Talk:Vancouver Courier

Assessment
Rated it as stub so far, perhaps for good. Newspaper is not delivered to Strathcona neighbourhood, and possibly other areas of Vancouver (Source: Circulation Manager and much frustration about not getting it), so I changed the blurb about it being delivered to every household in city.--Keefer4 04:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Raised to start class.  PK  T (alk)  16:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Position
Does the Courier have a position? If so, discuss? Mkdw talk 03:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It used to be that the Vancouver Echo was the local lefty rag in East Van and the Courier was its right-wing counter part. Since these papers merged, the Courier has become far more lefty. That said, like a lot of Vancouver media, they seem to see themselves more strongly in the role as a "Fourth Estate" than positional along left/right lines. bobanny 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Douchebaggery
I noticed that the CBC posted an article on Wikipedia today, I, editor:The Wikpedia Experiment. It made me wonder if Arr matey got his story on the VancouverProject published in the Courier, so I searched their website and found this article dissing Wikipedia for its entry on the paper. After searching the edit history, it looks like they completely fabricated what the article said, perhaps to be ironic or something, so I added it to the article. I know it's original research, but in the spirit of WP:IAR I thought it would be a good addition here. These news articles questioning the accuracy of Wikipedia always miss the point that there's a transparency here that doesn't exist with the media. Basically we're expected to trust them to use reliable sources and get the facts straight, whereas here, we can follow disputes on talk pages, demand sources, and trace edit histories, and there's absolutely no requirement to take someone's word for anything. I'm curious to see what Arr Matey's take is. bobanny 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As am I. The reason I've got this article watchlisted is the mention on the Courier site you point out; I searched through to see if I could find the article that was being produced, and tried going through some paper copies as well, but never turned anything up. I was approached by the writer as well, but didn't have the time to do so. I'm quite interested in the results. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The above quote is not from a news article at all, but a humorous bi-weekly column called Kudos & Kvetches. If you read the "article" it is actually painfully obvious to anyone with 5th grade education that they are kidding. So while it is true that no such edit was made on Wikipedia, its seems more than a little unfair (if not down right dishonest) to imply the Courier was fabricating news. Do you take the cartoons literally too? The preceeding unsigned comment was left by User_talk:207.81.154.120
 * The article that Arr matey wrote will be published in the Vancouver Courier this Wednesday (May 30). While I would not like to think the above comment was not made by someone linked to the company, its IP Trace makes it an extremely likely candidate. Whoever this person is, it has been noted that the attack statements, non NPOV statements and unencyclopedic content recently added in numerous edits will not be tolerated as per Wikipedia policy. I need not remind again that Wikipedia has a remain civil motto to all its interactions and a civilized process can be accomplished. It is obvious that personal bias on both sides have escalated the simple process of discussion. Please, with my deepest wishes, let's talk about this in a manor becoming of adults. Mkdw talk 08:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The style of the misquote is curiously very similar to the courier's cartoonist, Geoff Olsen, who also happens to be the paper's editor, so I take the editorials and cartoons with the same grains of salt. Whether it was intended to be read as a joke or not is besides the point; it was a swipe at Wikipedia and it fabricated a quote in doing so. I do have a 5th grade education, btw, and I see nothing to indicate it was an obvious joke. 'Kudos and kvetches' may be trivial fluff with a humourous bent, but it still reports actual news items, such as the Essjay controversy. Was that a joke too? Ummm... no. Also, most newspaper articles on Wikipedia quote vandal edits to raise the issue of reliability. Arr matey wrote that Wikpedia's Vancouver entry once read "Vancouver is sucky." It was funny, yes, but did he make it up for a humourous effect? No, someone really wrote that. Anyways, I'm not suggesting that Jimbo sic his high-priced lawyers on the Courier; anyone with a kindergarten education, or a PhD, can see that mentioning this in this article is a light-hearted tit-for-tat. On another note, Arr Matey's article was very positive. Probably a good thing he didn't talk to me >:=) bobanny 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Potvin
I added Potvin to the article as one of the columnists for the Courier and in so doing saw that there's been some serious WP:BLP issues with his article. I'm posting this here to encourage people to watchlist his article to keep potentially libelous edits out once protection is lifted. Thanks. bobanny 00:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Potvin, he was fired from the Courier. CyclingFriedmanite (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VCourier.JPG
Image:VCourier.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 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 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VCourier2.jpg
Image:VCourier2.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 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 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vancouver Courier Logo.gif
Image:Vancouver Courier Logo.gif 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)