Talk:Giles Coren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Discussion[edit]

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)

From the article[edit]

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

"i just want to say that i never said anything of the sort about the fat duck or heston blumenthal, and have never heard of sporty thievz. do you think you could rub that stuff out? ta, giles and i have no idea what that `evil child' thing is about. i've never tried to kill a cat. nor has my old man written that i have. and the film programme is called 'movie lounge' not Film Review. and it's finished. and it's Gideon Garter not Carter. and i stopped doing that last year."

UK's Most Hated Man?[edit]

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)

Haha, you seriously don't believe that do you? Haha! beats tony blair by 11 thousand votes.. lulz. removed this two lines

  • He was voted "The UK's Most Hated Man" in both 2006 and 2007, beating out Tony Blair by 11,000 votes and being the only man to 'win' in two consecutive years.
  • He probably wrote this

still hilarious. Keep vandalising please! Neverender 899 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

well there are some anti-coren facebook groups, one with 1000s of members 82.20.226.161 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Prose vs bullet points[edit]

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)

Moving a note from an anon......[edit]

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.

{{Cleanup|article|date=June 2007}}

...i'll make the changes mentioned above pending sourcing.... Purples 11:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not gay[edit]

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) bren

My mistake - of course he cannot be gay - funny that him and his boyfriend snogging the face off each other in Vikkage Bar last week and signing autographs - yeah funny that (213.205.194.12 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC))

yeah, that's hilarious. yawn. evidence needed, you know the rules blahblax (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

fact remains the link was there for his article where he mentions it but it was continually removed so find it strange when someone asks for evidence/link then when there is one it gets removed duh! yawn indeed - suggests sleep?(212.22.3.8 (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

the only link that was on it was to his column and section in The Times. Nowhere here did it say he was gay - show us any link or evidence and it'll go back in!!! YOU added in stuff about him seeing Lee Dennison, a casting agent seemingly. You have added this onto about six different profiles and I pointed out all six on your talk page. Either you know this Lee Dennison or you are Lee Dennison. Either way you live in a fantasy land. blahblax (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Married to Sue Perkins?[edit]

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)

Subs complaint worth a mention?[edit]

His email complaining about subs is getting a lot of attention: in the Guardian [4] 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)

deffo agree, it should be valid as it shows the man as he is. 78.105.249.239 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Having a section with quotes that all originate in one email is pointless - there's not even a quote from any of his articles but there are these quotes from the emails. It looks stupid. I removed the quotes section and instead wrote a line about it in the 'Criticism' section, with the link there for anyone who wishes to read the emails. If you want to the expand on the issue, it should be under the criticism section and leave out the quotes. blahblax (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Poland, Jews, Holocaust[edit]

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)

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)

Please note that likewise, WP isn't a vehicle for flattery and one-sided accounts of a person's achievements alone. Controversy, criticism and and counter-thesis always have a place in WP, if accurately cited. The list of such people on WP is endless, check Robert Kilroy-Silk as one example: No direct comparison intended, is just an example of another WP entry with a comprehensive and well-cited section on controversy and criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mranistire (talkcontribs) 11:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Glad we can discuss this in a civilized manner. Point taken about recent events gaining priority. That said, this person seems to be going out of his way to gain notoriety and to my mind is more famous for his profane language than anything else he has ever done, and this controversy is going to stay with him his whole life. Please note that several other individuals on WP are more known for a single controversy than anything else they've done in their lives. So for what its worth, my view is that this article isn't weighted too far one way or another. Do we care that he got a first from Oxford? Not really, and I'd guess he put that (un-cited?) fact there himself. But let's keep that in, together with everything else.

