Talk:Dan Quayle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

name

Why is Dan Quayle redirected here? We don't have the main pages at William Jefferson Clinton or James Earl Carter, Jr.. Isn't it Wikipedia policy to keep article names at the most common version? RickK 20:39, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

current events

What does Dan do these days? this article does not tell us. Kingturtle 08:04, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Name

According to Mr. Quayle's memoirs, his full name is James Danforth Quayle. Not James Danforth Quayle III.

Sincerely

User:Sara 10:23, 28 Nov 2004

To III or not to III.

I agree about the name. According to the elder Quayle's obituaries [1], [2], [3], Dan Quayle's father was James C. Quayle, so the former VPOTUS could not by convention be called James Danforth Quayle III. Great Scott 21:37, 8 Jul 2005.

If Quayle had a grandfather or uncle who was James Danforth Quayle II (or Jr.), then he would, by convention, be James Danforth Quayle III.

image

Chris, The image of Dan Quayle that you want to use is credited to Carl Cox, and his website says "Copyright © 2003 Carl Cox". We will need to get an authorization from Mr. Cox to allow us to use the image.

We have to be very careful about copyrights. We need to err on the side of caution always.

Sincerely, Kingturtle 04:00, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• Excellent that you have an email for verification. I assume it is from carl at carlcoxphoto dot com. Could you please place a copy of it on Image:Danquayle.jpg. Thanks! Kingturtle 04:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In any case, Wikipedia-specific permission is inferior, for the purposes of a free-as-in-speech encyclopedia, to a public domain or other free image. Reverted to freer image. Martin 22:48, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Little progress has been made since protection. We have permission to use both images. A compromise solution is to use both. Unprotecting, but please discuss changes here! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia-specific permission is not enough. We are building a free encyclopedia, and the non-free images should be deleted, as we have viable replacements. Anthony DiPierro 17:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Someone re-protected the page, on the free version. I think this is the correct version to protect on - Anthony has put forward his reasons on this talk page, whilst Chris doesn't appear to have contributed to the talk page at all. Chris - can you get permission to use that photo under the GFDL? If so, the problem goes away. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:02, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I certainly think that Chris really must come here to discuss the matter. I'm concerned that he doesn't understand the importance to us of being a free encyclopedia. Martin 18:39, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Image:Danquayle.jpg

From what I gather in my conversation with Anthony in IRC, Anthony maintains that Image:Danquayle.jpg needs to be released to Wikipedia under GFDL. If someone could contact the owner of the image and get a GFDL release, maybe edit wars over this issue would cease. Keep in mind, taking such action could be a waste of time, because other problems/complaints about Image:Danquayle.jpg might be voiced/expressed by editors later. Kingturtle 19:06, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Murphy Brown business

Hi Gazpacho - some notes on the Murphy Brown changes that I made.

1. Quayle wasn't criticizing an episode of the show, he was criticizing the character herself and I changed the text to reflect that.
2. You are right to emphasize that the murphy brown business was incidental in a larger speech, I added "in an aside" for this purpose
3. The actual quote is only a sentence long, I don't see why we can't include it since it is the most historically significant part of the speech and since it describes what Quayle said better than we can.
4. "commentators and late night TV hosts mocked Quayle's remark (out of context) for supposedly confusing fiction and reality." Although I agree that we should specifically say what they were criticizing, this feels way too POV to me.
5. Lets compromise and say that the speech and the media's response damaged the GOP ticket. I don't think it was 100% the media's fault.

GabrielF 16:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello even though Quaile can't spell my name I stopped by to help. Rather than retype what I wrote before (which probably should have gone here instead), Please see my other comment in the Vice Presidency: NPOV? section. By the way, any comment about expanding the Murphy Brown business to its own little section? Mashed Potato

I removed the unsupported statement that Quayle's criticism of "Murphy Brown" had "damaged the campaign." The remark actually appealed to the conservative base of the party; the following sentences already in the article remind us that Quayle's remark catalyzed a long-lasting public campaign against media indecency and family-undermining themes in popular culture. That campaign was even contributed to by Tipper Gore, wife of the next Vice President. The fact that Quayle's remark stirred up intense liberal outcry does not indicate that it damaged the Bush-Quayle campaign; giving the opposition a lot of talking points does not equal driving away supporting voters.

