Talk:Cristina Odone

message: Enough reliable sources are covering Cristina Odone and her Wikipedia article that I think it's worthy of inclusion in the article itself. Not being a long-time editor of this article, I'm asking for other opinions. Here are just a few of the more mainstream mentions of the controversy:
* "When he fell out with Hari, Cohen found that a certain “David r” had tinkered nastily with his Wikipedia entry; the same happened to Cristina Odone when she questioned the reliability of young Johann’s journalism." —The Telegraph
*"Observer columist Nick Cohen and former New Statesman deputy editor Cristina Odone are among those who found their Wikipedia entries trashed by a user named "David r from Meth Productions" after disagreements with Hari, while Hari's own page remained spotless." —Huffington Post
* "Odone, who had criticized Hari's work at the New Statesmen, also found that her Wikipedia page contained allegations that she was 'homophobe' and an 'anti-Semite' and "such a disastrous journalist that the Catholic Herald had fired her," Cohen reported. He continued: "Her husband, Edward Lucas, went online to defend her reputation, but 'David r from Meth Productions' tried to stop him. Mr 'r' gave the same treatment to Francis Wheen, Andrew Roberts and Niall Ferguson after they had spats with Hari. It didn't stop there. Lucas noticed that anonymous editors had inserted Hari's views on a wide range of people and issues into the relevant Wikipedia pages, while Hari himself had a glowing Wikipedia profile -- until the scandal broke, that is -- much of it written by 'David r'." —Huffington Post
* "The latest allegations to surface in the past week relate to claims that Hari used a pseudonym to make unflattering edits to the Wikipedia entries for journalists including Nick Cohen, the Observer and Spectator columnist, and Daily Telegraph writer and novelist Cristina Odone." —The Guardian
First Light (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not significant enough for inclusion yet. When the person behind 'David r' is more decisively exposed, or admits to their behaviour, this might change. As it is, the inference that the individual responsible is Johann Hari gains a passing mention in that article in relation to his Indie suspension. Philip Cross (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the unlikely event anyone has mised it, Hari has now admitted to being 'David r'/'David Rose'. Philip Cross (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is also a sockpuppet investigation into other possible Hari accounts and IP addresses at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/David_r_from_meth_productions, including a recent account. First Light (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The last entry on the third archive page is from August 2009. Comments on talk pages are normally archived after a month or ninety days at most. I have taken the liberty of moving your comments; it is also usual to start sections on talk pages in chronological order. Philip Cross (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no policy on archiving discussions - those discussions form 2009 were pretty stale. If you want to revive them so they can be discussed again, you can. The Archive bot, which I added to this page, will automatically archive any discussion more than 180 days old. Anywhere from one month to six months is typical for the archive bots, depending on how many discussions are piling up. I would request that the discussion I began above be left for at least three months, since this page is otherwise empty, and because I think the issue needs some time to resolve itself. First Light (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks for moving it.  This discussion is now quite in focus - Apparently Private Eye ( British satirical mag ) has been discussing the issue of sockpuppetry by Hari in this regard  ( sadly I cancelled my sub 2 or 3 years ago).   This aspect is very much in the news at the moment - here's the links - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100098166/scandal-at-the-independent-perhaps-now-we-need-to-focus-on-the-people-who-protected-and-encouraged-hari/ ... thus my interest and why I feel that the archived discussion should be readily available. Actually by discussing this I've already brought it out, people just need a couple of additional keystrokes so my intent has been met.  Perhaps a more immediate pointer at the beginning of the discussion telling people that there is an archived discussion will help people in ascertaining the issues at hand ? Skthetwo (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Her Wikipedia article in the news 

message: I just noticed that the meat of the discussions are now really only available via the links Archive 1 and Archive 2 etc. this was NOT so just a week or so ago. I know archiving methodologies and this does not fit that. Maybe the contents of the archive deserve a wiki post in its own light ? 
Skthetwo (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The last entry on the third archive page is from August 2009. Comments on talk pages are normally archived after a month or ninety days at most. I have taken the liberty of moving your comments; it is also usual to start sections on talk pages in chronological order. Philip Cross (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no policy on archiving discussions - those discussions form 2009 were pretty stale. If you want to revive them so they can be discussed again, you can. The Archive bot, which I added to this page, will automatically archive any discussion more than 180 days old. Anywhere from one month to six months is typical for the archive bots, depending on how many discussions are piling up. I would request that the discussion I began above be left for at least three months, since this page is otherwise empty, and because I think the issue needs some time to resolve itself. First Light (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks for moving it.  This discussion is now quite in focus - Apparently Private Eye ( British satirical mag ) has been discussing the issue of sockpuppetry by Hari in this regard  ( sadly I cancelled my sub 2 or 3 years ago).   This aspect is very much in the news at the moment - here's the links - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100098166/scandal-at-the-independent-perhaps-now-we-need-to-focus-on-the-people-who-protected-and-encouraged-hari/ ... thus my interest and why I feel that the archived discussion should be readily available. Actually by discussing this I've already brought it out, people just need a couple of additional keystrokes so my intent has been met.  Perhaps a more immediate pointer at the beginning of the discussion telling people that there is an archived discussion will help people in ascertaining the issues at hand ? Skthetwo (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving policy 

message: Is it true that Odone has been mooted as a prospective tame female for the next available Conservative safe seat by Ian Smith and Nadine Dorries? Any links to her appointment at the New Statesman? 80.42.235.34 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:NOTAFORUM#FORUM. First Light (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Catholic Mafia in the Conservative Party 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cristina Odone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060514093405/http://www.davidrowan.com/2004/11/interview-cristina-odone-new-statesman.html to http://www.davidrowan.com/2004/11/interview-cristina-odone-new-statesman.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified