Talk:Quid pro quo/Archives/2012

Origins
In the french page someone state that it came from pharmaceutical use.One medicine used instead of an another.If one can verify it.Sorry for my poor english.RAZAFY Gomez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.106.25 (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Swings and Roundabouts
"Swings and Roundabouts" does not have the same definition as Quid pro quo  - feel free to cite a source that contradicts this, but I think you'll find they mean quite different things and are used in different contexts. I've update the article accordingly.

Revision of Definition
I changed the Latin translation of this phrase from "this for that" to "something for something," which is more accurate and the preferred adaptation into English by three major English dictionaries. Here are my sources for three lexicons defining "quid pro quo":
 * Merriam-Webster: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/quid%20pro%20quo
 * American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=quid%20pro%20quo
 * The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: http://www.bartleby.com/59/4/quidproquo.html

The definition of "quid pro quo" must also emphasize the causal relationship between the things exchanged: "this" was given away because "that" was received, and vice versa. Without this link, two independent actions may appear to be a "quid pro quo" under the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. --htowninsomniac 23:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment
I don't know how to do it, but a Disambiguation page for the Movie 'Quid Pro Quo' and this page would be nice. I had a little run around trying to find this page. --Talk 17:19, March 24, 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "tit for tat" is a quid pro quo. Quid pro quo implies a pre-planned exchange; tit for tat is an equal response to a previous wrong. Tit for tat is retaliation to neither party's benefit; quid pro quo is exchange to each party's benefit. --ESP 07:27, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Odd, because I have heard quid pro quo used in both positive and negative ways - although I can't cite a specific right now. I know at least one was in a "mob-related" type situation, a hit for a hit (in revenge).--CokeBear 00:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with this phrase: "given in apparent exchange for money". That seems to have gotten the idea of political favors backwards. Usually a company, association or lobbyist will give something to a politician (political contributions, free travel, tickets to sports events, contributions to favorite charities) with the idea that they will, at a minimum, create a feeling of goodwill towards them, maybe generating a closer relationship between them, and even perhaps a feeling of obligation, but always with the hope that when the politician will consider voting on something they are interested in, that the politician will vote in their favor. Where there is a much greater perception of quid pro quo is when someone gives a large political contribution either right before or just after a favorable vote takes place, where the public perception is that may have been some explicit private agreements between the parties.

Also: " It is also widely known as one of the two legal types of sexual harassment." This statement needs to make clear which country or countires this applies to. It should also make clear that the quid pro quo in this case is the suggestion or reality of the exchange of sexual favors for promotions, better treatment, etc. gK [[User talk:GK|&iquest;?]] 15:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be some mention of the phrase, "Mutual consideration".

Favor? Favour?
I know this is another subject in the rift between orginal English/American English but I really think that it should be a favour for a favour. 81.208.161.198 12:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines state that US or British spellings are equally acceptable, but that they should be consistent on an article-by-article basis. I am correcting it to fit that guideline.--CokeBear 00:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Compliment
I really like this article. :) Jamestaylor 12:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the worst articles I have read on Wikipedia. --htowninsomniac 23:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct Latin
The end of the article has comments on what the correct latin form is. This says:


 * To express the concept of a "favour for a favour", the English language has adopted the expression quid pro quo, instead of "do ut des". To this extent, two remarks must be done: first, the literal translation from the latin "qui pro quo" is "to take this for a that", it means a misunderstanding, a confusion - and not "a favour for a favour" (it is clear that the meaning has been changed), second, the form “quid pro quo”, does not exist in latin, the correct expression is "qui pro quo".

To that a user with the ip 82.5.55.28 added the following on 15:05, 26 June 2006 (this is the only thing added under that IP address) in the article itself:


 * I believe the writer of the previous paragraph has made an error - "quid pro quo" is correct Latin and does mean 'something (indefinite) in return for something (indefinite)". I believe he is conflating it with the Italian "qui pro quo" meaning a mistake or confusion.