Recent addition

I removed this extraordinarily irrelvent addition: The Polish people who lost their brothers and sisters in Auschwitz in 1940, and who are deeply angered by this controversy suggest Coren should listen closely to the words of a poet who says: "And whosoever shall be found / Without the Soul for getting down / Must stand and face the hounds of hell / And rot inside a corpses shell"

I don't think Coren himself has been implicated in the holocaust. Note also as an aside that many Germans died in Auschwitz, but this does not in itself absolve Germany of the sin of involvement. I'm not saying Poland was involved, just that you need a better argument. And not one posted on Giles Coren's page on Wikipedia. Richiau (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Richiau, how many ethnic Germans died in Auschwitz?--Jacurek (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Remember that many Gentile Poles also died at the German concentration camps, so the suggestion that Poles were in some way complicit with or responsible for the atrocities carried out by the hands of the Germans at such camps is very distressing and offensive to Poles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.227.50 (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Clean up Aug 08[edit]

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)

removing the neutrality dispute tag now - think its pretty NPOV blahblax (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war Jan 09[edit]

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)

Facebook[edit]

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)

Isn't it reasonable to include such URLs? No. See WP:External links. THF (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Polish official protest[edit]

Has Coren or his publisher reacted in any way? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Here it is.
Last week, in a piece about the persistence of far-right populist politicking in Central Europe, I wrote in passing that the Poles remain in denial about their responsibility for the Holocaust. How gratifying, then, to see so many letters in The Times in the subsequent days from Poles denying their responsibility for the Holocaust.
(I particularly enjoyed the one from Barbara Tuge-Erecinska, the Ambassador of the Republic of Poland to the United Kingdom. Do write again, ambassador, and this time tell us about the Kielce pogrom of 1946, 15 months after the war finished. Most of my readers probably don't know about the widespread killing, by Poles, only by Poles, not by anyone else, of Polish Jews returning from the camps after their liberation.)

Total ignorance. Not worth any comments:)--Jacurek (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. What really surprises me (per The Economist) is how The Times can allow such rubbish to be unanswered. Do we know if the Press Complaints Commission has taken any action? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The PCC could not do anything. They can only act if something is said against an individual or a racial group. Poles are neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.227.50 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

See also[edit]

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)

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)
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)

European Court of Human Rights[edit]

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)

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)

Here is the cite: See http://www.zpwb.org.uk/en/Current_Matters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.226.161 (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

A reference could be made to Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights - the press release is just background information. I've not checked out if ECHR has info on onging cases online - that may be relevant to add as a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.226.161 (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Press Release is obviously unsuitable, but it does refer to an Early Day Motion - perhaps Hansard, or some other parliamentary publication, would have something on this you could cite? Little grape (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

In answer to the above comment. It appears to me that the fact there seems to be no legal address against Coren's article is precisely the point here. What you refer to as "publicity stunts" to me are the normal mechanics of the legal and political processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.226.161 (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the European Court of Human Rights reference is 2921/09 for this case.

Cornish controversy[edit]

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.[1]
The article, typical of Coren's abrasive style, caused offence in Cornwall to Cornish people. "

Chumchum7 (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Would he like to know that the mainland area of Cornwall is consolidated from six local autority districts to just one? It means that New Forest (district) is equally entitled to it's own nationhood. So is Lambeth (borough). In English, we will call Cornwall a Super County. --Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Giles Coren, The Times, August 13th, ::::::::::::1999

Boozing[edit]

He seemed to get pissed in pretty much every one of the Supersizers programmes with Sue Perkins, and then there's this [5] 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)

  • To be fair, most of the periods of time in which they immerse themselves lack clean drinking water, making beer, wine, and such amongst the only viable choices. In most cases it is small (or weak) ale or watered down wine. As to his drinking habits outside the time machine, I've never dined with the man, but from his reviews he seems to enjoy drinking while going out. But who doesn't. And as for including it in the article, I see little relivance unless the fact is mentioned in outside sources.--Eion (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"Child abuse comment"[edit]

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)

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)

What's the objection to this?[edit]

They are engaged to be married on April 24, 2010[1] at the Anglican St. Bride's Church[2], known as "The Journalists’ Church"[3], on Fleet Street, London.

