Talk:Uranium One/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of Uranium from the United States

I removed the following quote from the Washington Post's "fact checker":

• "Uranium One sale which — as we noted — does not actually result in the removal of uranium from the United States"

because the claim is contradicted by The New York Times, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman and a Uranium One spokeswoman.[1] Quote:

• "Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan."

James J. Lambden (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Both WaPo (Oct 2017) and PBS (Oct 2017) say that no uranium left country. The yellowcake exported to Canada returned to the US. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

What they say is irrelevant when both the agency in charge of overseeing it and a spokeswoman for the company in question say otherwise and the New York Times confirms it. James J. Lambden (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk about bad reading comprehension. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Popularity has nothing to do with credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:442:C380:20C0:6D35:B382:E93F:E97D (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Grand Jury Indicts Maryland Executive in Uranium One Deal

Should this be added? (https://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2018/01/12/u-s-indicts-former-executive-in-nuclear-energy-bribery-case/, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/feds-american-bribed-russian-official-for-nuclear-contracts/2018/01/13/af18ee82-f87b-11e7-9af7-a50bc3300042_story.html?utm_term=.0d88c03a38d5 , http://thehill.com/policy/international/368953-grand-jury-indicts-maryland-executive-in-uranium-one-deal-report) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1800:e970:f5e7:8223:5f1:78d4 (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

William D. Campbell

There is a redirect to this page from the William D. Campbell page which was nominated for deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Douglas_Campbell. It didn't generate any opinions by editors other than the creator of the page who has since been blocked indefinitely for abuse of multiple accounts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ScratchMarshall. Is there a way to get the AfD reopened? It's unclear whether Campbell is notable for this page. He was an FBI informant on Tenex and former Rosatom official Vadim Mikerin whose page redirects to Tenex's without his name being mentioned there. Also, the Tenex page doesn't mention the money-laundering/bribery, so how important an event was it? In all the years Campbell was informing on Tenex/Rosatom/Mikerin he never once mentioned Clinton or the Clinton Foundation to the FBI until last year, and after all that informing and getting paid and reimbursed for expenses the FBI didn't use his testimony against anyone later charged with racketeering involving bribes and kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering because he and his testimony were flaky. [1], [2] Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

FBI's informant

Add statement from informant's lawyer?

I suggest to add a paragraph about the statement from the lawyer of the FBI informant in Uranium One controversy. How about the draft paragraph below? I tried to add both point of views (POV), with their respective sources.

Also on October 25, 2017 Victoria Toensing, the informant's lawyer, stated that the FBI's informant "work uncovering the Russian nuclear bribery case and the efforts he witnessed by Moscow to gain influence with the Clintons in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration". During a C-SPAN interview, Hillary Clinton said that any allegations that she was bribed to approve the Uranium One deal were "baloney". During an interview on Lou Dobbs Tonight, Toensing was ask about what she may have learned from the informant, she claimed that "It’s quite significant", the informant “can tell what all the Russians were talking about during the time that all these bribery payments were made”.

Francewhoa (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Add identify of informant?

I suggest to add a paragraph about the identify of the FBI secret informant. He voluntarily publicly identify himself during an exclusive interview with Reuters.

On November 16, 2017, during an exclusive interview with Reuters, the FBI secret informant decided to speak out publicly for the first time. His name is William D. Campbell. A former lobbyist for Tenex, the US-based arm of Rosatom.

Francewhoa (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Added template reflist talk to each section to keep refs from wandering to bottom of page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal link to "Uranium One controversy"

Challenge

As of July 29th, 2018, this article about "Uranium One" company is mostly and increasingly mostly about controversies related to the "Uranium One" company. Not directly related to the "Uranium One" company. More precisely, roughly 66% about related controversies, and 34% directly about the "Uranium One" company. In other words, ~1,860 words versus ~640 words. Those number demonstrate that the "Allegations of scandal" child has grown into adulthood. Is now a good time for the adult to move out of the house to start its own life? While keeping in touch with its parent article?

