Talk:Michael Coren

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

Political controversies[edit]

This section seems to be a random assortment of quotations without any explanations as to why they qualify as "political controversies," or even sources that describe them as that. Several references in that section link to dead pages and, despite my best efforts, I could not find alternative sources. I honestly don't see what this section adds to the article, at least with the examples it currently uses. POV writing at its finest. I'm going to go read up on when content should be removed...but any thoughts? Mkubica (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add to this, I argue that this section makes a number of exceptional claims that "require exceptional sources." The linked template specifically mentions "controversial" claims made by people, so the very claim that these are 'political controversies' seems to subject them to this policy. Mkubica (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Mkubica. There are major problems with this article. Considering this is a biography of a living person, we should be extra careful not to violate the NOR policy. I've deleted one part of the "Controversies" section from his 1993 book that was clearly satirical in nature and doesn't agree with numerous other statements he has made, but I believe a lot more work needs to be done. Selectively placing out of context or unreliable quotes appears to be original research, particularly if there never was any controversy in the first place. I'd caution anyone from editing this page to try to stay neutral on the subject, especially since Coren himself has seen numerous inaccuracies on this page in the past [1]. --MikeMan67 (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good ideas, Mkubica & MikeMan67. Below are the topics I've addressed just now. Mebden (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotation about AIDS, rather than being evidence of “political controversy”, is veiled praise undermining the neutral POV. I visited the 1994 source and found the quotation’s context, which actually represents the "controversy". I've also reorganized the material in this theme for coherence. (However, looking over the last 10-15 years of Wikipedia edits on this page, it seems that the AIDS thread in this Wikipedia page is among the most frequently revised! An example of a sticky point is that Coren wrote on his blog[1] a statement which has since been removed: “the majority of sufferers in North America contracted the disease through perverse sex”.[2] With a paucity of surviving references, it's difficult to avoid the temptation to tussle over blog scraps.)
  • There are several dead links, as mentioned above. I've cleaned these up.
  • I removed the vague reference to calling protesters mentally handicapped. The source is a video that no longer works. I tried on two computers but the archiver of the video seems to have failed in this case, because there is a misleading request to update my Flash player (and both of my computers are up to date).

References

  1. ^ http://michaelcoren.com
  2. ^ Emily Dee (August 25, 2010). "Is Stephen Harper Now Sensitive to Accusations of Fascism?".

Attack edits[edit]

It seems there are a lot of edits recently from people who don't like Michael Coren. In fact from three editors whose only edits have been to this article. I would remind everyone of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC) I did'nt realize that telling the truth constituted an anti-Michael Coren POV. The way the article read before it could have doubled as his official website and was incredibly pro-Michael Coren, not neutral in any way. However I am content to leave it alone since that's what you want. I removed this:[reply]

Michael Coren wrote "The gene for Downs Syndrome was discovered by a man who thought it would help us prepare for Downs Syndrome babies and improve their lives." There is no gene for Down's Syndrome, or at least none which has been identified to date. It's caused by an extra chromosome and he misspelled Down's Syndrome.

Not being technically accurate about the biology, or indeed phrasing it in terms his audience might understand is hardly a major error, especially when the exact nature of the genetic cause is irrelevant to the point he is trying to make. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Michael Coren is refering to Jerome Lejeune he did'nt discover a gene for Down's Syndrome and he was interested in finding a cure, not a method of prenatl screening. (unsigned contribution by User:Hegemonycricket)
It's not Wikipedia's job to prove that Coren was wrong. If you can find a reliable source that says he was wrong then we can quote them. Please read Wikipedia:No original research for a fuller explanation of this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed some of the statements about babies in Norway. The reference for "James Dobson appears to be the source of this false statistic" doesn't refute the claim; it refutes the claim that '80% of babies are born out of wedlock', when the claim actually is '80% of first-born babies are born out of wedlock'. There is no reference for the claim that Coren's statistic is false. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statstic regarding the births of first born children out of wedlock in Norway, according to the Norwegians, is 64.7%. The Evangelical Humanist Thursday June 16, 2005 How Michael Coren Thinks Part II http://evangelicalhumanist.com/2005/06/how-michael-coren-thinks-part-ii.html The 80% statistic was also exposed as false when the US Congress was debating the marriage amendment. (unsigned by User:Hegemonycricket)

