she told the Independent, "Charles Moore, editor of The Daily Telegraph, approached me to become TV reviewer of his newspaper. He said, "What do you think about television?" I said, "I love it." He said, "Would you like to be a television critic?" I said, "Fantastic." So he announced that I was to be the Telegraph's television critic in a little item in his newspaper." Yet above she writes, "I never told Charles Moore I loved television -- we never had a discussion about television until Sarah Sands appointed me TV critic." Another lie.

The interview with the Independent can be found at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20021112/ai_n12659789

I suggest, given this record of dishonesty in one instance or another, that we should treat any recommendations Ms Odone makes about editing this entry with a great deal of scepticism.David r from meth productions 22:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hang on a moment. This is getting out of hand. It is bad wikipedia manners (and potentially libellous) to accuse people of lying like this. The Independent article was not actually by Cristina, but a brief interview with her in which several facts were muddled. Just because something appears in a newspaper does not mean that it is true, nor that someone who contradicts it is lying! The relevant copy of the Catholic Herald in 1995 published Cristina's resignation letter. The Daily Telegraph and Times covered it at the time. Nobody has suggested at any point that she had been fired.

I don't know who "David R from meth productions is" (he doesn't have a user page), but may I suggest that he contacts us first to sort out any details of Cristina's cv that he finds puzzling, rather than spraying this page with accusations. edwardlucas (at) economist.com will reach us.

On the other inaccuracies, Cristina was born in Nairobi, lived there for two years, then moved to Rome in 1962, staying there until 1969. She then moved to Washington DC until 1977, when she came to England to go to boarding school. Her father was stationed in the Comoro Islands (not Seychelles) from 1978 until 1981 and she visited him regularly but did not live there. I am not sure how to add sources on wikipedia, but several websites about her half-brother Lorenzo have some biographical details of this..

It also seems to me that some mention of the film Lorenzo's Oil (in which a "Cristina" character appears along with those played by Nick Nolte and Susan Sarandon) might be worth a line or two, instead of this rather extensive coverage of the infighting at the New Statesman.

Cristina's husband Edwardlucas 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

'David r' used strong language, but I can understand his frustration! Cristina's first and second points concern an article written (just four years ago) by Charlotte Cripps for the Independent, based on an interview with Cristina. You say it is a case of muddled facts, but it would have to be much more than that. The article appears to be one of a series with the title "My greatest mistake". If Cristina simply resigned from the Catholic Herald to work on her book, then simply accepted a new job offer, what exactly was her great mistake? I think the response of Johann Hari is worthy of inclusion, but it should be condensed to a single short paragraph which contains the essence of what he was saying. The text about the Seychelles was added on the 7th August, by you! Alan Pascoe 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the obvious reading of this Independent article was that Cristina's greatest mistake was pretending to be her daily (cleaner) by faking a foreign accent, rather than talk to Charles Moore after she had been "outed" by the Guardian for not having a television. This is an amusing anecdote and was the centrepiece of the column. Her departure from the Catholic Herald was wrongly characterised, either because of an error by Ms Cripps or because of a misunderstanding, but life is too short to correct every error. The slot in the Independent is a minor one and the interview for it took all of ten minutes. I think that David R is placing undue weight on it.

I am amending Cristina's early life to get the places and sequence right. I have no idea how to source this but anyone who wants can email me.Edwardlucas 21:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a club where every criticism gets vetoed by the subject, Edward. Is Ms Odone suggesting that Charlotte Cripps, the journalist for the Independent who wrote this article, fabricated or severely misrepresented quotes? That is a very serious and potentially libellous charge in itself, far more so than pointing out very obvious and blatant contradictions between the published statements of an individual. I have contacted Ms Cripps to inform her that this is being potentially suggested about her work. It would help if you would clerify precisely your allegations.

Did Ms Odone complain to the Independent after the article was published? Did she demand a correction? If not, we should work on the assumption that her words were accurately reported, however embarrassing they might be to her now. Wikipedia is not a PR brochure, it is an encyclopedia.