Suggested resolution

As a first resolution, I suggest to keep this valuable "Allegations of scandal" section as is, but move it to its own article. And name this new article "Uranium One controversy". Then link both articles "Uranium One" and "Uranium One controversy". So that both can still feel the Wikipedia love. Francewhoa (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support as the nominator. Francewhoa (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

As a second resolution, I suggest to rename this article from "Uranium One" to "Uranium One controversy". But then we would need to create a new article about "Uranium One" the company. The first resolution above seems both easier and more common. Francewhoa (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as the nominator. Francewhoa (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Opposing both. This article is about the Canadian company Uranium One Inc. Being a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Rosatom does not make it a Russian company; it is incorporated in Canada and falls 100% under Canadian law. It’s one of currently four companies with Uranium One in the name, the other three being:

• Uranium One Group, Russia
• Uranium One Holding N.V., The Netherlands
• Uranium One Trading, Switzerland

You can look up what each one of them does on the Uranium One website. It’s quite clear that this article is about the Canadian Inc., including the allegations section. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Please read our WP:OR page. What matters is what the sources say. And the sources say things like

"The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: 'Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.' The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.: Source: The New York Times.

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, The New York Times reported, Uranium One's Canadian chairman, Ian Telfer, used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the foundation, the Times reported, despite a promise to publicly identify all donors. The foundation later said it made a mistake. Others associated with Uranium One also donated to the Clinton Foundation, according to the Times." Source: NBC News'.

"In a written statement to three congressional committees, informant Douglas Campbell said Russian nuclear executives told him that Moscow hired American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide to influence Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, among others in the Obama administration, The Hill reported on Wednesday." Source: Newsweek.

Basically, the evidence for a scandal involving the Clintons is highly debatable, but the evidence that the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, controls Uranium One is solid. Many of the related claims such as Uranium One controlling 20% of US uranium, are extremely dubious.[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

OR? You can look them up on Bloomberg which I have now added to the article. Whether the owners are Canadian or not, the company is incorporated in Canada under Canadian law, and that makes it a Canadian company. Or are you also arguing that Smithfield Foods, Hoover, Motorola, etc. are Chinese or Japanese companies? How about Chrysler? Is it American, British, Dutch, Italian? I’ve now reverted to the original wording, i.e., Russian-Canadian. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

It's WP:OR when you use your analysis of published material to reach a conclusion not stated by the sources.

While I have no problem with "Russian-Canadian" I think that you are completely wrong in your 2 assertions that [1] "the company is incorporated in Canada under Canadian law, and that makes it a Canadian company." and [2] that the Bloomberg source[3] supports the claim of "Canadian Company" or even "Russian-Canadian Company". By your logic, I didn't buy my Subaru from a Japanese company[4] and I didn't buy my Samsung tablet from a Korean company.[5]

The WP:OR consists of assuming without citing any source that actually says this that when a giant Elbonian company opens up even a tiny one-man sales office in Freedonia and incorporates this wholly-owned and wholly controlled subsidiary in Freedonia that means that anyone buying from that sales office is buying from a Freedonian company.

I have no idea why both you and the IP brought up being under Canadian laws. Is it not true that all companies -- Russian, Brazilian or Canadian -- that operate in Canada are under Canadian laws? Being under Canadian law would only be evidence of being a Canadian company if German companies operating in Canada were exempt from Canadian laws. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources that call Uranium One a Russian company:

• "The controversy centers around a 2010 deal that allowed a Russian company to take over management of uranium mines in Wyoming and Utah"[6]
• "...asking the Department of Justice to investigate the State Department approval of the sale of American uranium assets to a Russian company."[7]

There are also a boatload of sources that talk about the sale of the Canadian company Uranium one to Russia’s state-owned company, Rosatom -- implying that it was Canadian before the sale. Watch out for that when searching for sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about your particular Subaru (you can check here - they have a factory in Lafayette, IN, where they build the Legacy, Outback, Impreza and Ascent models) but your Samsung tablet is either "Made in Korea" or "Made in China." It wasn't manufactured by the American (NJ) corporation Subaru of America, Inc. you found on Bloomberg, they just imported and distributed it to the vendor who sold it to you. Samsung has local subsidiaries all over the world who import and sell their products within the respective territory, but the subsidiaries are not the manufacturers of the products.

