Talk:Spiro Agnew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spiro Agnew article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Citation
This page was cited by Duggin, Sarah Helene & Collins, Mary Beth (2005). "Natural born in the USA: the striking unfairness and dangerous ambiguity of the constitution's Presidential Qualifications Clause and why we need to fix it. Boston University Law Review, 85 (February, 2005), p. 54-footnote 180, citing Spiro Agnew (Nov. 7, 2004).

An event mentioned in this article is an October 10 selected anniversary.

Contents

Didn't Agnew later get a pardon from one of the succeeding presidents?

Maybe, but a bit of research didn't find it. I'm no Agnew expert, though. Vicki Rosenzweig

Google say, no Spiro Agnew was not pardoned by anybody. Lots of websites about the pardon of Nixon, but nothing on the pardon of Agnew. --User:maveric149


[edit] Presidential campaigns

I removed the comment about what the alliterative phraseology made Agnew "sound like", as that's something which is overwhelmingly dependent on the listener's POV. Ellsworth 18:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

what high school did Agnew attend? was it Forest Park and what year did he graduate?

[edit] Anagram

A famous anagram for Spiro Agnew is "Grow a Penis." "Grow a Spine" is a bit more family orientated and also works.

I was just going to mention that here. It seems vaguely relevant, and everyone likes an easter egg. So, do we put something about it?

humm umm no --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Why not mention the anagram? Spiro Agnew's name being an anagram for "grow a penis" is firmly engrained in popular culture, a glimpse of our modern zeitgeist where Agnew is concerned, and is therefore most certainly relevant. DondleAtkinson

Because no-one over the age of 14½ gives a damn? Sysin 13:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
That's patently un-true. This anagram sheds light on the weltenschauung set forth by the media and sundry parties in Agnew's day. That it was diced out and made known in the world is an important and relevant fact and should be included. Scipiocoon 9:13, 22 July 2005 (CDT)
  • I respectfully disagree with Sysin. I think that no one over the age of 11 gives a hoot.

--Noitall 14:22, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I feel very strongly that the anagram should be included. If others are going to disagree, I respectfully request that they refrain from sarcasm and explain their point of view like adults.

Doing a search for "spiro agnew" "grow a penis" on google brings up over 400 hits, and over 300 on google groups. Clearly this is deeply-engrained into popular culture and should be included in any reference on Agnew that wishes to call itself complete. DondleAtkinson

And there is an acronym for "President Clinton of the USA" that gets 746 hits on Google, but its not on the wp entry, nor should it be. There are thousands of such anagrams for thousands of people, they get a few chuckles and groans, but that's where it ends. Sysin
  • Maybe you have a point about that Google use. I see that Scipiocoon is 11 gets double the hits on Google than Sysin is 14 1/2. --Noitall 21:09, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • And, for both phrases, Yahoo shows 7 times more hits than Google does, which scientifically proves that Yahoo is 7 times better than Google. Sysin
  • Shoudln't this be decided at least by people who know the difference between acronyms and anagrams? DondleAtkinson

---

I don't understand all the hostility towards this anagram. And I don't understand why you're expressing your opinions about this anagram subject with such immaturity. We're not children here. The mocking posturing you're both putting up does not reflect well on you or the Wikipedia process. If you've got a good reason, a real reason not to include this treasured and time-honored piece of trivia, let's hear it. Merely stating "no one over 14 cares" is not a real reason. By your measure, three quarters of the wikipedia should be summarily deleted: who over 14 cares about anime, about internet flash-animation fads, about many facets of pop culture similarly detailed in these pages?

Come on, friends, step up and be men. Let's discuss it, convince me, and I'll drop it. But until you do, I say it stays. --Scipiocoon 11:53, July 23, 2005 (CDT)

At first, we had fun with you. Any more and it will be vandalism. We will also investigate whether you are using any sockpuppets to commit vandalism. --Noitall 17:44, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
You don't have to look as far as sockpuppets - his only official contribution to a wp article has been to vandalize Edmund Hillary. Sysin

---

Sorry, I'm new to wikipedia (I just filled in my name on the comments I made here before creating an account), but is this a community-built encyclopedia or is this some group of elites who expect the rest of the world to write their encyclopedia for them? The incredibly arrogant statement "at first we had fun with you" makes it sound like the latter.

