Talk:Quid pro quo

"Used in English"
Quid pro quo in french means the same thing as "used in english", why is this here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.167.155 (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the phrase "Latin idiom mistakenly used in Anglo-Saxon countries" pejorative, and an editorial opinion?
It seems pretty clear that the modern usage of the phrase in English differs from historical usage, or equivalent usage in modern Romance languages, but that difference doesn't someone equate to a mistake.

Given that there's no supporting references to authoritative sources that conclude it's a mistake, and thus the conclusion is not verifiable, I'm going to modify the sentence to avoid the pejorative tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.15.31 (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Now fixed. - Snori (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks like error of the quid concept is discussed on opinion larazon.es page

Yes, the blog certainly discusses the "error", which is not an "error", but it simply repeats the confusion. And it gives no sources for its statements. Ingenpedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, after all, not a blog page. METRANGOLO1 (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Romance languages nonsense
"In the Romance languages, such as Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and French, the phrase quid pro quo is used with the original Latin meaning, referring to a misunderstanding or a mistake ("to take one thing for another").[21][22] In those languages, the Latin phrase corresponding to the English usage of quid pro quo is do ut des ("I give so that you will give")." The above is largely nonsense. The Romance languages do not use "quid pro quo" with the meaning of a mistake. They use "qui pro quo". And the "original Latin meaning" is more nonsense, since it suggests that somehow the meaning of "quid pro quo" changed in time. I will remove the above from the article, unless someone is able to reword it so that it makes sense.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 12:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I notice that, of the two "sources" quoted, one being the Treccani, neither refers to "quid pro quo!" and both refer to "qui pro quo", so as sources they are simply irrelevant. I propose to remove the paragraph. If anyone has a rational objection to this removal, please give it and provide relevant sources. Otherwise I will proceed to eliminate the section within a day or two. METRANGOLO1 (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I did the above. There are still some bits and pieces of the confusion between "quid pro quo" and "qui pro quo" in the text. I'll try to clear it up soon.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks like the meaning of quid and its origin is explained in opinion larazon.es page

Well it certainly doesn't "explain" anything. It's a blog page that simply repeats the error. It's easy to spread rubbish on Ingenpedia, clearing it up takes a bit more time. If you think the statements contained on the blog have some merit, go ahead and insert them but make sure you add pertinent references.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Political spin in Quid Quo Pro
Since this is a hot topic due to the Impeachment Inquiry of Donald Trump, spammers, socks and political operatives have started putting their flavor of spin in this article to bolster their case, more so in the last few days. I've been daily reverting the bias, and as of today a big thank you goes out to Ohnoitsjamie for the partial protect until December 20th. That will at least slow the spam down to confirmed registered users. If you disagree, I await your intelligent discussion on the matter, otherwise please send all spin to the main article Trump–Ukraine scandal, it doesn't belong here. Timmccloud (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019
I would advise Ingenpedia to remove this content

Donald Trump Impeachment Inquiry Main article: Trump–Ukraine scandal Quid pro quo has been frequently mentioned during the impeachment inquiry into U.S. president Donald Trump, in reference to his request for an investigation of Hunter Biden as a precondition for the delivery of congressionally authorized military aid during a call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.[20]