In my role as a journalist, I have never heard anyone say they changed their intended vote in the 1992 election because of the Murphy Brown statements; I've heard many say they abandoned the Republican ticket because of Bush's reneged promise not to raise taxes, and because of their attraction to the reform party, and some that they were reassured by Bill Clinton's posturing as a "New Democrat" (tough on crime, less likely to raise taxes, e.g., "The era of big government is over."). Clinton's moves to grow government (Hillarycare) and mainstream homosexuality (his first executive action was to allow gays in the military) led directly to the 1994 Republican Revolution, and as mentioned, Tipper Gore found it useful to show support for family values by criticizing Hollywood's attack on "family values."

Thus, I believe there would need to be either some statistically supportable evidence, or a clear line of reasoning, to support the statement that the Murphy Brown remarks damaged the GOP ticket. The fact that Bush/Quayle lost is far more attributable to other, major forces, and attributing that loss in any significant way to the Murphy Brown remarks is just a new way of creating a storm in a teacup. Preston McConkie 22:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Law School

While serving in the Guard, he earned a law degree in 1974 at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis through an experimental program intended to offer "equal opportunity" to minorities, the economically disadvantaged and other students of different viewpoints and backgrounds.

Since when has Quayle been a minority? It doesn't sound like he was particularly "economically disadvataged," nor do I see how his background is notable. (I don't know quite what the "different viewpoints" is supposed to mean.) Quayle may have went to law school at the same time as this program started, but I don't see how he would have benefited from it. Does anyone know anything about this? --BDD 20:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I always thought the Guard paid for it.--User:Sara 7:58, 14 July 2005

In the early 1970's, the GI Bill did not pay for graduate school / law school / medical school, etc. It only covered undergraduate studies. As a matter of history, I was discharged from my first tour of active duty in 1973 and used the GI Bill beginning in 1975 to help finance my undergraduate studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison resulting in an engineering degree. Contrary to popular opinion (and serious misunderstanding) the GI Bill does not finance a veteran's education. The veteran received a monthly stipend, at that time about $300 for a single student. I'm sure (I can't cite references) either the Quayle or Pulliam families financed his law school degree. Due to his family's wealth, he would have been disqualified for financial aid (the honest way) Engineer1234 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I attended IU School of Law-Indy, and I believe Wiki is referring to the CLEO program (Conference for Legal Opportunity). The program is directed at minority students (I do not know of any Caucasians that participated in the program. However, I will not change the page as I am unsure of DQ's legal education. J.

Vice Presidency: NPOV?

Is the Vice Presidency section of this article from a NPOV? I don't think so. There is only mention of two things in his actual Vice Presidency (Space Council; Competitiveness Council), taking up maybe a couple sentences, and a huge section of text basically speculating about and deriding Quayle's intelligence. The section is frankly insulting to this reader's intelligence. What about his professional relationship with President George Bush? What about the Gulf War? What about his position on taxes? Not a word on any of this. There is mention however of an obscure 'satirical' award (that I doubt many people at all have heard of); and a poke hinting that George W. Bush may be a simpleton just like his father's Vice President (as parts of this article certainly seem to be strongly implying). But then why no mention of Al Gore and his own numerous verbal gaffes, ones that like Quayle's could also certainly be construed as 'dumb'? I wouldn't like to say but it seems like there is a less than subtle anti-Republican bias present. Quayle was criticised for misstatments and many did question his intellectual abilities. That should definitely be mentioned - but within reason. Currently it's masquerading as downright offensive. [10 July 2005]

Another example... Potato was 'allegedly' misspelled on the card? 'Allegedly'? Quayle and the teacher have both said that the card was handed to him misspelled by her. When two parties agree on something it is not 'alleged'.

You simply don't understand what alleged means. Sorry.

