Talk:Giles Coren

message: This article was proposed for deletion January 2005.  The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Giles Coren.  Joyous 17:47, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
I read a couple of news articles about Coren winning the Bad Sex award; I hadn't heard of him before. Basically, from the quotation that he used, I figured he had to be the worst writer of all time, or someone with a profoundly weird sense of humor. I visited this article to try to find out more, but I can't find anything to answer my question: was his book ACTUALLY bad, or INTENTIONALLY bad? This makes a big difference in the conception of the author (the difference between being a hack and being a witty humorist and cunning linguist), so IMO some examples, or at least descriptions, of his fiction writing should be provided. --IQpierce 9:19 CST, Dec 3, 2005
Just FYI - I believe the Bad Sex award is usually bestowed on books that are otherwise of fairly solid literary quality, but have awkward/bizarre/horrible descriptions of sex. It's not a literary equivalent to the Razzies. NickBurns 16:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Removed from the article and copied here for reference, comments purporting to be from the subject himself: Badgerpatrol 03:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From the article

message: I can't find any reference to there being such a poll. In any case it needs references if it is true. Segat1 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK's Most Hated Man? 

message: I have done my utmost to de-shoddify poor old Giles' page, but I have to say it was clearly much better in continuous prose, which was how I originally wrote it. It looks like a shopping list now. In fact, I found this so annoying I may have been forced to make some stuff up. Is there any way the old page can be resurrected, and the new info added in? Cheers.
Erich von falkenhayn 12:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose vs bullet points 

message: here's a note that was on the article page;
giles coren here. listen, i don't want to sign up and have no idea how one goes about changing entries. but there's so much wrong stuff here, and it keeps appearing in pieces about me in the papers by lazy arse teenage work exp hacks who think everything on here is true. 
i've never written comedy for radio ro anything else, never met punt and dennis or guy debord.
i've never acted in anything and wasn;t in this cushing film.
i've never heard of paul london or eaten or reviewed his tacos.
i'm not a fan of harrogate town. didn't even know they had a football team.
it's not like it's important, but you might as well change it if you can. it's flattering in a way that some loon keeps putting wrong things up about me.
 
...i'll make the changes mentioned above pending sourcing.... Purples 11:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving a note from an anon...... 

message: Guys, there is no evidence that he is gay - i can't find that article anywhere where he allegedly says it and there is no other online evidence. In fact, if you read his articles they really come across as not gay since he uses the term gay pejoratively all the time AND  and in at least one he referred to a girlfriend, and in another that he wasn't gay:
girlfriend reference [last july]: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/giles_coren/article2072582.ece
not gay reference: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1147-2306867,00.html
89.100.205.6 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  He's not gay 

message: I think not. 
Matthew, London E6
::It seems very unlikely: while Google brings up lots of joint references to the two because of TV programmes they've hosted together, there's nothing to suggest they're married. And the Wikipedia page on Sue Perkins says she's a lesbian. So I've reverted the edit. Barnabypage (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Married to Sue Perkins?  

message: His email complaining about subs is getting a lot of attention: in the Guardian  and there's a thread on Guido's blog. Because of the Gruniad's coverage I wondered if it was worth a mention - it certainly shines a light on the man himself. If you agree please add the edit. Mimi (yack) 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subs complaint worth a mention? 

message: This article is not about Poland, Jews or the Holocaust. Its about Giles Coren. Can we stay on topic please. I edited that section again - it now states what he said, and what the response was. I think that is enough - if people want to read about the events in question, they can read the relevant articles. blahblax (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There seems to be a single Polish user who is bent on making this the main theme of the article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and a recent controversy now takes up most of the article. The same individual even included links to a petition condemning Coren, giving a whole new meaning to WP:POV. JdeJ (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with what you say and I don't defend Coren in any way. However, there's always the risk of giving undue weight to recent events. This is what Coren has been in the news for most recently and of course it should be mentioned, but I don't think it should be the major part of the article.JdeJ (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Richiau, how many ethnic Germans died in Auschwitz?--Jacurek (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no such thing as an "ethnic German". Hundreds of thousands of German nationals died, however. This is not relevant to Giles Coren. Richiau (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is such a thing as an ethnic German, just as there are ethnic Italians, Greeks, Arabs, Japanese, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.203.96 (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, regardless of the Coren vs. the Poles controversy, I think we're wandering slightly off the point - the daft addition of Michael Jackson's "Thriller" lyrics adds nothing to this article. Absurdtrousers (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland, Jews, Holocaust 