"The two sources given by Michael Coren may not exist". This sentence was added, but doesn't explain which two sources we are talking about, or what evidence there was that they may not exist. I'll leave it for now, but it will have to come out unless explained and referenced. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources given by Michael Coren are The Evolution and Structure of the Nazi Party and Cambridge History of the Second World War for his assertiion that more than 20% of the membership of the Nazi Party were homosexuals. I requested both books on interlibrary loans through the main branch of my public library and I was informed that no library in Canada or the United States has either book. I was also told they could'nt find either on any database. Why don't you try? I thought The Pink Swastika was relevant because it promulgates the same holocaust revisionism. (unsigned by User:Hegemonycricket)

I've removed the reference to The Pink Swastika since it doesn't seem to be relevant. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reference for the Norwegian statistics, blogs are not generally considered reliable references on Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) I already knew that, but as I said the 80% statistic was exposed as false during Congressional debates on the marriage amendment. Besides Norway does'nt have gay marriage. I did not mean to cause any trouble for you or wikipedia. Hegemonycricket (talk)hegemonycricketHegemonycricket (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Diaries[edit]

Several of the quotes about Coren's views come from "The Frank Diaries of Michael Coren". It turns out that these were satirical articles published in Frank. I don't think we need to take them as accurate reflections of his view. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cloak and Dagger article published in the Ryerson Review of Journalism quotes Michael Coren several times from Frank magazine. (unsigned contribution by User:Hegemonycricket)
That's true, but it doesn't mean we can just lift the quotes without thought. If they were written in a humour magazine it makes a big difference from if they were written seriously. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

User:Hegemonycricket: Please have a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:References. Any statement added to an article must be supported by reliable references. Look at the article above for what we mean by 'reliable'.

Please don't put things like "my library hasn't been able to find them" in articles. Statements like that go on talk pages while we try to find out if there are references to back things up. We don't know if 'your library' is a local branch library (in which case the statement is hardly surprising) or the Library of Congress. Please also explain which references you are talking about. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hegemony, if you are going to put in a quote, please put in the entire quote, since the remainder changes the perspective a lot. You should also be careful since you most recent one is from an article which itself is taking Coren quotes out of context. The quote turns out to be originally from a humour magazine (again) so it shouldn't be used as an indication of Coren's real views on spirituality. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Coren's two sources are "The Evolution and Structure of the Nazi Party" and "Cambridge History of the Second World War" for his assertion that over 20% of the Nazi Party membership were homosexuals. These two books may not exist. I requested them on an interlibrary loan and was told that no library in Canada or the United States has them. They did'nt come up on any database. Who is Michael Coren talking about on the subject of Down's Syndrome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hegemonycricket (talk • contribs) 15:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hegemony. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please sign any contributions you put on talk pages by putting four tildes after them lime this ~~~~. They will be converted to your username, date and time.
Please have a look at Wikipedia:No original research. In other words, if you think that Coren may have been wrong about something you have to find a reliable source that thinks that and then use them as a reference. In the meantime, is this the first book, perhaps? [2]
Has it also occurred to you to examine your own logic? The quote about "intolerant evangelicals" is taken from a period in which he himself was an evangelical. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure about this. When Michael Coren was profiled on Credo he said that his initial conversion to Roman Catholicism did'nt last long, and that he converted to an institution rather than a religion. I think his Terry Winter conversion was around 1994, three years after he made that statement about evangelical Christians, but even if he had already been an evangelical Christian so what? He still said it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hegemonycricket (talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC) I don't see anything about Michael Coren's Terry Winter conversion in the Cloak and Dagger article so I have to assume that he became an evangelical Christian after 1994. Regardless since you don't like my contributions I will make no further changes to the article Hegemonycricket (talk)hegemonycricketHegemonycricket (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you have not edited any article except this one. Can I suggest you try spending some time editing an article you don't feel so strongly about. This will give you a feel for how Wikipedia works, and maybe you can come back with a new perspective. Your contributions are welcome as long as you stick within the principles of Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, yes I was wrong about the conversion to evangelicalism. I read "in the 1990s" as "in 1990". DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of article errors from a National Post blog[edit]

A "My Toronto" blog item in the National Post website, apparently by Michael Coren [3] claims certain elements of this Wikipedia article are/were in error. Some evaluation of that blog is needed, to determine whether that feature of the National Post is WP:RS or not. Meanwhile, I corrected the lede to conform to his CFRB bio (Toronto residence rather than Oshawa, four children) and removed the unsourced claim of his wife's occupation. However, the article material needs a more thorough review and more eyeballs than what I can provide at the moment. Dl2000 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corens Jewishness[edit]