Your odd decision to define when something is not alleged as "when two parties agree on something" confuses me. Two people saying something does not make it true and a teacher could certainly feel political pressure to agree with Quayle when he claimed the card was misspelled (not that I am saying that pressure was placed purposely, just that it would be present). It does not negate the fact that he did not know how to spell potato and certainly isn't proof that the card was misspelled (though I personally believe it was). This portion of the article isn't very biased (at least not as of the time of this writing) but it does reflect negatively on him because his Vice Presidency has reflected negatively on him. Whether that is deserved or not is not really at issue. There is a very large public perception that Quayle was not a good Vice President and the article simply outlines that. If you wish to add Quayle's accomplishments, by all means do so. But as the section is now it is not biased. - 69.3.92.118 17:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste time arguing simple logic. I remember reading somewhere that this is an encyclopedia, not an op-ed page. If "the section...is not biased," and the mention of only two positions of his Vice Presidency versus various yellow-journalistic irrelevancy passes for being unbiased then it is no wonder that the statement that "his Vice Presidency has reflected negatively on him" has been made. That is a seriously biased position to write an encyclopedia article from. Name one person who thinks that. And there will be others who will think the opposite. Let the reader decide. But to hold the reader's hand and guide him down the path that there must be no doubt Dan Quayle made a terrible U.S. Vice President is simply insulting to readers and writers alike. That is what I call a stealth article. And one cannot conduct an article solely based on perceived and, yes, alleged public opinions. In my opinion that is not an unbiased encyclopedia article and that is precisely the reason the tag is on. Secondly, there has hardly been any positions of his Vice Presidency even mentioned to reflect negatively on. On the other hand, Vice President Al Gore receives a remarkably glowing article for the most part (with no mention at all of his own various verbal gaffes), which I don't wholly object to (though it certainly needs some editing). It is fairly in-depth and that is very commendable. I think that the depth that Al Gore's article receives should be reflected in all the modern U.S. Vice Presidents, including Dan Quayle. The main question here in the Quayle article then is a shortage of fact in the face of an oversurplus of undue criticism. By all means state the criticism but it must be reasonable and balanced with at least an equal grounding in fact. Therefore, I challenge someone to clean up some of the yellow journalism in this article. I wish to be an observer right now (and avoid sure and wasteful revertations), and therefore remain unbiased, but I will also do some research and hopefully contribute some facts soon.

Hi 12.77.45.223, why not try making some changes to address those issues? Most of the time, edits are tried out before a blanket NPOV tag is placed on an article. Fuzheado | Talk 05:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I've re-read the section you have issues with and more content could be added. But two things come to mind - 1) the Ig Nobel awards are not an obscure prize - they are pretty much featured in the American news each year in the "lighter side" segments. This year I recall it being a spot on ABC World News Tonight. Of course, with the tech-heavy crowd of Wikipedia, it's even more likely to be known by the community here. 2) The Bush I administration, knew of the liability that Dan Quayle was after the debates, flubs (Murphy Brown) and media ridicule that they themselves downgraded the role of Quayle in the public eye for the latter part of GHWB's presidency. So if he did not have many accolades and public achievements because, well, he wasn't put forth to do much. Also, related to Al Gore, you can't simply bring up another VP and claim "equivalency" to either drag Quayle up, or Gore down. That said, feel free to edit the article, and propose some more balance in your eyes, and the wiki way will take its course. Fuzheado | Talk 06:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you mention when Aquino (leader of the Philipines) called up Quayle and he needed to lead her through a coup attempt while Bush was away? I don't remember the specifics but it was mentioned in the debates, Quayle's memoirs and probably elsewhere. Sara 14 July 2005

That seems somewhat questionable. While Aquino may have contacted the US for aid in dealing with a coup, I highly doubt Quayle himself was involved in instructing how to deal with the coup. I don't doubt this because of any bias towards Quayle but rather because I don't believe the individual politician gave military advice and think it much more likely it was a military advisor who gave the advice even if it went through the VP to Aquino. - 69.3.92.118 17:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's what Quayle said in the VP debate:

"Qualifications. I've been there, Hal. I've done the job. I've been tested. I've been vice president for 4 years. Senator Gore referred to us being elected to the Congress together in 1976. I've done the job. I've done many things for the president.

But even as vice president you never know exactly what your role is going to be from time to time, and let me just give you an example of where I was tested under fire and in a crisis.

President Bush was flying to Malta in 1989 to meet with President Gorbachev. It was the first meeting between President Bush and President Gorbachev. They had known each other before.

A coup broke out in the Philippines. I had to go to the situation room. I had to assemble the president's advisers. I talked to President Aquino. I made the recommendation to the president. The president made the decision, the coup was suppressed, democracy continued in the Philippines, the situation was ended."

Sara

The Murphy Brown thing is probably the most significant thing about Quale (he sometimes misspells my name so I sometimes misspell his) - a hundred years from now, it's what he will be remembered for, if you ask me. People might not remember the name of the forgetable (if you ask me) t.v. show he was talking about, but they will remember that there was a backlash against the suppposed degredation of the family and Dan Quayle will be an important footnote. Murphy Brown could be it's own section, I think. And Oh ... please comment about my edit if you don't like it.Mashed Potato 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

What did he actually do as vice-president? How did he relate to Bush and influence him? There is not much here that conveys that. He had to do something (besides head the space and competitiveness councils). And if he accomplished little than the article should explain what factors led to that being the case. Instead the section outlines the gaffes and controversies in unnecessary detail. I would try to edit it but I'm not qualified; I came here to get information about the man after all. I found this article little help in this regard.

No, I think the space and competitiveness councils were about it, along with some other non-notable if occasionally amusing stuff. And actually, this does not really need explaining as it is pretty much the historical norm for VPs to be nothing but a warm body that the President and everyone else largely ignores. The influential role of Cheney (and to a somewhat lesser extent Gore) are historical aberrations. CAVincent (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1996 Presidential election

"Quayle would have been a logical opponent of President Bill Clinton in 1996."

Really? I understand that the former VP is usually a candidate but Quayle had made way too many political blunders to possibly survive. If this statement is to remain, I think that it needs to be backed up by something. As it stands, the sentence appears to have been thrown in at the last minute.

Andrew

"He declined to run for the 1996 Republican presidential nomination, citing health problems related to phlebitis"

I seem to remember that he was preparing to campaign in 1996 but dropped out when he found out about the phlebitis.--The Shadow Treasurer (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Quayle and phlebitis

I am surprise the Quayle article made no mention of Dan Quayle suffering from phlebitis and being in the hospital.I believe this happen in the early 1990s. Thank you-207.230.192.179 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Sorry about this I forgot to log in-RFD 19:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Early political career

This statement:

he became an effective Senator, respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle might be problematic for non-US readers. Can it be rephrased? Also, I think this section could stand to be expanded. I often wondered just how the heck this guy got to be vice-president; maybe a little more elaboration on what he did before becoming VP nominee would be good. Or did he really not do that much? Mashed Potato 11:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The stuff about margins of victory is potentially misleading. When he won re-election to the House "by the largest margin ever" he was unopposed. And his re-election to the Senate "by the largest margin ever" only saw him win by 61% to 39%. Surely that can't be an Indiana record. --Lincolnite 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's astounding to read "I often wondered just how the heck this guy got to be vice-president" in light of the qualifications of the current President.192.158.61.172 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

While the Quayle family was very wealthy, Dan Quayle was not; his total net worth by the time of his election in 1988 was less than a million dollars.

And I thought I had it bad... Maybe a revision of wording?

May 1991

In the first week of May 1991, hadn't President Bush suffered a heart fibrilation, nearly making Vice President Quayle the Acting President? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? GoodDay 00:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Serious question

What are VP Quayle's favorite cereal? Vice Crispies! No, I'm just kidding. How does it not cite its sources, there's 8 footnotes and no one marked any "citation needed" tags. I think some people are just being overly paranoid. Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Potatoe incident

Why is there no mention of his world famous Potatoe spelling incident. Its what he is most famous for worldwide!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.250.220 (talk • contribs)

Hobbies

watching children bathe? is this vandalism? something that ridiculous needs a citation.

I removed that, since it is slanderous and had no citations to back it up (and I doubt it will). Kurt Wagner 02:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding the Draft

There is a bit of a disagreement on the article page about whether or not Quayle pulled strings to avoid the draft. This is, I believe, caused by misrecollections of what was known at the time (mid-1988) when this was in the news. It was unambiguous that Quayle had used connections, specifically that he had asked Wendell C. Phillippi, managing director of the Indianapolis News, a paper owned by Quayle's grandfather, who happened to be the former Adjutant General of the Indiana National Guard, to help him out. Phillippi gave it a shot, making at least one phone call on Quayle's behalf, and Quayle entered the National Guard in the summer of 1969.

Quayle's 1988 defense of this was (a) that lots of people tried to avoid going to Vietnam (certainly true), and (b) he might well have gotten into the National Guard without Phillippi's help (which is also true although unlikely; all surviving evidence suggests that there was a long waiting list). In any case, the latter claim seems disingenuous, because the fact that Quayle might not have needed Phillippi's help doesn't change the noteworthy fact that he asked for it, and got it.

By the way, after initially denying that he had asked for help at all, Quayle admitted to getting Phillippi's assistance, which led at the time to a secondary scandal about whether or not he had initially been lying about his past.

