Skip to main content

Talk:Dan Quayle

Talk:Dan Quayle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

civ 5 reference?[edit]

I don't know if it's worth mentioning in the article, but in the new Civilization V game, you're ranked alongside various historical figures upon the completion of the game, and the lowest rank you can achieve (at 0 points) is 'Dan Quayle'. -matt lohkamp 09:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

He's been on the list since the first game. I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned here before. --Mac OS X 21:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of the Qualyle gaffes and myths were figments of the media's imagination. Many of the gaffes that have been attributed to him, like brushing up on Latin before his trip to Latin America, were never actually said by Dan Quayle. I think it should be rembered that prior to the Vice Presidency, Quayle ran all of his own campaigns and he managed to defeat two of the most beloved politicians from the Hoosier state during the 20th Century. He won the 4th District Congressional Seat in 1976 by defeating long time incumbent J Edward Roush, (Who championed the Congressional legislation supporting a single national emergency number 9-1-1) and the US Senate seat in 1980 by defeating Birch Bayh (who many considered to be as engrained in Indiana Politics as Teddy Kennedy was in Massacusetts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.70.204 (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

None of those assertions have anything to do with the question raised... namely, should we mention that the lowest rank in Civ games is "Dan Quayle"? The correct answer, in my humble opinion, is no, as it's irrelevant to a biography of Quayle. If anywhere, it should be mentioned in the article(s) about the game(s), but even that is questionable fluff. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny, full of gaffes[edit]

Two thirds of the Vice President's section is about gaffes!
Very funny!
Some would say undue weight.
Basically, do we want a funny section and it is funny! Or less undue weight?
MVOO (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My concern is rather that the intro doesn't even hint that this man was a global joke. Luwilt (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Editors like you, Luwilt, are a Wikipedia embarrassment. Perhaps you should find greener pastures elsewhere. I suggest you try Huffington Post, for example, where writers are free to write defamatory, non-neutral POV material, as long as it agrees with the political views of the moderators. —QuicksilverT @ 16:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hydrargyrum, Wikipedia is not a place for partisan material or contributors taking cheapshots that are irrelevant and distasteful. One correction should be considered, Quayle did spend part of his youth living in Arizona, but most of his formative years were spent in Huntington, Indiana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.70.204 (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Illness?[edit]

Didn't Quayle have some kind of major illness a few years ago? It seems to me that this would be relevant, at least enough to warrant a sentence or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.236.61 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Overemphasis on Gaffes[edit]

I can agree that the "potatoe" gaffe belongs in the article. But going beyond that is overdoing it. Obama has also made a fair number of gaffes, and they are not mentioned in his article at all. In light of that precedent, I think including the "potatoe" gaffe goes far enough. William Jockusch (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hellooooooo; Earth to anyone interested -- if no one posts here, I will assume that my recent edit removing references to gaffes should be included, undo the revert, and insist that my version has been approved on the talk page.William Jockusch (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Quayle is probably best known today for his gaffes. Your version has not been approved on the talk page, and silence is not consent. Please don't remove the material again. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, according to BRD, the third step is "discuss". How can you discuss an issue if one side is silent? This still seems undue. For example, Obama has had quite a few gaffes, and there have been jokes about TOTUS, but neither appears in his article.William Jockusch (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the judgment that gaffes are what Quayle is best know for. If you feel that the same is true for Obama, then perhaps raise it on that talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Ha, you are funny. You know there is no way in hell that the protectorate of Obama will allow this kind of crap on the Obama article, why even make the statement. Arzel (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a thought. Is there a 'political gaffes' article yet? We could just lump them all there for anyone that wants to see how many others there are and compare on their own?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of one. I like the idea, though.William Jockusch (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I started the article. We need to make it acceptable before it gets deleted though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It won't mean deleting material from this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a separate issue.William Jockusch (talk) 12:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That he is known for some gaffes does not mean that he is defined by them. As such the VP section is largely a BLP violation presenting undue weight on his misstatements. Arzel (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell us what else he is known for -- and present the sources that substantiate any assertions along those lines. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd think in this case I'd have to say that Dan Quayle is indeed primarily defined by his clumsy speech and word choices of the past. We're going on 25 years now from when it all happened and it is still a frequent citation, not anything he did in COngress or as a VP. Tarc (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I was just stopping by, saw the tag, and thought I would offer an evaluation. In the Vice Presidency section, I count three paragraphs detailing Quayle's gaffes, two more on the Murphy Brown speech (which was not a gaffe and is not presented as one; note the supporting quote from Bergen herself), and three short paragraphs at the beginning describing other aspects of his Vice Presidency. The article overall has something like 20 paragraphs (that's an estimate, not a count).

