Talk:Russian bounty program

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alaexis (talk | contribs) at 21:08, 19 March 2021 (→Alleged Iranian and Chinese bounties). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:08, 19 March 2021 by Alaexis (talk | contribs) (→Alleged Iranian and Chinese bounties)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It 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.

Afghanistan Low‑importance

	Afghanistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Current events

This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events

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

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: South Pacific / British / European / North America / United States / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

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

Russia Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
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.

United States: Military history Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

WP:NOTNEWS, anyone?

This is an absurd Wiki article, and reads like a WaPo or NYT blog—it's entirely comprised of alleged leaked information from perhaps no more than two people described as "US officials". The article should be deleted until there's actual evidence of this supposed "program"—or even the supposed "intelligence reports" about it. A few points:

The existence of "intelligence reports" that purportedly confirm the existence of the alleged "program" have not been corroborated by a single named source.
No actual documents' have been published that purport to confirm such a "program" existed—or even that US agencies believed it did.
Every single official who has gone on the record and would presumably know about this has either contradicted or outright denied the vast bulk of supposed "information" about the "program" in this article. For example: Bolton just gave an interview in which the first thing he did was to question the accuracy of the reportage and whether such a "program" exists, then repeatedly refused to confirm he briefed Trump. But the news reports cited in this article continue to claim that Bolton briefed Trump—based on an interview with an "unnamed official".

An encyclopedia article shouldn't be based entirely on half-baked "breaking stories". The article should be deleted—we haven't the slightest idea now of whether these reports are worthy of inclusion—but if it's going to remain, the title should reflect what the cited news reports are actually about. I propose: "Unnamed sources' claims of intelligence reports about alleged Russian bounty program". Elle Kpyros (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

We rely on reliable sources, not confirmation from named sources, especially when they have no interest in confirming a damaging story. WP:NOTNEWS does not mean "don't create an article based on news reports", it says to be mindful of the WP:LASTING impact. There is plenty of evidence that supports this story (here's a source that isn't in the article yet), and it's highly relevant. If you want to see this deleted, I welcome you to take it to AfD, where I can assure you it will be kept. If you want to rename the article, you can propose that too, but that proposal will never fly. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. There is nothing to back this story but more "anonymous sources". Most sources are simply parroting the NYTimes story. The article gives WAY more credibility than this story actually has. 23.241.127.109 (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This article went up fast. The Democrats just started this RussiaGate 2.0 putsch. Wikipeadia shouldn't be promoting unconfirmed political propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.251.236.88 (talk) 13:32, July 1, 2020 (UTC)

Challenging certain text as undue weight

I have removed two parts of the article as undue weight.

Text cited to the website of a media criticism group called Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), by an author named Alan MacLeod. I don't see any reason why this FAIR opinion article merits inclusion in this encyclopedia article. MacLeod and this group have no apparent expertise in Russia-U.S. relations, the Afghan War, Central Asian affairs, intelligence analysis, or anything relevant. MacLeod also apparently writes for two fringe websites that have been formally deprecated as unreliable, including The Grayzone and MintPressNews.
A sidebar contain a Trump tweet. This pull quote/sidebar is the only one in the article, and it gives undue and redundant prominence to Trump's own claims (which are already repeated in text).

--Neutrality 22:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Alan MacLead is a member of the Glasgow University Media Group. He obtained a Ph. D in sociology from the University of Glasgow in 2017 with the thesis Bad news from Venezuela. His first book was Bad News from Venezuela:Twenty years of fake news and misreporting. He also wrote the book Propaganda in the Information Age which updates the propaganda model. Both books were published by the academic publisher Routledge. He specialises in media theory and analysis.

I hope editors will see how media analysis is relevant to the stories that have been circulating about an alleged Russian bounty program.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is a media analysis group whose “statements should be attributed and generally treated as opinions”. The text being discussed was attributed both to FAIR and to Alan MacLeod.