Uucp 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that an author for Wikipedia admits that Al Gore had a position reserved for him in the Tennessee National Guard so he could avoid possible service in Viet Nam, but he turned it down. Engineer1234 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

At the time of the draft for military service in the 1960's (not everyone entering active service went to Viet Nam) there were considerable waiting lists to get into Reserve or National Guard units. A draft age male could always put his name on a waiting list. If you were well heeled or connected, you could get your name bumped up on the list). Anyone surprised? It's the way of the world. I was one of those who entered active duty instead. Engineer1234 23:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Early life statement

"Now he spends most of his time complaining about Al Gore and how he is jealous that Al Gore invented the internet."

That line appears under the Early Life section. Does not seem to part of his early life, cited, etc. Cannot seem to edit it out though. Maybe I don't know what I am doing and someone else can fix it.

Edit: Never mind, its gone now.

Handcuffed naked to a pole? What??

There was one bit of "information", in Dan Quayle's article here that stated he was "once handcuffed naked to a flag pole, outside of DePauw University in frigid winter conditions", or something very similar. It was on here a while back, but it was taken off very quickly. Is this "rumor" even true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.135.1.214 (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Murphy Brown speech link

Overall, the Murphy Brown section seems well done and objectively presented. However, clicking on "Murphy Brown speech" took the user to a rather POV editorial[4]. I removed this link; it would seem more appropriate to link a page with the text of the speech or a mainstream news article about it instead. Does anyone know of such a page? Alki 20:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Golf

Isn't he a very good golfer? Does anyone have specific information (for a trivia section, of course)?

marilyn quayle

Polish wikipedia has an article about Marilyn Quayle, but english not

See Marilyn Quayle Tabletop 09:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

44th and best Vice President of the United States

Took out the word "and best" from the opening line; "James Danforth "Dan" Quayle (born February 4, 1947) was the 44th and best Vice President of the United States".

Hope no one minds. Dexta32084 17:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You did the right thing. GoodDay 00:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is mostly ridiculous

It's heavily skewed toward the leftist view of Quayle, especially in the viewpoint that he was "buffoon" or an object of ridicule. Certainly he was viewed as such by those who held leftist or opposing viewpoints. There's nothing wrong with pointing this out. Most conservatives certainly didn't and don't define him by what the left believes and publishes. As another edit pointed out, AlGore is an object of ridicule by the right. He's about as funny, twisted and weird as they come. But we're not trying to impose our political viewpoints as "truth".

I thought so too, until I got to the part about Mars. That's truly ridiculous and scary in a way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.166.89 (talk) 04:30, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

It scares me too, but it's still an encyclopedia, not a publication on how Dan Quayle amuses and offends us. Telarc 06:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telarc (talk • contribs)

True, but Wikipedia is about notability. And Quayle is notable about one thing. And we all know what that is.

Having grown up during the years in question, I have a clear memory of plenty of Quayle jokes, and to not at least mention the ongoing comedy show - even if the details are tactfully left out of the article - is to betray history. While every politician and every candidate has their own detractors, the Quayle situation is notable for the reason that far more frequently than usual, a lot of the humor was shared by people who otherwise continued to support Quayle's remaining in office. Zaphraud (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously these things should be included, but the article veers way off into commentary and uncited condemnation. It may be one of the most biased articles I've seen, with no citation of any of this stuff at all. Without citation, the article is a clear violation of the living persons policy.--Gloriamarie (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Disagree completely. As of November 2008 this article is overly forgiving of one of the most notorious buffoons in political history on this planet.

Politics aside, it is factual that he was widely ridiculed during his time in office. Yes, some people "supported" him, and much of it did have to do simply with politics, but... there certainly aught to be *some* mention of his... somewhat unique ability to speak incorrectly. Maybe there was some major POV portion of the article that I happened to miss in my current sleep deprived state, but it doesn't look like anything's too outlandish in the article here. It's been awhile since the discussion above; barring any objections, perhaps the neutrality tag could be removed? CCG _(T-C) 02:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed down some of the material. Still it should have a have a major place in the article since that is what he is mainly known for, rightly or wrongly. I don't think his comments on Mars were all that bad, even if poorly expressed. I thought that was one of the reasons that people are so interested in Mars, that it is more like earth than any of the other planets. I hope everyone understands that it's not ready for us to just move in though. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

His comments on Mars weren't all that bad? Ask yourself this: he was a solicitor before joining the US congress. Would you want a clown like that representing you in a courtroom? QED.

