Talk:EuroNews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Europe
Europe Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Europe and Europeans on Wikipedia.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Why this part in this article? :

"Criticism

The channel is seen by some observers and critics as boring, impersonal, lacking in context, and excessively neutral in tone.[3] AA Gill even said of it "who made it and who watches it? and in both cases why?""

Of sure everybody don't like this channel but there are also people who like the fact that this channel is neutral and impersonal for example. And who's AA Gill ? Everybody doesn't care what he say !

Good Wikipedia articles present various common views of the subject matter. This article is generally positive in tone, so it should also refer to documented criticism of the channel, which isn't uncommon. Check the articles on BBC World and CNN International; both include Criticism sections. The AA Gill reference shouldn't be here, but I'm putting the Criticism section back in. Please do not delete it again. WorldWide Update
As long as this section remains clear of weasel words, POV material, unsourced content and original research at all times, I indeed see no reason why it should be removed. I've one question however -- what exactly do you mean with 'generally positive in tone'? 84.192.119.2 13:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I agree with you. In fact, I was the first to mark the new additions to the section with "Citation needed" tags (and, since no citations were forthcoming, I welcome their deletion). When I wrote that the article was generally positive in tone, I was referring mostly to the following passage, which has also since been removed: "The channel is praised for what many consider to be its unbiased effort because of its voice over narration to accompany news footage instead of on-screen anchors, a No Comment segment, and its simplistic logo." I thought that if we were mentioning praise, we should should also devote some attention to common (and documented) criticism of the channel and its format. WorldWide Update 00:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] RTE, founder or no?

RTE is listed as a founder, and later as one of those who joined SOCEMIE in 1997 along with the founders. Obviously a small rewrite or correction of this section is needed, but I don't have the information needed --garryq 10:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perspectives

What happened to this particular program? Did EuroNews discontinue it? --  Denelson83  23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Do they air it only on weekends? I might be wrong but I can't find it on the EuroNews website anyway. --giandrea 23:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Only on weekends I believe. 84.192.117.13 16:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Availability

Euronews was removed from the Canadian Bell ExpressVu service in April 2007. I've been unable to find a published citation for this, but as far as original research goes, I can turn on my receiver and confirm that this is true. ExpressVu has not yet updated its channel lineup file to reflect this change. Mike Doughney (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the recent additions to the article's criticism section

It has been brought to my attention that some users have been continiously reverting content from an anonymous contributor, despite the fact that this user sourced his content. I've examined his claims and the source he listed has indeed been used in the intro section of the article for nearly a year now. That the source currently is not yielding a result isn't sufficient grounds for a full removal of this new content -- the website is clearly genuine and a reliable source, and I suggest we give it some time to correct this internal error it seems to be facing at present. At any rate, I see no reason why this content should be removed. DieOfGoodLuck (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow,what a coincidence. Rien.  20:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you be more specific, please? DieOfGoodLuck (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
But of course. Your "anonymous contributor" is a vandal who was blocked 3 minutes before you started defending his additions (see 84.192.127.254). So whoever has "brought it to your attention" is a) VERY fast and b) possibly not the most reliable source of information. There's also a point c) but I need to do some more research before I can be sure about that. Maybe later. Rien.  20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that when 84.192.127.254 (talk · contribs) was blocked, account creation was also blocked, so new Wikipedia user accounts cannot be registered from this IP until after the block expires. Also Dead external links may be relevant to this discussion. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
As per WP:PROVEIT, I originally was more inclined to follow Rien's reasoning in settling this dispute. However, the continued reverting of what appeared to be a good faith edit on the baseless grounds of vandalism resulted in a minor sympathy vote for the anonymous on my part. At any rate, the guidelines in matters such as these are clear. My proposed solution is that we keep the disputed content in the article until roughly two or three days after the anonymous user his ban has expired. If the anonymous by that time is not able to replace the defunct link with another/new reliable, published source, I will remove the disputed content from this article in the same way I recently did with a similar (and related) case in the BBC World article. DieOfGoodLuck (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Two small remarks and then I'm done with this.
To DieOfGoodLuck: Mentioning "baseless grounds of vandalism" is stretching it a bit, in my opinion. Any anonymous user that replaces other users talkpages with shut the fuck up and fucking idiot because they don't agree with him, has, in my book at least, lost all credibility. Further edits by such a user will be seriously scrutinized. And so it was rather striking that this anonymous user first removed stuff from BBC World and then inserted it into EuroNews. Looks like vandalism to me, so I reverted it.
To:Kralizec! I know new accounts can't be created from a blocked address. That's not what I said or implied.
But anyway, I'm not here to defend EuroNews. I'm sure the article has plenty of contributors that will take good care of it. They'll remove stuff if they believe it shouldn't be here. I only got here because I was tracking a vandal, no more, no less. Rien.  21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)