Frankly, none of it makes sense to me seeing as I don't know latin. Could someone clear this up or correct it. I took the second part out because it is stated in an improper manner for a Wikipedia article; however, if the second person is correct and the first person is wrong then the article is now incorrect. What is correct? Crito2161 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The second comment is correct. Quid pro quo is a valid phrase in Latin, the correct translation of which is "something for something" — the neuter singular forms of the indefinite pronoun (incidentally, "something" is the English indefinite pronoun). iggytalk 21:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you; I've changed it now. Crito2161 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - there is no such thing in Latin as Quid pro quo, nor if you translate it do you get something for something else or similar. As it was mentioned before, qui pro quo was indeed used and it used as Latin still in current Italian to refer to a mistake. I accept quid pro quo is currently used in the English culture but in Italy (where Latin is still studied at school) is unheard of.

I just dug out a Latin grammar book and "quo" is listed as the ablative case of "quid" along with "qua re". Therefore, the expression "quid pro quo" is grammatically correct. However, the pronoun "quis?, quid?" (meaning "who?, what?") was only used in interrogative propositions, such as "Who is this man?" and not in statements, i.e. "I am the man who never sleeps" where the pronoun "qui, quae, quod" is used instead. Hence, although grammatically correct, the expression "quid pro quo" was never used. As correctly pointed out in the previous comment, it is unheard of in Italy. The traditional Latin phrase used to express the concept of "something in exchange for something" is "do ut des" - literally: "I give so that you may give". The Latin grammar used is Flocchini, N., Guidotti Bacci, P. & Moscio, M. "Expedite". 2005. Bompiani Per La Scuola. ISBN 88-451-0173-8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopy18 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Useless pedantry. There’s plenty of Latin not found in dictionaries of classical Latin. Just think of theological Latin or the Vulgate Bibile. (What would Cicero have understood by the “unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam” of the Creed? No doubt he would have judged that words like “salvator”, “sanctificare”, “quidditas” etc. were rank barbarisms yet they were and are much used in theology.) Then there’s legal Latin (e.g. “habeas corpus”, “Quominus”) which expresses ideas unknown to the classical world but essential to the functioning of modern legal systems. Quid pro quo may not be classical but it had a long history of use from mediaeval medicine on. All modern languages are the corruption of earlier languages – as someone said, if it wasn’t for the corruption of language Zaragoza would still be Caesar Augusta, Milan Mediolanum, Florence Florenza or Florentia, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems evident that the use of "quid pro quo" as equivalent to "do ut des" is completely erroneous, in all neo-latin languages the idiom is used to indicate a trivial error, and that is probably what happened in american legal usage, a qui pro quo. Maybe do ut des was simply too difficult to pronunciate. It is just logic we have to use here, even for the worst medieval copyist it was impossible to write quid instead of quo, changing a vowel and a consonant for a vowel, whereas it would be much easier to write an i in stead of an o, with subsequent change in the meaning of the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattpk72 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Treccani dictionary actually suggests that both expressions, "qui pro quo" and "quid pro quo", have the same origin, in late medieval Latin, with the former derived from the latter. (see Vocabolario Treccani, http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/qui-pro-quo/). So most of the above discussion of their relative merits is pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo (talk • contribs) 06:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Bush/Clinton reference
As shown here (why are the links not doing what I want them to? - that's a wikipedia link), one editor replaced a sentence about the phrase being used in reference to Bush with a sentence about the phrase being used in reference to Clinton. Neither of the sentences quoted sources, so I don't know whether either of them is correct; I edited it so that both references were included in the article, as well as taking out a few phrases that seemed bias to me. Right now I have:


 * It was also used in reference to Bill Clinton's presidential pardon of Marc Rich, because through Marc Rich's ex-wife, Rich contributed $450,000 to the Clinton Presidential Library Foundation in addition to money donated to the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign. It has also been used in reference to President Bush's so called "blank check" to wage war in Iraq, given by congress in response to Bush providing evidence of weapons of mass destruction, reported, among others, by John W. Dean in his book "Worse than Watergate."

