Talk:Quid pro quo/Archives/2019

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)

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)

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)

"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)

"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)