Talk:Cristina Odone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 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
Priority 7

Contents

[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)

I don't know what you mean about a personal feud. I have never met Ms Odone. I am rather appalled by people trying to rewrite their personal histories. Anybody reading this page can see that odone accused Ms Cripps of writing falsehoods, and then has to back down when somebody challenges her. Her behaviour is plain for all to see - DavidR

I'm afraid I see evidence of POV pushing in recent edits from DavidR. I am reverting "light-hearted" in the description of the Indie column. If DavidR feels this is not relevant, he should discuss it on these talk pages as this clearly disagrees with the view of several other editors. Also, the summary of the Youtube lecture is now inadequate and possibly misleading, so I am also reverting that change too. We were given a brief summary of the arguments in this lecture from Ms. Odone's husband, Edwardlucas. The Wikipedia article should not present the arguments made in the lecture as facts, but in the current wording it does not do so. Regards, Serjeant 21:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Serjeant. I don't know who David R is as he does not have a proper user page. But I agree with you that he seems to be pushing POV. Just for the record, we have not "accused Ms Cripps of writing falsehoods". That is a grotesque overstatement. Charlotte Cripps is an excellent journalist. But--for the nth time--the lighthearted article she wrote about "Cristina's greatest mistake" had a couple of points wrong, for whatever reason, that seemed peripheral at the time and are now being treated as hugely serious. I wonder if it would be a good idea if all future edits to the page were made by people who are a) neutral b) identifiable. That would dispel any suspicion that entries were being either polished or smeared by people with a vested interest in the outcome. Edwardlucas 23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
David R is a huge Johann Hari fan (so huge, I was convinced for a long time that he was Hari), which may explain his antipathy toward Christina Odone. He has an "idiosyncratic" arguing style and relationship with the facts. You can check out his contribution history [4]. He's not above sock puppets and deleting other editors talk page edits.He frequently doesn't sign in.Felix-felix 11:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Felix-Felix is a cyberstalker of Johann Hari's who has obsessively tried to insert false and libellous information into Hari's wiki entry (e.g. the fictitious claim he went to Harrow School!), is forever attacking him as "a little tyke" etc, and makes slanderous accusations (e.g. about sock puppets) about anybody who disagrees with him. He has eccentric political views, like claiming total nuclear disrmament by the US, Britain and all nuclear powers is an "uncontroversial" position, and that David Starkey and Bjorn Lomborg are "trivial" thinkers. Do check out the discussion page on the Hari entry to see his MO, and that far from having "an idosyncratic relationship with facts", I have been patiently correcting blatant lies by Felix-Felix for months now. Nothing I have said on this page has been influenced by my attitude towards Hari; the facts speak for themselves. - David R

I don't like the use of the term light-hearted to describe a source. If the source is reliable, its reliability should not then be questioned in the text; this is not taking a neutral point of view. I think it is sufficient to say that at the time Odone left the Catholic Herald, several contemporary news sources reported that she had resigned, but this was contradicted in a later article which reported that she had been fired. Alan Pascoe 23:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree - David R
Hello Alan. You're right that the article should report evidence dispassionately and objectively, and thank you for starting discussion of this on the talk page. My view is that part of being objective is giving the context of the evidence, as well as the evidence itself. I think there's a qualitative difference between a point made in a light-hearted article and, say, the same point made in a Newsnight investigation. Is there a form of words that you or anyone can suggest that would report the context of this article accurately? Best wishes, Serjeant 10:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archival

This talk page is becoming too long. I am going to archive the current contents. Alan Pascoe 17:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave this until the RFC closes. Alan Pascoe 21:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the Catholic Herald question