While I find the facts presented under the heading of Vice Presidency humorous and, because they are factual, necessary, surely there was something he accomplished in office that was political in nature. Perhaps the ridicule of Quayle should be in a separate section. Vice Presidency should contain information about his political endeavors during those years. Potetm (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Find notable achievements and add them. Be warned most vice-prsidents accomplish even less then Quayle, humorous as his accomplishments may have been--Work permit (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Post-vice presidency

"Quayle considered but decided not to run for the governorship of Indiana in 1994." Unlike most states, Indiana elects its governors in Presidential-election years. Was this bit intended to imply that in 1994, Quayle contemplated entering the 1996 race for Governor? Please clarify this section. EKMichigan 18:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

EKMichigan: If he was considering running for the '96 governorship, then why would he decide to run for the presidency at the same time? -Nicole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.1.214 (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Quayle related to John Danforth of Missouri?--164.64.164.35 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

VP Musuem

It is not true that no other American vice-presidents (who did not go on to become president) have museums. John Nance Garner was VP from 1933-1941. His museum (http://www.cah.utexas.edu/museums/garner.php) is located in his hometown of Uvalde, TX. It is currently managed by the University of Texas at Austin's Center for American History. Guanabana68 (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also an Alben Barkley Museum in Paducah, Kentucky.--Gloriamarie (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then, I've removed the false claim that his museum is the only one for a VP. Not sure why this stayed on the page for months after being shown to be inaccurate. CAVincent (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Council on Competitiveness

I don't remember the specifics, but didn't Quayle do some controversial things on the Council on Competitiveness? My recollection was that there was even some question as to whether he had broken the law.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Trolley Incident

Whatever happened to the San Diego trolley sniper incident? That was when Quayle was campaigning in San Diego for the 2000 elections (which no one mentions now), there was a sniper holed up in a motel along the trolley lines in El Cajon. Did that have something to do with his staff? The SWAT team was there, and the trolley service was halted and rerouted to the bus line. The bus line ran right by the motel where the sniper was, just on the other side of the motel.

If nothing else, this is a Quaylism that is unsurpassed. SWAT stopped the trolley, made everyone transfer to the bus, then ran the bus right by the very same motel where the sniper was. All the sniper had to do was change rooms and he could have shot at the same trolley riders he had a problem with by shooting at them while they were in the bus, as the bus driver had the interior lights on, and the standoff carried into the evening. The bus riders were all lit up.

I don't believe that Quayle rode the San Diego trolley at all while he was stumping in San Diego, so the sniper might have been someone who was supporting Quayle and Mayor Susan Golding's stance on running all the lower-income residents out of town. Guaranteed not to get either one many votes, but this was before the Bush/Gore recount.

Should Quayle have fired all of his staff and replaced them? Many politicians should have done that back then.--76.212.155.12 (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the San Diego incident was terrible. But no more terrible than the constant referral to the "severance" that happened with the Bersin/Krysiak issue. So many years ago, yet still all that San Diegans talk about, the ignored remands from the appellate court, the forged court documents. The manipulation in the federal court and Judge Huff was so blatant, was so corrupt, even the most untutored could spot it. And now the American government has been reduced to gutter politics, highly paid politicians go about town accusing their constituents of being "PCs" and telling them to "up" everywhere, and no one knows what they're talking about because it's their judicial system that's flawed. Their populace wouldn't have to "up" if their courts weren't so flawed.

Is this a gangster government? A country controlled by fear? No, not fear, by irrational law and ignorance? Has Quayle and his peers thrown the entire country into a jail of their own making? Freedom can never be abridged in this manner, can never be taken from those whose birthright it truly is.

Then where did it go?--76.244.160.95 (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Agent

Some years back The John Birch Society published a great deal of evidence that both Quayle and Bush I were Soviet agents of influence. This traitor was actively working to further the aims of the global communist conspiracy and enact a new world order, while posing as a 'conservative', working right from the White House. He was no dupe - he was a conscious, dedicated and committed communist idealogue taking orders directly from the Kremlin (or from whoever gave the Kremlin their orders). He was on the KGB payroll. This should be mentioned in the article. 92.10.45.150 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I mean, Quayle never really had my respect, but for him and his boss to be communist infiltrators and fail so badly in doing anything to advance the communist cause is pretty bad. And for the KGB to control both the US and the Soviet Union, and to let the Soviet Union and Communist East Europe to fall apart like that, well, I think it firmly proves that the communists were never a threat to the US.