If it's the former, then it seems like the community should get to decide what is and isn't important. Looking at this page I can see four users who are clearly in favor of the inclusion of the anagram, most with quite intelligent-sounding reasons for this. And I see only three users opposed to it, who support their arguments with juvenile quibs like "nobody over 14½ cares," and "har har no it's actually 11."

Boothy443, Sysin, Noitall, looking at your discussion pages, I see histories of difficulty working with others, page blankings, edit wars and violations of the three-reversion rule. After seeing the immature way in which you have expressed your opinions over this matter this doesn't surprise me. DondleAtkinson 16:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Obviously a sockpuppet. Still unknown whether over the age of 11 or 14 1/2. --Noitall 16:41, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not a sock puppet. The fact that you're convinced that I "obviously" am just further throws your credibility and judgement into question. Please tell me, what makes me "obviously" a sock puppet? Just because I share someone else's opinion? If you're going to accuse me I'd like to see how you've come to this conclusion. DondleAtkinson 18:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I ask all of you to think for a moment of the Encyclopædia Britannica, one of the most respected encyclopedias in the world. Would Agnew's article in Brittannica mention that 'A famous anagram for Spiro Agnew is "Grow a Penis."? If indeed the anagram is an obscure social meme, perhaps we could compromise and simply mention "Some of Agnew's opponents mocked him with demeaning anagrams of his name.", and perhaps list those anagrams on an anagram page. - Eric 17:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Good point. Do we list all the ways that opponents mock a subject on each of the pages? I don't think we bother unless it is notable for some other reason. This is not notable except for being juvenile. --Noitall 17:10, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • If we could justify every addition to Wikipedia with "Well, Enyclopedia Britannica does it!" then we wouldn't need Wikipedia at all what with Encyclopedia Britannica already being perfect, now, would we? This is notable as a social meme (and not at all obscure), and I commend Eric's suggestion to compromise instead of the rejection, arrogance, unwillingness to discuss, and flat-out rudeness of everyone else so far. DondleAtkinson 18:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read and re-read: juvenile. There is nothing more that needs to be said. --Noitall 18:25, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
There is more to be said than that! I don't know what all this talk about Dondle being a sock puppet is; if you mean to say that he and I are the same, that is not true, and it's also an ad-hominem attack, and beside the point of this discussion at that. Where I was brought up, one could talk about the genitals without snickering. One could look at an anagram like this as a little piece of biting social commentary. That's being lost! Wikipedia is losing out! It's being taken away from the best it could be because one person with a bad attitude and poor communications skills says that 'penis' is juvenile. ScipioCoon 9:16, 25 July 2005 (CDT)
Here here. "Juvenile" is a matter of opinion, not something quantifiable. Just because Noitall contributed significantly to the Spiro Agnew article doesn't mean it belongs to him, and he has to personally approve or reject every change to it, which is what he seems to be doing. I thought the community got to decide what's important in Wikipedia, not a select few who get territorial over "their" articles, and accuse me of being a sock puppet, an accusation for which they can't have evidence as it's not true. Is this kind of bullying normal to Wikipedia? How about a poll on this issue? (The anagram, not Wikipedia being run by bullies.) DondleAtkinson 12:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

In The Realist, Paul Krassner wrote a political comic strip parody of Rosemary's Baby where "Rosemary" rearranged Agnew's name with Scrabble tiles to spell 'grow a penis'. I'm not sure, but this is probably the origin of the anagram. This is an important counterculture publication of the time and probably should be mentioned along with the anagram. Gamaliel 21:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Dick Cavett also famously mentioned this on The Tonight Show. Gamaliel 19:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I agree with the critique that my declaration that "political attacks" shouldn't be allowed was too broad. Certainly I did not mean this to cover a discussion of significant political disagreements. However in rare instances even what I would call "attacks" achieve notability - the article on President Cleveland doesn't mention the famous "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" charge of the 1884 campaign, though it could, and it does mention the famous "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa? Going to the White House! Ha Ha Ha!" charge. Both might be considered jeuvenille; but also achieved a certain level of public notoriety and had some likely political impact at the time. That simply isn't the case here. The quotation from Dick Cavett above correctly states that "In those days, however, such inky-fingered ribaldry was for private consumption only." Which is why it also wasn't widely known, had no public notoriety, and no larger political or social impact. I'd never heard of this anagram before; and I don't feel that my understanding of Agnew, or the history or culture of the times has been furthered at all by learning this bit of trivia. It's not notable.Acerimusdux 14:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Should the famous anagram for Spiro Agnew's name be mentioned? See over section for arguments for and against. Please sign your name using a pound sign followed by three tildes (#~~~) under the position you support, possibly adding a brief comment. Extended commentary should be added to the discussion in the above section.

Yes
  1. DondleAtkinson This is another way in which Agnew is famous in popular culture
  2. Scipiocoon The anagram makes a good social commentary; worthy of inclusion in an article on the man.
  3. Septentrionalis 20:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC) Put in, just after the obsolete radiclib: "Among other anagrams:..."Grow a spine." (Although Wikipedia is not censored)
  4. Gamaliel 21:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC). Social impact beyond politics, including quirky items like this one, are relevant and have their place in an encyclopedia article.
  5. Rd232 12:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC) - yes, but not in a "hey, look, an anagram" way. Its popular use has got to be described somewhere, with a source given. The best I've got is from a recent theatre review "It was in 1968, for example, that adolescent boys around the country were laughing at the observation that Spiro Agnew's name could be reworked to spell "grow a penis." "(St. Petersburg Times (Florida), January 11, 2005, "Witless script dooms 'History of America'"). Ideally, we'd have something more solid than that.
    Self-attribution to Dick Cavett, WP 14 December 1996, C01; says "spine" was Sondheim's. Trevor Barnes in the (London) Independent: Augst 22,1998, p11: "ONE OF the dafter undergraduate observations of the Nixon era was the fact that Spiro Agnew (one-time Vice- President) was an anagram of "grow a penis". In those days, however, such inky-fingered ribaldry was for private consumption only." (followed by a discussion of the Lewinsky affair.) Septentrionalis 19:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. xanderer 15:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Yes. Legit pop culture reference.