Dear David. It seems to me that you and I are on opposite sides of the argument, and I think it would be sensible if we engage in discussion here on the talk page rather than making controversial edits to the main article. Your recent edit seems to me (and of course I am biassed, being Cristina's husband) to slant the entry in a way that is designed to undermine Cristina's credibility. There has been much, maybe an inordinate amount of, discussion about this rather trivial incident in Cristina's past and I think we should strive to find something that is neutral and factual (which the entry was beforehand) rather than trying to give the entry a negative (or for that matter positive) spin. Just for the record: _every_ contemporaneous account of her departure from the Catholic Herald has her leaving by her own choice. If you would like to contact me offline (edwardlucas (at) economist.com will find me instantly) I can supply an affadavit from the publisher that this was the case (it would count as original research so I can't use it here, but it might serve to convince you that the Independent article is a red herring). Had we known that a hurried interview for The Independent and the slightly garbled article that resulted would be used in this way four years on, we would have of course asked for a clarification. But life is too short. I hope someone more neutral than me will re-edit the page, and that we do not have to engage in this rather unseemly tussle again

As a wiki-novice myself, I am not really in a position to give advice, but I wonder if it might add weight to your edits if you established your identity with a user page? Edwardlucas 23:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I keep meaning to set up a user page, I'll try to next week.
The evidence is clear that Odone was quoted as saying she was fired, and didn't complain until four years later. That is salient and important information, and should be included in the entry. Obviously as her husband you have a vested interest in writing a PR release for her, but I'm afraid that's not what wikipedia is for.
- David
Please let me have your offline e-mail address and I will be glad to send you material from the Catholic Herald publishers that proves conclusively that she resigned and wasn't fired. I can't post it here because it would count as original research but it would certainly convince any outside observer Edwardlucas 23:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No-one has suggested an alternative wording, but "light-hearted" has been removed. Could Alan et al. possibly explain your views that context is not relevant? Surely context is always relevant. In the meantime I will do my best to briefly and fairly summarize the context.Serjeant 17:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I did indeed suggest alternative wording, and placed it the article on December 31st. I've restored this. The problem with "light-hearted" is that it casts doubt on the reliability of the source, when there is no reason to do this. I've gone into more detail on your talk page. Alan Pascoe 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
But we do have reason to doubt the source, as both Odone and her husband have disputed it. Catchpole 21:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it is a reliable source, as described in WP:RS. Comments on this talk page that we assume are from the subject and her husband are definitely not reliable sources, and must not be used to support the article. Actually, there are only two people who witnessed the interview, Odone, and Cripps, the interviewer. Edward Lucas did not witness the interview; he is simply presenting Odone's viewpoint. We have no reason to believe that her account of the interview is more reliable than the account written by Cripps and published by The Independent. The form of words in the article now is a fair representation of the sources found to date; it states that at the time when Odone left The Catholic Herald, a contemporary source stated that she had resigned, though in a later 2002 article she was reported to have said that she had been dismissed. If additional sources are found then different wording may be appropriate, but sources should not be omitted or denigrated simply to please the subject. Wikipedia biographical articles are not puff pieces for the subjects. Alan Pascoe 22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Alan, you are quite right that my reversion of "light-hearted" casts aspersions on the reliability of the source. Thank you for your comments, which certainly helped clarify the issues for me. I think the article is not a reliable source, as described in WP:RS, because as a non-scholarly source it fails the test of corroboration. (The better solution has been found by Catchpole: remove mention of it altogether.) Please note that this is in no way inconsistent with the absolute integrity of the journalists concerned. This was a light-hearted piece. Best wishes,Serjeant 17:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "the new fascists" was, as I see it, a polemical opening, not the substance of the lecture. David R, you keep re-inserting this phrase, but by mixing polemics with substance I believe this edit serves only to mis-represent the argument. We already give a link to the full article. I am reverting the removal of the phrase.Serjeant 17:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I rewatched the video of Odone's speech. She does indeed use the term "new fascists" mid-way through her speech, to describe people who she believes are trying to deter people from holding a faith. I think the words in the article could be bettered, but omitting one phrase doesn't work towards this. Alan Pascoe 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Alan. I agree, the wording is currently poor and close to breaching POV - I have offered an alternative I'm happy to discuss - but the phrase is also important to give a flavour of the speech. David r from meth productions 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely it would be fairer to say that _all_ contemporary sources said that she resigned. Had she been fired there would have been a great furore, and there wasn't. I repeat: we can provide proof from the publisher of the Catholic Herald that she resigned, but I don't know how to do this in a way that doesn't count as original research. May I also repeat my suggestion to David R that we both refrain from making direct edits to the entry itself? We are not saying that quote in Ms Cripps's article was "fabricated". Just that it is not correct. Sorry to bang on about this.

