Talk:Slush fund/Archive 1

Archive 1

Popular culture

I think this does not belong here. Anyone else agree?--Adoniscik (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Contra accounts are NOT slush funds

A contra account, in accounting, is simply one account which cancels out another; there are many legimiate uses of contra-accounts in accounting. To equate contra accounts with slush funds is simply false. --EngineerScotty 17:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the author might be referring to when the use of contra accounts is abused. Having said that, I've never heard of the term being used in this regard. --Darzinho 17:33, 16 December 2006 (GMT)

Perhaps they were thinking of counter-guerilla funding?--Adoniscik (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nixon

I wrote

Richard Nixon's notorious "Checkers speech" of 1952 [...]

Happyme22 changed notorious to famed, saying,

("notorious" makes it sound negative; rm odd in-text note as well)

notorious can be neutral (unlike infamous, I'd say, though too many people use infamous to mean 'really famous'), and famed seems too positive for my taste; how about no adjective? — For anyone who's curious, the hidden comment was a response to the youngsters who keep 'correcting' 1952 to 1972. —Tamfang (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Those young whippersnappers!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.131.48 (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 

Merge with... ?

This seems to me the type of subject that can't be expanded upon a great deal more than what it already has. First thought seeing this article is that it could be merged into another article (banking practices, one of the articles found in the 'political corruption' sidebar.) Any suggestions on which article it could be merged? — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 22:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

New source added

I stumbled across this page and added an additional source (from a finance perspective) to try to address some of the issues in the article. CobraWiki might have a point in merging, though it seems like its a ubiquitous term with numerous other applications. Whether it predominates in political circles is something I would leave to someone with more experience than me. Apologies if I screwed anything up. SirMinkMay (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Etymology suspect

The given etymology may be source, but it sounds like a "folk etymology" to me - a commonly believed, but untrue, one. Maybe someone can check what the OED or a similar source, one focussed on origins of words, says about it? 94.194.66.92 (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A much more detailed and believable account is in William McNally's book Evils & Abuses in Naval & Merchant Service, (Boston, Cassaday and March, 1839) pp. 161--163. It is available free on-line at the Internet Archive, https://archive.org/details/evilsabusesinnav00mcnarich but I have no time to write it up now. Colin McLarty (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at the OED and the Online Etymology Dictionary. The etymology is pretty much identical (with the difference that it was not just the cook who sold the slush) to what's in this entry. I'll add those sources. By the way, "folk etymology" (at least in how it's used in linguistics) is something different from a popular but untrue story of how a word or term came to be; it's a mechanism used for transferring a word or phrase from one language or another by making it better fit the new language, such as bringing the French word "crevis" into English as "crayfish." Jk180 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

focus on athletics is out-of-place?

It seems odd to have a focus on U.S. collegiate athletics scandals. If more examples from other areas were added, it wouldn't stick out as much. Failing that, should those examples be deleted? not-just-yeti (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Legitimate Uses

It seems to me like there are in fact legitimate uses of slush funds. And they are not mentioned at all in this article. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/slushfund.asp 128.84.95.186 (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)