No
  1. 753 Google results does not qualify as "famous". This is irrevelent. Acegikmo1 06:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Acerimusdux This is a biographic article in an encyclopedia. Political attacks shouldn't be allowed, much less personal insults. Way too POV, and irrelevent.
  3. Kaldari Not encyclopedic.
  4. TexasAndroid POV, potentially inflamitory, and unencyclopedic.
  5. Noitall 14:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC) - I guess I am forced to vote on such a juvenile issue.
  6. AjaxSerix I cannot believe anyone is actually suggesting that "Grow a Penis" is a valid addition to an article about a Vice President of the United States. Grow up people.
  7. 66.159.216.215 - As amusing as I find the anagram, it doesn't fit the tone of this article.
  8. JamesMLane 19:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC) I reject most of the arguments made by other "No" voters and commenters. In an article about a political figure, reporting of political attacks is not just allowed, it's required. Notable attacks should be reported, even if juvenile, even if based on falsehoods, even if constituting personal insults, and even if inflammatory. I vote "No" on grounds of notability. To report every attack made on Agnew would be consistent with NPOV but would clutter the article. This one just wasn't that important. JamesMLane 19:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    JamesMLane, I would agree with you. It is juvenile because there were many very relevant and notable political attacks that could be stated, and this was not one of them. This was put up here because today, after Agnew is long dead, some think they can justify putting the word penis in an article. That is juvenile and has no part of history. --Noitall 00:24, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not sure you and I agree. A juvenile attack could well be notable enough to merit inclusion. If you're saying that no opinion/reaction/criticism should be mentioned in a Wikipedia article unless it meets some minimum standard of intellectual seriousness, then I disagree with you. JamesMLane 00:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    My issue is that it is not notable. In the academic sense, it is certainly possible for a juvenile attack to be notable. However, in the entire history of the world according to Wiki, I can't think of one. So, in the practical sense, I do not think it possible for a juvenile attack to be notable. And, in this sense on this page, this is a juvenile attack that is not even in the ballpark of being notable. --Noitall 00:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    The first example that comes to mind is the attack on Grover Cleveland: "Maw, Maw; where's my Paw?" Septentrionalis 01:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    Ahhh, that was a political attack widely used widely publicized by his opponent's campaign directly attempting to lower his public stature during the campaign -- not juvenile snickering having nothing to do with a campaign or even a political attack mostly after a death. --Noitall 04:16, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • If that is the best you can come up with, you completely prove my point.--Noitall 04:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
    It was never my argument that the anagram is noteworthy as a piece of political criticism. I don't think it is. It was my argument that it's noteworthy that Angew's name is a very well-known anagram, often cited on anagram pages and in print. Sure it's a juvenile anagram, but that doesn't make it any less famous or well-known, and therefore inclusion of it in an article on him is not juvenile. Comparisons to a similar anagram for Clinton are not valid; that anagram is not well known or firmly embedded in popular culture. Anyone who thinks the Clinton anagram is comparable is missing the point. This anagram is another way in which Agnew is famous. If this is irrelevant in an article on him because it has nothing to do with politics or his career, then why is it relevant to include for example which highschool he went to? DondleAtkinson 16:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahh, his bio is a story of how he became VP (you know, VP of the USA, 2nd in line to the most powerful leader on the planet). You now just acknowledged that this anagram had nothing to do with him in life. I do not get your confusion here. --Noitall 16:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I said it had nothing to do with politics or his career, not that it had nothing to do with him. If we can only talk about politics and his career than this is hardly a bio, and again I raise the question of why things like his parentage or highschool are considered relevant. DondleAtkinson 20:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I really should not reply because I just truly do not understand what it is about biography, history and story as to becoming VP that you do not understand. Are you really arging that they are not important or notable? --Noitall 16:52, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
If his parentage and highschool have anything to do with him becoming VP, the article does not explain what, and it should. How, for instance, would he have not become VP if he'd gone to a different highschool? I suspect it had nothing to do with it, in which case clearly a precedent is already set for including mere interesting facts about Agnew, without the restriction that they have something to do with his becoming VP. Please tell me why his highschool and the names of his parents is relevant to his climb to the position of VP, or add it to the article. Otherwise, it looks like your statement about this being the story of how he became VP isn't accurate. DondleAtkinson 13:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

9. There are plenty of notable criticism of Agnew. This is just silliness. -Willmcw 09:09, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

10. Another no vote here - there are possible naughty anagrams for every name in WP, do we mention them all? Sysin 23:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

If they are famous anagrams, then yes. The relevance here is the anagram's notoriety, not its mere existence. DondleAtkinson 15:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

11. JimmyTheWig Agree with Sysin. Unless the anagram can be shown to be of importance (rather than just notable for being an anagram).

It's not notable for being an anagram, it's notable for being a famous anagram that's appeared in popular culture for years. Many of the arguments here seem to be whether or not the anagram itself is very important, i.e. whether it has a place in popular culture or not. That's already been decided; and that is what's relevant, not the anagram itself. If someone had just thought up this anagram today, it would have no place on wikipedia. As an anagram it's not important or even clever. The fact that it's been circulating for years in print and online and won't die is what makes it noteworthy to any page that claims to be a resource on Agnew. DondleAtkinson 15:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
You have settled the issue yourself. This is a subject about an anagram, not a Vice President, so put it on that page as a notable anagram (and no one will call your arguments juvenile).--Noitall 15:13, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
It's related to him in that it's his name. Tangentially related, sure. But a precedent has already been set for this on Wikipedia. Why, for instance, does the Stephen King article have an entire section devoted to his being hit by a van? That's not specifically about his career, the driver wasn't specifically gunning for him, it was pure chance, pure coincidence, yet it happened to him, and therefore it's noteworthy in his article. Same situation here. DondleAtkinson 19:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
If you learned how to drop your argument, especially when it concerns such an inconsequential issue (for your side), no one would call it juvenile or dumb. --Noitall 20:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Once again you don't answer the questions posed. Honestly, if your debate/discussion skills are so poor you should just cast your vote and stay quiet. DondleAtkinson 11:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

