Talk:Anime News Network

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Anime News Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100924092321/http://www.sauditechview.com:80/en/anime-news-network-suddenly-blocked-in-saudi-arabia.html to http://www.sauditechview.com/en/anime-news-network-suddenly-blocked-in-saudi-arabia.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101215163925/http://www.r4r4.net:80/vb/showthread-t_50042.html to http://www.r4r4.net/vb/showthread-t_50042.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Saudi block
Is this piece about being blocked in Saudi Arabia really necessary? It has four sources, the first one is focused on getting it unblocked, the next two are Arabic language forums that are trying to reverse the block and the fourth is ANN's own forum.

I seems that ANN only found out about it, and therefore started the forum thread about it because they found it here on Wikipedia. Which suggests that the original inclusion of the claim on Wikipedia was not from a reliable source and Wiki itself has become part of the source being used to back up the claim after the event. This is the sort of circular sourcing which should be avoided - Wikipedia can't be a source for itself, which logically applies to sources using wikipedia as evidence in their own reporting.

More worryingly is the suggestion that a country blocked a site for censorship reasons without substantial evidence from reliable sources. In light of all of this it would seem sensible to remove the mention of the alleged event. The article would not be harmed by removing content with questionable sources and it is not improved by leaving them in either. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If no reliable sources have commented upon or even mentioned this, then I don't see why it would need to be included. ~ Mable ( chat ) 20:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Christopher MacDonald was alerted by the Wikipedia article, but confirmed it via the site's traffic logs. If one of the few people with access to the site's traffic statistics isn't a reliable source then I guess there isn't one. I can't even find out whether it would be possible to confirm this data using Alexa since you need a paid account to see what you can see with a paid account. Shiroi Hane (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But it still comes with a pretty heavy claim it was blocked for pornography which is not something he could confirm. The fact it was blocked isn't being challenged, but rather the reasons and reporting of it. Then there is the argument of how relevant and necessary it is to mention this, which ultimately is up for debate. At the very least it needs some cleaning up of sources and some rewording. That would leave us with a plain statement that it was blocked for a year, with no reliable source to tell us the reason or if it was intentional or not - this rather lessens the importance of it.  SephyTheThird (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as there are zero reliable sources confirming this, and it appears this rumor in fact originated on wikipedia, I've removed the statement. Making no comment on the importance of the sentence as it currently reads. Sro23 (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the 3 random forums as sources. They clearly are not reliable. I'm still not seeing a reason to keep any mention of the block at all. We know it was blocked, but not the reason why. The source we are left with is still providing a circular source back to wikipedia as the source of the allegation which is clearly against a fundamental part of the sources guideline - Wikipedia can not be a source for itself. Additionally, the statement was reposted back to wikipedia at the request of MacDonald. He had the presence of mind to not make the addition himself but having someone else add it for him is not ideal (note: No harm was done so this is not a criticism). Does anyone have a good reason why this block needs mentioning? Can we show the block is significant enough to warrant a mention? There are lots of technicalities but ultimately the biggest issue is the lack of evidenced significance to this claim. Yes it happened but is it important and why? SephyTheThird (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I've now removed the remaining mention. It happened but with no explanation why, no independant RS's and the page being used as a circular source there doesn't seem to be a need to mention it at all. It doesn't add to knowledge of the subject and the article isn't worse off without it. No one has provided a reason to keep the mention so I'm assuming no one will mind.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The main domain is back
They've managed to get the main website back. 50.29.134.220 (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. Though the article's been updated already. Opencooper (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The only change that is needed is to put it in past tense. I'll do that right now. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Publisher ?
I won't be named publisher of KWE, but rather ANN LLC. Won't edit an article about me/my company, just pointing it out. https://twitter.com/ANN_Ed/status/1591317192003715072 Tmpst (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)