The last sentence of this doesn't make much sense to me, though, because I haven't read "Worse than Watergate." Is the editor saying that Dean refered to it as quid pro quo or that he said that others have reported it as such? If it's the first, then I think the sentence should be reworded a bit so that it is more clear, if the second, then I think the name of the book within the article should be taken out and used as a source. Crito2161 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In Popular Culture, Hannibal Lecter
Lecter uses the term many times in "The Silence of the Lambs" in his dialogs with agent Starling. I suggest adding a reference to this in a "In Popular CUlture" section. Any opinions? Mariostorti 13:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't realy seem to be long enough to warrant a new section. I'm not sure if the reference to Hannibal Lecter is even necessary at all.  If it really is, I would add it maybe at the end of the paragraph ending "The term may also be used to describe blackmail, where a person offers to refrain from some harmful conduct in return for valuable consideration."  I assume it's used in reference to blackmail?  I don't know; I haven't seen the movie.  I really don't think its necessary though.  Crito2161 02:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it warrants a new section, either, but the fact is that "Quid pro quo, Clarice" is one of the most famous quotes from a very famous film. It might be worth a mention somewhere.  And it has nothing to do with blackmail; this was the basis for Hannibal Lector helping Agent Starling to capture a serial killer, which was essentially the entire plot of the film.  I say put it in somewhere. Florestan

I don't like that the movie "The Silence of the Lambs" is mentioned in the section above the table of contents. I hardly find that bit of trivia notable; elevating it to such a level of emphasis makes this Wikipedia article seem unprofessional. The expression "quid pro quo" is a very common Latin term and occurs in many legal or economic situations. I'm sure there's a dozen textbooks about law and economics that has a higher incidence of the expression "quid pro quo". In fact, I'm convinced that if you read an account of the Cuban missile crisis, you'll find the expression mentioned more often. I suggest removing the reference to "Silence of the Lambs" entirely or making it a minor subsection of the article. --htowninsomniac 23:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably the most known and popular usage of this sentence worldwide (as noted above, this sentence isn't even used in Italy), also, the usage in this movie impacted its current meaning, giving it a negative connotation (see http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/quid-pro-quo.html ). It doesn't deserve a "Silence of the lambs" section, but surely fits in a "In popular culture" section. --Eltener 14:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section

 * I have removed the trivia section. Besides the fact that I dislike them in general, the term "quid pro quo" is so widely used in police procedural and legal dramas that I don't think these examples (or any others we are likely to come up with) are worth a distinct mention. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the purpose of a trivia section is to list every occurrence of the phrase in popular culture ever, merely where it is especially relevant. It may be helpful to identify where readers have heard the phrase before.  Just my opinion.  I'm speaking specifically of the "Silence of the Lambs" reference so commonly heard. - Florestan
 * I concur with Robert A West and have removed the entire section again today after reading "In popular culture" articles. Alice.S  22:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Its back. I don't see the notability, but looks like attempts to remove the section are quickly reverted.DavidRF (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If the sections "in popular culture" or "trivia" are not wanted/liked by Wikipedia, why not delete them and that's that? There is no need for consensus since they're already out of the guidelines. Just a thought. --David Be (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree this is trivia, I have read the opinion expressed in "In popular culture" articles just now, and plainly stated at the top of that article is:


 * I intend to take the advice and use this opinion essay with discretion. In the case of this article, the extent of this reasonably documented list shows how prevalent and this phrase and it's associated concept goes to the heart of human culture - it crosses all economic, social, and political boundries world wide, and this list is one of the best represntations of that in the english wikipedia article of Quid Quo Pro. I would suggest that attempting to document the list better with external references would improve it, and those without good references could be removed to help cull any non-notable entries in it.Timmccloud (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear that everyone else who has weighed in here disagrees; if you have a source backing up these statements about the English use of the term, it would be different. Otherwise, it's original research, and you are against consensus to add this unencyclopedic trivia to the page.  It's rather embarrassing for Wiki, as well, to find such a collection of useless info on the page about a term used legally.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In French
In French, the same expression has produced "quiproquo" (used as "what for what"), which denotes an expression in theatre where two (or more) protagonists misunderstand each other's discourse, which leads to funny situations. It is closely associated to vaudeville theatre. Hugo Dufort 05:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't the French use "quiproquo" more than "quidproquo"? Not sure about that, any thought? Lachambre 10:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

not myspace. Not geocities.