Burrobert (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

So, (1) a primary source with no indication of any external coverage; (2) no direct subject-matter expertise; and (3) an obscure commentator that is also borderline WP:FRINGE at the very least. Lots of people have opinions. Very few need to be memorialized in an encyclopedia article. Neutrality 03:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources “are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on”. I don’t see the connection.
“no direct subject-matter expertise”: only if you ignore his subject matter expertise.
“an obscure commentator that is also borderline WP:FRINGE at the very least”: this is the “sticks and stones” argument. We aren’t in the schoolyard.
“Lots of people have opinions. Very few need to be memorialised in an encyclopaedia article”. Let’s give a more professional name then if that helps - what about “assessment”?

Burrobert (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

still uncorroborated

According to the NBC article published in September 2020,

“

the commander of troops in the region says a detailed review of all available intelligence has not been able to corroborate the existence of such a program.

"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told NBC News. McKenzie oversees U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The U.S. continues to hunt for new information on the matter, he said.

"We continue to look for that evidence," the general said. "I just haven't seen it yet. But … it's not a closed issue."

”

Unless this investigation has produced new findings since then, I think this should be mentioned more prominently in the article compared to information published in June. If no new evidence appears, I believe that the article should be renamed to something like Alleged Russian bounty program, just as we have Alleged Saudi role in September 11 attacks, which is quite similar:

“

'The panel's findings 'did not discover' any role by 'senior, high-level' Saudi government officials, said officials familiar with the report, but the "commission’s narrow wording", according to critics, suggests the possibility that "less senior officials or parts of the Saudi government could have played a role"

”

Alaexis_¿question? 10:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not continue the discussion here as I opened a request for move below. Alaexis_¿question? 15:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 4 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Bait30 23:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Russian bounty program → Alleged Russian bounty program – According to an NBC article published in September 2020,

“

the commander of troops in the region says a detailed review of all available intelligence has not been able to corroborate the existence of such a program.

"We continue to look for that evidence," the general said. "I just haven't seen it yet. But … it's not a closed issue."

”

I haven't found any reports about the results of this investigation published since then. In fact there are very few articles mentioning it recently as it has gradually faded from the news, only being briefly revived when it was discussed during the presidential debates.

This is a descriptive name and the naming NPOV policy says that some article titles are descriptive, rather than being a name ... descriptive titles should be worded neutrally. I believe that in the absence of conclusive proof the wording should be made more neutral.

The most similar case I could find was Alleged Saudi role in September 11 attacks. Here also no involvement has been confirmed by courts or by government sources, but some people believe that it happened. I think that similarly to this article, the word alleged would make the title more neutral.

If you don't agree with the renaming, I would be grateful if you could provide sources - ideally newer than the NBC article I linked. Also, please indicate if you would support renaming in 1, 2 or 5 years from now if no new findings are published. Alaexis_¿question? 15:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Not necessary. The article itself can describe the level of ambiguity or certainty. (And, FYI, the CIA assessment is that the program did exist.) Neutrality 17:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is from July, so that refers to the original CIA report ("C.I.A. analysts placed medium confidence in that assessment") rather than to the results of the subsequent investigation. Alaexis_¿question? 17:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

There has been no reported subsequent CIA assessment that I have seen. Neutrality 18:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CONCISE the extent to which it takes place is discussed in greater detail in article. blindlynx (talk) 18:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The proposed title is actually more POV. It suggests that the allegations are false. The current title makes no such claim either way, any more than the title of our article on Superman suggests that he is a real person. Andrewa (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alleged Iranian and Chinese bounties

Maybe a better solution would be to change the scope of the article, considering that there are no separate articles about the alleged Iranian and Chinese payments. In case of China I think that the sources seem to indicate that the allegations are less credible, however in case of Iran they seem to have the same level of certainty as the Russian ones (U.S. intelligence reports with no official corroboration). Alaexis_¿question? 21:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the separate subsection at the end of the article covers this material adequately. Neutrality 16:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Having a subsection seems a bit awkward - if this article is about the *Russian* bounty program then we only need to briefly reference other such allegations to give some context to the reader rather than dedicating a subsection for them. However, considering that there are no separate articles about the Iranian and Chinese payments, it would make more sense to change the article scope and describe all of them here. Obviously the more credible ones would be given more prominence per WP:UNDUE. Alaexis_¿question? 21:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Categories: