Talk:Watergate burglaries

NPOV

I have to say that this, to me, is indeed a very suspicious-looking article that does no so much try to present a plausible narrative of a specific (and, given the consequences, ultimately important) historical event, based on the agreed-upon findings of countless judicial and legislative investigations of Watergate and on the overwhelming majority of journalistic or scholarly books and articles written about these findings. Rather, it seems that the underlying attempt of the whole article is to cast universal doubt on exactly this “conventional wisdom on Watergate”. Indirectly, the aim of this pinpointing of the supposed or real holes in the traditional narrative seems to be the promotion of an esoteric reading of the Watergate events as presented in books containing conspiracy theories that have been dismissed by most historians and other writers.

In this regard, the article might not so much be the outgrowth of “six years of research” on the part of the original author as one would think after reading the first editing summary and the impressive list of original documents cited as references. Rather, it seems that the author has simply rehashed conspiracy theories as presented in the highly controversial Watergate books by Jim Hougan (Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat and the CIA, New York: Random, 1984) and Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin (Silent Coup: The Removal of a President, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991). Let me make this clear: Using these books for the preparation of a Wikipedia article on Watergate is not in itself problematic but it is every author’s obligation to both highlight the fact that he’s using these books as his source as well as to put them into the perspective of Watergate literature as a whole which would underline the fact that we are dealing here with minority or even outsider positions.

Moreover, in this case it would be necessary to direct the attention of Wikipedia readers to the fact that essential parts of Silent Coup have effectively been acknowledged to be unreliable when the publishers agreed to settle in a lawsuit filed by former White House counsel John Dean against the authors, Gordon Liddy and the publisher St. Martin’s Press. Under the terms of the settlement of this lawsuit, large parts of the book are even prohibited from being republished. I get the impression that the original author went to great pains in order to cover up (irony intended) the fact that he was relying to a great degree or even exclusively on this rather seedy and dubious source (however, Silent Coup is mentioned in passing in the article, although not in the list of references).

But if I am unfair in my speculations here and this article indeed represents the outgrowth of “six years of research” totally independent from Secret Agenda and Silent Coup (as the original author implicitly claims), the immediate erasure of the whole article from this site would be expedient. This is because, according to one of the three strict content policies of Wikipedia, this is not the place to present “original research,” that is “unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a ‘novel narrative or historical interpretation’” (see: [1]) In this context, I refer anyone’s attention to the fact that the article is relying heavily on the deposition which G. Gordon Liddy gave in 1996 in the course of the mentioned libel lawsuit which John Dean filed against the authors of Silent Coup. Although a transcript of this deposition has been published online ([2]), I am not aware of any published interpretations of this specific source.

Once again: If such an interpretation does not exist and therefore the article cannot be based upon it, the author’s reliance of this source must be considered to be original research which is uncalled for at Wikipedia, not in the least because in any imaginable circumstance the presentation of such research is self-serving and cannot conform to the neutrality principle. Moreover, what has to be nipped in the bud is any attempt by individuals to highjack this encyclopaedia in order to get a forum for one’s own esoteric ideas about important events in history.

What I forgot to mention: The already dubiously looking name given by the original author is nothing but an unimaginative anagram of "Only the Truth". I leave it to others to check out how reliable Wikipedia contributions are whose authors claim that they possess the truth. -- Beek100 08:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a long rant. Do you have specific issues that concern you, or are you more generally just worried that because the sources are only cited at the end, that incorrect and biased data could easily be inserted? --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, both would be true. I took and take the liberty to write in detail because a claim that an article is biased should not be made carelessly. Some length is also necessary because the whole material is quite complicated. If you are familiar with the Watergate literature as a whole (I think I am), you can easily notice that the whole article adopts the perspective of a few authors as opposed to the majority perspective. It does so in quite an argumentative fashion (in itself problematic in light of the NPOV policy), most of the time sounding like a lawyer’s presentation (“there is no physical evidence”), giving you the facts, the circumstantial evidence and the sources fitting the argument, but essentially leaving out everything that contradicts it.

Take the passage I rewrote as a case in point in the article. It concerns the so-called Gemstone III meeting of March 30, 1972. The version of “Huntley Troth” concluded: “The Key Biscayne memo does not survive. The earlier Liddy plans do not survive. There is no physical evidence to support any of the anecdotal accounts.” The dispute here is about whether John Mitchell, Nixon’s Attorney General and head of the Committee-to Re-elect the President, signed off on a downscaled plan for political espionage presented to him by his deputy Magruder but written by G. Gordon Liddy. Every reader not familiar with the bulk of Watergate literature and the findings of the courts and Congress in this regard must conclude that the claim of Mitchell’s involvement stands on very shaky, that is, above-all, self-contradictory ground and that there seems to be no evidence supporting that claim. You never even learn about the fact that both the Ervin Committee and the Rodino Committee in Congress and the jury in Mitchell’s trial, after weighing all this evidence, concluded that it suggested that Mitchell in fact had supported the Gemstone III plan (that’s one of the reasons Mitchell went to jail). The bulk of circumstantial evidence in this regard, the fact for example that the surviving copy of a “Talking Paper” prepared for a meeting of Nixon’s Chief of Staff Haldeman with Mitchell suggests that the consequences of an adoption of the Liddy plan were discussed between the two of them just 5 days later is not mentioned at all in the article, although it plays, for example, such a large role in the narrative of Fred Emery’s well-known Watergate book.

And you would have to add this kind of detailed information in almost every passage of the article in order to get an unbiased perspective. This all-in-all is clearly the attempt to rewrite history, to question the findings of a whole generation of Watergate researchers. And this attempt is based on very questionable ground. I don’t know how many times the Liddy deposition of 1996 (that was given 24 years after the events in question!) is cited as “evidence”. But if you read that deposition in whole and pay attention to the passages where Liddy is pressed by oppositional lawyers on his memory, it becomes quite clear that concerning many details he has no first-hand memory at all but has to rely on “refreshing his memory” when re-reading passages from two books on Watergate (see f.e. p. 50-52), his own memoirs “Will” and the conspiracy book “Silent Coup” that was the issue of that 1996 trial and which Liddy calls quite revealingly “the new bible on Watergate” (p. 52). That must have created an almost surreal situation in the courtroom, but is that the kind of evidence that fits Wikipedia standards? I think not. And to make myself clear: I am not against an article on the first Watergate break-in which the caveats of some authors concerning the “conventional wisdom” in this regard is mentioned and the reasons therefore are given. But I am totally against an argumentative article which tries to CONVINCE you that the traditional narrative is false. -- Beek100 10:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully will avow that there are no theories whatsoever expressed in the article. If you are going to claim that a "conspiracy theory" is any part of the article, please cite it by quotation and not by unsupported allegation.

I also will submit emphatically that the bulk of the article is nothing whatsoever but recitation of sworn testimony by the co-conspirators themselves in congressional hearings, as is entirely reflected in the list of references. The other sources that are relied upon to a substantial degree are mainly the autobiographies of co-conspirators Hunt and Liddy, are completely valid sources, and are relied upon mainly for issues not covered in the congressional testimony. That you make an issue out of one sole reference in the text to Colodny's book, which concerns an otherwise verifiable reference to a telephone company sweep of DNC headquarter--which has NOT been "discredited--I consider disingenuous indeed. And nothing in any of it constitutes either NPOV or "original research." You claiim these "offenses" at great length, but never quote anything from the article itself to support it. I submit that's because your position is unsupportable.

The article does nothing at all except compare the testimony of the co-conspirators. And no, calling them "co-conspirators" does not constitute a "conspiracy theory": that's how the court labelled them. Any "conclusions" or "theories" that you have reached by reading the article are your own, they are not in the article itself. If they were, you could quote them. But there's nothing to quote except claims made by the participants themselves in completely valid sources.

Given all the foregoing, I recommend that you remove your alert from the article and devote your energies to something that has some validity. Huntley Troth 23:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing these questions, Huntley. I have looked closely at the article and I don't see the covert bias that Beek100 implies. I don't see an argumentative article, and I certainly don't see one trying to "convince" me that the traditional narrative is false -- in fact, the article conforms pretty squarely with what I know of Watergate. Beek100, welcome to Wikipedia, but please, in your criticisms of articles, assume good faith of other editors and not hidden agendas. It may be that the other editors have developed another view objectively, or may simply not have the same information. In your lengthy critique you draw grave inferences from minor points. That's really not a good way to ingratiate yourself or to build consensus.--Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I still maintain that the article contains original research. My problem is that to counter some of the alligations or conclusions I would have to rely partly on material that is not published in book form, especially on files of the FBI investigation that are available in microfilm form. I give you an example of the validity of that material: In the article it is said that "no physical" and no testimonial evidence concerning the first Watergate break-in existed except for what the co-conspirators (I never questioned the validity of that term) said. In fact, there was hard physical evidence for burglary attempts at the DNC headquarters around Labor Day weekend 1972. On Monday, May 29, 1972, the DNC informed the Washington Metropolitan Police that, over the weekend, someone had tried to burglarize the place as was clearly shown by marks left behind on the door. Investigations of policemen confirmed this [FBI-Summary Report of Watergate Investigation, p.14-5.].

Now, if I tried to improve the article by adding this information, even if I give a reference to this source, wouldn't that offend Wikipedia's "original research" and "published sources" policy, because I can't find a readily available reference to this fact in printed materials? And Huntley: It's absurd to claim that this article does not contain conclusions, in fact it's full of conclusions that are at odds with the findings of Watergate researchers. I specifically referred to the question of the adoption of Gemstone III at Key Biscayne. You have not reacted at all to my correcting the misleading conclusion that, except for "anecdotal accounts," there is "no physical evidence" for the adoption of the Gemstone plan (hardly a minor point). Strachan's "Talking Paper" for Haldeman clearly says otherwise. However, assuming good faith, I would appreciate your engaging me in a discussion on these issues that, given the energy you invested, seem to be of some concern to you. I'll remove the bias-button as a first move to open up a discussion. -- Beek100 08:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think you're overinterpreting the "no original research" injunction, because I don't see novel conclusions being drawn. (If anything, I see this as touching on the expert editors angle.) Although you are saying there are potentially misleading inferences readers can draw, that is not the same thing, and is simply a point to bring up here in Talk or improve directly as possible. What you are bringing up are some verifiability issues, which I'm certainly open to hearing about. Do note that microfilm, if it's indexed, is certainly citeable, as long as someone else can go to the same resource and locate it. It may not be as convenient as other sources, but I do not see any explicit prohibition.