 * As per WP:TRIVIA, please do consider the possibility that you are being astoundingly selfish by inflicting this myspace/facebook/geocities sh*t on a webspace that is supposed to be an academic reference.  Please. It's graffiti. If you wanna put ZOMG KOOL trivia somewhere, do it on your facebook page, so all your facebook friends can click the ZOMG kool "I Like This" link, and give you all the attention. Please. Please. Stop adding graffiti in a juvenile manner to an academic source. Thank you oh so much. &bull; Ling.Nut 02:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, which is allowed on wikipedia, and again, a guideline is a guide, not a rule. Your reverting my edit isn't the way we do things on Wikipedia, we discuss and create consensus.  Please join in the discussion; if you have trouble with the section; edit it to improve it - wholesale deletion is not the way to do it.  I am restoring, and reporting a possible edit war to the administrators, possibly having the article protected.  Again, edit to improve, not to impose your will - many people have contributed to the section, and I believe - as others do - it has merit.  Timmccloud (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are not to be ignored. The guideline says there may be occasional exceptions. There is absolutely nothing exceptional about this occasion in any way, shape, or form. It is a vanilla example of a trivia section, and a vanilla example of an editor fighting to preserve a trivia section. No more. No less. Edit to improve = delete; trivia cannot be improved. The guideline says the info should be meaningfully incorporated into the text or else avoided. You cannot just say, "It's a f*cking guideline; I'm ignoring it." &bull; Ling.Nut 02:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a guideline and a rule; I heartily encourage you and any other editors to incorporate it into the text. I even encourage you make it smaller if you can do so without removing the purpose behind the section (showing the prevalence of the concept in society), and feel free to remove parts of it which may in fact be trivial, as long as you are attempting to improve the section. I do object to a single person making wholesale deletions of a significant amount of content provided by a large section of editors, without a) starting a discussion FIRST, and b) ignoring consensus since I'm not the only one who feels this way. I agree that I lean towards the inclusionary philosophy of the encyclopedia, and apparently from your vehemence you lean towards the exclusionary philosophy, which is fine, let's meet somewhere in the middle where we both agree the article will be improved. You are just the latest person to join in this discussion (see previous sections above), your unilateral arrogance shows that you couldn't even add to an existing section, you had to have your own; consensus is the Wikipedia philosophy, not unilateralism, and I would like to seek consensus with you and other editors.  Finally, I'm attempting to reason with you, let's try to keep the profanity out of it.   Timmccloud (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Guidelines reflect the WP:CONSENSUS of the Wikipedia community as a whole. I heartily encourage to actually read things like WP:GUIDELINE. And your sh*t is graffiti. There is no middle, haven't I said that clearly? If you can find a meaningful way to incorporate the text into the article, then do so. If you cannot, then do not inflict your WP:TRIVIA effluvia upon the whole readership of Wikipedia because you think it's WP:INTERESTING. &bull; Ling.Nut 04:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ling.nut, would you tone it down a bit? There are a lot more civil ways to disagree. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a disagreement. The word "disagreement" implies that compromise is an option. It is not an option. The stuff that folks are splashing across Wikipedia is mindless, drooling pablum for drooling idiots . It completely ignores the fact that the entire Wikipedia community has reached a consensus that runs something like this (paraphrase of WP:TRIVIA): "Trivia is useless effluvia, and the whole damn community agrees that it's effluvia, but it's really the next best thing to completely impossible to promote a guideline to a policy, so tragically we are forced to leave at least a teeny keyhole-sized aperture for trivia to squeak through and thus continue to exist. Don't abuse it, please. Keep your damn trivia off our encyclopedia." That's a fairly accurate summary of WP:TRIVIA.
