Talk:ANNA News

Contested deletion

I have trouble understanding what's required here to avoid speedy deletion. I have provided two independent reliable sources, if that's not enough, then tell me how many sources I need to add to "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". --Pavarocha (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pavarocha:, I've removed the tag. It makes a claim of significance. However, for further reference, you can't remove the speedy deletion tag from pages you created yourself. Only other people can. Tutelary (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abkhazian Network News Agency. 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/20140625101448/http://anna-news.info/about to http://anna-news.info/about

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Pro-Russian Spy

@Pro-Russian Spy I am pretty sure I explained you everything on my talk page, but seems like there is still some kind of problem. So what exactly you do not understand? Renat 06:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

The section "Controversy" is a collection of statements trying hard to prove that ANNA is not an RS. The majority of them, however, only provide weak evidence of fake news (a -former ANNA, according to the late Marat Musin- reporter posing as a mercenary of a bogus agency in Syria, whose photo was never published by ANNA; pics of dead people in the Donbass purportedly killed by Ukrainian forces), an many circumstances of pro-Russia support, especially in the Donbass, where being embedded with the separatists is used to portrait ANNA as unreliable, when is pretty clear that a source can be biased and, under certain conditions, still reliable. Other claims against ANNA are based on strongly pro-Ukrainian or anti-Syrian Government websites, like "Enab Balad"" or The France 24 Observers", which seems to be very partizan and unnacountable.----Darius (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@FarSouthNavy The section in the article was not written to prove that ANNA News is an unreliable source. It is just a normal section in the Wikipedia article. You used Template:POV so it is expected that you identified specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. Please see Template:POV#When to use. The article is not ideal, just like any other article, but it is pretty close to being balanced. The article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. Renat 10:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with RenatUK. The article does not say it is not RS and seems to be from good sources. What are the specific problematic passages? France24 and Enab Baladi are both RSs I believe. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"The section "Controversy" is a collection of statements trying hard to prove that ANNA is not an RS."
— I came here to say almost exactly what Darius said. To be exact, I came here to say that a random collection of statements trying hard to prove that ANNA is not an RS couldn't be called "history". And it doesn't constitute an encyclopedia article, so I'm putting the POV template back. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "random collection of statements"? And "it doesn't constitute an encyclopedia article" can literally mean anything. It is not a specific issue. Please see Template:POV#When to use; it would really help if you clearly explain what the neutrality issue is. Renat 21:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue is the drastic lack of balance in this article. See Template:POV#When to use: "Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article." --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection It also says: Please also explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag, identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies. And "the drastic lack of balance in this article" is not a specific issue. Renat 00:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that "lack of balance" (namely the disproportionally long list of accusations concerning wrong news) is specific enough. Some of this stuff seems very minor to me and can be easily removed. Some is sourced from Ukrainian organisations that are (naturally) primarily interested in discrediting their, so to speak, enemies. Instead of writing all this you could have easily just add something about the actual history of the agency.
In case you don't now, ANNA News is a largely voluntary/amateur organisation and there are bound to be mistakes.
I'm not going to put the template back yet again simply because I'm tired of all this and I have other things to do. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection, the proportion in the article reflects the proportion in the published, reliable sources. Just like it should be. And again you are not being specific with these "some of this stuff ..." and "some is sourced ..." Renat 12:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"The proportion in the article reflects the proportion in the published, reliable sources"
— No, it doesn't. You obviously looked for something bad to say and added as many negative facts (opinions?) as you could. I think it would be safer to just revert the article to its former state, cause now it looks like an attack page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I oppose reversion without stronger rationale. Can you explain which Ukrainian sources used here are unreliable and why? (I presume you're not saying all Ukrainian sources are always unreliable.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Writing Pro as a stance

Deleted in lead a Pro Kremlin as it is not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to give political stance. Using same stance we could write that BBC News is pro London or CNN is pro Washington and then we have endless situation of giving a nickname in a lead to agency that is a formal under law registered subject in a any state in a world. Loesorion (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)