a confused newbie editrix, xx --SculleryWench (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a cite other than Twitter feeds? THF (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Let's all take another read of WP:No personal attacks. For the record, my response to this query about my "accusation", my "rudeness" and that I don't " seem to like Coren": I work to WP standards, not to some emotional agenda. I didn't make an accusation, I edited out what I said appeared to be an attempt at PR. It would have been rude of me not to have explained. Sorry, but a brand new one-issue editor adding diary entries about a personal event appears to be a clear case of self interest. The knowledge that a website will soon post the information reinforces the appearance of self-interest. I'm not convinced encyclopaedia readers really care about this information in the first place. Editors are meant to be vigilant about this, especially in biographical articles. It is most definitely worth referring to WP:COI in this case, which is why I put it onto the editor's talk page. Apologies if posting that rule upset you. Note the difference between appearance of impropriety and impropriety per se. But the WP:SELFPUBLISH rule is also connected to this. When this society event has become newsworthy, go ahead and add it. By the way, as far as I'm concerned you can delete the Mediawatch section: I did not add that, I edited for accuracy, and removed jargon such as 'Tweet'. I maintain Wikipedia considers it bad practice to use relatively recent jargon words like 'Twitter' and 'Google' too liberally, even if wikilinks help to explain the terms. By that token, we'd have an article on logical positivism with wikilinks but without an explanation of terms. Which really would be funny. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

References

  1. ^ [1]"getting married...on Aprl 24" 2:19 PM Nov 1st, 2009
  2. ^ [2]"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
  3. ^ [3]

Cumbrian controversy[edit]

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)

Anti-Polish?[edit]

Per WP:LEAD, it is not the case that the anti-Polish controversy in 2008 is the most famous thing that Coren has ever done. Three cites for this in the lead [6] looks like trying to make a point. He has caused controversy on a number of occasions, and the Polish controversy in 2008 is covered in depth later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately there looks like some POV pushing here. The Polish controversy in 2008 is not what Giles Coren is best known for. The edit history suggests some degree of obsession with this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've come in response to the 3O request. Although it looks like there's been some edit-warring, I can't see an active dispute on the talkpage. I'll be back with an opinion shortly, in any case. --FormerIP (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is an easy one to answer if an answer will solve it. Giles Coren is not "best known for his anti-Polish prejudice", and this should not be stated in the lead unless it can be backed up by a highly reliable source which says this is what he is best known for. No such source will be found.
Coren is best known within the UK and almost unheard-of elsewhere, as far as I am aware. In the UK, he is known as a food critic. If he once made the Danish press for being a dick, that does not change the situation. Compare the case of Louise Mensch, for example, who is not "best known for making false accusations against a former newspaper editor", even though that is the only reason the name might mean something to people who live in a country like Denmark.
On the other hand, the material in the body of the article looks OK to me. --FormerIP (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks like our friend is back again. Let's be clear about this, Coren is a UK journalist and food critic whose views have set off controversy on a number of occasions. Saying "he is known for anti-Polish prejudice" in the WP:LEAD is undue weight, and looks like trying to make a point, which is not what BLP articles are about.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Coren made the Polish press for being a polonophobe. This is his only claim to (in)fame in Poland. Thus, in the context of Poland and the Polish diaspora, the statement that Giles Coren is "best known for his anti-Polish prejudice" is correct. 81.96.62.131 (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Television credits[edit]

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)

"Incorrect" super-injunction?[edit]

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)

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)
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)
The injunction that caused the problem for Giles Coren on Twitter was definitely TSE [7], but he uses only the word "injunction" to describe it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
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)

His latest controversy about Portuguese food[edit]

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)

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.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There is cover of the "incident", but it's mostly in Portuguese. That's why I found his wiki page. The article in English is from an English language paper over news in Portugal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.187.28 (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Giles Coren. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Now it's Plymouth's turn[edit]

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)

More Twitter Controversy & Anti-Polish activies[edit]

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)


External links modified[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 23:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

@John from Idegon: 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)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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)