My judgment is that the three paragraphs on gaffes are appropriate. All of the items listed are well-known, and an article on Quayle would be incomplete without them. If you are concerned about WP:UNDUE weight, then I would suggest you add more material about other things he did as Vice President. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, actually.William Jockusch (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the section of this article describing gaffes is accurate and appropriate as written, and may even understate the issue. The events cited are well known facts, and many additional incidents took place that are not cited. Removal of any part of the present article would be distorting truth. Dan Quayle's intelligence and competence to serve were serious issues to many Americans in the 1992 election, including many in his own party. This was among the primary factors attributed to the Bush administration's failure to win re-election. [Ranskip - 22 October 2012] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranskip (talkcontribs) 15:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

One of Quayle's problem is that he just looked like someone you just caught taking his hand out of the cookie jar; he looked like a "preppy," someone you'd like to poke fun at.
Having said that the remarks on the Holocaust, if properly quoted, were certainly bungled by him. The Murphy Brown section comes out pro-Quayle, in the long run.
The "potatoe" affair was truly exaggerated episode that continued for months if not years. Elected politicians are required to say perhaps tens of thousands of words daily in a, more or less, public forum. There is (and was) no way that other politicians did not make wording errors which went unreported. Nobody is perfect. The reporting on "potatoe" is better indicative of media bias than Qualye stupidity. I don't really care if Obama pronounces a word wrong. But when he does, I am grateful that the media does not report it. I am ungrateful when they reserve their reporting for Republican candidates only. Student7 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Among most members of the general public, Mr Quayle is primarily known for his gaffes. That may be unfortunate or unjust, but it is a fact, and it is not Wikipedia's job to try to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by downplaying his most famous perceived characteristic. Some of his famous misstatements are not even included in the article, and I can't really think of anything else he is actually famous for. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You are correct in citing WP:RIGHTGRetc. It is an essay, however. A well-written one with words of wisdom. We are not required to follow it, though it may "make sense" to do so.
The Holocaust remark reminds me of the phrase, "When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging." He didn't and suffered just consequences."
It is nearly impossible to remember anything any Vice-President is famous for, so not really a criterion, per se. Vice-presidents are not supposed to do anything memorable. That is part of their "job description"!
President Gerald Ford, nearly 70, was "famous", partially made so by comedian Chevy Chase, for bumping his head. He was still skiing when most folks his age (back then) were in rocking chairs. While we might not be able to right great wrongs, it may be possible to summarize some. Student7 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
If there is something which someone is well-known for, it probably deserves a prominent place in an article about them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The gaffes may have been blown out of proportion, but Quayle's reputation as a bumbler helped cost Bush, Sr. the presidency. I say it is relevant to mention them. Czolgolz (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dan Quayle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dan Quayle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy in lead[edit]

@SunCrow: The Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy remark was one of the most famous incidents regard Dan Quayle and certainly notable enough to have its own lengthy article. I don't see how a minor mention of it in the lead is not significant enough to be in the lede. Plus, it being amply covered below is a reason for inclusion in the lead (not against!) per WP:LEAD. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • MarkH21, the remark certainly was a famous incident. I don't believe it warrants its own article, and I don't believe it belongs in the lede. You are certainly free to seek input from other editors. SunCrow (talk) 04:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • The guidelines established by consensus here show that it should be mentioned in the lead and that it should have its own article. It was a major moment in Quayle's career and is covered in the article itself, so it certainly qualifies for a mention in the lead by WP:LEAD: The lead should... summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

      Regarding the incident's standalone article status, it certainly passes WP:GNG; a quick Google search on the title immediately shows at least 20 independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage on the topic. That easily passes the notability guidelines used here to determine whether any subject should have its own article. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Obol (coin)

Jacques Rancière

2000–01 California electricity crisis