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)
 * , 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 1 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 ).

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. 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)

— 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) 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) — 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)
 * "The section "Controversy" is a collection of statements trying hard to prove that ANNA is not an RS."
 * 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; 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: "''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.
 * @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"
 * 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 "Pro-Kremlin" as it is not appropriate for Wikipedia editors to give political stance and etiquette. 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)


 * @Loesorion it is inappropriate for Wikipedia editors to delete content only because they feel/think/perceive it as something wrong/incorrect etc. Please see my edit summary - diff. ANNA News is a pro-Kremlin agency, because that is how reliable sources (RS) describe it. And there is no disagreement among RS about this. It means this article will also should describe it like that. See WP:RS and Content disclaimer. This information will not be omitted without a good reason to do so. No one so far presented this reason. And please do not edit war. Renat  16:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No I am not into deletion of a content per se I am removing political stance of editors in a first few word in a lead of article. You can write such tings in a controversy section and I do not mind. In a same time many sources exists that do not mention Anna-news is pro or not so you cannot have it both ways.

And again in same time we have some competition in a sources as other agency mention such stances about others, for example France 24 is a agency Pro Paris that write about Pro Kremlin? https://www.france24.com/en/20180807-russia-holds-funerals-journalists-shot-c-africa Example of article that does not mention Anna news as a Pro Kremlin https://tass.com/world/742146

If you continue to claim that this is Ok then add to all other agencies in world that have articles on Wikipedia in a lead Pro stance or we only add that to some agency's and other we do not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_24 should contain Pro Paris in lead or not?

Where is a neutrality according to Wikipedia rules on all that? Loesorion (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Loesorion Sorry, but I am not going to discuss France 24 or any other agency here. See Talk page guidelines. Renat  17:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I am within guidelines, in same time you do not provide any normal reason for your edits of my edits, and France 24 is example I am using within guidelines to prove my stance and explain my edits. You are out of guidelines if you accept using political stances on Wikipedia in editors works. Neutral point of view is missing here and read What Wikipedia is not advocacy and propaganda section Loesorion (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Loesorion "Neutral point of view is missing here ..." why do you think so? Renat  17:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This is extremely well sourced in the citation, should stay. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

As a defining feature of ANNA News that is overwhelmingly supported by the high-quality academic sources cited at Special:Permalink/1075404774, the "pro-Kremlin" descriptor should stay in the article. A neutral point of view entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Considering the overwhelming consensus that ANNA News is pro-Kremlin, the "pro-Kremlin" descriptor is a neutral description of the article subject. —  Newslinger  talk   15:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)