I think the information about Ms Odone and her colleagues at the New Statesman is important and was very widely reported in the media at the time. This does not mean, of course, that additions about other parts of her life should not be made. Edward's suggestion about Lorenzo's Oil is a useful one. But it should not be at the expense of other information on this entry. David r from meth productions 23:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resignation etc

I am not sure about the wiki-etiquette here, but I there are plenty of articles written in 1996 about Cristina's resignation from (not sacking by) the Catholic Herald available on proprietary databases. I did post a couple on a previous edit of this page, but I realise that these may breach Wikipedia copyright rules so I am now offering the following, which is publicly available.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19960818/ai_n14062483 Perhaps someone who understands better than me how to edit neatly can insert it as a source at the right point in the main text I have tried to do so but it comes out with different numbers

Edwardlucas 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to clarify - did Ms Odone complain at the time? Your silence suggests not. You are quite seriously impugning the journalistic integrity of Charlotte here, in a way that could lead to legal action - claiming she is either dishonest opr extremely incompetent. Is that really what you want to say? 216.226.194.194 21:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cristina did not complain at the time. Life's too short. It was a light-hearted piece in a minor slot in the Independent. I have removed the line you have added saying that "she has a history of violently arguing with her colleagues." as it is POV and unsourced. May I suggest that you first put proposed changes on the talk page so that they can be discussed. If there is a consensus, then they can be added. Edwardlucas 09:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I note that David R at Meth Productions has been banned for 24 hours for his edits on the Johann Hari website. I am not going to make any more edits on the main page myself because as Cristina's husband I may be seen as biassed. However I would appeal to someone neutral (not the mysterious David R, and not me) to re-edit the page to say something like:

The circumstances surrounding Odone's departure from the Catholic Herald are contested. Contemporaneous sources (and put in the article cited above) say that she resigned.

I would also like someone to remove the stuff about Thought for the Day which is unsourced and tendentious.

I have the impression that some enemies of Cristina are trying to rewrite this page to make her seem volatile, paranoid etc. One problem with Wikipedia is that it deals only with available online sources and a lot the stuff relating to the obscure journalistic squabbles of the mid-1990s is available only on proprietary databases and therefore not postable here. However I do have access to numerous articles that fall into this category and would be glad to copy as a private email to anyone interested. In general I certainly agree that wikipedia entries should not be brochures (though some sites seem to have become these) but neither should they be means of settling personal grudges!

I apologise for my inability to format this in proper wiki style, but I hope someone more skilled than me will be able to tidy it all up Edwardlucas 23:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed unsourced contentious material. Incidentally, the comment about Thought for the Day was added by you on November 14th. It is incorrect to say that Wikipedia accepts only online sources. Though an online source has the benefit of being readily accessible, it is accepted that most source material is not online. This is laid out in Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and guideline on sources. Alan Pascoe 22:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks very much for that. One small thing: given that all the contemperanous sources say that she resigned from the Catholic Herald, would it be possible to put this as the main fact?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19960818/ai_n14062483 is the only one available online for free, though there are five or six others

We are contesting the Independent article four years after it was written--but this was in 2002 not a contemporaneous account of her 1996 departure, and the the way it is phrased doesn't make that clear. Many thanks Edward

Thought for the Day--I did put in the bit that she had done this, because I think it is a minor but usefulpoint. I didn't put in the negative comment that followed. Edwardlucas 11:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions versus curriculum vitae

Hello everyone. The inclusion / exclusion of the YouTube lecture raises an interesting question: to what extent -if at all- should this Wikipedia article present the views of Ms. Odone? Should it simply present the well-sourced information on her curriculum vitae?

