Talk:Terence Corcoran

Notability

This was a red link on the National Post page, so I added some starter text. Terence Corcoran is pretty well known in Canada, the editor of the Financial Post is a prestigious position. I'm not familiar with the specific rules of Wikipedia and not sure why this has been tagged. Feel free to delete if somehow this runs counter to the rules. I was trying to contribute a bit.

Vinnydelnegro 03:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I found about 150 columns or articles in Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand that were written or co-written by or which mention Corcoran, but none of them give much detail about him other than he is an editor for the Financial Post. I think it's probably ok to delete this article. If we had flagged revisions, my opinion might be different. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of newspaper political blog as a source

This source is a political blog from a free newspaper in Vancouver, Canada. Wikipedia does allow the use of newspaper blogs as sources. In this case, however, I'm not sure if it should be the only source used to label the political ideology of the article's subject, because of BLP rules. Other opinions welcome. Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, you state that Corcoran writes from a "Conservative/liberterian" viewpoint. I carefully read the opinion piece in the blog that you referenced, and it did state twice that Corcoran has a liberterian viewpoint, but does not state anywhere that he is "conservative." Am I missing something? Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

1. "...right-wing National Post columnist Terence Corcoran..." [1]
2. "...Enthused right-wing ideologue Terrence Corcoran..." [2]

...and many more. His conservatism is so obvious I'm surprised you feel it needs citing at all, apart from which most libertarians are from the Right. ► RATEL ◄ 07:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

For an exact use of "conservative" rather than right wing, you could use "And now some conservative commentators are levelling the same charge at Harper. "Conservatism is dying in Canada," Terence Corcoran wrote in the National Post ..." [3] Maybe I'll use that one. ► RATEL ◄ 07:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Even better, Corcoran has had a go at defining what his sort of Conservatism stands for [4]. ► RATEL ◄ 07:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a small request: please put this sort of question on the article's talk page. My personal Talk page is not the place. ► RATEL ◄ 07:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ratel, we have to be very careful when putting information like that in a BLP. You did not source your statement that he was conservative. Of the four additional sources you list above, I believe only one of them is valid. I don't think the socialist website is reliable, and the Toronto Star talks about conservatism, but doesn't say that Corcoran is conservative. The Macleans piece may be ok. If you use it I suggest attributing it and we'll take it from there. Cla68 (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

hack

Wherein do we add the fact that Terry is a hack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.204.179 (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Needs updating

This is out of date. He has not been comment editor since he resigned from that position in a dispute with Postmedia management just before the last election. Derek Pyne2 (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The Google-fu is strong in this one, and I could not find a single judicial ruling from 2020

Here's the offending passage, as now clarified and flagged:

The National Post appealed the ruling. It was overturned in 2017 on the basis that the original trial judge was in error having taken a "combined approach" to the four articles by three different authors, noting that "there was no case made at the trial of a conspiracy or concerted action by the authors". And again overturned in 2020.^{[dubious – discuss][citation needed]} A new trial date is to be set.^{[citation needed]}

I spent a good ten minutes doing a variety of focused, date-windowed searches for any judicial ruling associated with Corcoran or Weaver over the past two years, and I couldn't find any shred of support for the "again in 2020" claim.

Nor could I find any evidence that a new trial date is being actively pursued. I would infer from what I failed to find that Weaver has quietly dropped the matter, though I wouldn't put a high degree of certainty on that inference. At this point, does a mere $50,000 award justify all this extra hassle and expense? Especially after the point has been made that the original claims were at least close enough to the edge to win over the first judge?

On a larger note, if the legal bar for the prosecution is prove conspiracy among disparate actors who really are coordinating their attack, implicitly or explicitly behind the scenes, then liability law in this venue is rendered toothless.

So my wife is busy in the kitchen and I see her plunk an unopened wine bottle on the countertop half an hour before dinner. I'm already groping around drawer for a spoon or fork to gobble down my late-afternoon leftovers, the corkscrew is right at hand, so I dig it out on the way by and plop it beside the wine bottle, expecting that my wife will find it handy sometime soon.

Did we actively collude in our unspoken coordination? Judges everywhere want to know. — MaxEnt 17:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)