Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:France 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

France 24

[edit]

"The French government hopes that such a channel will be able to counter the Anglophone sphere of influence with the BBC, CNN, Sky News and VOA, which grew in importance with the Iraq war as America & Britain were on the allied side."

This sounds like anybody else, including France and my own country, Canada, were on the 'other' side, whatever that really means. It really must be reworded somehow. --RobNS 20:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The re-word it rather than just gripe. 81.151.33.75 09:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"The Daily Telegraph claimed on 16 March 2006 that only 4 hours per day will be broadcast in French, with the rest broadcast in English."

This is wrong. There will be two channels, one entirely in French and one in English with four hours of French. The journalist how wrote the article in The Daily Telegraph has clearly been confused. 80.202.239.135 14:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be incorrect but it is simply quoting the press (which isn't always correct naturally). Perhaps it should be italicised or put in quotes, I'm not familiar with such style guidelines so I'll leave it to somebody else.
Why on earth would an encyclopedia want to quote a random newsbite? Especially if it's not correct... Wijnand 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we rely on sources to write our articles... --Delirium 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sources who are contradicted by dozens of other sources. I was shocked when I read this Telegraph article by the ignorance of the journalist. Apparently, he was just looking for a cheap shot against the French. --Aquarelle 07:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delirium: Note the word random in my question. :) Also, to me, using sources means you write a readable piece of text and add a reference to (or just mention) your source, it does not mean adding a separate heading for it, which suggests it would be more than just your source, but instead would be a shocking event that has been in the news, which is interesting in and of itself. Anyway. -- Wijnand 10:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official Website

[edit]

I have corrected the offical website to france24.com rather than france24.fr. You will see that france24.fr redirects to france24.com anyway so there shouldn't be any disputes. I also removed the 'French' sign next to it. The final website will be in English as well. --Mgill 08:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV5MONDE vs France 24

[edit]

Apart from the language, what's the difference? Aren't they both available through sattelite? Maybe such a clarification should be added. --Michkalas 15:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, and really, I don't know that much about it, one (France 24) is a news channel, the other a French-language channel with broad programming. Wijnand 16:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be like comparing CBS to CNN. --Bob 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. I was trying to figure out what's new about France 24, because the media presented the first French satellite channel, with global reach and so on. It seems that the really new think is the use of English language -and, of course, that it is a news only channel. Thank you for the clarifications. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michkalas (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The difference is that TV5Monde has been founded and is financed by the Francophonie international organization (the french speaking equivalent of the Commonwealth). While France24 is strictly french. --90.30.131.119 16:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One major difference is that TV5 Monde is only an aggregation of French language programmes already broadcast in their country of origin by a state-funded channel. These include news, TV series, TV features, etc. TV5 Monde does not produce its programmes, it "re=broadcasts" others'. France 24 produces its programmes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.239.198 (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

I have protected the page due to the edit war that was raging here. Please discuss what needs to be done with the article here, not on dozens of user talk pages. Kusma (討論) 09:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the article content. For editor behavior, please see also WP:DR. Kusma (討論) 09:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have unprotected the page, since Universalgenius is blocked as a troll sock. Sorry for the inconvenience, Kusma (討論) 13:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if someone could add that to the page

[edit]
Wikinews has related news:

thx Divol 10:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qu'est-ce que vous voulez qu'on ajoute ? --Aquarelle 10:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. El_C 10:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please add this link to the article's "External links" section:

Please add these links to the article's "See also" section:


Please sign your posts.. Also, please state your reasons for adding this. Do these articles link to France 24? That would be a good reason, but I don't believe they do. And why add this reference to an Al Jazeera article? I propose that we don't add that link, as we're not trying to create a repository of news items, but an encyclopedia and I don't see what that news article could add that this encyclopedia article can't state on its own. -- Wijnand 12:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will not sign my posts; I want to be as anonymous as possible. You shouldn't care who says it but rather pay attention to what is said. I know that you can still find the IP this was posted with if you look for it, but whatever.
It is misguided to request reasons for adding this info. The rationale behind any good edit should be obvious (and if it's not obvious then it's either not a good edit, or the reader is not paying attention). But anyway, here are some reasons:
Reason for adding the Al Jazeera English news item under "External links":
If a direct competitor to FRANCE 24 covers the station's launch, that tells us something.
Reason for adding the links to the "See also" section:
These are FRANCE 24's direct competitors (though I will admit that Euronews, which is not really a global channel and available in 6 languages or so, is a borderline case).
Let me rephrase my earlier comments. I think that either all articles about these competitors should list all their competitors or none should. So either we go around and add these links to all of these articles, or we don't do it for any of them. About the Al Jazeera article: it seems to me a straightforward summary of press releases (as is also suggested at the bottom of that page that you cite) and does not add anything to an encyclopedia article.
You should sign your posts at the very LEAST so that we can make out who said what: if everyone just added text without adding a signature, it would become a mess. And finally, if everything anyone wants to add to a page was as intuitively obvious as you claim, then what was that whole edit war that was going on here all about? -- Wijnand 13:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the article content

[edit]

As suggested by Kusma before, here's my take on the current revision of the page: As I understand the long-term goals aren't quite the way they are stated here. The problem isn't so much the fact that CNN and BBC World are anglophone, but that they don't emphasize cultural aspects/differences enough. Also, I don't like the choice of the word counter. My suggestion: "The French government hopes that France 24 will be able to provide a different view on the world news than BBC World and CNN International,..."

About the info block: there are three satellites listed, but as I recall, there are six; three that carry only the English language channel, and three that carry both the English and the French language channel. Sadly, I don't know the names of the satellites. And finally, about the Trivia: the name is simply France Vingt-Quatre and not France Twenty Four; the trivia seem to suggest that's odd when the program is English-spoken. I propose we remove the trivia and instead mention that the correct way to pronounce the name is in French at the top of the article. -- Wijnand 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your idea about the way to pronounce the name. But be careful when you speak of an "English Channel" - this 2nd channel broadcasts in English and French, and will soon include Arabic and Spanish.
As for the purpose of France 24 - it's President Chirac's project from 2003 when he felt that the news coverage of the Iraq situation was deeply biased in favour of England and the US (the proponents of the war). He is not hoping that France 24 can provide a different view, he knows it will. His goal is that it will become a significant source of world news, and that the French perspective (which highlights debate, discussion, dialogue, contradiction) will become well known.
I should specify that France 24 is not uniquely President Chirac's project - it has been and idea that has been tossed about in France since the early 80's (I believe) - in 2003 he decided that it was time to make the project a reality and went about trying to find support and money. Obviously, he was successful. --Aquarelle 11:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't it prime minister Chirac who proposed it in the 80's? I must admit I'm not entirely up to speed on my French history but I seem to recall something like that. Also, the word culture (note that I didn't say French culture per se) has been used a lot to describe the goals and aspirations of this channel, so somehow it should be in the article. -- Wijnand 11:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it was Prime Minister Chirac who proposed the idea in the late 80's. --Aquarelle 15:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Website problems

[edit]

It should be noted that the France 24 website does not work (the video feed that is) in Firefox. Quite an oversight on their part.

Works just fine for me in Firefox, Internet explorer and Safari. I think they have a wonderful website. Better than CNN and CBS with their obnoxious adds and broken video links. Try updating your software before blaming others. --172.185.171.81 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works fine for me too. I was even able to embed it in my blog [1] something I can't do for Al Jazeera, for example. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 23:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French government-funded

[edit]

Is it only funded by the French government? I'm pretty sure I've just seen ads on France 24.

Obviously they're picking up money off of the ads then. But there is some sort of agreement that they may only be international ads, as not to interfere with advertising on TF1 and France Télévisions. But yeah, those are ads you're seeing, but since this is the first fiscal year, we don't know how much they've made from them yet. --172.185.171.81 20:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the first user (please, sign your comments!) is right, not because the France 24 has ads, but because the channel is funded also by TF1, a private, albeit French, company. I believe it is unfair to mention only the French government. --Michkalas 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not funded by TF1, nor France Télévisions for that matter - just owned (50% by each). If you find a source that says otherwise, please post it here. As for now, the only funding figures that we have are what the French government has allocated, and for the moment, that is vast majority of the money they have since the government also gave them money to build their new building, buy their cameras, servers, et cetera. I think we should keep that particular phrase in the article the way it is until we get new information. --Aquarelle 07:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hadn't found anything, but it seems obvious that, when a company owns another company, it has put some money, even if this later company is -heavily- subsidized by the state. But, in the end, there is something I found: in World news to get a French flavour, BBC News, 6.12.06, it includes a phrase "with the French state funding most of the channel". So it is most of the money, not all, that come from the state. Anyway, I have no deeper involvement with the subject than reading some articles like that at BBC. It seems, though, a little bit unfair for France 24 to state in the very first sentence that it is funded by the French government. This is the same as to say indirectly that they are a French government sockpuppet. Of course, this is not completely untrue, but it is also true for the relationship of BBC World, Al-Jazeera International, teleSUR, EuroNews (all entirely or heavily funded by one or more states, but not mentioned in the first sentence of the article) or CNN International (though privately owned) with their respective governments. So, at least, we should be precise about who gives France 24 the money.--Michkalas 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"So, at least, we should be precise about who gives France 24 the money." Not without accurate information we shouldn't. I perhaps agree with your idea that me shouldn't mention in the first paragraph that France 24 is government-funded, but state funds do not make it partial. In fact, many people consider government funding to be a fundamental trait of neutrality, considering that the government funding is certain, that flexibility is given to the agency, and also keeping in mind the large amounts of bias - albeit a different sort of bias, must more deep-rooted and inconspicuous - that private, large parent companies exact over their subsidies. And lastly, you are incorrect in saying that because a company owns another it must fund it ; and again, this is not the case here (unless I'm very mistaken). --Aquarelle 22:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe tha tstate funds make it partial or that private funds are better. On the contrary. But you can mention state funding in a way to undermine its credibility in comparison with its competitors. What is more, if we don't have enough information, why the article mentions only the French government funding? Anyway, maybe you could also provide a source. Mine is nothing else than the news articles from BBC News, Al-Jazeera and APF mentioned in the article itself and in Wikinews. Is there any extra source?--Michkalas 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your reply exactly. Which source are you looking for? I also don't understand what you want the article to mention about state funding - if anything at all. Please clarify. --Aquarelle 23:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean you didn't mention any source for your claim. I believe all sources of funding should be mentioned or we have to have a source claiming only the French government provides funding. In the first lines we could mention only were its base is (as in the other international channels) and the languages it broadcasts in. The rest of the information is for the "Corporate structure" section. --Michkalas 23:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the sources on this article are not cited well enough. Let's both try to find some references and post them back here, okay ? The part about the French government funding is obvious. However, I dont think that we can read too deeply into the BBC's use of the word "mostly" in their article regarding the French budget. They were probably just covering their bases by leaving a little bit of room for advertising and donations. --Aquarelle 23:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about stating that it is an "independent government funded channel"? or anything that can make clear that it is not a "voice of America" like channel ?90.30.135.63 18:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with CNN budget

[edit]

"The network has a budget of 86m euros (£58m) a year. That compares with 900m euros for CNN." France launches world TV channel, BBC News, 6.10.2006. Maybe it is important to make the comparison to show if the annual budget of France 24 is a lot of money for this purpose or not.--Michkalas 22:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be the first time that Auntie (the BBC) made a mistake, espcially in their pithy criticisms of all things French. I have other sources that show the CNN budget at €600 million per annum. But in any case, the CNN budget doesn't need to be shown here, even if it were 2 trillion. Please don't add it anymore - it just begs for misinterpretation --Aquarelle 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know it is the French side which makes the comparison, to show how harsh the competition is and how few their resources. Anyway, all this article is based on BBC, Al-Jazeera and APF articles. Is there a source estimating "the CNN budget at €600 million per annum"? --Michkalas 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the AFP source saying CNN's budget is €900 ? But either way, I'm not going to debate because I reject it's importance to the article. If you have a lot of information on the subject, maybe you could create some sort of comparative article on international media. --Aquarelle 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claimed that AFP says CNN's budget is €900. The only point I made is that BBC News and news sites are the only sources for the article on France 24. So either we say BBC is unreliable on French issues or we consider it a source generally credible unless we have a concrete objection based on some other source. So is there any source claiming that CNN's budget is €600? If there is one it's OK to mention the corrected budget. But if there isn't, on what basis can we doubt the number?--Michkalas 23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not giving any energy to this debate. It's not relevant to the article. Please refer to my past post. --Aquarelle 23:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, while I still don't think we should add the comparison figures to CNN, here is a link from France2 with lots of information. [2] Looks like you were right after all about CNN's budget - my previous reference also came from France2, but it was a dated article produced 10 days before this one I just posted. --Aquarelle 00:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it would be useful to stress that despite this budget, France24 relies on an important logistic. The AFP agency, RFI, France Ô, 2,3,4,5, Arte, Doc en stock... 90.30.135.63 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compatibility