I have not the least desire for the entry to be a "puff piece" but I do think it should be factually correct and neutral and I find it troubling that this is so difficult, and that there is no way for Cristina or me to prove who we are (Alan--you have my email address etc since the passport issue--didn't that convince you?).

A suggestion: Why not have a para called "criticism of Cristina Odone" where David R and others can vent their spleen? Edwardlucas 14:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Edward, I have removed the sentence you are disputing, but I cannot guarantee someone else will not replace it. If you are not averse to getting some more opinions about this I will start a Request for Comment (that is we get some uninvolved outsiders to take a look). Catchpole 14:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Catchpole, I think your suggestion for an RFC is an excellent idea. I believe the problem here is that some editors have their own view about what the article should say and are determined to get their way. What the article needs is for the editors to work together to develop it in accordance with Wikipedia policies. An RFC could enlighten some about what these policies require. Alan Pascoe 22:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine by me, both for removing the sentence and RFC - Serjeant 13:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Edward, my personal opinion, based on the information sent to me, is that you are Edward Lucas, husband of Cristina Odone. However, anything you say here does not constitute a reliable source. Wikipedia requires that support for article text comes from independently published sources. So, for example, if the article is to state that all contemporary sources stated that Odone had resigned from The Catholic Herald, this needs to be supported by all these sources. In reality, that may be impracticable, nevertheless, with three or so sources it should be possible to use a form of words that indicates that the consensus view was that she had resigned. Alan Pascoe 22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We have on this talk page evidence that Cristina Odone denies saying things that are embarrassing to her. Above, she says, "I never told Charles Moore I loved television -- we never had a discussion about television until Sarah Sands appointed me TV critic." Yet 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." Even she has not allaged that this was a massive and langthy misquote on the part of respected journalist Charlotte Cripps.

It is important to use NPOV facts. It is an NPOV fact of note, not disputed by anyone, that an article by the Independent referred to odone describing herself as being "fired", and she did not complain about it for four years. It is perfectly reasonable to list these facts. I really don't have any "spleen" towards Odone, who I have never met. I just think these are important facts to include to give an accurate and honest picture, rather than a press release written by Odone's husband. David r from meth productions 22:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

David, if we are using the Independent as a source, we should note that there are at least two other articles published by the Independent, one published before (published August 18 1996) and one published after the Cripps story (published August 28 2006), that say that Odone resigned from the Catholic Herald. Catchpole 07:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Cristina Odone

This is a dispute about whether the article should say that Odone was fired as editor of the Catholic Herald. This claim has a single source, which both Odone and her husband, Edward Lucas have disputed as incorrect (see above).