Coren has never been jewish so despite the penchant for roman catholics to relish in defections from judaism he never was as jewishness eminates from the mothers side —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.130.56 (talk) 06:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Post blog[edit]

I was just checking and the Ryerson Review Of Journalism Spring 1994 article Cloak and Dagger by Christopher Ovsenny http://www.rrj.ca/issue/1994/spring/187/ , which is one of the sources for the Wikipedia article, states that "Coren crossed the ocean to live in Oshawa" and that his wife Bernadette is a philosophy teacher at Humber College. This information was deleted from the article because Michael Coren objected to it, but he was interviewed for the Ryerson article. Is'nt it possible that the information is just out of date? If this is the case Coren should have said so. I agree that the article should be made as accurate as is possible, but is it really appropriate to have it rewritten by someone taking direction from Michael Coren from a National Post blog? It seems to me that the effect is the same as if Michael Coren were writing his own Wikipedia article, since he stated that he had already requested that Wikipedia make these exact changes, and I must assume that Wikipedia had already declined. Also if the Ryerson article is inaccurate why is'nt Coren complaining about it and asking that it either be removed or changed as well? It is obviously posted on line. Also it is my understanding that a blog cannot be used as a source for a Wikipedia article and yet the person who made these changes used a blog as his source that the information was false.

Old Talk Page Entries[edit]

I'm sorry, but this talk page was a disgrace - if anyone wants to categorise these old entries, feel free; but they were all over the place (including above the talk page's header) and needed somewhere to go. I don't think the page is long enough that it needs to be archived. Mkubica (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a shame. So much good information on coren has gone missing through political editing of his page. Shame on you.65.92.68.40 (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The version of Coren's departure from CFRB now in the article is tilted way too much in the "pro-Coren" direction. Can we have both sides please in an objective manner?Homey 00:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been proven that CFRB recieved 1,000 e-mails in support of Coren...the only source for this is Coren himself..

Stop deleting my addition regarding Coren's claim that the United States is the greatest provider per-capita of foreign aid...he simply is not telling the truth...and there is a link to his website on the bottom of the page where you can find this for yourself.

I have deleted the sentence: "In an article entitled "God Bless America" Michael Coren falsely claims that the United States is the leader in donation of foreign aid per capita." Smokie81 31 December 2005

Why? Is this incorrect?Homey 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinserted the sentence: "In an article entitled "God Bless America" Michael Coren falsely claims that the United States is the leader in donation of foreign aid per capita."

It would help if you could include a source for the US not being the leader in foreign aid per capita. Homey 00:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I have deleted the sentence "In an article entitled "God Bless America" Michael Coren falsely claims that the United States is the leader in donation of foreign aid per capita." My reason for doing this is because the author of the sentence does not cite any sources that shows that Coren's assertion is false. Smokie81 07 Jan. 06

Take a look at the figures here: [4]. It shows total assistance, not assistance per capita, but it's obvious that the U.S.'s foreign aid per capita is dwarfed by (for example) Norway's. --Lanius 10:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could include a source for the US not being the leader in foreign aid per capita. Homey 00:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I have deleted the sentence "In an article entitled "God Bless America" Michael Coren falsely claims that the United States is the leader in donation of foreign aid per capita." My reason for doing this is because the author of the sentence does not cite any sources that shows that Coren's assertion is false. Smokie81 07 Jan. 06

Take a look at the figures here: [5]. It shows total assistance, not assistance per capita, but it's obvious that the U.S.'s foreign aid per capita is dwarfed by (for example) Norway's. --Lanius 10:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link supporting Coren's equating of homosexuality with bestiality and necrophilia. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2007/05/22/4199026-sun.html. I can't find links supporting some of the other assertions in the article (e.g. the Tom Cruise statement, comparing Paul Martin to Hitler, etc.).

It's not valid to get from that quote an "equating" of homosexuality with bestiality or necrophilia. All he says is that they were all considered wrong by 1st Century Judaism (undeniably true). That's not saying they are "equal". DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC) I did'nt write that. Somebody else added the link above regarding bestiality and necrophilia.Hegemonycricket (talk)hegemonycricketHegemonycricket (talk)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Coren. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Coren&oldid=1217139127"