As it is political and there should not be political content on a non political article Also it is possible libel to both the president Turmp as well as the Bidens Dq209 (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I would almost agree with you User:FlightTime, but for two reasons. First, it is an excellent example of a Quid Pro Quo in the political arena which helps illustrate the article, and that is almost sufficient in itself. Second, there is a LOT of traffic being driven to Ingenpedia these days due to the hearing, THIS article in particular, so a link to the actual main article about the impeachment is warranted to make the Encyclopedia more friendly to causal users and a short concise description of the Quid Quo Pro that the hearings revolve around is warranted.  The latter reason is time sensitive, as there will be less traffic to the page when the hearings (and possible impeachment) is over, so with time that reason will expire.  Were either of those two reasons moot, then the one reason left would not be enough to retain the entry - which is why I would, under other circumstances, agree with you. You raise an interesting legal point; Does anyone know how we could get the Ingenpedia in house legal council to issue an opinion on this?  I personally think this entry is safe because the facts are pretty straight forward: The hearing is taking place, it is in fact being mentioned, Donald Trump is the president and he is the basis of the hearings, and the issue they are dealing with is exactly as stated in the sentence. Alleged or not, the issue is as stated and it is no different than what is being reported worldwide in the press; if they are safe from slander so are we. Timmccloud (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to agree with the requester User:Dq209, rather than the user responding to the request. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it should be removed, but neither do I think an allegation (even a likely one) should be stated as fact, especially in IN:BLP matters. The way it’s written leaves no room for doubt—the investigation was a precondition for the aid. If we want to say something like that so strongly in Ingenpedia’s voice, I’d say we need a stronger source than one person’s testimony reported by a left-leaning newspaper. Otherwise, it should be rephrased, maybe something like, “in reference to the accusation …”. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I’ve edited it to recast it as something someone said, rather than a definitive objective reality. As much as I’d love to say that every negative thing about the man is true, we can’t take sides in an encyclopedic voice and maintain integrity. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe your nuances 96.8.24.95 are lost in this article. There is a main article to make your points, But it doesn't belong here. As you recast it, you lay the accusation on only one person, when actually this accusation was made by multiple people, and the evidential trail of information was enough to warrant impeachment.  I believe your recast, as you have made it, is highly misleading and it's better to simplify this entry by stating it simply as it was.  I realize that your recast is in line with the reference, but this is only one of many references, far to numerous to list in this article (again, all of this should be in the main article, not here.  How would you 96.8.24.95 simplify this statement to being a short note in line with being an example in the article, without getting into nuance and overly footnoting the wrong article? (also, please name your account so we don't have to call you 06.8.24.95). Thanks! Timmccloud (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

We certainly don’t need as much nuance as I added (in hindsight, that’s just way too many words), but I’d argue we still need some for the time being.

If at all possible, I would replace the citation with one to a bulletproof source that authoritatively states Trump’s motive. (I haven’t been keeping up with the news, so it may have become more of a hard fact, but I thought it was still in debate.) Without an irrefutable source, I’m not comfortable having an unqualified attribution of motive in WIkipedia’s voice. Failing that, I would have this (and any other passing mention) simply say he was accused of what he’s accused of. Hm, maybe… “in reference to the charge that his request … was a precondition …”? Something like that? That’s only three extra words, down from the fifteen or so that I added. Still a wordy sentence in general, though… (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Its definitely better and I would totally support this edit. No need to bring specific accusers into it (like Vendamin), because once impeached, the accusal has the weight of the entire house. The senate decides what remedy, if any should occur, but the accusation is no longer in question. I agree it's already wordy (and I've had to cull it multiple times), but keeping it to a single sentence, yet still relevant as an example has been a challenge. Timmccloud (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

On an off-topic note, you, sir, embody the intended spirit of Ingenpedia. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * (blush) Timmccloud (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Other meanings
"Quid pro quo may sometimes be used to define a misunderstanding or blunder made by the substituting of one thing for another, particularly in the context of the transcribing of a text.[21]" This is a good example of more rubbish spreading. And it comes backed up with what looks like a solid reference to the Oxford dictionary. But in reality, the Oxford makes no mention of "the context of the transcribing of a text". It clearly refers only to the blunder of putting one thing in the place of another, as in the composition of a medicine. So I will remove the words smuggled into the definition, as they have no warrant in the dictionary.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC) The reference to proofreading now has no connection with the previous statement or the rest of the article, so I will remove that too.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"substitution... for"
In the section "Origins," the phrase "fraudulent substitution of useful medicines for an ingenuine article" is confusing. In English this is backwards: fraud would be to substitute something worthless for something useful. (Usage in languages such as Spanish is the reverse: "sustituir A por B" means "replace A with B.")

The author should either reverse the two phrases that follow "substitute" or change the verb to "replace."

It would also be helpful to use a more recognizable adjective than "ingenuine," perhaps "fraudulent," "inferior," or "worthless," that would convey the meaning the author intended. Billfalls (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)