Talk:Katie Couric

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Katie Couric article.
Article policies
UVA
 This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on people, places and things associated with the University of Virginia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (assessment comments)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within the University of Virginia WikiProject.
This article focuses on someone related to the University of Virginia and is being reviewed by the University of Virginia WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments


Contents

[edit] Non-Neutral Writing

Under the "CBS Evening News" headline, the author listed "CBS News was evidently willing to gamble with its flagship broadcast to prop up Couric's career." WTF is that? I edited the line out, but how is that line not unbiased, neutral or anywhere near encyclopedic? I don't watch KC, or know much about the lady, but that line and any others like it are obviously biased in nature and do not meet Wikipdia writing/quality standards.


[edit] Negativity

There is so much negativity here. Isn't it good enough that she affects people's lives regardless of whether or not you call her an entertainer or a journalist? People enjoy what she does. I believe that the colon cancer and breast cancer awareness campaigns that she did were very important to their respective causes. By the way I don't know if you have noticed this, but there are rarely any "journalists" anymore that tell the story right down the middle with no bias. Has anyone watched Fox News or MSNBC Lately?

[edit] Stan Hooper

The article says that she was hired by "Stan Hooper" I cannot find this person anywhere online, or in other references. Isn't he a fictional character from that show "A Minute with Stan Hooper?" Rellman 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ciriticism section

Yes, I would like to state that by adding a section regarding her alledged "pseudo-journalism" would be a great addition to the article. --131.247.22.90 17:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Why do her parents' religions matter? 69.86.121.251 17:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Because its a small biographic data. Thats what biographies do. ---Mailrobot

[edit] NPOV

This looks so gushing. Does anyone care to try an NPOV touch on why Katie Couric is considered to be a bad journalist? Mike H 01:02, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

Who considers her to be a bad journalist? If so, then we could find and include the ones who consider her a good journalist. Just pointing out why she is considered a bad journalist would go against NPOV rules. Antonio Sunshine Phoenix Martin

ps: Yes Im one of the Phoenix siblings..lol Hollywood awaits!

I'm not saying that the people who consider her a bad journalist are the law, but Television Without Pity is quite vocal in their dislike of Katie Couric. It should at least be NOTED that her style is not favored in some circles. It's doing a disservice to readers to make her sound like flippin' Walter Cronkite. Mike H 08:51, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] TV without pay

Does Television Without Pity rule the television viewer's mind? I had never even heard of that organization. What kind of importance do they have? Saying that the president of a family value organization has expressed against the Howard Stern show, for example, would seem more senseless to me, but Television Without Pity??

The best way to do it is to stick to the facts and leave the praises or critizism out, although I admit, some cases do deserve some expert's opinions, but Kaie Couric is a journalist, and, to me at least, most journalists pretty much do the same thing, they explain the news to their best ability, detaching themselves from a human side to the news and staying neutral. "Antonio Its Saturday, lets Rock baby1!! Martin"

[edit] Infotainer

Folks, Katie Couric in an infotainer. That's all she is. To call her a journalist is to make yourself sound dumb, and it does a disservice to the word. She is perky, not too bright-sounding, and is downright annoying. She can't even talk right. Check out how she drops the letter G from the ends of words. "Good morning" becomes "good morneen" the way that she says it. This hack is downright annoyeen!  :) And not very professional.

She is a telejournalist. Don't get me wrong; I think she's annoying as hell, too, and at present, this article needs a thorough rewrite to accomodate criticisms (because they ARE there). But your edits smack of POV (namely that she sucks; it needs to be sourced, particularly by television critics and such...I imagine it can't be THAT hard to find) and I think you need to be acquainted with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Talking about your edits these last two months would have helped, too. Mike H 02:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

11/09/2004: This is a terribly written article. It would be my suggestion that someone rewrite it and also include some of the dissenting views listed above.

[edit] Olympic Cermony Hosting

Couric has NOT always hosted the Olympic Opening Cermonies since 1992 alongside Bob Costas. For instance, Dick Enberg hosted with Bob Costas from Atlanta in 1996 as evidenced in this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah5DF2dmhtQ

Just wanted to get the facts straight! (Itsdannyg 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)).

