Talk:What we've got here is failure to communicate

(Have/Got)

I thought this was "What we have here" not "what we've got here". Kappa 12:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So did I, initially. But I listened to the line as sampled on 'civil war', and it's definitely "what we've got here". Personaly I think "we have" sounds better. Satchfan 10:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Ah, i'm such a saintly contributor! I just tossed out a hundred words, in a really incisively ironic draft response to that talk contib about an opinion re taste.)
Please don't confuse our colleagues about what WP exists for, and why contributors' generous work is worth our doing it.
--Jerzy•t 06:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Body

The body of this article is... not good. The language is alienating and its an interpretation of the film.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.11.243 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2006

I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that the language is "alienating." That doesn't make any sense at all. One can hardly say the language here is overly high brow. Now, as for interpretation... yes. It's a very good interpretation but an interpretation nonetheless. Gingermint (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Gingermint. "Alienating" is about the last descriptor that comes to mind. And there's a bit of interpretation that technically should require a source, but I'm not challenging it and I doubt that any serious editor would. Cresix (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the mask

I vaguely recall this line used in 'The Mask' where a car driver abuses 'the mask' and he responds by blowing all the car windows out with a squeeze-bulb horn. --Jaded-view (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More popular uses

Here is a webpage that has a more comprehensive list of the popular uses of the phrase: http:// www.nationmaster.com / encyclopedia / What-we've-got-here-is-(a)-failure-to-communicate KathleenAP73 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)KathleenAP73[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately, this is not a reliable source. Materialscientist (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance

Every time I try to add a person who is alive and doing something, e.g. a writer or a singer, the page gets rejected because "lack of relevance". How in the world is this page relevant at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M cyclops (talk • contribs) 02:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case someone chooses to also further investigate this complaint (which BTW seems clearly misplaced on this talk page), know that i -- having looked up the colleague's then most recent prior activity -- found that they'd tagged (making 3 tries), re Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, at 21:38, 21 December 2013, and
retrieved the following "Deletion log" using the "Undelete" tool on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Helene_Rompre:

(del/undel) 10:02, 23 July 2014 The JPS (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Helene Rompre (G13: Abandoned AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13) (view/restore)

(del/undel) 22:09, 21 December 2013 JohnCD (talk | contribs | block) restored page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Helene Rompre (22 revisions restored: G13 deletion restored per request at REFUND)

del/undel) 19:51, 21 December 2013 RHaworth (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Helene Rompre (G13: Abandoned AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13) (view/restore)

--Jerzy•t 02:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why were these edits repeatedly removed?

It's difficult to track down this information elsewhere, and it seems it would contribute more reason for this article to even exist if it contained more than two specific references to the line. The usefulness of this article is significantly impacted by replacing specific references with "many movies, TV shows, and other media"

2601:401:500:99FE:DCF:E1C0:9629:CD9F (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abridgement

English is not my first language, but isn't it wrong to say that Luke "abridges" the Captain's utterance, since he actually does not shorten it? Wouldn't "paraphrases" be more accurate? /Bcarlssonswe (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Use and Origin Of Political Trope

Lynden B. Johnson used the phrase in a speech in 1964. He was referring to the divide between youth culture and authorities that was developing. That was the origin of the phrase as a political trope in the sense used in Cool Hand Luke. The authorities weren't being obeyed by youth, and youth wasn't being listened to by the authorities. The trope was derogatory because there was no failure to communicate. The authorities (Johnson), and the character in the movie, wanted obedience not communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.87.100 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't this important information be included in the main article that people see when they look this up? The main thing that makes this quote so interesting today is that Johnson said it while bombing Vietnam and crushing anti-war protests. Would someone please find a source to site regarding the 1964 speech? I looked all day and did find it and I tried to add it to the page, but my work has been deleted. Sorry, I'm a newbie, but I'll do better next time! I searched almost EVERY transcribed speech of Johnson and found the phrase "failure to communicate" but missing the "What we have / we've got here..." beginning. --Jeffsyrop (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]