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • There has been a single source that backs up the claim that Odone was fired from the Catholic Herald, from a interview given in 2002 about Odone's role joining the Guardian as a TV critic that was published in the Independent in 2002. [5] The user David r from meth productions insists that this must be included, repeatedly and at great length. My view is that all other relevant sources uncovered so far, including two published by the Independent, say that Odone resigned, a view she herself states above. I believe that it is not unreasonable to remove the allegation from the article as it places undue weight on the Cripps source and has so far been used to portray Odone in a negative light. Catchpole 07:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure where to put this as I am parti pris, being Cristina's husband, so please forgive any breach of wikiquette, but I would like to say that we feel that David R David r from meth productions is being unreasonable. I have repeatedly suggested that we discuss this on the talk page and come to a consensus but he keeps editing the main article in a way that makes Cristina look stupid and quarrelsome. Whereas the other editors on the page are all verifiably real people, David R has no user page and seems to exist only in order to puff Johann Hari and to denigrate Cristina. On the matter at issue, I would point out that if Cristina really had been fired from the Catholic Herald that would have been a major news story at the time, and yet there is no contemporaneous source saying that she was fired. It is true that Cristina is quoted in the Independent article as saying that she was fired, but this is a mistake. It was a very hurried interview over the phone and either she mispoke, or the journalist misheard, or a sub-editor changed it or there was a deliberate mistake. It was not the main point of the article and we did not think it worth complaining at the time. Edwardlucas 10:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to accurately report the facts, not put any slant on them. I'm happy to say who I am: my name is David Rose, I live in Walthamstow, I work for a TV company. E-mail me at methuselahproductions@hotmail.com and I'll send you mt number so you can verify my identity.
I totally understand Edward Lucas' desire to turn this article into a positive tale of his wife's life, but I'm afraid that's not what wikipedia is for. We need to use verifiable sources and accurately describe them.
As I point out above, I'm afraid we have on this talk page evidence that Cristina Odone denies saying things that are embarrassing to her. Above, she says, "I never told Charles Moore I loved television -- we never had a discussion about television until Sarah Sands appointed me TV critic." Yet 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." Even she has not alleged that this was a massive and langthy misquote on the part of respected journalist Charlotte Cripps.
So I'm afraid denials by Ms Odone, or her proxies, aren't reliable. I think the best thing to do is to accurately describe the various sources, with links, and leave readers to make up their own mind. I see the need for a compromise though: how about including, say, three links saying she resigned, showing that the balance of sources suggests she resigned and was not fired, while leaving in the source suggesting she was? Then we can have a range of sources, and lay them all out fairly. David r from meth productions 13:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
David, I don't want this to be a puff piece for Cristina. I just want it to be factually accurate. Actually it was Sarah Sands who initially hired Cristina for the Telegraph, not Charles Moore, so the Independent article was not quite correct in that respect either. I fail to see why you are making such a massive deal about what is essentially a trivial inconsistency. You have stated earlier on this page that
"Further to my point above, I have just found evidence that Ms Odone is either lying here, or has lied in the past."
as well as
"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."
These are serious allegations and you have not been able to support them except by putting huge weight on the Independent article and ignoring the fact that it is contradicted by more credible sources printed nearer to the time. This whole thing smacks of a vendetta and I would be most grateful for outside comment on this. I have tried to reach Methuselah Productions via directory inquiries but with no success. Does it have a website, or just a hotmail address? Edwardlucas 21:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Edward. How is it a vendetta to simply outline what the available sources say? I really see how that's the case, although it's perfectly admirable that as her husband you would defend her. By all means state that most sources appear to suggest she resigned, provided we also then outline what the Independent reported, and Ms Odone's objections. Ms Odone is alleging that two significant errors of fact were made in a report about her in the Independent, and she didn't complain for four years. It's perfectly proper for a wikipedia entry to point that out. It would be improper to delete it and deprive readers of the ability to make up their own minds on it, given all the available information.
Methusleah Productions is the name of an old company; I kept the e-mail address. Feel free to contact me at that address and I will provide fuller contact details, I don't just want to band them about the internet for obvious reasons. I'm sorry you feel I am predisposed to hostility to Ms Odone, that's not the case and I don't think your claim can be justified by my actions. I have simply made statements about the available evidence. David r from meth productions 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It smells to me like a vendetta because of your statements quoted about, which suggest that you want the entry to show Cristina's supposed record of deceit. I appreciate Alan Pascoe's point about verifiability, but it is most frustrating to be unable to correct things. Please, David R and Alan, advise what steps the publisher of the Catholic Herald could take to settle this controversy to your satisfaction? Would it help if he wrote to you on Catholic Herald headed notepaper? Or what?
