Talk:France 2

message: Nearly 50% of this page is taken up with allegations of anti-Israel bias in its news reporting. I know the al-Durrah saga has long generated excitement in blogland, but the Gaza stuff seems utterly at the level of triviality and WP:RECENTISM. I mean, they used a wrong piece of video and then apologised for it? In my view that whole section should go, and the al-Durrah stuff should only be here as a footnote in a much broader article that tells the reader about the network as a whole. Until that happens, this page just looks like an attack piece dominated by partisan commentary (much of it from rival media organisations) masquerading as an encyclopedia article. If I get some time I'll start some research, perhaps others (any French editors?) can help out too. In the meantime this tag needs to be here. --Nickhh (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree that the article is unbalanced.  However the way to deal with that is to expand the article in another direction, not by deleting reliable information.  I urge you to go ahead and expand the article.  Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the main thing is to expand the broader article, but equally the Gaza stuff seems a genuinely trivial and passing issue to me, and would be even in a fuller article. Just because something can be sourced, that doesn't mean it has to be here. It needs to be relevant, significant, whatever. Otherwise we could create articles for every reported instance of a cat being stuck up a tree, or add details of every newspaper report ever written about him to the Tom Cruise page. By contrast the issue of France 2's coverage of the al-Durrah killing is an ongoing drama (in some circles at least), and did end in litigation, so is more notable. --Nickhh (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate you were being bold with those edits, but I disagree that the material you removed was irrelevant to the article, or unsupported by the given references. Blanking big chunks of sourced material is frowned upon, so please don't do it again without consensus on this talk page. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced tag 

message: The material was significant enough to warrant mention in high-profile reliable sources. Perhaps it can be trimmed down, but please don't simply remove entire paragraphs of sourced material w/o consensus. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, we have an account by a rival/competitor network about how a wrong videotape was plucked from the archives, and how the broadcaster then apologised for it when the error was pointed out? If you can point me to where every single story ever highlighted on Fox News - or indeed on any broadcaster - about a topic is noted here on WP on the basis that it is "mentioned in high-profile reliable sources", that would be great. Again, this is either a serious encyclopedia about significant issues relating to specific subject matters, or it's a dumping ground for every "look what I saw on the web yesterday which gives a bad impression of this TV station/journalist/country" piece of rubbish. --Nickhh (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's grossly disproportionate, as is all the Middle East coverage in the article. We're talking about a handful of controversies mostly fanned by right-wing American outlets over the past couple of years; this is a TV channel which has been around for 36 years. Singling out a few episodes of manufactured outrage is an absolutely textbook example of recentism. I've added some historical material; we need to reduce the Middle East material to a minimum, no more than a sentence or two at the most. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaza 

message: "France 2 aired a video that purported to show destruction caused by the Israel air force, but was in fact an incident from 2005, when a truck-load of Hamas explosives blew up in the city of Jabalia in Gaza Strip"
This is not an objective fact. As The Guardian and several other sources reported at the time, Hamas blamed the Israeli Air Force, claiming a military aircraft could be faintly heard before the explosion, accusing them of deliberately targeting a mortar-truck; the Israelis denied any involvement whatsoever, claiming it was an accident for which Hamas were solely to blame. Both accounts must be taken into account. Dynablaster (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points - thanks for raising them. The underlying problem is that the material you highlight has been added by certain users in an attempt to discredit France 2 for POV reasons. The entire section needs to be reviewed and probably rewritten from scratch to ensure that it doesn't constitute undue weight on minor incidents and is not being used as coatrack. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As described in the previous section, the incident received major coverage, world-wide. It is not a minor incident. Please review WP:AGF before repeating allegations that "the material ... has been added by certain users in an attempt to discredit France 2 for POV reasons". Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008-2009 Israel-Gaza Conflict 

message: Is France 2 aired free-to-air on digital satellite Atlantic Bird 3? --88.77.255.194 (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlantic Bird 3 

message: In the section, "2013 report on weapons smuggling from Serbia to France," the main organizer of the event is referred to as Aleksandar M. but then claims he has a cousin by the name of Nenad Mirković. Is this the same "M."? If so, i propose we change all the instances of Aleksandar M. to Aleksandar Mirković. "M." isn't very clear to begin with and I'm sure somewhere in the French sources that the real name is recounted one way or another. What do you guys think? Complete turing (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacing the last name of "Aleksandar M." 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on France 2. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080317162040/http://www.rorypecktrust.org/Awards01/talal.htm to http://www.rorypecktrust.org/Awards01/talal.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: "Privately owned channels such as Canal+ and La Cinq (now superseded by France 5)"
No, la Cinq wasn't related to France 5 at all. Sure, La Cinquième (which later became France 5) occupied the fifth channel a few years after the end of la Cinq, but it was a wholly different project. 2A01:CB00:EB7:2500:551B:D76B:38E0:96D8 (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  La Cinq / France 5