Battle of Perryville

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Corruption (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Corruption, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CorruptionWikipedia:WikiProject CorruptionTemplate:WikiProject CorruptionCorruption articles United States: Government 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Business: Accounting Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Accounting task force.

I was about to add earmarks under see also, but realized that a) it is still legal, and b) I'd need a WP:RELY source in order not to make it's appearance WP:OR. Still, for a "see also"....Hmmm, Student7 (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "See also" section is for related info. Adding links does not need the rigours of referencing. I will add Earmark (politics) and pork barrel. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And good addition of pork barrel. Student7 (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add short summaries for the cases (and also arrange them in some manner) and I thought of using content from the leads of the articles, reducing it if it is too extensive. Is it ok to just copypaste, or is there some process to do it? - frankieMR (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two ways to turn this into an actual article.

1) First you need to decide what the subject of the article actually is. Is it "Political corruption?" "Corruption of youth?" "Corruption on Wall Street?" If it is all corruption, then this will be a rather short article, summarizing the others with subsections for each as just mentioned. And separate articles so people will know where to go when they have an addition.

2) You can take each item and write a paragraph on it with the article linked inside of it. It would then be removed from the list.

List removal is important. Since this started out as an olio, there really is no subject at this point. Words are necessary but not explaining the entry in the see also! That is just a poke in the eye of good encyclopedic development.

Creating an article out of this junk pile is going to take a lot of work which most editors don't want to do. They don't know the subject either! For example, it needs a lead. Since no one knows what the topic is, they can't create one! Right now, this is nothing but WP:COATRACK. a title on which I can hang anything I want: The Clintons with Whitewater, Anything on Wall Street, Anything a politician does that people don't like (nearly everything s/he does BTW), This is tabloid journalism, and not encyclopedic at all. Student7 (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's how a decent article should look, a good reason to delete this one and start over. Student7 (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not all that great, and no rating. But at least it passes as a possible article. Also, they have tried to hold intelligent discussions about the topic. See Talk:Corruption, showing that they had a grasp of the topic. Student7 (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to boldly remove the "Related Articles" list. No such section is allowed per WP:MOS. While conceivably some of those could be moved to "See Also", it's not exactly clear why all of them are related. Furthermore, keeping the list perpetuates the illusion that there is an actual article here. If someone wants to write an actual article, that's fine, but, until then, we can't just have a list of other articles.

Alternatively, the list could be restored and this article could be moved to a List of corruption events in the United States or something similar but less awkward. List articles are always fine as a back-up/alternative to the category system. That would also clear the way for an actual article titled "Corruption int the US". Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the whole bailouts for the bank were corruption, the benefits for corporations were. In Russia its called corruption in america its called lobbying. But the 2% hate it only when the regular people do it. This article should be much much longer.--Alibaba445 (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is not the place for you to post your opinions. Period. This page is only for suggesting improvements to the article. And those additions, so far, have been non-neutral, improperly sourced, and, in part, original research. Wikipedia is not the place for you to push your agenda about whether or not the US is corrupt. If you have reliable sources that discuss corruption in the US, they may be included. And, in the abstract, I agree that the article should be longer. But we must only do such an expansion based on Wikpedia's policies and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I have just changed the title of this section, per WP:NOTFORUM. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is far too small. I won't take any position, but there has been a lot of history surrounding corruption in the United States (very notorious in the 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries). Of course, we need sources.--GuyWithoutAUsername (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

>> US nuclear officers caught in cheating ring<< US 'lost' nuclear codes in 2000 [(Lihaas (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

...is the biggest reason for corruption in America. Yet this article barely deals with it. 68.173.0.226 (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legalized corruption is the most prevalent form of corruption in the US today and is hardly mentioned in this article. The article should be expanded to incorporate such issues as campaign finance, monetary and nonmonetary gifts to politicians, lobbying, the revolving door between lobbying and government, insider trading by politicians and government officials, and government decisions affecting the wealth of politicians and government officials. Caffelatteo (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and here we are all these years later and we it's all the same 166.181.251.113 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caffelatteo: Very nice. I think we can expand this very easily because there is so much about the legalized form of corruption which is EXTREMELY well documented. Here are some quick finds:

1. Legal corruption is more common than illegal corruption in all branches of government. Executive and legislative branches score 3 or higher in legal corruption in a large majority of states.
2. It’s difficult to know why corruption may be spreading. But there are a few plausible explanations. From globalization to rising income inequality to the growing role of corporate money in political campaigns, political and economic dynamics may have increased both the scope of corporate wrongdoing and the incentives for business executives to bend, or break, the rules.
3. A source that IS NOT a Reliable Source, but it does have plenty of links to interesting places that are considered Reliable Sources.
4. For criminals moving large sums of dirty money internationally, there is no better device than an untraceable shell company.... It is easier to obtain an untraceable shell company from incorporation services (though not law firms) in the United States than in an other country save Kenya.

It's very easy to find information about corruption in the United States, you just have to do a quick search with the right keywords. Overall it took me less than 30 minutes to read through enough articles to find those sources and type all of this up. Very little effort can make this a good article. POC2016 (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jarble (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll suggest the Supreme Court case Citizens United (discussed in this LA Times piece) as a point of expansion in this article. The case, known for allowing more money to enter politics, also deals with the question of what do we consider corruption. Knope7 (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be a good idea to add a section on historic cases of (proven and well sourced) corruption? or the historical impact of corruption in US

It might be nice to add sections per region of the US, i.e. "Cases of Corruption in the Southwest" "Cases of Corruption in Pacific Northwest" etc.  

Different mechanisms of corruption

A section mentioning corruption in prison systems and guard bribery?

Maybe we can list organizations founded to fight corruption in the US? Katnotcat (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at James Madison University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]