My view is that the article should stick to verifiable CV facts, but can (and probably should) provide links to articles or videos by Ms. Odone. I think it is too easy to slip out of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, particularly when the body of work to be summarized is political. The citation of the YouTube video is a case in point, I think; I don't think the summary provided by david r from meth productions (which is necessarily very short) does justice to the lecture. I work in a profession where words are chosen very carefully in professional communications, and I'm sure columnists are no different in this regard. I would be loathe to see soundbite summaries of my own scientific papers. In my view, the wikipedia article should let the body of work speak for itself, and simply provide links.Serjeant 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sergant - that's not how the work of journalists, especially op-ed journalists, ever works on wikipedia, I'm afraid. Look at entries for (say) Mark Steyn or Polly Toynbee, op-ed writers at the opposite end of the political spectrum, but to some dgree explain what they think and common criticisms of it. They don't confine themselves to lists of the CV. When your work is the expression of your opinions, a proper encyclopedia entry must explain those opinions. Of course it's essential to do it in a way that's NPOV and if you think POV has come into the article it's perfectly reasonable to rephrase in a way you think is better and then put it up for discussion.David r from meth productions 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy, as stated on WP:NPOV, does not require articles to be a collection of facts. It is recognised that opinions will be stated. What is required is that the opinions presented are representative of the opinions expressed in reliable sources (defined in WP:RS). It thus follows that the opinions of Wikipedia editors cannot be included. I can't see a problem in principle with using a video as a source, though it might be better in this case to see if the organisers of the conference released a transcript of the speeches, and cite that. Alan Pascoe 15:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wilco. Thanks for the clarification. Best wishes, Serjeant 10:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that's unwise. Let's see what other editors think. In the meantime, I've noted your edit to "contradicting some contemporaneous accounts. Although she did not complain at the time, four years later she contested the article following discussion in 2006 on the talk pages of this article." Now, unless there is a contemporaneous source that can be cited, "some" should read "all". Also, the point about the four-year delay is made three times, one way or another. It should only say it once. Now, I've had the misfortune to be misquoted by the press more than once. The most egregious example so far has been a local press article. It was a page about me (yay!) but the reporter didn't record the interview, and just made notes. Bad sign. Every direct quote was made up. Should I complain? It would seem like bad grace. What I'd gain from setting the record straight I'd lose from the whingeing. So I don't see that one should read much into a light-hearted article uncontested at the time but obviously contradicting every available contemporaneous source.Serjeant 23:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the journalist involved, Charlotte Cripps, stands by her story Sergant, and we can't just quite seriously impugn her journalistic reputation so casually. Remember: Odone is claiming Cripps either fabricated or got wrong huge paragraphs of prose, not just the line about being fired but also the entire story about beign a TV critic. That's a very, very serious charge by Odone, and it is important wiki doesn't repeat a libel.

While I empathise with your situation with the local press, Charlotte Cripps is a very respected journalist. it seems to me much more likely that odone regrets what she said in the past - she clearly has a record of saying pretty extreme things on a whim, like her quite bizarre attacks on Ashley and Hari - and chooses now to impugn the reputation of an innocent journalist in order to spare herself some blushes. Of course I could be wrong, and that's why we must disappassionately present the evidence, including the essential fact it took Odone four years to challenge the claims David r from meth productions 00:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

David, it's entirely up to you how you present your views in public, but if I were you I would be a little more circumspect about your own "pretty extreme things". You've already informed Ms. Cripps about the Wikipedia article, and if she wishes to intervene, she can in person. Regards, Serjeant 16:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sergent, I'm afraid that's a very selfish attitude. If you see somebody being abused in the street, do you say it's up to her to defend herself? Or do you intervene?

It is by any standards of the imagination pretty extreme to accuse a professional journalist of fabricating (or at best totally misreporting) at least two long quotes. As a concerned wikipedian, I don't think that should be allowed to pass casually unless there is very compelling evidence. It's unfair to Ms Cripps, and even more importantly it opens wikipedia to potential legal action. As somebody who has donated money to wikipedia, I don't want it wasted on compensating a journalist in circumstances like this.

We can't insert blatant POV into describing the column Ms Odone was interviewed by. There is a link to the column, readers can judge for themselves what kind of column it is.

We should stick to saying 'contemporaneous accounts' rather than 'all contemporaneous accounts.' You haven't read "all" the accounts, and nor have I. Wiki must be confined to verifiable statements.