[edit]

We frequently state the type of file or format of external links. For example the templates {{fr icon}} or {{PDF}} are frequently employed. Te fact that this website is not fully compatible with all browsers is just as relevant. Please cite sources that state that it isnt relevant before deleting. Also, please see WP:OWN as it seems as though this may become an issue here. --Bob 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This website is not a PDF file. Please don't ask me to site an anti-relevance source, as we both know that this is ridiculous - the burden of proof is on the person making the affirmation, not the one disputing it. Thanks for your link to WP:OWN, but you are mistaken to consider multiple edits by one user of the same article as a sort of ownership or protectionist issue. --Aquarelle 23:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, if you are referring to problems with Firefox as mentioned above, in my Firefox everything works fine. So maybe browser is not the problem. Anyway, it doesn't make sense to ask a source for these kind of claims, for or against your opinion.--Michkalas 23:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://france24.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/web-launch-a-success/ is a source.
http://blog.netvibes.com/fr/index.php/2006/12/07/10-regardez-france24-en-direct-sur-netvibes#c is another
http://blogs.sun.com/dom/entry/welcome_france_24 another
yet another --Bob 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't even sources, but comments made by anybody (you?). --Aquarelle 06:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It proves that there are compatibility problems. The fact that you have to have a Windows Media Player compatible player to watch the feeds points to initial user problems. the fact that you don't seem to accept these with grace leads me to believe that you are for pushing a POV despite evidence to the contrary. There are hundreds of posts like these throughout the web, just climd down off that high horse and accept that many people are having problems because their website is not fully compatible. I suppose you will discount this as well. They state WMP, which is not functional on all systems, nor is there always a compatible substitute. --Bob 07:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't even sources, but comments made by anybody (you?). --Aquarelle 08:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get off your high horse and cease being a dick I guess you think that I wrote this as well! The next time you make an accusation, show proof. --Bob 15:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but your constant insults are becoming quite displeasing and inappropriate. If you had the intelligence to argue properly you wouldn't need to drop to such reprehensible ad hominem attacks. And now, as if bloggers weren't unreliable enough, you want us to start using comments posted at the end of blogs as sources ! I'm suprised I even have to explain this one to you, Bob. --Aquarelle 23:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the people who made the site don't know what they are talking about? Is that what you are saying? The fact that many people are having difficulties accessing the site isn't notable? Quel con!. --Bob 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, Bob, you're beginning to get the drift. Blog-watchers are not a citable source. Tu devrais essayer de trouver des meilleures insultes, peut-être un peu plus originales... --Aquarelle 00:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not even accepting www.france24.com as a source. Note that it isn't a blog, but the official website of the channel. --Bob 00:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which France 24 source are you talking about ? --Aquarelle 00:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this one. --Bob 00:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And where does it say on this page that the France 24 site is available to a limited number of mise-à-jour browsers ? It doesn't. --Aquarelle 00:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I state that that was the case? I merely stated that it is not compatible with all browsers, which is the case. Quite simple. --Bob 00:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're talking in circles. Please state clearly what your point is in citing this article. You are wasting my time. --Aquarelle 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What article? It is the help page from france24 that states quite clearly that it is not set up for all browsers and that the video feeds are for WMP compatible players. If you find this hard to understand, take a moment and digest, then come back. --Bob 00:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have a very good level of French comprehension if you think that is what the page says. It's normal that WMP files need to be played by WMP. I don't see where your difficulties are. --Aquarelle 00:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My French is perfect. Read the page, then whine because your argument has been shot down in flames. Please explain to me wheer it states that it is fully compatible with all browsers and that video feeds can be viewed with all players. If you cannot show me