message: Article is finally looking well, i removed the bullet points and replaced with prose. and tidyied up the criticism section which was too split up i felt. Reads far better now. Nothing removed from the criticism section, just so you know. blahblax (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up Aug 08 

message: Article has returned to a state of edit war. Critic(s) of Coren, especially those involved with the Polish controversy, continue to add heavy criticism, and push POV. Likewise, defender(s) of Coren continue to add heavy praise for him and have even deleted perfectly reasonable citations from credible sources. Wikipedia code of conduct encourages as much citation as possible - it is vandalism to remove it. I found the article in a state biased in favour of the subject. It has been extremely anti-subject and off-subject in the past. Lets try to keep some balance and accuracy here. Wikipedia is neither a hate forum nor a PR outlet.Globestrobe (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war Jan 09 

message: Why have the URLs to the Facebook group page and online petition against Coren been removed?
Isn't it reasonable to include such URLs?
It's up to the reader to decided whether or not they agree with the content of a (external to Wikipedia) URL.
82.20.227.11 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook 

message: The See also section looks like a real WP:COATRACK.  Not clear that any of these links to articles and forks really belong here.  What do others think? THF (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the links are useful to people who would like to research the topic of "Polish protest" etc. However now looks like there is too many of them so I will go ahead and remove some of the links. Thanks.--Jacurek (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather incorporate those links into the article, they are indeed out of place in the see also. Plus, see also is simply bad style, discouraged by MoS.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  04:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: The Federation of Poles in Great Britain are now pursuing this matter in the European Court of Human Rights, as the UK is failing to protect the Polish ethnic minority from such offensive comments.
Can someome add this to the page? If I try to amend this page, my edits usually get deleted!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.226.161 (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite, please.  Sounds frivolous and non-notable unless the ECHR acts, in which case it will be an interesting free speech issue. THF (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: A cite that isn't a press release, please. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board. THF (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The early day motion is already in the article, and even that is a questionable decision.  These sort of pro forma protest gestures are publicity stunts and aren't notable unless there is a chance of legal consequence. THF (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Court of Human Rights 

message: Until we have some examples of people expressing offence in Cornwall, there's no way we can seriously say there was/is a controversy. The editor's assertion that "Coren's abrasive style, caused offence" is 100% POV -  
::::::::"On August 13th, 1999, Coren wrote in The Times.  
::::::::::::I hate the Cornish. I hate their poxy language which they make such a fuss 
::::::::::::about. I hate their fancy foreign food - like clotted cream - which makes the 
::::::::::::place stink, and I hate their fatuous demands to be treated as a nation.Giles Coren, The Times, August 13th, ::::::::::::1999 
::::::::::::The article, typical of Coren's abrasive style, caused offence in Cornwall to Cornish people. "
Chumchum7 (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cornish controversy

message: He seemed to get pissed in pretty much every one of the Supersizers programmes with Sue Perkins, and then there's this  recent food review from The Times (though I use the phrase "food review" very loosely).  Should this get a mention in the article? 86.133.54.189 (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boozing 

message: Since no one thinks Coren's joke meant that he was actually planning on raping and murdering his neighbor, references to "child abuse" and "child rape" violate NPOV.  And it's far from clear that the event in question is even encyclopedically notable. THF (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediawatch is a serious institution and made a serious point about a serious subject that Coren referred to in public. Am pretty sure that is encyclopaedic. I can agree that "child abuse" in the subheading is as misleading as "Twitter" is. Am happy to meet you half way with "Mediawatch controversy" or similar, but I think you'd agree the word "tweet" isn't really encyclopaedic either. Similarly, I don't think WP refers to 'Googling' or 'Facebook poking' either... Tks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Child abuse comment" 

message: They are engaged to be married on April 24, 2010"getting married...on Aprl 24" 2:19 PM Nov 1st, 2009 at the Anglican St. Bride's Church"Hmmm. Am now being followed by @stbrideschurch where i'm getting married in April. May stop swearing or mentioning sex. for a bit." 6:15 AM Oct 27th, 2009, known as "The Journalists’ Church", on Fleet Street, London.
:::::a confused newbie editrix, xx --SculleryWench (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a cite other than Twitter feeds? THF (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: well, it should appear here in a little bit: http://www.stbrides.com/services/index.htm as all weddings are publicly announced. SculleryWench (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, we prefer secondary sources. A way to avoid editing controversies is to restrict ourselves to what reliable sources have written about the subject, rather than to perform original research and mine twitter feeds and primary sources for a story. What you added was likely accurate, but best to wait until there's a formal wedding announcement in the newspapers. THF (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, but was the other editor questioning the authenticity of the twitter accounts? otherwise, what's with the "PR" accusation? they're not selling anything... SculleryWench (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That editor doesn't seem to like Coren very much. He or she was not supposed to be so rude to you.  I don't agree with his reasoning, but don't disagree that the material wasn't Wikipedia-appropriate as sourced.  The second time he removed it, he did cite the WP:SELFPUBLISH rule.  THF (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

text: All brand new editors are going to be one-issue editors where their first edit is concerned, and it hardly assumes good faith that an edit adding information was self-promotional -- that would imply that no new editor could edit an article about a living person or active organization or current event.  Perhaps SculleryWench is Giles Coren's sister, but it's more likely she's a fan who saw that she knew more about the subject than a birds-eye-view article did. THF (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the objection to this? 

message: There is nothing currently in the article about his statement about the Cumbrian mass murderer. He "tweeted" that he should read a copy of his new book "Beginner's Guide to Anger Management", but them he "re-tweeted" and posted an apology. A quick "google" will find relevant press articles to quote as sources for this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.69.98.206 (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cumbrian controversy 

message: Someone might like to use Coren's British Film Institute filmography to expand/source the section on his television work. ← Randomnonsense   talk 22:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television credits 

message: The article contains the following:  "anonymised privacy injunction (often incorrectly described as a super-injunction)".  There's no immediate source for this, and indeed Coren's tweet made no attempt to characterise what type of injunction it may have been, so it seems at best tangential.  Is a real distinction being made here (and if so, is it being made correctly?), or is someone just being sniffy about informal terminology?  84.203.32.213 (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "superinjunction" was coined by Alan Rusbridger to describe the Trafigura situation, where the media could not mention even the existence of the injunction. Subsequently, the media used the term to describe injunctions that could be mentioned, such as the ones involving footballers. TSE is what the law buffs prefer to call an anonymised privacy injunction, since its existence can be mentioned (it is on BAILII here). The report here makes a distinction between superinjunctions and anonymised injunctions.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the gist of what I'd surmised.  But which was Coren actually referring to?  Not only is there no citation for this, Coren's comment makes no reference to it, or indeed any real identifying information, so I have no idea as to how one would ever provide one.  And does not making the distinction rise to the level of "incorrectness"?  All in all, this seems like a fruitless digression from the narrative of the article.  84.203.32.213 (talk) 06:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The injunction that caused the problem for Giles Coren on Twitter was definitely TSE , but he uses only the word "injunction" to describe it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, gotcha, the Telegraph articles establishes the connected, after the fact.  Sorry, paying insufficient attention.  I think your last edit addresses my concerns about the "tangent" -- thank you.  84.203.32.213 (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Incorrect" super-injunction? 

message: Do not forget to add his latest controversy about Portuguese food. Aparently his article in The Times, in which he bashed Portuguese food by saying "it's the worst in the world, Polish and Irish food does not count" provoked thousands of messages being directed at him from angry Portuguese.
What's the problem with this chap? Does he have a serious addiction to nicotine, and is trying to quit smoking? Usually this kind of big/bad mouth attitude is typpical of someone who is trying to quit a very bad smoking addiction, and is craving for cigarrettes. LOOOOL  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.193.10 (talk) 00:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems to say this sort of thing to cause controversy. However, a web search of Google News does not show up any major coverage of this incident, so it would have problems with WP:WEIGHT. There is some coverage here. Coren seems to think that it is amusing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  His latest controversy about Portuguese food 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Giles Coren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080518005309/http://www.channel4.com:80/food/on-tv/f-word/series-1/q-and-a-giles-coren_p_1.html to http://www.channel4.com/food/on-tv/f-word/series-1/q-and-a-giles-coren_p_1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Giles 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100116104919/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/standard/article-23794706-giles-corens-twitter-tirade-at-neighbours-boy-for-playing-drum-kit.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23794706-giles-corens-twitter-tirade-at-neighbours-boy-for-playing-drum-kit.do
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) 23:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For a scathing review by Giles Coren. People should realise by now that he does this sort of thing to stir up a controversy, so it isn't notable enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now it's Plymouth's turn 