---

I have made an edit to the page to reflect this fact. Changed 1992 to 2000. Itsdannyg 18:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism from 168.253 range

I've reported the IP range on WP:VIP, and protected the page since the only people editing the article in the last three weeks have been that IP, and then various users reverting him/her. Mike H 16:11, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

The professional title of journalist is inappropriate. Infotainer (within the broad news trade) is correct. -SV|t|add 02:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
She doesn't just do Today, though. She also does Dateline. Would you call Jane Pauley an infotainer? Mike H 02:26, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Well the real question is, are media personalities journalists? The answer to your question about [insert media personality here] being an infotainer is yes: Anyone who substantially crosses the distinction in their career from Journalism to personality-based "news" can't really be categorized as "real journalist" ie. an associate of people like Sy Hersh or Robert Fisk.
Consider that just as there is a real difference between hard news and soft news, so too there is a difference between a journalist and an infotainer; it's really that simple. Yes, one can be somewhere at the low end of journalism / high end of infotainment, but there needs to be some reasonable appreciation of the vast difference between the ends of that spectrum between purely true and purely false reporting, where by "false" we can mean that propaganda and gossip news are essentially of equivalent value. SV|t|add 08:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I don't remember Cronkite spending 45 seconds doing news on an important foreign policy issue then 5 minutes making a salad with some loser, then 10 minutes presenting a impromptu fashion show, then who is 100. Kind of bad when five dead troops get 8 seconds and what's Jennifer Anniston or TomKat doing gets 10 minutes. All about ratings and very little soft journalism. As for what do you call Dateline and Jane Pauley? Same thing, fake, could care less and usually about to fall asleep like the rest of them. Running Mid-sizes cars into a wall for the hundredth time isn't news. They don't do that so you and your family can get a safe mini-van. They do it cause the footage is near free (cost of a camera and sound man and stone already works for them so voices over is free) It's just bad and a lack of journalism to record someone else running Suvs, minivans, mid-size cars, luxury cars, compacts, full size trucks and small trucks into a wall. They do everyone of those every year. That is what happens when you are cheap, have too much time to fill and do not know much about journalism.

And yeah she got into Bush Sr.'s grill and Matt blasted Tom Crusie but Leno was all on McCain and Letterman is no softballer. So are they Journalist?

[edit] Chris Botti

Why are people removing the Chris Botti sentence entirely? This has been cited in many sources, and I'll re-add it with the sources. Mike H 15:46, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Journalist

I believe that people like Couric are presenters (as in the U.K. English and French usage), not journalists. One may like or dislike Couric and her ilk, but what she does is not truly journalism. This is not a value judgement, not any more than is saying that an auto mechanic is not an engineer. She is either a television personality or a presenter -- the mere fact that she interviews people does not make her a journalist. Is Conan O'Brian a journalist, since he interviews guests every night? I think not. I welcome user input before making any changes to the article. -- Zantastik talk 10:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We don't use the term "presenter" in the United States, so if you want to change it to anything, I'd probably agree more on "television personality." Mike H 14:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Mike H, "presenter" isn't common enough in the United States to use it in an article about an American, though it is a more accurate description. Television personality, or something like it, works for me. - Jersyko talk 22:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
How about "Television News Anchorwoman"? All I know is she is not a journalist. TheSun 04:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parents' religions