 * Think for a second. Let's say Albert Einstein, Genghis Khan and Geronimo, while standing under the Eiffel Tower, have a very long conversation about the nature of the universe. During that lengthy conversation, Einstein uses the phrase "quid pro quo", just in passing. Now, Einstein is notable enough, as are Genghis Khan and Geronimo. The Eiffel Tower surely deserves an article. Extending our little scenario further, it's even possible that the conversation yielded some significant insights into theoretical physics. In that case, the incident itself could meaningfully be incorporated into the respective articles of our three luminaries (though probably not into the article of the Eiffel Tower). By what stretch of the imagination are we to conclude that the phrase "quid pro quo", which Einstein used in passing, gets to horn in on the act here, and claim that is is notable that Einstein uttered these three words that comprise a fairly common phrase? Let's take this even further. Let's say that in the extensive discography of The Rolling Stones, which includes many classic hits that assuredly deserve their own articles,  there is an eminently forgettable song called "Quid Pro Quo". This song is simply filler. It is one little speck in a very, very large number of items in a list of all the songs the Stones ever recorded. It never charted; even worse, if you look through the reviews of the album, it is never even discussed (it may be included in a list of the tracks, perhaps). The song has no relation to the etymology of the phrase, and adds no insight into the way it is used. It is simply an example of the use of this very common phrase. In short, citing it as an example does absolutely zero-point-zero to illuminate, explicate, or explain any of the main points of topic at hand; it does nothing to help an uninformed reader better understand the meaning or history of the phrase "quid pro quo", or to better understand anything at all in fact. Do we include this song in the "Quid Pro Quo" article simply because it exists? How does that help our readership?  ... And further still, let's say there never was a Rolling Stones song titled "Quid Pro Quo", but there was another song in which the words "quid pro quo" were included somewhere in the lyrics (see the famed Conversation at Eiffel, above). Where does this buffoonery end? Is this what we want to present to the world as a professional-quality encyclopedia? No. There is no compromise. Either find a way to prove each item in your trivia list is notable in and of itself, or delete them.
 * I could go through the entire list, removing items one by one, with an edit summary sayng that this particular item is not notable in and of itself. I'll have to wait a few days, as the only person who wants to preserve this section has already reported me for 1RR on an article that is not under any sanctions or restrictions. This editor is not well-versed in Wikipedia's policies. Or guidelines. Or anything, it seems, except how to argue that pablum is beautiful and should be preserved for posterity. &bull; Ling.Nut 00:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ling.Nut, if you're going to call people "drooling idiots", you're going to end up blocked. That's the end of the story. And I'm not going to be the one to do it. I'm merely foretelling. "Drooling idiots" is a personal attack, full stop, and people are blocked for those. Consider yourself warned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, are you saying that you didn't read a single word of what I wrote? &bull; Ling.Nut 01:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not in this content dispute, and what you wrote was pretty much the epitome of tl;dr. I don't really plan to have any more to do with this discussion at this point, since my hopes for a more friendly discussion are clearly not going to be realized through suggestion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I highlighted a little bit, as an aid for readers' abused attention spans. I also struck through the "drooling idiots" bit, since . There. That should cover it, I guess. Thanks for helping out. &bull; Ling.Nut 01:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a pretty bad abuse of WP:TRIVIA-- I would edit to improve, but I can't see anything work keeping. Is there any source anywhere that mentions any of this trivia as notable, important uses of the term?  Please find sources that tell us why we care about this trivia, or remove it-- it's unencyclopedic and doesn't belong here. Not sources that document the use of the term-- sources that state that that they are notable uses of the term and address the original research that is in the first sentence.  We have a guidelines and policies (like WP:OR) for a reason-- this is not encyclopedic content, it is original research.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)