message: It seems he was caught creating a second Twitter account, pretending to Polish, just to shower himself in anti-Jewish remarks. https://www.indy100.com/article/giles-coren-twitter-alternative-account-pavel-pilnik-jonathan-nunn-wife-antisemitism-8703366 Definitely worthy of the controversies section, as this reaffirms his past behavior & fixation on demonizing "Pollacks".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C801:9FA0:65A5:48BD:696C:335B (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Twitter Controversy & Anti-Polish activies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Giles 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120716134323/http://thejc.thejc.com/articles/coren-launches-his-own-assault-poland to http://thejc.thejc.com/articles/coren-launches-his-own-assault-poland
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) 23:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I reverted your reversion of the IP editor since the content was sourced to tabloid journalism which should not be used for a BLP. It also seems UNDUE/NOTNEWs given that this was at-the-time(tweet) reporting - but the sourcing quality was sufficiently alarming for me to revert on those grounds. Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Re: this edit: it was reverted because Coren discusses his Jewishness/Jewish family background in the sourcing. This edit was also reverted because it is sourced material. Obviously the user name  is interesting, because it suggests that Coren himself may have made the edits. This leads to a problem with WP:USERNAME unless the person actually is Giles Coren. I'm not particularly interested in whether any of this material is true or false, but it cannot be removed because of an "I don't like it" reaction to the sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Re this edit: I reverted because of a strong suspicion that WP:SOCK and WP:AUTO have become involved. The rule is one person, one account. Please don't use multiple accounts to make the same edits. And the WP:USERNAME  is once again problematic because it is unlikely that a satanic version of the leader of the Labour Party made these edits. Here is what WP:AUTOPROB says: "If Wikipedia has an article about you, we want it to be accurate, fair, balanced and neutral – to accurately reflect the sourced, cited opinions of reliable sources. If you believe reliable sources exist which will make the article more balanced, you can help by pointing other editors to such sources. You may wish to make suggestions on the article's talk page or, if the problem is clear-cut and uncontroversial, you may wish to edit the page yourself. If your edit may be misinterpreted, you should explain it on the talk page. Note that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it. Your edits are more likely to be accepted if they are neutral and well-sourced to third parties." This wouldn't be the first time that someone had tried to edit their own Wikipedia article, but this is discouraged unless the edits are obvious vandalism or potentially libellous.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

text: I didn't file with checkuser, but given that the two users made exactly the same edits, there was a strong suspicion. I had hoped that one of them might turn up on the talk page to explain their concerns, but the edits have not been made since.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2019 

message: Given there is a certain user who claims to be the subject of the page and keeps trying to edit it should this page be locked? 83.218.151.178 (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at the moment, because the disruptive editing is sporadic rather than continuous. *If* the subject of the article isn't happy with some of the things in it, see WP:AUTOPROB.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock The Page? 