exactly where it states this, then your argument is dead in the water and what I previously stated, that their website is not compatible with all browsers, is true. --Bob 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"My French is perfect" Haha, just like your English, right ? Nobody does anything perfectly, and even Chirac's French is not perfect. You know something else ? My argument isn't shot down in flames just because you say it is, you actually have to show that it is. Please refer to burden of proof. Basically, if you wan't to add something new to this article, it isn't my job to refute it but yours to prove it. What the website does say is it lists all the browsers for which the site was designed. Next, it mentions that its videos are in WMP format. What the website does not say is that it is only available to a limited number of browsers, and that it's videos will be difficult to play without having special, rare, expensive software. I think we can agree that Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Netscape, and Safari are the 5 most common browsers, so in my opinion, France 24 is doing pretty well. --Aquarelle 08:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not compatible with all browsers, fact. The video feeds are not compatible with all media players, fact. If you are unable to understand this then it is your problem, not ours. Also, those that berrate the grammar of others on a website (and boasts of his prowess in correcting grammar and spelling) really should get out more.... (especially when said person makes simple mistakes himself)--Bob 08:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's compatible with the top 5 browsers and both OS's (Windows and Mac), so if you add your little tag to the link again I'm going to revert it. End of discussion. --Aquarelle 09:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can add that it also works in Linux (tested with Firefox and Opera). It works from smartphones (tested with iPhone or Android 2.0+). It works in media players (tested with Windows Media Player, WinAmp, VLC Media Player, RealOne Player, QuickTime). It works on HDTV with a builtin Internet connection (tested in Samsung and Philips)... What else ??? The France24 site uses widely impelmented STANDARD since its origin, and even offers you the way to change some codec settings if you need. There's no scrambling. France 24 is available on all IPTV offers thanks to this openness and adoption of feeds encoded with MPEG2, MPEG4, H.264.
Given that these are standard codecs, you can choose the player you want. If it does not work for you, the most probable reason is that your PC installation is completely broken. NO MODIFICATION of Windows or MacOSX or Linux or any additional software is needed. Just use the media player that comes from out of the boc with the OS, it works. So fix your PC by reinstalling your standard codecs (and avoid playing with unsupported free "codec packs" found from random unsupported sources, and that include various "tweaks" only meant for specific bogous hardwares or to by pass some DRM protection). France24 includes *no* DRM protection.
What is true it that it still does not support the proprietary Flash Video format (due to its expensive licencing), but if Flash had been used, you would not be able to view it in iPhones. France24 plays very well as well on Apple iPhones and iPads.
The France24.com page clearly says that videos are officially designed to be compatible with:
  • On PC/Windows: IE 6.0+, Firefox 1.0+, Netscape 7.0+, Opera 8.0+ (no problem at all with all other browsers that are emulating at least one of these : works for IE7, IE8, IE9, Firefox 2, Chrome 3, Chrome 4, Opera 9...)
  • On Mac OS: Safari 1.3+, Firefox 1.0+, Netscape 7.0+
  • On various desktop gadgets/widgets (from various authors, you have the choice).
  • On all mobile operators in the world (if you can't on your operator, there's a link to contact France 24 and find an arrangement with your operator).
  • On Satellite, the only place in the world where you still cannot receive France 24 is Western part of Alaska, and in Far Eastern Russia near Bering detroit, because there's no good coverage of this area by commercial direct TV satellites. (But in Alaska at least, you should be able to view it by your local cable company, or from the Internet ; I have no idea about Internet coverage in Far Eastern Russia and in Kouryles Islands, may be there could be some coverage later by a Japanese, Russian or Chinese satellite).
  • Whatever your operator, France24 should be bundled in the basic TV package of your mobile phone operator or DSL provider, or cable/satelite provider without additional subscription (France24 already pays internationally for all licencing rights related to its broadcasted contents, anywhere in the world, but not all three language channels may be available; at least the channels in French and English should be available everywhere, the more recent 24/24 Arabic channel progressing now as well). verdy_p (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles from the international press

[edit]

We can choose some material from the following articles to expand the article or we can use them as references to statements already included. Most are from prestigious medias with their own correspondent in Paris.