Ultimately, we need to remember that the justice system has run its course in these events, and I think it's valuable to have as much information as we can get in this article. I don't see why a consensus isn't achievable. My greatest concern is that while I consider myself a reasonably knowledgeable person, I'm not privy to some of these sources you're bringing up, so I think we need to expose this issue to a larger audience. I suggest that we bring this up on requests for comment, so that more eyes can review the issue. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative and well-balanced reply containing information about Wikipedia rules and procedures that were new to me. I certainly welcome a larger audience for these issues and I am prepared to engage in any kind of fruitful discussion on them. I also hope that my recent additions to the article show that I’m writing from an informed position and that I also try to make as clear as possible what my sources for specific statements are. -- Beek100 01:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. Hopefully we can get some good input from people with experience in editing historical articles. --Dhartung | Talk 02:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Beek, I was entirely familiar with the FBI door-marring report, and reference to just such marring of the door is in the first Washington Post article on the break-in, but the Post gives a date for when the marring was noticed that is inconsistent with both the FBI report, and with Liddy's claim that it happened on 27 May 1972 during the purported "second attempt." I'm beginning to suspect that the only POV that is trying to be inserted into this article is your own, which POV clearly is that a break-in and all the purported attempts absolutely took place, and that we all must be saddled with the burden of attempting to reconcile hopelessly contradictory testimony in order that we all can join you in your own POV that these things actually took place, despite the complete lack of actual physical evidence that proves they did. You never, then, reach the other consideration: that someone could have marred the door specifically to create the appearance of an attempted break-in. Yet that possibility is equal to any likelihood that a trained locksmith would have accidentally scratched up the door. Not trying to force the conclusion one way or another is NPOV. And in the article as I originally wrote it, I included Liddy's statement that marring had taken place. The reader was allowed to draw their own conclusions. It seems that you, though, are concerned about getting in the FBI report of it in addition to what I had included, solely because you feel the FBI report will "prove" that a break-in attempt took place, and so impose a POV that there actually was a break-in. That's simply a POV.

The long explanation you've added concerning the 33mm photos purportedly taken inside O'Brien's office also reflects your POV, and your insistence that these non-existent photos actually were taken inside O'Brien's office, when there is absolutely no concrete physical evidence that they were, and when the person, Barker, who was overall responsbile for the photography said under oath they never had been in O'Brien's office on Memorial Day weekend at all. Furthermore, despite all the contradictory testimony that even you include, including oral descriptions of carpet in the photos (which of course are no longer available, having been destroyed) that was not the carpet inside DNC (which damning fact you curiously characterize as being "less dramatic"), you close your additions with the extreme POV statement: "All in all, books and testimonies by Liddy, Hunt, Magruder, McCord, Barker, Martinez and photo shop employee Richardson support the Watergate investigators' conclusion that during a burglary at the Watergate office building in the night of May 28/29, 1972, photos were taken of DNC documents, that the prints of these photographs were developed in Miami on June 10, 1972, and that Gordon Liddy subsequently handed over these prints to CREEP." That's your own conclusion, and you invoke a "Watergate investigators' conclusion" that simply doesn't exist: Baldwin gave the story of the "first break-in" to U.S. Attorneys beginning 25 June 1972, and most of the other participants pleaded guilty and told the same stories, short-circuiting any in-depth investigation into the purported "first break-in." In fact, the real conclusion reached by the "Watergate investigators" is a theme that I alluded to in the introductory matter with Senator Baker's quote, a theme revisited constantly by the Senators on the Senate Select Committee, which is that there was a complete absence of physical evidence to support or disprove any of the conflicting anecdotal claims. So your statement that I just quoted is unquestionably POV, and not even supported by citeable fact. I therefore request that you remove it forthwith, and anything else you've done to the article that seeks to impose your own very obvious POV: that all events described, in very conflicting detail, by the co-conspirators are some kind of incontrovertible truth. They are not. There are perfectly intelligent people in the world who consider in good faith that the conflicting claims of the co-conspirators about that weekend are whole-cloth fiction to cover up what the co-conspirators actually had been engaged in that weekend. That view is equally supportable by the known facts as is your own POV that the co-conspirator claims are truth. If the article is not allowed to accommodate either view, then a POV is being imposed. So I respectfully ask you to give that due and sober consideration, that you take into account other points of view, and that edit your edits accordingly to the middle ground so that readers can think for themselves and not be told what to think by you. Huntley Troth 04:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)