Talk:Quid pro quo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:


Contents

[edit] 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":


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)

[edit] 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. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 15:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Bush/Clinton reference

As shown here [1] (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Alice.S 22:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)