Talk:Anna Coren

Anna Coren vs The Chaser's War on Everything

Anna has recently been one the main targets of The Chaser's War on Everything (including "Anna Coren's Segue of the Week" ).

• [1]
• [2]

Can someone include this in the main article?

--RobBrisbane 08:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Done... I also included a quote from Chris Taylor and the "Eulogy Song", as Chris Taylor is mentioned as the writer of the song in The Chaser's wikipedia page. This was changed to Andrew Hansen. Can we get a confirmation on who... Chris or Andrew... wrote the Eulogy Song?GrantGussie 08:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris Taylor wrote it, Andrew Hansen sang it. [3] However, I've removed the sentence as I don't think it's notable that she was the punchline of a song. The sentence that was there wasn't entirely accurate (it was an insult, not a "concession") and to fully explain it would take up a vastly disproportionate amount of the article. FiggyBee 20:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK... I know it was an insult rather than a concession. The inclusion oif the quote was a joke. I accept that its not appropriate for wikipedia. GrantGussie 20:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else who wants to put info about The Chaser's irrelevant and poor and feeble jokes onto pages like Anna Coren will be reported to a moderator for inappropriate editing (ie. as vandalism). This is completely irrelevant about Anna. Alltrainzfan 05:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It may not be to your taste, but it's not irrelevent and it's not unencyclopedic. And please don't make silly threats (apart from anything else, there are no moderators on Wikipedia). FiggyBee 10:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

They mean the same thing. How is it relevant? Prove the fact that her parodies are important about her personality. Alltrainzfan 11:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Her "personality"? This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. The Chaser's commentary is a significant part of her public profile. If I were interested in wikilawyering, I'd revert back ('cause you'll run into WP:3RR before I do), but I'd rather reach consensus on here first. Anyone? FiggyBee 12:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and please try to refrain from calling good-faith edits vandalism. It's insulting and unhelpful. FiggyBee 12:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the Chaser paragraph and undid its removal. The paragraph was in no way intended as vandalism, and I only wrote it because IT WAS REQUESTED. And despite the fact it contained a hidden joke, the original paragraph was completely factual, in that the quote from Chris Taylor was completely accurate in its letter. I resent the accusation of vandalism.

And the requested proof that the paragraph is relevant is easily provided. I am a Canadian, and only know of Anna Coren's existance because of The Chaser's War On Everything. Since The Chaser's War On Everything is about the ONLY international exposure that she has (lets face it, nobody outside of Australia watches Today Tonight), then it is obviously important to her public profile. So there. GrantGussie 20:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And seeing as you don't watch Anna Coren presenting Today Tonight, would you have a clue about her true-self? Alltrainzfan 04:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Errr... would you? Are you so completely naive as to believe that a newspresenter's on-screen persona represents her off-screen personality? Look... I have no reason to doubt that she is a perfectly lovely person. However, she is also getting regularly picked on by a comedy troupe that has a far larger international presence than she has, and therefore, whether she likes it or not, her international profile is growing because of it. You can say that the Chaser consists of a bunch of pricks and their jokes are abusive, poor, and feeble. One can hardly argue with that. But they also do what they do and have a lot of people watching them do it. My only point is that their antics are relevant to Anna Coren's career. Grant Gussie 18:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Anna Coren 2.jpg

Image:Anna Coren 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Performer"

I've removed the link to [4], and the copy-and-pasted text that was with it. The whole thing seems to be based on blogger Garth Montgomery's take on the word "performer". I think we need to see the original court argument, or at least some more sources commenting on the court argument (as opposed to commenting on Montgomery's article), before this can be put in a NPOV. FiggyBee 11:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Asian People in Australia

I would value some third-party input on whether what I have written is reasonable. The section was deleted in its entirety and I would like to find out if there is anything terribly unreasonable about it.

What I have added to the profile is:

During her tenure as host of Today Tonight, Coren presented a number of stories which addressed the subject of Asian people in Australia. An example of these stories related to concerns expressed by Coren and the Today Tonight team that immigration from Asian nations had come to exceed that from Europe and New Zealand. Coren and the Today Tonight team, employing a so-called 'Pavlova Test' in order to determine whether people of Asian descent deserve to live in Australia, edited out correct answers provided by two post-graduate students from Asia and instead focussed on their apparent lack of knowledge in relation to the questions of who Donald Bradman (a cricketer) was and what a pavlova (a dessert) happens to be. Reference was also made to the game of 'Spot the Australian', whereupon having a non-white face is considered to render someone incapable of being an Australian. There does not appear to be any evidence of Coren having apologised for the strong anti-Asian sentiments expressed during her tenure at Today Tonight.

I have removed the following sentence as I could not provide a citation for it:

In light of her anti-Asian stand whilst Coren was at Today Tonight, her acceptance of an Asian Television Award has been met with amusement within Australia.

I would value any critiques, including those relating to grammar, spelling and punctuation. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elskovspony (talk • contribs) 04:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~

Please read WP:BRD. It is excellent to start a talk section about contested content, but the model we try to follow is "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, restore and discuss". Since you have already provided a copy of the content for reference here, there was no need to restore the content to the article until consensus has been reached.

The article you are using as a reference quotes Bryan Seymour throughout. Although there is a picture of Anna, she is not actually mentioned there. This would be more appropriate (if at all) in the Wikipedia article covering that reporter or the show (if there is one).

A more-or-less detailed synopsis of one web page is not really enough to establish that this is a notable issue. Are there newspaper reports , questions in the Australian parliament, protests by Asian groups, statement by the broadcaster ...?

The final sentence "There does not appear..." is editorialising and would certainly not be acceptable as it stands. You would need a news report referring to "strong anti-Asian sentiments" or whatever as source.

The paragraph as it stands is two or three times the length of any other paragraph in the article. This would give the issue undue weight. --Mirokado (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This material sits very oddly in an article on Anna Coren. While she fronted the show, she was not responsible for editorial content. Coren is not even mentioned in the Media Watch article. If there is a place for this material, it would be Today Tonight#Criticism. WWGB (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)