In French:

--Michkalas 12:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the high and mighty Aquarelle, those are not sources because he has not found them. They are no more or less reliable than the sites I posted above. --Bob 15:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Bob, I counsel you to follow the example of Michkalas - a user who actually knows how to write articles. There is a big difference between enraged blog-followers with outdated software and too much time on their hands and professional journalists (although the journalists aren't always right, either). Do us all a favour, Bob, and find something constructive to add to this article. Sinon, casse-toi. --Aquarelle 23:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be more polite in future, and I will be polite to you. You inferred that I go around inventing things just to post here! How often are journalists wrong? You yourself have stated that the info you have gotten from news sources has been wrong. If we are to quote journalists within the article text, then a source that states that you must have WMP or similar to view the videos is notable. Being that the best source is the website itself and you wish to ignore that source (for reasons best known only to you), and the fact that you are being insulting when responding, I have every right to invoke WP:DICK as that is how you are acting. I have added constructive things to this article since it was over at the CFII page, including the infobox (which needs updating since its launch). Cease acting like a WP:DICK in your commentary and we will all get along. --Bob 00:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you can add an infobox but you can't even format your own comments on the talk page. Your welcome in advance for inserting the proper spacing. Calm yourself down and come back when you have something to add. Your undue concern for trivial matters never ceases to amaze me. --Aquarelle 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are being a dick. --Bob 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Très original, mon vieux, mais si tu bosses je suis sûr que tu peux en faire mieux. --Aquarelle 00:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, je pourrais.... mais je ne suis pas un enfant comme toi. --Bob 00:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vas-y, je t'attends. Je vais corriger tes fautes d'orthographe et de grammaire. --Aquarelle 00:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are so intelligent. Quite pathetic really. Thanks but no thanks. --Bob 00:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could take sides in this 'discussion', but I won't - I'm gonna be Fair and Balanced, just like Fox News. (</sarcasm>.) Seriously though, I hope I don't see any more of this this pointless back-and-forth, it's on the verge of becoming an essay in trolling and you're both pushing this discussion page right off-topic, it's not relevant.

Keep the quality contributions coming, though...

Christopher 13:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News countdown

[edit]

I just watched France 24 and I saw a feature before news, what reminds me news countdown at BBC. A minute before news they play a theme melody, and show very short video clips flashing and a clock is counting down to the news. It looks for me like they also started to do a countdown to news (like BBC is doing before their news). --Tarmo Tanilsoo 16:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Technology

[edit]

I added a section to the article on the equipment used in the newsroom, because this was of interest to me ... I hope this is useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.51.17.250 (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sister channels

[edit]

I deleted references to the channels of Groupe TF1 and France Televisions — France 24 never talks about those other channels (but can sometimes use their images), and is not part of a whole thing. Simply logic when you know F24 is owned by two competitors in the domestic market.

Also, notice TF1 is really turned to entertainment, not to quality news. France Televisions is lost between audience-making and public service programmation. So it looks then that the channel's fundings do not have a real meaning. These are funds, nothing more. What makes its guidelines is something else than the origin of its funds, because it is quite impossible to find any striking resemblance to TF1's or France 2's guidelines. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget that TF1 owns and operates its own 24/24 news channel in French (LCI : it's a pay channel, available on subscription, or as part of some IPTV bundles from some operators, or as part of some satellite providers). LCI and TF1 share a lot of its journalistic platform (same team).
France Television already operates many news programs from various channels in many regional locations (France 3 regional teams, and RFI/RFO with France Ô in teams working in overseas for the "Première" channel which is also featuring programs from other French competitors.
Yes there's a huge competition in the metropole, but overseas the strong leaders are more limited, to give more voice to locally funded channels.
France now has lots of news channels, including 2 others with 24/24-7/7 programs on the free-to-air numeric broadcast : "BFM TV", and "i>Tele" operated by commercial competitor Canal+ Group (but their primay audience is national, not international like France 24 which is not broadcasted over the air but still has a good audience in France on the web). All of them are available in France on cable and ADSL triple-play offers as part of the basic IPTV bundle, with a good quality MPEG4 feed (even better than on the web site).
Given the perception of good quality of programs by France24, it may become one of the new candidates channels for free-to-air digital TV ("TNT" in France) in early 2012, when all the analog channels will have been definitely turned down, and new frequencies made available (but other candidates are for existing channels to be broadcasted in HD quality), but this would break the alliance building France 24 because it would change radically its audience to be more national ; if it happened, Groupe TF1 would then stop LCI, or Groupe Canal+ would stop i>Tele which is already in huge troubles due to low audience (despite of its presence on the free-to-air TNT), and poor quality... This will likely not happen, and in fact, the French news agencies and TVs would prefer promoting their programs to other parts of the world by creating a Spanish version of the channel, focusing South and Central America and the Antillas (as well as the growing Spanish speaking community in US), or would prefer investing in some newer satallite coverage for the signal in French in the Southern hemisphere... verdy_p (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Company merge with RFI