Seriously? WP:Fringe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it firmly proves that the above IP talks nonsense. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should remove that part of the article then, as it has no citation. As it is, I'm going to add citation needed tag. Siamang (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

House & Senate years

Somewhere along the way, the articles section cover Quayle's years in the House & Senate was deleted. Does anybody know how to retrieve this info? GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Have no fear, I've restored it. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Early political Career

Quoting the article:

"In 1986, Quayle received much criticism from his fellow Senators for championing the cause of Daniel Manion, a candidate for a federal appellate judgeship, who was in law school one year above Quayle.[5] The American Bar Association had evaluated him as qualified, its lowest passing grade.[6] According to the ABA, "to merit a "qualified" or "well qualified" rating, a ... nominee must be at the top of the legal profession, have oustanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the highest standards possible."[7] Manion was nominated for U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by President Ronald Reagan on February 21, 1986, and confirmed by the Senate on June 26, 1986. As of 2008, Manion continues to serve on the Seventh Circuit."

IMO an event only two years before the man was selected as Bush's Vice Presidential running mate DOES NOT count as part of his EARLY political career.

Also this event (Quayle championing Manion) does not seem especially notable. How important was this?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PS - If the ABA says one must be " at the top of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the highest standards possible" in order to obtain the "lowest passing grade", what criteria are used for the higher grades? Sainthood? There seems to be a discrepancy here. Further, I do not see the point of including the ABA criteria to "qualify" in this paragraph. What is the point? Wanderer57 (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrected the quote- original version was citing the standards for Supreme Court Justices, which are naturally higher. erniepiker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erniepiker (talk • contribs) 14:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Latin" America?

Is it true that Quayle, on a visit to Colombia, said "I'm very pleased to be here in Latin America, and only wish I could address you in Latin"? If this could be verified, it could be a nice addition to the article. --Vvmodel (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not true. It was a joke told about the former Vice President at a party by former congresswoman Claudine Schneider (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle, under "misattributed"). An overzealous "reporter" (who obviously was non-biased and had no political axe to grind) reported it as fact. It is not. (http://quotations.home.att.net/danquayle.html, at the bottom of the page). SpudHawg948 (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Worst politician ever?

In Civilization 4's endgame, you get compared to a real historic leader according to your score. The lowest possible score yields Dan Quayle. This might be a nice addition to "In Popular Culture", with perhaps a few words of explanation.... --Gilthans (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No "popular culture" section should be started in any article without some reliable sources that are actually about the said PC phenomenon. It's original research otherwise. In this case, the verifiable pop culture phenomenon is integrated pretty well into the article, and should be a model for Wikipedia. WillOakland (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material in need of sourcing

I'm moving the following unsourced material until it can be sourced:

Quayle was heavily criticized after the campaign's televised vice-presidential debate, in which he compared his amount of Congressional experience to that of John F. Kennedy when he was running for president. Democratic candidate Lloyd Bentsen said in rebuttal, "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy," to which a noticeably surprised Quayle replied, "That was really uncalled for, Senator," as both applause and boos were heard from the debate audience. Bentsen replied that it was Quayle who had made the initial comparison. Quayle's reaction to Bentsen's comment was played and replayed by the Democrats in their subsequent television ads as an announcer intoned: "Quayle: just a heartbeat away." Comedians exploited the exchange, and an increasing number of editorial cartoons depicted Quayle as an infant or child. Though the controversy generated much press, public opinion polls did not significantly change, and the Republicans maintained a solid lead. Although Quayle was significantly embarrassed by the incident, in his version of events he contended that he had accomplished what he had planned in the debate, which was to scorn the liberal record of Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis while avoiding direct comparison with Bentsen.

Nightscream (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nightscream; in that regard, the following article gives more details on the double standards regarding "the treatment of Vice President Dan Quayle as opposed to the treatment of Vice Presidents Al Gore and Joe Biden by members of the Fourth Estate": Dan Quayle: Evidence of a Double Standard by Nathan Tabor. Also, this: "During the Bush-Quayle campaign, detractors spoke of Quayle's lack of experience and youth. Twelve years in the U.S. Congress did not seem enough experience for a man seeking the Vice Presidency in those days. Yet, today a man with but two years in Congress as a Senator now sits in the Oval Office." Asteriks (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Hi! The photo is badly scaled. How can this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.110.182 (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What? Nothing About Political Correctness?

