Jump to content

Talk:Uranium One

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mantion (talk | contribs) at 09:20, 29 October 2017 (→‎Concerning the Clinton affair and Breitbart as a reference). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 (talkcontribs) 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]
Should we include any of the information in this timeline published by the NYtimes. Is that still considered a credible source? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html Mantion (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]