12. Not notable enough. Junes 15:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

13. Absolutely not. It has nothing to do with his life and career. (Besides, his last name is "Anagnostopoulos" -- acronymize that if you please.) JDoorjam 11:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you; you have just made the case for its relevance: he chose the name "Agnew" - for much of his life, "'Ted' Agnew". Septentrionalis 19:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

14. Unless there is evidence that the anagram was relevant during his political career (for example, did political enemies use it during his campaigns?) it's not really about him at all, it's just a coincidence. 71.135.132.2 23:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Poll?

Continue to Ignore Juvenile edits and related comments:

Yes --Noitall 20:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
No because classing an editor's edits as "juvenile" is a personal attack. DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS. EVER. THERE IS NO EXCUSE. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. ~~~~ 20:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • -Ril- is only on this page to troll and vandalize. Ignore him. (also, he wants the anagram to stick with Agnew's name rather than the ~~~~ symbol no one can pronounce that is his signature) --Noitall 21:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


  • I am not certain who is voting "Yes", but it seems only to cause problems. The appropriate place, if at all, is the anagram page. Otherwise, we will start including anagrams on all the pages (which seems quite juvenile). For instance, "President Clinton of the USA = To copulate he finds interns." --Noitall 13:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
That you don't agree with the results of the poll does not invalidate it, Noitall! You don't own this page! It is not an accurate or realistic characterization of the situation to say that it "causes problems"; at best, you can say that it "is not what you wanted." Good arguments for and against, but it looks like arguments for are prevailing. Dondle, when does the poll close? --Scipiocoon 8:24, Aug 3 2005 (CDT)

[edit] Radiclib

The neologism "Radiclib" was invented by Agnew and is an example of his use of language. the anagram is a mere accident of his naming, the responsibility of this parents. "Radiclib" is a sufficiently notable neologism to have an article of its own. I see no reason to delete it, except to try to prove some point about the anagram. -Willmcw 23:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It is on par with his "nattering nabobs" comment. The fact is, he said, he used it for political reasons, and they reflected on his personality. --Noitall 00:22, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
This depends on a misstatement: his parents did not give him Agnew, he chose it. Septentrionalis
Did he choose the name so that the anagram would work? If so, the anagram should stay in the article. If not, it should remain only on the anagram page. --JimmyTheWig 09:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I would have removed the forgotten neologism in any case, had not it been on a par with the anagram. As it was, one was an answer to the other. To include Agnew's wit, native or hired, and leave out the wit inspired by him is PoV. Both are fairly poor, to my sense of humor, but that's another question. Septentrionalis 15:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The argument by Septentrionalis makes as much sense as the anagram s/he continues to promote. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. One is notable, the other is not. --Noitall 19:00, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
Is this assuming good faith?
I thought when I came to the page that the anagram and radiclib were on the same level of notability; I voted accordingly; I think so now. If "radiclib" hadn't been next to the anagram, I might have voted differently. There is consensus on a higher standard. Fine; but it should be applied evenhandedly. Septentrionalis 22:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If this is just some inside-jargon used by the adminstration then it's not that important. If this term has fallen into common use, then it may be notable. In that case, though, the radiclib page should be updated to reflect this. DondleAtkinson 11:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, you answered your own question. It is notable enough that another page was created some time ago just for it, and it notes the Agnew origination. --Noitall 13:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I answered my own quesiton? What question did I ask? DondleAtkinson 17:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Come on, stay with your own arguments. You stated it as, "If this term has fallen into common use," and you answered it by the very page you cite. --Noitall 17:37, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Seriously, friend, that wasn't a question. For future reference, I'll end my questions with one of these. Now let me try and make it clearer, for your benefit, since you didn't seem to understand the first time: Someone creating a page on Wikipedia that consists of 5 sentences and a quote doesn't prove that the term has fallen into common use. If it indeed has, then someone should update the radiclib page to show this because it at the moment does not. I realize the radliclib page is currently a stub but if this really is nothing more than insider name-calling jargon used by the Nixon administration, that doesn't sound worthy of a whole entry. My vote would be to remove the radiclib page, mention it briefly on the Agnew page, move the quote currently in the radiclib page to Wikiquotes, and link to it from the Agnew page. DondleAtkinson 09:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, it is agreed that it is notable. Now you raise the question whether it is notable outside of Agnew. I would ask it on the radiclib talk page. --Noitall 12:29, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FBI investigation of Agnew