How can you have a Dan Quayle page without a mention of his stand against political correctness?

Naming of sons Benjamin and Tucker

I have heard that Quayle once dabbled in libertarianism and named his sons Benjamin and Tucker after Benjamin Tucker, the early individualist anarchist. This seems like more of an unlikely coincidence, but this is what I was told by someone who claimed to be in the know. However, I do not have a direct source for this. Does anyone have any information that might verify or disprove this claim? Twalls (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A song

Isn't this dude mentioned in Oingo Boingo's song Insanity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.129.197 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Illness?

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)

Funny, full of gaffes

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. —Quicksilver^{T @} 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)

civ 5 reference?

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)

Overemphasis on Gaffes

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

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

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

• Dan Quayle.jpg

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

@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)

    • Now mentioned at WikiProject Politics to garner additional input. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The Atlantic article after the Murphy Brown flap

One thing I think we kind of leave out of the Murphy Brown deal is the aftermath when The Atlantic came out with this piece (that caught everyone by surprise given The Atlantic's politics):

[5]

Anyone think it's worth including?Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

Please remove

Before that, Quayle served as a U.S. senator from Indiana from 1981 to 1989 and as a member of the House of Representatives for Indiana's 4th district from 1977 to 1981.

and add

Before that, Quayle served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for Indiana's 4th district from 1977 to 1981 and as a U.S. senator from Indiana from 1981 to 1989.

Aside from specifying which house of representatives, this change helps because it puts events in chronological order. 64.203.186.103 (talk) 19:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2022

His vice presidential debate against Democratic candidate Lloyd Bentsen was notable for the "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" quip. The Bush–Quayle ticket defeated the Democratic ticket of Michael Dukakis and Bentsen

Please remove "Democratic candidate". It's redundant with "Democratic ticket of Michael Dukakis and Bentsen" in the next sentence (if you need to know Bentsen's party, just keep reading), and removing "Democratic" wouldn't be as helpful in the second sentence. 49.198.51.54 (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, and done. CAVincent (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

What is this "innuendo"? I understand that some people here have pointed out that Dan Quayle's admission to law school was based on "special circumstances" but a lower GPA or admissions test score not being a detriment to admission is not necessarily a bad thing. The only major difference between Dan Quayle and George W. Bush was that Bush was still able to get into Harvard Business School because he had attended Yale as an undergraduate. The graduation rate at DePauw University is high, since "grade inflation" probably occurs to some extent at all four-year universities, but the Ivy League schools and DePauw, which is a private school but not necessarily "elite" but it would be making itself "look stupid" if its alumni did not do well enough academically to have a realistic chance of getting into a law school or graduate program. Some people are also "book smart" but seem like a fish out of water if they have to speak extemporaneously. It is politically partisan to say that the "ignorance" of Dan Quayle and George W. Bush was the reason they were chosen. It nonetheless seems strange that George H.W. Bush, having been director of the CIA, albeit for only one year, would have both a running mate and a son who are reasonably book smart or can at least cram for an exam but can't seem to hold their own when asked to make an off the cuff remark. "How terrible it is not to have a mind. How true that is." -Dan Quayle

"despite his grades not meeting the regular admission standards"

The sources cited for this phrase say that he was below automatic admission standards, i.e. the University had discretion to admit him, and did so because his grades were from a more challenging school. And then he completed the program, which reflects positively on him if anything. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Source says "The special Indiana University law school program provided admission to a small group of students who could demonstrate “special factors” that outweighed grades and test scores too low for ordinary admission." I'm sympathetic, but the statement is supported by a reliable source. I don't think any alteration is needed. CAVincent (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Gaffes

Does anyone find it odd there’s a gaffes section here, but not for president Biden who makes a gaffe whenever he tries putting together two words? —2600:1017:B80C:B1C2:84BF:14AC:451F:F39E (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2023

Dan Quayle graduated from [change Huntington North High School to:]Huntington High School. [All of the township school systems in Huntington County and a couple small towns and the Huntington city school system were legally consolidated, beginning the 1966-67 school year. For that school year alone, the Huntington High School building was renamed Huntington County Community High School. Dan’s brother Chris graduated from HCCHS in 1967, as did I. In the 1967-68 school year, it was renamed Huntington North High School.] 73.98.88.48 (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You may also wish to read WP:OR as to why you cannot cite your own personal knowledge on WP. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)