message: Can we add something about the time he alleged Michael White had behaved inappropriatly and threatened to beat him up?
Sources:
* https://twnews.co.uk/gb-news/the-times-giles-coren-hits-below-the-belt-in-a-twitter-spat-with-the-guardian-s-michael-white
* https://www.anorak.co.uk/452723/celebrities/the-times-giles-coren-hits-below-the-belt-in-a-twitter-spat-with-the-guardians-michael-white.html
* https://mediadiversified.org/2018/11/27/the-columnist-class-egos-and-accountability/
* https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2020/06/so-farewell-then-giles-coren.html
* https://london.eater.com/2019/12/24/21036358/best-tweets-decade-london-restaurant-food-writers
Thanks 80.47.137.128 (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this because it looks like typical Coren trolling, and has obvious WP:BLP issues. If you look at the sources above, they are not blue chip and are simply repeating something that Coren said in a tweet, leading to WP:SPS issues as well.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. Eater is under the Vox media umbrella and is an award winning website having been recognised four times by the John Beard Foundation Awards. Media Diversified is a UK-based nonprofit media and advocacy organisation for writers and journalists of colour. Zelo street has been used as a source in other wikipedia articles. What's your definition of a "blue chip" source and can you point me to the wikipedia guidelines that state only "blue chip" sources are permitted? Can you also quote which part of WP:SPS you believe is relevant here, since the page already contains a section under controversies which are based on tweets made by the page subject. Thanks 80.47.137.128 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though Giles Coren is famous, saying something like "X is a kiddie fiddler" in a tweet is potentially libellous unless there is very serious evidence to back it up. It is an interesting example of the sort of thing that Coren does on social media when he gets into a feud with someone, but it isn't suitable for Wikipedia to repeat this allegation. By "blue chip sourcing", I mean things like BBC News and broadsheet newspapers. This helps to establish notability. As Eric Schmidt said recently, "The context of social networks serving as amplifiers for idiots and crazy people is not what we intended." People often say whatever they like on social media, which is why caution is needed--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, can you expand on why you specifically think the sources mentioned are not reliable beyond "they're not the BBC News or a broadsheet newspaper". 80.47.137.128 (talk) 10:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DUE is involved here, because most of the sources above are not anything like blue chip (personal blogs etc). It's unlikely that major media sources like the BBC would want to inflate a social media feud in which Coren makes a potentially libellous allegation as part of his trolling against people that he has fallen out with online. TBH, I'd never heard of this until it was mentioned yesterday. It appears that Coren may have deleted the tweet with the specific allegation as none of the sources has a screenshot of it. This leads to problems with proving that it happened. I think we should let sleeping dogs lie here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please can you clearly explain why each source is not reliable other than stating "they're not blue chip". Currently it sounds like you're saying "they're not reliable because they're not reliable". Thanks 80.47.137.128 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could go through Coren's tweets from around September 2018, but if he did say this it may have been deleted since then. This isn't surprising because it had potential libel issues if he did say it. Without better sourcing it really isn't worth inflating this to the point where it would draw attention to something that major news outlets never reported.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please explain why you don't think the sources are reliable. I've had to ask you on multiple occasions about this and you're getting into WP:Stonewalling terrority with your refusal to engage with this discussion. 80.47.137.128 (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to go into a detailed rebuttal of the sourcing because the real issue here is WP:LIBEL. It appears that Coren may have got into a spat with someone on Twitter, accused him of being a kiddie fiddler, then deleted the tweet. The question is whether Wikipedia should repeat this claim, and it should not because it would only be drawing further attention to it and creating legal problems. This is why the edits were removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LIBEL does not cover "a person made these tweets which may be libelous". If the edit repeated the claim as fact then it would be covered by WP:LIBEL. Your position seems to be "if someone makes a statement which may be libelous then you can not say they made that statement due to [[WP:LIBEL]". See the Laurence Fox article for an example of potentially libelous tweets made by the subject being included in the subject's page.  80.47.137.128 (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael White 

message: Under "Personal Life", it states that "Walker's sister is married to the presenter David Mitchell", Walker being his wife. The link to David Mitchell is not to a specific individual and it seems odd, as his sister is also married to a David Mitchell, that this is the case. It may be true of course and, in this case,  I think a link to the specific individual is required here. The reference is to a video that is no longer available.
Dartiss (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Does he really have 2 brothers-in-law with the same name?

message: As I have not checked in here for ages, before going WP:BOLD by restoring the content - and as a courtesy - I'm going to ask the remover for the rationale as to why the well-documented abuse by this person of his work colleagues at The Times has been removed. It is prominently referred to here  and in many other places. User:Ianmacm and I have discussed whether Giles Coren is managing his own Wikipedia article for reputation management purposes. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of embarrassing criticism sourced to our high quality secondary sources

message: Apparently this lovely person also started the false and disgusting rumour that William cheated on Kate with Rose Hanbury? I read this but would need someone to verify... 173.35.240.92 (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All depends on whether these  are WP:RS. Comments please. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Started cheating rumour about William and Kate? 

message: : I realize that one of Coren's articles set off fauxrage, but social media kerfuffles do not merit mention in an encyclopedia article unless independent, reliable sources give it enough significant coverage to make it important. Do you have any reliable sources that address the issue of that article? Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daughter article