Talk:Zenit News Agency

Question about over-emphasis
I'm not sure this should be mentioned --if the wiki page for Exxon or any other organization mentioned every one-off report, their respective wiki articles would be hundreds of pages long: "One report appearing in the progressive Commonweal magazine alleges that Innovative Media is a "front" for the Legion of Christ and is biased in their favor.[11]" To single out Zenit's wiki page by attaching these one-off reports suggests malicious intent. It would be different if there were 20 reports from 20 different publications all suggesting the same idea. But as it stands right now, only 1 report says so. This makes the previous statement un-newsworthy & un-wikiworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.194.138 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A reasonable point and I would agree in many circumstances, even though the statement does meet wiki standards. In this case, the allegation happens to be widespread -- I found it in many places while doing research -- the Commonweal article just happens to be a Reliable Source for it. I understated the support for it, mentioning only the Commonweal article, to err on the side of being conservative about it. Also, we lack much third party information at all about ZENIT -- almost every other cite is ZENIT's own website -- and so think the statement provides important depth on the subject. It's not Exxon, where we have many, many resources, and mentioning every report would make it hundreds of pages long; we hardly have any reports at all about ZENIT. In fact, I wrote (most of) this article because I saw ZENIT cited in a newspaper article and had great trouble finding any independent information about who they are. Guanxi (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I modified the over-cautiousness of this page. This is an obscure organization (yet one worth documenting IMO) and the sources are naturally sparse, so the references are mostly from the single source. That will change with time unless there is little interest in the topic -- which is how Wikipedia works. --Halcatalyst (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy Editing
The copy editing is helpful, but I made a few changes where it introduced inaccuracies, though I tried to stick to the style of the edits. I'll be happy to address any change I made, but these are the big ones:


 * They spell their name "ZENIT" (all caps) not "Zenit".
 * Most of the info is based on ZENIT's own website, which is not a Reliable Source, so its important to prefix it with "ZENIT says", etc.

Guanxi (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WP: Georgia
What on earth does this have to do with Georgia or WikiProject Georgia. I removed that project name.MPSchneiderLC 19:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPSchneiderLC (talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Zenit 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20150421081903/http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130226024901/http://www.zenit.org:80/en/about/2003 to http://www.zenit.org/en/about/2003
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130226051243/http://www.zenit.org:80/en/about/2002 to http://www.zenit.org/en/about/2002
 * Added tag to http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1104004.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070714092940/http://www.zenit.org/page-010801?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/page-010801?l=english
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070704175918/http://www.zenit.org:80/page-0109?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/page-0109?l=english
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070714093315/http://www.zenit.org/page-0101?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/page-0101?l=english
 * Added tag to http://www.zenit.age-0110?l=english

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) 10:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspension?
I have removed the information which stated it had suspended its services in many languages which was based on this news. I have not been able to understand how or why (I have searched far and wide in the website's archives with no success), but it seems ZENIT's publications in those languages were never suspended contrarily to what ZENIT wrote in this news.

If someone has an explanation, please give it. Veverve (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I just updated the article, with refs that show many services were indeed suspended in late 2020, then resumed by mid 2022, presumably as the Covid pandemic receded. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * No media, even Zenit News Agency themselves, has reported on Zenit resuming the activities it has suspended; therefore, it is your own (WP:OR) conclusion that you have added, your interpretation of using primary sources. This is why I have added a Template:Primary source inline. Veverve (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I think common-sense readings of my archival Zenit citations support the "facts", not an "interpretation", that the Zenit English news agency suspended its main online publishing products 29 Dec 2020 and resumed 1 June 2022. So, policy points 1 & 3 from WP:PRIMARY SOURCES cover this unusual situation. I agree that an actual news story about Zenit resuming operations would be even better, so your template is fine. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)