I'm unaware of any IP address having brought up Canadian law. For my part, I was merely referring to Uranium One Inc. being a Canadian corporation; they may be mining, producing, purchasing, and selling uranium all over the world but they are incorporated in Ontario under Canadian state regulations, e.g., Canada residency requirement for at least 25% of the directors, etc.; they'll have to file whatever reports Canada requires, pay taxes, etc. If someone wanted to sue them, their HQ in Toronto is where they would serve the papers. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

By your logic, I didn't buy my Subaru from a Japanese company[4] and I didn't buy my Samsung tablet from a Korean company. Actually, you didn't buy either one from a Japanese or South Korean company, respectively; you bought a Japanese/S. Korean-made product from American vendors. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Find me a source that says that Subaru or any of Subaru's wholly owned subsidiaries is an American company. Show me a source that says that any Subaru is an American car as opposed to a Japanese care manufactured in the USA. No more OR. Just find a reliable source that directly supports your claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Quoting myself: you bought a Japanese/S. Korean-made product. I didn’t claim that your Japanese car and S. Korean tablet were American products; you dragged them into the discussion claiming that because Bloomberg lists their US marketing and sales subsidiaries I – by [my] logic – was arguing that they were. 'nuff about cars – getting back to Uranium One: Do you have any RS stating directly that Uranium One is a Russian company or are you doing what you accused me of doing, i.e. us[ing] your analysis of published material to reach a conclusion not stated by the sources? Your sources merely state that a Russian company bought a Canadian company. That’s what I’ve been saying - they bought themselves a Canadian company, and now they own a Canadian company. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Re "Do you have any RS stating directly that Uranium One is a Russian company", I already gave you two. Newsweek and The Economist. Still waiting for sources that directly support your claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Got it - you have no sources stating directly that Uranium One is a Russian company.

• Your first source (Newsweek) is an analysis debunking a Hill article by Hill opinion contributor and Hannity regular John Solomon. I don't see what a bribery/money-laundering scheme paying off Russian nuclear energy officials in exchange for contracts to U.S. companies involved in the shipment [by TENEX] of uranium from Russia (Reuters, case summary) has to do with Uranium One. It was a different Rosatom subsidiary, ARMZ, that invested in Uranium One, eventually acquiring full ownership and taking the company private. You cannot infer from these bare facts whether or not Uranium One changed nationality. You'd have to look at the corporate records filed with Canadian authorities if you want to spend Can$1 per page on them. The free public record shows that Uranium One is an active CBCA corporation. (How about one more WP:OR, just in case I didn't get the first two or three?)
• Your second source (Economist) is an anonymous reader comment - you're the expert on WPs, so no need to explain how that is not a reliable source.

Canadians, i.e., Canadian authorities (see "OR", above) and the CBC seem to think that Uranium One is a Canadian company. CBC (note the present tense): Uranium One — a Canadian company based in Toronto that happens to have mining rights in the U.S. (Nov 5, 2017). 'nuff said. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Fox News is not a RS

The same outlet that has promoted a range of falsehoods, hoaxes and conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton cannot be considered a RS on anything related to Hillary Clinton. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This discussion belongs at WP:RSN. James J. Lambden (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Fox News meets the requirements of WP:RS. It is used in over 10,000 Wikipedia articles as a source ("see".) and has been discussed ad nauseam at RS/N. Just as with all reliable sources we assume the reporting of a news story is reliable until or unless that specific news story is proven otherwise. CBS527^Talk 15:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I commented at RSN, but wanted to post here as well, since my comment was specific to the uranium deal.

• WaPo has an article on why and how Fox's coverage of the deal is incorrect: "The repeated, incorrect claim that Russia obtained ‘20 percent of our uranium’". Fox's claims are notable enough to have other outlets cover them.
• "Jeffrey Toobin: ‘This Whole Uranium One Thing Comes From Fox News’", via Mediaite. There's probably more.

I would say that for the purpose of this article, Fox is definitely not RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

But New York Times and Washington Post are? Don't apply double standards. 50.232.73.154 (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

They are until there's evidence they are factually incorrect. The same deferrence we give to Fox (RS unless there's evidence otherwise) applies to them. The difference here is, that on this specific issue, Fox is repeating claims that are demonstrably false. When we have competing RS and there is compelling evidence one is factually, not as a matter of opinion or bias, wrong, it doesn't matter how widely it's used. The Wall Street Journal is a fairly unimpeachable RS on most matters, but if it suddenly tomorrow decided it wanted to claim Trump was actually a space alien, we wouldn't say "welp, they're a RS everywhere else, so we're powerless to discern". Fox is factually wrong on this. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The Lede is not the Place to Preach One Side of a Two-Sided Controversy, or Scandal.

