Talk:Michael Coren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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)


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)

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)

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: [1]. 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)

I've re-added the following, which was deleted earlier this month:

Coren was dismissed by CFRB as a result of complaints arising from comments ridiculing the weight of an apparent guest. In fact, the guest was an actor and the segment was scripted. According to CFRB's Operations Manager, Steve Kowch, "Pat Holiday, our general manager and myself went through the tape of Monday night's show and were shocked....it was totally out of bounds." Coren argues that it was a satire comparing in his mind public attitude to third world starvation with North America's obsession with slimming and self-indulgence.

I can't honestly see anything contentious about this. A quick search of "Michael Coren fired" on Yahoo yields pages and pages of links attesting to this exact story. -- Matty j 03:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

He's baaack..... CFRB, September 10 2006.... Bacl-presby 19:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Attack edits

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Frank Diaries

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)

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)

[edit] References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)