Hi Edward - I appreciate your frustration and admire your desire to defend your wife, but people with vested interests can't be allowed to alter wikipedia. They have to adhere to publicly available facts like everybody else, and the public record on this question is mixed, and we have to reflect that here - DavidR86.129.139.83 00:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am another of the contributors involved in this discussion. There are lots of contemporary sources that say that Cristina Odone resigned (as opposed to being sacked). I know of no contemporary sources that disagree, nor has anyone else suggested any. There is apparently even an affidavit from the publishers verifying this. I think it is fair to regard this as uncontroversial, even incontrovertible. A later light-hearted article said she was "sacked". Given the light-hearted nature of this article, and the fact that it contradicted other articles before and after in the same newspaper, I find it unsurprising that a correction was not sought at the time, though following the discussion in this talk page it was challenged. Presenting the light-hearted article as serious reportage sows doubt where there is none. This is POV pushing. I inserted and reverted the term "light-hearted" to make sure the context of the article was made clear, but a better solution was used by another contributor: delete all mention of this later article. I am afraid that in my opinion this edit cycle and others, and the debates that surrounded them, show that David r from meth productions is determined to portray Cristina Odone in the worst possible light, as her husband Edward Lucas has written above.Serjeant 17:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I hestitate to put my comments in this section, because I don't believe that I am in a dispute, nevertheless I have edited the article occasionally over the past month or so. The problem I see here is that there are several editors, each with his own idea of what is "right" for this article, and there is a determination by each of them to see their idea prevail, in other words, to "win". What is lacking is either a knowledge of Wikipedia policies or a willingness to apply those policies. In particular, editors need to apply WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:NOR, even if it means the article contains things that are not to their tastes. I see several ways in which these policies are not being applied:
  • Anything in the article must be supported by a reliable source (which is defined in the WP:RS guidelines), and what is written must accurately reflect what is in the source. It is not acceptable to change the meaning of a passage, if as a consequence it does not then tally with the source. It is also not acceptable to use wording that implies that the source is unreliable. If a source is unreliable then it and the supporting text must be removed, but a source must not be declared unreliable simply because an editor does not like what is in the text, or it contradicts the popular view. If the view expressed by a source is unusual, that needs to be indicated in the text, but it is not a justification for removal.
Hello Alan. Yes, I agree with your very helpful focus on the Wikipedia guidelines. I think you are not quite right that contradicting "the popular view" is irrelevant, because in WP:RS corroboration is explicitly one of the criteria in evaluating the reliability of a non-scholarly source. We don't re-write the article on the Moon because one person says in print that it's made of cheese. I think the article is not a reliable source, because this non-scholarly source fails the test of corroboration. If one accepts this, the correct option, as you state above, and as suggested independently by Catchpole, is to remove reference to this article. Best wishes, Serjeant 16:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Serjeant, I wasn't saying that the popular view was irrelevant. What I was saying was that a view must not be excluded simply because it is not popular. The fact that such a view is not widely held should be indicated in the article, but the view must not be excluded or denigrated. On the question of reliability of the source, I don't think you are interpreting WP:RS as intended. Corroboration is one of several criteria that may be used to judge if a non-scholarly source is reliable. If all these criteria are considered, the source in question is reliable, in my opinion. Alan Pascoe 18:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Alan. I disagree, but let's see what other comments this RFC generates. Note that a similar argument is often used by people on the fringes of science to justify vandalism of scientific wikipedia articles. I'm not suggesting any similarity between yourself and these folk :-) I'm simply saying that "a minority position exists" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for its mention in a wikipedia article. Serjeant 14:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Serjeant, that is not a fair comparison. If an unorthodox view about a science matter has been published by a peer-reviewed journal, then mention of that view cannot be excluded from a relevant article; WP:NPOV makes this clear. The unorthodox view relevant to this article, that Odone was fired from The Catholic Herald, was published with editorial oversight in a recognised UK national newspaper. Alan Pascoe 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I should point out that the statement in the article that it had been reported that Odone had been fired is supported by one source. However, the claim that she resigned is also supported by just one source. Some have been suggesting that there is a wealth of sources indicating that Odone resigned, yet no-one has been able to produce any, apart from one published late last year, which is of little value so many years after the event. Alan Pascoe 22:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Alan. There _are_ plenty of contemporaneous sources eg (published August 18 1996) which show that she resigned. The publisher of the Catholic Herald is eager to settle this controversy and would like to know what he can do. Her resignation letter, for example, was published in the Catholic Herald at the time, but it is not available on line so therefore for wikipedia purposes (as I understand it) does not count. Please let me know what would convince you in the "real" world (eg send/fax an affidavit) and we will do it. Edwardlucas 12:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Your understanding is wrong. We strive not to have a FUTON bias. This is why we have a set of citation templates, rather than rely upon external hyperlinks as citations. The important question is whether the letter has been published, and can be accessed in some publicly accessible archive, such as a public library. A URL for a cited source is a bonus.