David r from meth productions 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that David r is determined to present Cristina in the worst possible light. As her husband, I am presumably biassed in the other direction. Would it therefore be a good idea if we both refrained from making edits to the main page and confined our remarks to the discussion here?

For the record, we are not impugning Charlotte Cripps's integrity. The article was correct in every respect except for the mischaracterisation at the very start of the reason for Cristina's departure from the Catholic Herald. There are any number of reasons for this kind of mistake--it could have been a sub-editor who aimed to "correct" the article but instead inserted an error. It could have been that Cristina did not express herself clearly. It could have been an error by Ms Cripps. At any rate it was a minor mistake in a minor article, and I find it ludicrous that we are now being presented as duplicitous for not having bothered to complain at the time.

I would also be grateful if someone could change the description of the event with the youtube reference from "religious rally" to the accurate if cumbersome "Defend Freedom of Religion, Conscience and Thought Rally" Other speakers included the impeccably secular Ken Livingstone and Shami Chakrabarti. The quotation from Cristina's speech certainly strikes me as highly selective and designed to make her seem eccentric and extreme. Her point was that secularists are bossing believers about on a number of issues: what to wear, how to raise and educate their children (see Dawkins) and on "ritual slaughter" issues.

It might also be useful to cite the TV programme which Cristina made after leaving the New Statesman. It has the following reference http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/807173 It won a minor award but I think it would be egregious to mention it.

Many thanks

EdwardEdwardlucas 23:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

These suggested changes seem uncontroversial to me, so I implemented them. I held back so far on the description of the rally as another editor has already deleted the term "religious". Opinions anyone? Regards, Serjeant 17:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Edward, you are very clearly trying to rewrite history. You claim, "We are not impugning Charlotte Cripps's integrity. The article was correct in every respect except for the mischaracterisation at the very start of the reason for Cristina's departure from the Catholic Herald."

Yet above, any reader can see that Ms Odone - posting on this page - states that she is alleging Cripps did not only get this small point wrong, but also the very point of the article. She writes: "I never told Charles Moore I loved television -- we never had a discussion about television until Sarah Sands appointed me TV critic." The interview Ms Cripps wrote was for a section called 'My greatest mistake', and the anecdote - the whole point of the article - was that Odone had done precisely the thing she claims now not to have done. If Odone's allegations were true, Cripps would have bungled the whole point of the interview through mistranscription or fabrication, showing her to be grossly incompetent.

This is very revealing. The readers of this archive can see, in a rather clear deomonstration, that Ms Odone is prone to doing the very thing I suspected her of: trying to rewrite her own history after she has said something that embarrasses her. She is trying to do it on this very page, and that leads me to believe she is also trying to do it re: her interview with Charlotte Cripps. This kind of behaviour has no place on wikipedia 86.129.145.129 14:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't know who this anonymous user is but I do think he is placing too much emphasis on a small article. As I mentioned in a previous paragraph, the point of the story, which was correctly and amusingly rendered by Ms Cripps, was this

Cristina's greatest mistake was pretending to be her daily (cleaner) by faking a foreign accent, rather than talk to Charles Moore after she had been "outed" by the Guardian for not having a television.

She had, in fact, not discussed the television question directly with Charles Moore until the Guardian article came out. I think this is a trifling inconsistency whether it was Ms Cripps's fault, a sub-editor's, or Cristina's for not explaining herself clearly during a hurried and light-hearted interview.

I think it is not good wikipedia practice to try to use personal entries, or their talk pages, as a way of settling personal feuds. Cristina has many fans and foes, but that is hardly unusual in the world of journalism. So far the main case against Cristina is that she did not contest this Independent article at the time, that she made an error in the use of the word "respectively" in one of her columns, thus confusing people about her birthplace, and that she wrote an article about her departure from the New Statesman that attacked some media luminaries in a way that got them, rightly or wrongly, rather cross. Can we please end this tiresome discussion now? The entry is fair enough as it stands, and no doubt there will be new factual things to add in due course. Edwardlucas 20:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)