[edit]

I will look for information about the upcoming merge with french international radio RFI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamouaa (talk • contribs) 17:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have taken out non-existent links on this page. This edit has been undone once - so just to explain here that there is no advantage to having links which don't exist. All it does is look messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvghifds (talk • contribs) 16:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation and IPA

[edit]

The pronunciation and the IPA at the beginning of the article are at odds with one another. It says it is pronounced France van-cat but the IPA reads something like Fghaws vat catgh. Certainly, "France" is not pronounced the same in French as in English, so that bit of the pronunciation is wrong; on the other hand, I don't believe the t in the "vingt" of "vingt-quatre" is ever pronounced, so that bit of the IPA is probably wrong. For the rest, it's very likely that different people pronounce it differently, but some effort should be made to make the pronunciation and the IPA agree. 95.44.50.222 (talk) 08:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on France 24. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on France 24. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.iwf.org.uk/

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicology

https://www.google.com/search?q=wiki+joke+shop+stink+bomb&rlz=1C1EODB_enGB574GB585&oq=wiki+joke+shop+stink+bomb&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i64.7399j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_joke_device

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stink_bomb

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0496806/

86.143.95.1 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

question re citation

[edit]

does anyone have a citation to use for the launch date for France 24? I am not questioning the data in this article. I am simply saying, any specific date data is always better, if we can provide at least one useful citation. I think that the network's own website would be fine as a source for this data. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French Government Propaganda TV

[edit]

You should clearly mention that the channel is clearly established to serve France’s propaganda Worldwide as an answer to other propaganda channels such as BBC, RT, Al Jazeera etc. ErbekBozok (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not adhering to WP:NPOV. (TW)

[edit]

