::::::::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 cannot 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 cannot 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 cannot 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.