Talk:Monkey Business (yacht)

Explanation of how the incident "scuppered his candidacy" needed
The article talks of "deepening the scandal" but never actually says what the scandal was. IIRC—we presumably have a well sourced account in the senator's bio—there had already been a whiff of scandal, or an accusation, after which he challenged the press to watch him closely for any untoward activity, and then proceeded on a cruise on the Monkey Business with the lady and others. Was there a previous incident involving the yacht? Or have I otherwise misremembered? I think we owe the reader a clear statement, and a citation for the incident having doomed his presidential bid (I know there are several). Yngvadottir (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There was more about this in a previous version that was removed with WP:COATRACK given as justification. I suppose the rationale was that the article is supposed to be about "the yacht", and not about the "scandal". But Watergate redirects to Watergate scandal, not to Watergate complex. I'd say that this yacht is only notable because of the scandal. Perhaps we should rename to Monkey Business scandal to negate the "coatrack" argument. Then the more detailed content about the scandal can be restored. I'm still in wonder that the candidacies of so many Democrats are "scuppered" by so little... Muskie and Dean also come to mind. Yet no scandal seems big enough to stop the Clintons, and Trump, well he's in a league of his own. "Reporters for the Miami Herald, in a controversial move, staked out Hart's townhouse"... there you have it. wbm1058 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it can be summarized in 2 sentences plus a sentence echoing the lede (all well referenced) and that that would be both better and shorter than the tangle we have now, and a better way to avoid COATRACK accusations. After all, we're making the claim in the lede; and the article survived AfD. (There is also the drug impoundment. I believe she's notable.) Do you want to do the honors? I'd rather you did; I'm running out of time in this editing session. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, and any article-watchers, how's that? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC) (I see to my embarrassment that my version is longer.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Those who want more detail on the affair can click on the link to Rice which includes, where more "coats" can be found ;o) wbm1058 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Cultural lexicon
Taquito1 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC) I deleted a sentence in the Gary Hart section that said the incident caused "monkey business" to enter the cultural lexicon, etc. The phrase originated long before 1987. If you read the referenced NYT article, as I did, you will find that, first, the sentence was plagiarized, and second, in its original context, it did not imply that the incident caused the phrase to enter the vocabulary, as the Wikipedia article did. I realize there are other possible meanings. If anyone wants to restore this, somehow, please ensure that it is not plagiarized, and be clear what you say.