Not adhering to WP:NPOV. (TW) When saying that many viewers and journalist say that France 24 is a state owned propaganda channel however it is mentioned in article about another channel called TRT World. Wikipedia should be fair and remove this from TRT World paragraph or add the same criticism on France 24 Wikipedia page. https://books.google.ae/books?id=-LqKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=france+24+propaganda+channel&source=bl&ots=YkMfzjEYAw&sig=ACfU3U15FocVYVqv8ODPfIq1yHfXPjvR7w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi229va76fpAhUIyYUKHaRMAJg4ChDoATABegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q=france%2024%20propaganda%20channel&f=false ErbekBozok (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference to an edit that I reverted, which changed the "short description" from "Television channel based in Paris" to "State owned french propaganda Television channel based in Paris". I also left a warning about not following WP:NPOV on the user's talk page. The edit appears to be trying to make a point about the user's perceived mistreatment of the Turkish TRT World channel in its article. Since they have now offered a citation of a reliable source purportedly in support of it, I'll respond:
ErbekBozok, Wikipedia's NPOV policy, specifically WP:UNDUE, requires that we "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The viewpoint that France 24 is primarily a propaganda outlet is held by only a tiny minority of sources, which are also generally not considered reliable, i.e. the Russian RT network, and you. There is an identifiable difference between a country promoting its culture, interests, and soft power compared to propaganda.
The source you've linked to, "Transnational Media: Concepts and Cases", published by Wiley, says that RT "often is associated with propaganda", which is "an anomaly" among the other "broadcasters such as BBC World News, France 24, and Euronews" whose "governments do not want to be associated with misinformation or propaganda". It then describes how RT has accused the BBC and New York Times of propaganda.
In other words, you have just provided a reliable source that confirms not only that your assertion that France 24 is a "propaganda channel" does not adhere to the NPOV policy, but furthermore that it could be considered propaganda in itself. You might want to change your rhetorical strategy.
From the fact that RT, as well as TRT ([3]) have been widely characterized by reliable sources as propaganda arms of their governments, it does not in any way follow that we "should be fair" and accuse France 24 of the same thing, without evidence of a significant proportion of reliable sources expressing that viewpoint. --IamNotU (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
--IamNotU Your statement is a personal opinion and shows that you do not understand what I am trying to say.
You say that countries owning channels announced that they do not want to be associated with misinformation or propaganda. So for you, if any government says that, it is completely true without defect? What is it if not taking a side when you mention that one is propaganda and one is not but both are funded by the State... You are completely away of my point. My point of fairness is that you judge one is good and one is bad. You slice it and serve it, misleading many people reading articles. I am not Russian nor American. I am just trying to make a point that an encyclopedia should not take a side. Hope this might be clear so that you start put on Wikipedia zero Allegations but facts. If you want to put one point of view of yours or anyone in brackets, you should mention that this information is a point of view of one side only and could further be argued. If not then there should not be a place for such information on an encyclopedia. ErbekBozok (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deifinition of Propaganda through media on Wikipedia page: “To explain the close associations between media and propaganda, Richard Alan Nelson observed propaganda as a form of persuasion with intention with the aid of controlled transmission of single-sided information through mass media.[3] Mass media and propaganda are inseparable.
Mass media, as a system for spreading and relaying information and messages to the public, plays a role in amusing, entertaining and informing individuals with rules and values that situate them in social structure.[4] Therefore, propaganda creates conflicts among society's differing classes. Nowadays, in a media engulfed society, mass media is the main platform and output for carrying out acts of propaganda and for pushing forward agendas.
Today, various amounts of modern media can be used to supply propaganda to its intended audience such as, radio, television, films posters handouts music smartphones, just to name a few.[5]” ErbekBozok (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ErbekBozok, it is not my personal opinion, I directly quoted the reliable source that you provided. I did not say that "countries owning channels announced that they do not want to be associated with misinformation or propaganda". It was the authors of the chapter, Voronova and Widholm, who made that statement, not the countries themselves. We would not base the article on statements from the governments, but on those of independent scholars like Voronova and Widholm.
You seem to be very new here, so I will ask one thing: please be very careful about casting aspersions against other editors of being misleading, taking sides, or being biased, without good cause, as that may go against the policy of no personal attacks. Comment on the edits, not the editor. Please don't blame me for all the problems you might see on Wikipedia. I am just another volunteer editor like you. If you see a problem, fix it - as long as you follow the core content policies. Further general complaints about bias in Wikipedia should be taken elsewhere. You can ask at the Teahouse for advice about the appropriate venues.
The question of whether a channel produces propaganda is not dependent only on whether it is publicly funded. It requires a complex analysis of the editorial control and whether they follow accepted standards of objectivity in journalism. We must obtain this analysis from recognized experts like Voronova and Widholm, who are professors of journalism, not the arguments of anonymous Wikipedia editors. If it is shown that a significant proportion of recognized experts publish the viewpoint that RT or TRT World can be considered propaganda, while none say the same about France 24, then that is what we write. Saying something else would be not adhering to the NPOV policy. We don't take sides, we explain the sides, without bias.
Wikipedia publishes information about differing viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Everything we publish must be verifiable in a reliable, published, secondary source. Your own arguments that France 24 should be considered propaganda are not relevant. I can't overstate the importance of providing reliable sources for anything you wish to add or remove from Wikipedia. Quoting Wikipedia itself is not helpful, because it is not considered a reliable source, and in any case what you quoted only says that propaganda relies on mass media for distribution, not that all or any particular media channel is propaganda. Since you have provided no reliable source saying that France 24 is a "propaganda channel", but ironically one that says it is not, it can't be included in the article.
PS, please indent your comments, thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a government-owned channel anywhere in the world that is not a propaganda channel, directly or indirectly? (well, maybe BBC Radio3) DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help Corbin hospital trillium center

[edit]

Help build police trap me in gonna exploid big vibration bomb Kip police everywhere 71.67.41.34 (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Dwayne Lewis

[edit]

Just shot killed my kids I’m trapped in here the police here in building exploded in 30 mins or better I need help no please help me I’m a president of many nations I’m going die help Corbin Kentucky trillium center 71.67.41.34 (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:France_24&oldid=1260358963"