Why are her parents' religions included in this article? I don't feel that they are relevant. And even if they are relevant, they shouldn't be so conspicuous. The parentheses give to much prominence to such minutia and make for an awkward read. Any thoughts? --132.192.72.96 15:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I also have never heard anywhere that Katie's mother is Jewish (not that this means it's not true). I was just curious where that came from. There are lots of sites out there (i.e. jewhoo.com) that extensively list even celebreties with one Jewish parent and I've never seen her name on any of them. While I do find it interesting (she would be the first solo network anchor to even have partial Jewish ancestry, Barbara Walters was always with a co-anchor), I do have to agree that Wikipedia articles too often make a big note of the religion of a famous person's bio (or that of his/her parents). --hairymon 18:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Katie Couric the granddaughter of M.F.K. Fisher? I have heard that, but I can't verity it. I wish K. Couric the best. She is talented and attractive. Molly 18:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that one is an urban legend (the MFK Fisher bit), I have never seen a legitimate source on that one. I'm not sure what that has to do with "Parents' religions" anyway. However, I did a little searching and the "Jewish mother" bit is apparently true. Interestingly, Jewhoo and all those sites never turned this one up (nor, fortunately, all those neo-Nazi hate sites, it appears both them and the "ethnic pride" sites seem to go after this kind of subject with equal vigor), but she mentioned it in an interview on Fox News Channel back in March of 2004. She said she was brought up in her father's religion though. --hairymon 02:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I just added short sentence indicating that Couric was raised Episcopalian, which is noted in the same source used to document that her mother was Jewish (note that this is something of a ridiculous source, as it appears to be nothing but an item in a gossip column). Gogh 02:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I agree with some revision. Parents' religion?, "why?" Delta Delta Delta? Being invited to live on The Lawn? This sounds like it was written by a sorority sister still stuck in college life, not by someone who has any biographic writing credentials.

[edit] Legend to Legend

Changed the reference to her special, "Legend to Legend Night: A Celebrity Cavalcade," to reflect the correct title. I am ultimately hollowing myself out using an awl made of ocd by spending my time worrying about the semipermanent historical record of a ingratiating celebrity. This is a cry for help. 205.246.203.230 14:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Drew

[edit] Does anyone watch the evening news anymore?

Kouric is going to host a show in decline. So what?

Wikipedians are not the norm.

[edit] Liberal Bias

How come there is no mention of her liberal bias when reporting the news. I think it is important and should be noted.

That's a taboo topic on Wikipedia...you won't find an ounce of liberalism mentioned on the Sierra Club page either, for instance. Even this comment is probably too racy. But I distinctly remember watching 'Today' during the Clinton/Bush election and being shocked at how blatantly she campaigned for Clinton. She essentially told America that if you voted for Bush, you were an idiot. I stopped watching Today shortly thereafter. I wish I had enough access and time to go through some archives and post some examples. Mr walsh 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For every conservative that believes a media figure has a liberal bias, there is a lefty who believes they have a right-wing bias. For example, Media Matters for America has documented some of Couric's conservative bias: [1]
This is why this is a "taboo" topic. Tzepish 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is one example of why Wikipedia will never be able to be trusted as an authoritative source for information. Misguided "fans" will always swoop in and remove any facts that do not support their gushing, and frankly, the "fans" of Couric are also the types who have a lot of free time on their hands.
Katie's track record of liberal bias is pervasive and well established; it far outweighs the trivialities that MMFA has drummed up. This is clearly a biased article. Any fair-minded observer knows that Katie is an avowed liberal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D323P (talk • contribs) 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Please feel free to provide sources and to work the information into the article. Tzepish 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Couric to start CBS Evening News on the 5th?

This was added by an anon to the intro. I added {{fact}}, but that was removed by another anon without sourcing. If anyone can cite a source that would be wonderful. Morgan Wick 01:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Likeability

Currently the "likeability" section is solely devoted to the topic of Couric's legs, rather than her personality traits. While undoubtedly her attractiveness is an important part of her likeability, I believe that it is misleading to focus on this. For example, consider this study, which found her often described as "perky", "energetic" along with "informed", "smart", and "fair". Also, it is indicated that she evokes more negative reactions than the other two major anchors, e.g. she is seen as too liberal by some. I don't have much time to edit, so I would appreciate if people could incorporate this (and other relevant material) into the article. --C S (Talk) 06:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I reverted further than I should have (and reintroduced material that had been deleted for POV reasons). It was a mistake -- I don't have an opinion on the matter. shotwell 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


________________________________________________________________________________________________

Looking Back

If the evening news gig fails, she always go back to mornings and be a co-host on The View.

[edit] Problematic sentence

"She assumed the anchor position on the CBS Evening News on September 5, 2006, becoming the first female solo anchor of a major television network weekday evening newscast in the United States." This sentence could use some work, too much info. I can't think any way to fix it myself right now or I would have. Aaron Bowen 23:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to break it into two sentences but it still comes off clunky. It's obviously extremely important and needs to stay, but it's a mess right now. Aaron Bowen 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I took another try at it, by breaking it into two pieces, with the first piece alluding to the informal visibility of this increasingly ambiguous honor:
She assumed the anchor position on the CBS Evening News on September 5, 2006, becoming the first woman to enter the ranks of the "Big Three" — solo weekday evening news anchor on one of the three traditional U.S. broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC).
Perhaps this will be easier to digest? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It's slightly better, but this is a tough one. It doesn't amend itself well to two sentences, and one would probably be hard for the newcomer to comprehend without reading at least twice. Aaron Bowen 22:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I tweaked it might be worse might be better, have a look feel free to change. Aaron Bowen 22:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The reason I split it into two parts, with the "Big Three" bit in the first part, is that all the other variations I've seen fail to make clear to anyone who doesn't already know this why the "solo-anchor" position on "the weekday evening news on one of the three traditional U.S. broadcast networks" is even important. To non-U.S.-newswatchers, this cumbersome string of qualifications has the sound of "fastest thirty-something Italian-American woman from New Jersey in the 100-meter race". "Big Three", in two words, makes clear that Couric is now one of the three most prominent people in U.S. TV news, by this traditional measurement. But obviously it's hard to be both clear and succinct on this point, especially given the 24x7, 500-channel-cable, Internet-permeated modern news landscape. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that's clear now, right? If you want to change it in any way go ahead. Aaron Bowen 14:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
the leas would have to be expanded if you were going to go for any kind of GA status or such. Also I could do without the caption under the pic. Aaron Bowen 14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
"Leas"? What do you mean? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wait. I bet you were going for "lead" (as in lead section) and missed the "d". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes I was going for leas... I mean leasd.. eh fuck it you know what I mean. :) Aaron Bowen 13:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

I have started converting bare external links in this article, and unnamed citations that merely include external links, into full, proper citations. There are two major reasons we use full citations, including authors, dates, works, access dates, etc.:

  1. Bare links frequently cease to work. When this happens, editors will try to find other sources for the same information. This is much easier to do if specific information, like article titles and dates, are provided, instead of often-cryptic URLs.
  2. Providing these citation details in the References (or equivalent) section not only follows standard publishing practice, but has an extra import for Wikipedia. We do not have an editorial board to oversee our article content. We are the editorial board. Readers should be able to see at a glance the source of the information in the article, to enable them to weigh its merit for themselves. Hiding such information behind bare links reduces this opportunity and makes bias easier to incorporate in articles.

I hope that regular editors of this article will help with this effort to restructure the citations to provide this clarity. See Wikipedia:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Citation templates for more information on how to accomplish this. I welcome any questions on my talk page, too. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay I personally hate the templates but since you're the first major contributor to the article in this regard, I'll follow whatever style you set. I was thinking of working on the article, and expanding it anyways. Do you have any other commentsaas to your plans? Aaron Bowen 13:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Rather

I removed gratuitous and polemical references to Dan Rather in the introduction, and replaced it with shorter and more neutral material. Couric is a hard enough subject for NPOV for many people, without adding Rather, who is catnip for many. If anyone thinks that the kinds of comments made about Rather are NPOV and genuinely encyclopedic, I suggest that the include the material on the Rather page and try to make the case there. That material is not relevant on the Couric page. Gogh 00:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sputum Story

Someone summarized the item that Couric had slapped one of her editors for using the word "sputum" in a story, and then cited the source as the Drudge Report. Actually Drudge was just summarizing a very small part of a much longer story printed in the New York Magazine. I changed the source to the original, and tried to give a little more of a balanced sense of the larger story. I kept the slapping story, through I think this is really less important than other things in the story that are not mentioned. Gogh 08:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that added what seemed to me to be gratuitous and unnecessary material on this sputum topic (asking why she doesn’t like the word, and drawing inferences about her journalistic ability from her dislike of the word). As I noted above I am not even sure that the sputum slapping incident is significant enough to be included here; I am sure that extended speculation and opining about it is not appropriate. I don't think that an encyclopedia is the place to just take pot shots at Couric.Gogh 17:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not going to make this edit, as I feel those that have been writing it should, but I just heard on CNN that the reason she didn't actually 'like' the word was because she mispronounced it on the air since she didn't know it. There isn't an irrational hatred for it or anything. Apparently, it wasn't in the earlier script she had, then it was there when she was live, and she mispronounced an unfamiliar word. It can cause some understandable aggravation. http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/offbeat/2007/07/09/moos.couric.slap.affl is the link to the video I was watching on CNN that talks about it. -Kraw Night 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the information from the Moos piece supplied by Kraw Night, since other editors were adding comments to the text that there was no reasonable explanation for why Couric responded as she did. I don't think I gave the citation in propoer wiki fashion - my intent was to make the link easily available, because it is not just support for the information provided, but gives a visual illustration of what the "slapping" looked like. If anyone wants to fix this please feel free to do so. Gogh 23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone has reverted the link to the Jeanne Moos videotaped segment that documents that claim that Couric was aggravated abou the word sputum because it was inserted at the last minute and led her to mispronounce it on air. The reason given for the reversion was that they could not make the video run on their version of FireFox. I was able to make it work easily today on the latest version of Firefox, so I re-reverted. Also, I provide here the link to the written transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/09/sitroom.03.html (scroll down to the end). I also provide some of the key text below:

"Couric got angry with news editor Jerry Cipriano for using a word she detested - 'sputum' - and the staff got tense when she began slapping him over and over and over again on the arm." Couric's spokesman disputes the over and over part. Tackled one blog, Katie Couric doesn't like "sputum." UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All it is is throat garbage. MOOS: It was a story about that tuberculosis patient. Katie's spokesman said she read the script beforehand but the word sputum was inserted afterwards and she mispronounced it sputum on the air, which explains why she was annoyed at the writer. "I sort of slapped him around. I got mad at him and said, you can't do this to me. You have to tell me when you're going to use a word like that. I was aggravated, there's no question about that."

Gogh 03:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cotton Business Broker?

Why can't we call the slavery business what it is? Capone 07:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News Reports CBS is Considering Firing Couric

I just removed th following sentence: "In the July 22, 2007 edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer reports are saying that CBS News is thinking about replacing Katie Couric after the 2008 Presidential Elections. However CBS has denied these reports." This seems to be non-encyclopedic on its face, even in a section labeled "controversies". I don't think you want to start listing every rumor about her that has been published in the newspapers. Obviously, if she is fired it would be noted here, or if anyone at CBS goes on the record saying they are thinking about. Unless and until, I would leave it out. Gogh 02:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The statement was attributed to a major media source. This is more than a rumor. Many references in Wikipedia are to articles in major news sources. 67.155.64.130 16:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that major newspapers can be appropriate sources for claims made here. The problem is that, in the current case, the newspaper does not document the claim, it simply reports the rumor (subsequently denies by authorities at CBS). Couric has had a very rocky year one at CBS, and that should be reflected here; but I do not see a reliable basis for the claim that CBS News is now planning on getting rid of her after next year. Gogh 04:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] south park

In a recent south park episode, a unit of measurement for excrement was named after her. Does this deserve a mention? I know it's silly, but south park is a very popular and influential show...--160.5.225.172 16:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be very appropriate on the South Park page, but unless it somehow influenced Katie Couric, it wouldn't be appropriate on this page. Arthurrh 18:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
righto--160.5.225.172 10:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What about a Couric (Unit of Measure) page specifically for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.175.218 (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

no, not notable enough. if you would do that, and still be consistent with notability standards, you would end up with hundreds of pages for individual south park jokes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.225.172 (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I vote for removal too. This says nothing about Ms Couric. It is just a random joke. Do people watch each episode so they can post the jokes on WP? Redddogg (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It was only a random joke until it actually started being used in the American vernacular! Look at the urban dictionary definitions. I hear the word wherever I go--whether at university or not. The word came from her name, therefore deserves to have mention in this article. Should the artificial heart not be mentioned in Robert Jarvik's page? I'm leaving it in until someone proves that the term couric is not used to measure feces.Mexicomida (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source. And, seriously? You hear people talking about the size of their feces everywhere? Seriously? It's a funny episode, but give me a break. AniMate 04:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The burdon of proof is on you to show that it has actually been used (by someone notable) as a measure of feces. I'd personally use plain old kilos if I were ever to measure feces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.225.170 (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)