Papers released under the FOIA are available at [1]. I really have no idea of the background of this investigation or where it would fit in the article, but I assume it would be important to at least mention.--Wasabe3543 04:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Agnew was Episcopalian. Presumably his father was baptized Greek Orthodox. Did the father convert? Did Agnew take his mother's religion? Did he convert as an adult? --Macrakis 06:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Place of birth

Was it Towson or Baltimore? The lead paragraph and infobox contradict each other. -VJ 00:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistresses

Paddy Stewart was rumoured to be his mistress, do we have any concrete evidence of that though?

[edit] Fear & Loathing Reference

Shouldn't there be a reference to Fear & Loathing, in which Agnew gets a mention? Geoffreygoines 18:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson and Cocaine

being "allegedly" Michael Jackson's idol is irrelevant. If this was known for certain...it would still have limited relevance. This comment should be removed. being a "well-known" cocaine dealer? are you kidding? If he was so well known, why wasn't he arrested? If this is true...the statement is poorly worded. It doesn't state the facts of the matter. If it is not true...it's slanderous.

[edit] Hatchet Man

I suggest this term be dropped as POV.

[edit] Too much trivia?

The article has way too much trivia, in my opinion. It's pretty much a given that a modern-era Vice President of the U.S. will be mentioned frequently in popular culture. But there's no need for Wikipedia to be a catch-all for every mention of his name. For example, a brief reference/mention of Agnew in one song or one TV episode is probably unencyclopedic. Likewise for such minutiae as the album title from a virtually unknown band. See WP:TRIVIA for guidelines. Vandelay 19:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Get a grip on reality --- Wikipedia itself is unencyclopedic. For lack of a better title, it's a large info-based web site with millions of erroneous, unsubstantiated, uncited & "mispeled" (sic) factoids, an urban legend-filled cornucopia. Trivia IS minutiae --- little facts, some very small. All articles should stand alone & be judged on their own merit. In contrast, many articles lack content simply because there isn't anything left to add. Your comment suggests a standard/average amount of content that all articles should strive for whether or not the facts are there to support additions, and transversely, deleting facts when the boat gets too full, as you suggest. Once you start editing out facts to create a common goal, logic dictates that censorship & social standards follow suit, i.e., Hitler's (and the Republican Party's) liquid dream.66.168.247.96 17:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Under his Resignation

  Agnew was forced to resign on Oct. 10, 1973, after a Justice Dept. investigation uncovered evidence of corruption during his years in Maryland politics; he was said to have continued to accept bribes while Vice President. He pleaded no contest to a charge of federal income tax evasion, was sentenced to three years' probation and fined $10,000, and was disbarred (1974) in Maryland.

Spiro Agnew was not the 39th President of the United States as stated under his photo (as of 1/17/2007). He was a Vice President. 204.153.52.2 17:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/i/Talk%7ESpiro_Agnew_904a.html"