Talk:Cristina Odone/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for Comment: Cristina Odone[edit]

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. [1] 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

  • Andrew Brown (1996-08-18). "After the apocalypse, enter Ms Jones". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)


New novel[edit]

Would it be worth mentioning that Cristina published another novel in February. It is called "The Dilemmas of Harriet Carew" and details are here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dilemmas-Harriet-Carew-Cristina-Odone/dp/0007263651

I can't do this myself, being her husband, but I think the page should be kept up to date

Edwardlucas (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


libellous allegation[edit]

I don't know who the person is who (anonymously and oh-so-bravely) has added the sentence that Cristina has been "widely accused" (when?) by (unnamed) "former colleagues" of anti-semitism and homophobia. It is totally untrue. In the mainstream media it would instantly attract a libel writ. I know I am biassed because I am her husband but I have removed it and I hope other users will agree that this is the right thing to do. Edwardlucas (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cristina_Odone/Archive_3&oldid=1136642370"