I have no issue with the reliability of this source per se though I do take issue with the POV pushing going on from both sides in this thread I am concerned that 1 I can not access the article to read the language concerning the cash payments and 2 I m seeing a lot of judgement laden language flying around in this discussion I would ask that someone provide a chunk of the text for review if possible If the source does not call them bribes then we should not If it does but in context we must also put that in context It s certainly worth noting but not in a manner that pushes one s own POV on this And we can not say well by my reasoning large amounts of cash paid are the saem thing as bribes Wikipedia is not a source for our personal reasoning but for the specific adherence solely to RS We can not extrapolate spin or play semantics with RS content Until some source is available or demonstrated here that refers to them as bribes I d have to say I m not comfortable with its inclusion