Talk:Cristina Odone/Archive 2

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)

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 [1]. 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)

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)

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)