Talk:Uranium One: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:57, 29 October 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Uranium One article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Mining Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Energy Start‑class Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Companies Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Template:Energy portal news

Concerning the Clinton affair and Breitbart as a reference

The last two sentences could use some improvement. First of all, they are a direct copy from an article, not a word is chanced and there is from my point of view not enough info. What bank, any follow up, is there only speculation or concrete evidence? etc.

Secondly the article is from the website breitbart.com, a site that is not impartial or objective and should therefore not be used for references, not on Wikipedia, and frankly not anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benvrt (talk • contribs) 00:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News has begun to report on the story, and they are considered to be a reliable source under Wikipedia's policies.

Sorry but who judges if a site is "impartial or objective". According to alexa rankings Breitbart.com is in the top 50 sites in the US. The only other news sites on Alexa top 50 is ESPN, CNN, NYtimes and WAPO. Its fair to say many people in the US feel Breitbart is a credible News source. Plenty of credible news sites, books, news papers have discused connections between the Clintons and the Uranium 1 deal. I agree someone should not directly copy Breitbart, but they certainly can be cited as a credible source.Mantion (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 Secondly the article is from the website breitbart.com, a site that is not impartial or objective and should therefore not be used for references, not on Wikipedia, and frankly not anywhere else.  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Benvrt|Benvrt]] ([[User talk:Benvrt#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Benvrt|contribs]]) 00:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :[[Fox News]] has begun to report on the story, and they are considered to be a reliable source under Wikipedia's policies.
+::Sorry but who judges if a site is "impartial or objective".  According to alexa rankings Breitbart.com is in the top 50 sites in the US.  The only other news sites on Alexa top 50 is ESPN, CNN, NYtimes and WAPO.  Its fair to say many people in the US feel Breitbart is a credible News source. Plenty of credible news sites, books, news papers have discused connections between the Clintons and the Uranium 1 deal. I agree someone should not directly copy Breitbart, but they certainly can be cited as a credible source.[[User:Mantion|Mantion]] ([[User talk:Mantion|talk]]) 08:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)