User talk:Cantstavwontstav/sandbox

Thomas's Changes
The first paragraph does not read well. The opening line sounds like it is trying to be too scholastic in its tone, and ultimately ends up only making the simple definition of bribery sound confusing. The second sentence gives a law dictionary definition for bribery that does not match the definition in the actual dictionary entry, so I will change that. Finally, the last sentence simply does not seem like it belongs. I will be reviewing that, and looking out for either a better way to rework it so it can fit, another place to put it, or just getting rid of it altogether.
 * I am going to clean up the first paragraph

A lot of what is going on in this opening section feels like it does not belong, or at least not in the opening section. This does not read like other, common Wikipedia articles, and I know that when I read a Wiki article that has a different tone in its opening sections than most other's I am less likely to trust the article's content. If that is the way I feel, I am sure others do too, so this is something I want to improve.
 * I will then review the opening section as a whole

The "Preventions" heading is noticeably light on information. It only contains one paragraph of content, and that content focusses more on why businesses SHOULD take precautions to prevent corporate bribery, rather than How businesses Are preventing bribery. I would also like to clean some of the content that is already written up, as some of the sentences are poorly constructed. ThomasB111 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Finally, I will add some content to the "Preventions" heading

Lead
Bribery is the act of offering, giving, or receiving something of value in exchange for some kind of influence or action in return, that the recipient would not otherwise give. Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.[1] Essentially, bribery is offering to do something for someone for the expressed purpose of receiving something in exchange.

[I changed the first sentence of the paragraph in order to put it in laymen's terms. I felt the original rendering was a little bit too technical, and therefore not helpful to the average reader. I tried to be simple in my language, and straightforward in my approach. I took from the original sentence, as well as Cornell's Wex Legal Dcitionary .]

Opening Section
A bribe is a gift bestowed in order to influence the recipient's conduct. It may be money, goods, rights in action, property, preferment, privilege, emolument, objects of value, advantage, or merely a promise to induce or influence the action, vote, or influence of a person in an official or public capacity.[2]

There is a fine line between bribery and gifting, and that line is primarily drawn by motive. The difference between a bribe and a gift is the reason for which the gift is given. Gifts of money or other items of value that are given with no conditions is not bribery. For example, a bonus for good work or for holidays are not considered a bribe. Offering a discount or a refund to all potential buyers is a legal rebate and is not bribery. For example, it is legal for an employee of a Public Utilities Commission involved in electric rate regulation to accept a rebate on electric service that reduces their cost for electricity, when the rebate is available to other residential electric customers. Giving the rebate to influence them to look favorably on the electric utility's rate increase applications, however, would be considered bribery.

[I think it is best to get rid of the final paragraph. The paragraph does not follow a consistent thought, and it really feels like something that was just tacked on at the end.]

Preventions
Legislation The U.S. introduced the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977 to address bribery of foreign officials. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, was introduced to prevent the influencing of foreign officials by companies through rewards or payments. This legislation dominated international anti-corruption enforcement until around 2010 when other countries began introducing broader and more robust legislation, notably the United Kingdom Bribery Act 2010.[18][19] The International Organization for Standardization introduced an international anti-bribery management system standard in 2016.[20] In recent years, cooperation in enforcement action between countries has increased.[21]

Under 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses, the law strictly prohibits any type of promising, giving, or offering of value to a public official. A public official is further defined as anyone who holds public or elected office. Another stipulation of the law in place condemns the same kind of offering, giving, or coercing a witness in a legal case to changing their story. The minimum penalty for either of these offenses is 10 years, and a potential fine.

Business There is no federal statute under the U.S Law that prohibits or regulates any type of private or commercial bribery. There is a way for prosecutors to try perpetrators for bribery by using existing laws. Section 1346 of Title 18 can be used by prosecutors, to try people for ‘a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right to honest services,’ under the mail and wire fraud statutes. Prosecutors have always successfully prosecuted private company employees fro breaching a fiduciary duty and taking bribes, under Honest services fraud.

There are also cases of successful prosecution of bribery in the case of international business. The DOJ has used the Travel Act, 18 USC Section 1952 to prosecute bribery. Under the Travel Act, it is against the law, domestically and internationally, to utilize‘the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce’ with intent to ‘promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment or carrying on, of any unlawful activity’. ThomasB111 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review - Priya Pamnani
Priyap97 (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I like that you pointed out the inconsistencies with citations and plagiarism in this article. One of the fundamental values of Wikipedia is that it should summarize but not directly copy information from other sources to provide a clear description of a topic, and you do a good job in pointing out the current flaws that the article has and with stating that if you cannot find sources for specific information that is already in the article you may need to remove it.
 * 2) Since there weren't many new concepts added to the article in this sandbox I am unable to provide any feedback about any additions to the article from the sandbox. However, reviewing the current Bribery article on Wikipedia, I agree that you may want to add in information about bribery examples not in the United States. I would suggest more specifically branching out of just when bribery occurs and perhaps delve into the linguistic patterns and features specific to bribery across cultures. Are there specific phrases or words that are used in multiple cultures in regards to bribery? How does people's speech change when they are giving or accepting a bribe? In a language and law class these topics seem particularly interesting, and there is nothing currently in the article which deals with these issues.
 * 3) You are already working on this, but the most important change to make to this article is to make sure that all information is ethically sourced and cited. This can mean taking out work that has not been cited and has no relevant support for it that you can find, or fixing dead links. After this is done, the next most important task is to fill in some of the holes that might have been left when you removed parts of the article. For example, if you plan to remove some of the information from the Forms section, add more in! See what you can find about the different forms of bribery, especially outside America as you mentioned that the article seems to have an American bias.

Reply to Peer Review
Thank you for your peer review! I agree, I hadn't thought about too much of what we would add in terms of concepts but I am definitely going to add examples with proper citations to back them up. I found a good amount about business bribery that expands on the "business" section with examples from other countries. I also agree with the notion of trying to replace information we take out from the sections I also might potentially add a new section depending on what I find, I will definitely keep my eye out for linguistic information on bribery, thanks for the suggestion.

Cantstavwontstav (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)