So what you should be providing are full citations of any relevant articles. You can use the {{cite news}} (or other appropriate) template for convenience. I've added a proper citation below, as a demonstration. Uncle G 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. This means in practice that editors must not put their own viewpoints into the article. It is not what we think, but what others think, where those others have had their views published independently. It is not for us to make judgements about what is "true", "right" or "fair". As stated in WP:V, we aim for verifiability, not truth.
  • Whilst all articles must be properly sourced, particular attention is required for biographies of living people, because of the possibility of defamation, and as a consequence, damage to the subject. This is achieved in practice by making sure that everything in the article is supported by a reliable source. It is possible, as has happened with this article, that the subject (or a close associate of the subject) disputes what is written and wants it changed. Nevertheless, they have no special rights; their edits must also comply with the policies and guidelines. The subject may state on the talk page what they believe is the "truth", but that cannot be accepted as reliable source for the article. Sources must be independently published. I restate, we aim for verifiability, not truth. Alan Pascoe 15:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Alan, I wholly agree. I have always been keen to isnert intot his article both Odone's claim that she resisgned, backed by sources showing this is the majority view, and the source in which she describes herself as having been fired, which she now disputes. I want to include all the facts. I find it understandable but not acceptable that Edward wants to take out key facts based on non-verfiable claims. David r from meth productions 19:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Hello all, I've dropped by after reading the WP:AN request. First, to Edward Lucas, I applaud the way you've handled this. Although Wikipedia discourages editing by the subjects of articles or persons close to them, we welcome corrections that are backed up through reliable sources. The best way to do so is to be candid about one's potential conflict of interest and use the site's dispute resolution process if problems result. Regarding the topic at hand, if all reliable sources except for one describe the departure as a resignation, including other stories from the same periodical, then it's a safe call to omit the suggestion of firing as non-notable. Respectfully, DurovaCharge 14:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Same story as Durova, and same response. This has been an very good discussion, at least as far as discussions on contested aspects of biographies of living people usually go. I agree with Durova that if Ms. Odone has retracted what she said in one interview, and if no other sources report a firing, Wikipedia does not lose much by removing the reference to this issue. Sandstein 18:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I strongly suggest collecting and citing all of the sources in a list, so that you see how many and what sources exist, and then looking at what overall picture they present, and at their provenances. Evaluation of sources is an important part of being an encyclopaedist. So if it turns out that (to create an example out of thin air) there are 5 contemporary sources, each independent of the others, who say one thing, and 1 source dated three years after the fact that says another, then the next step is to attempt to work out whence each got its information. If the 5 are based upon primary research and contemporary interviews and the 1 is based upon personal recollection years later, then it is reasonable to suppose that the 1 was the product of a faulty memory. But this requires that you begin with all of the sources, so that you can look at what source said what, was written by whom, and when. So start citing. Uncle G 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In the circumstances it is not appropriate to include the statement from the one source. Sensitivity should be exercised with regard to BLP and although the solitary differing statement appears in a journal that would normally be regarded as a reliable source, I would see it as a poor source in this instance — in fact, as we have heard, a mistake. If more reliable sources were cited to back it up, then that might be a different matter. Tyrenius 01:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, it seems the consensus is against me on this issue. - DavidR81.129.158.74 16:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented what appears to be the consensus view here, and deleted the claim that Cristina Odone had been fired. I hope this is correct wikiquette - my sincere apologies if it's not. Note though that we should still make the compilation and comparison of sources as requested. With best wishes, Serjeant 18:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As we have reached consensus, I've closed this Request for Comment, thanks to everyone for their input. Catchpole 12:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A list of source citations relevant to the issue of the Catholic Herald

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/i/Talk%7ECristina_Odone_e4ab.html"