The company was founded in 2005 and the Lede doesn't even mention that. How it came into being, who founded it, etc... It's "early history". This is telling and indicates and underlines the rest of the Lede's horrific bias. I think Editors on this Article should seriously think about what the purpose of a Lede is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_create_and_manage_a_good_lead_section#Importance_and_purpose_of_the_lead_section

"The lead should prepare the reader for whatever is in the body of the article, should get them interested in the content, and inspire them to read the whole article."

Instead, after a cursory mention of a few general facts, the Lede dives right into a morass of a controversy, and cherry-picks lurid details of a complicated situation. I ask Editors to look at this Lede and ask themselves "But what if I don't CARE about the controversy, one way or the other?" Does it get you interested in the content? NO. Is the company publicly traded? If so, when was the IPO? How much revenue did it generate last year? Who is the CEO? Who is the President? This article's Lede doesn't even bother to mention this type of basic details.

Is there anything interesting to say about this company BESIDES the controversy? This Lede says "NO. YOU WILL HAVE TO WADE THROUGH A WHOLE BUNCH OF DETAILS YOU AREN'T INTERESTED IN, IN ORDER TO FIND SOMETHING INTERESTING." This isn't a Lede, it's a facade used to introduce whatever opinion-pushing is going on behind the scenes. I don't even bother to read Articles that have Ledes like this. I didn't bother to read this one. The Lede is too horrible and promises that the Body will be even worse. Is there any kind of "sub-group" of Wikipedia Editors that "police" Article's Ledes and enforce some kind of standards on them? If so, I'd like to join that group. The more I fiddle around with Wikipedia, the more I come to believe that the Lede is the most critical aspect of the entire article.2605:6000:6947:AB00:D54F:D719:F9A0:A888 (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest the solution to your concern is to edit the lede rather than talk about it here. soibangla (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, the notability of the company is based on the purported scandal. The lede summarizes the article, a large portion of which focuses on the scandal. The lede is generally exercising due weight here, not just in opposing viewpoints but in the context of the article. The founding of the company, etc, is not especially a notable element of the reason the company page is notable. The "scandal" is. We shouldn't bury the most notable part of an article just because it may or may not match our specific political viewpoint (not implying that's the OP's motivation). 12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Reinserting content removed to create new POV article

An editor removed two thirds of the content of this article to "create" a new article, over the objections of another editor, without even an attempt at discussion, leaving only the title of the subsection with a redirection to the new article. He then added a "summary" underneath the redirection and changed the title "to match main article titled." Aside from the "controversy" existing only in right-wing media and several false allegations and unproven insinuations having been added to the new article, is it in line with WP rules for an editor to "create" a new article, claiming authorship, from lengthy material with 58 references taken from an existing article? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I added split templates to both pages, so right now it is in line with Wikipedia copyright requirements. Beagel (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

As long as a separate article exists, this article here should include just a summary per WP:SS. And having 2/3 about a controversy violates WP:UNDUE. Beagel (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

having 2/3 about a controversy: What does that mean? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a company as a whole. Giving to one aspect related to the company about 2/3 of the whole article violates WP:UNDUE, more specifically WP:PROPORTION. Beagel (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the other article is that there is no controversy. There is a conspiracy theory that's been floated in right-wing conspiracy circles and then hyped by Trump and others but not even his own AG Sessions found credible enough to appoint a special counsel. It's been debunked by lots of RS, and all that's now hidden away under a misleading page name, not to mention the misleading section titles, and added POV verbiage. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

If necessary, you may start the process to change the title of the other article in accordance with WP:RM. You can also discuss the section headings at the talk page of the other article. However, this is not a valid reason to move it back here without there is a consensus to merge these articles. And even in that case, one should take into account WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION. Beagel (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Potential POVFORK

As the controversy section was split from here into a separate article, the separate article should be summarized here using a summary style. To avoid potential Povfork, before editing this summary section here the relevant changes have to be done in the main article per WP:SYNC. As the article was split from here, it should be treated as a main article for the controversy and not as further reading. Beagel (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)