Talk:Watergate scandal/Archive 1

Introduction

The introduction is terrible and gives no clear information about what Watergate is all about. It would really need a two or three sentence definition of the scandal. Since I am German, I will leave this up to someone else.

... I agree, the introduction is useless, I know nothing about Watergate and the Wiki intro is a real disappointment: I still know nothing.

.. I was not even sure why it was a big deal, with respect to the break in at Democrat offices... until I saw that Nixon was a Republican. Perhaps there could be some info about Democrats and Republicans in this article.. and that apparently (from what I've discovered so far about US politics) there are only two major political parties in the US (and were at that time?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.57.230.198 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

.. I completely agree, I don't understand anything in this event. The whole article needs a rewrite.

I am an Australian with little knowledge of American political history. This article is not helpful to me at all. It must obviously have been written for Americans. It assumes too much prior knowledge, most evident in the introduction.

I added a two sentences section on its significance. Others can help place the context of how the Watergate break-in was the key that unlocked the criminal activities of the Nixon admin using IRS tax audits (illegal) on its enemies, using illegal taping of conversations and using illegal campaign funds. Chivista 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear contributors, I took a stab at re-writing the intro. I did my best to keep it as concise as possible while attempting to summarize this hefty event. I plan on expanding further upon material that was present in the previous version of the Introduction, such as referencing the "plumbers", etc. I added the requests for citations for several of the statements I made, and have the material to satisfy them, just not in front of me at the moment. Ukulele 23:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cited my statements. Ukulele 06:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this strikes me as being a little wrong. The title of the article is "Watergate Scandal," and the first two words are "Watergate Scandals." I think that we should make that more consistant. I would do it, but someone else would come up with a reason to revert it. Toa Zach (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Coup

Hi there. I am not American and I don't know much about the subject. However, reading the last paragraph of text, there is clearly some strong POV, even with the "witty" ellipsis at the end. I would suggest taking a close look at that

Piece of tape

I'm trying to do some research on this topic. It states that there was a peice of tape that the security gaurd found that was preventing the door from locking. How was it doing this? Like how was it placed on the door?--The_stuart 16:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I belive you could do that by placing it over the little metal bolt that holds the door in the frame when it is shut, you know, when you turn the knob, it moves the little metal bolt in so you can open the door, but if there is tape over the bolt holding it in the door then it cannot hold the door in the frame

Long story short

They could have added a shorter story with the essence in it.

I agree

FOIA

The articles says that the Watergate scandal was a major factor in the passage of the Freedom of Information Act. Yet the Freedom of Information Act article says that the FOI Act was first passed in 1966.

User:Wm 17 Nov 2003

Votes against the Articles of Impeachment

The page says:

... The House Judiciary Committee voted 27 to 11 on 27 July, 1974 to recommend the first article of impeachment against the President: obstruction of justice. Then on 29 July the second article, abuse of power, was passed and on 30 July the third, contempt of Congress, was also passed.
In August, a previously unknown tape was released... With this last piece of evidence, Nixon's few remaining supporters deserted him. The 10 congressmen who had voted against the Articles of Impeachment in Committee announced that they would now all support impeachment when the vote was taken in the full House.

How many congressmen voted against the Articles of Impeachment? 10 or 11?

Dominus 01:58, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I tried to find out exactly that answer, but found many sources that gave conflicting numbers. So I went with the simple majority of sources that I checked (maybe there was a last minute hold-out - that would explain the number difference). --mav 02:06, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There were three Articles of Impeachment; the first (obstruction of justice) passed 27-11. The second (abuse of power) passed 28-10. The third (contempt) passed 21-17. That's probably where the discrepancy about the Committee members reversing their vote lies, since everything I've read says that every member of the Committee planned on changing their vote after the "smoking gun" tape was released. Since I'm new to this, however, I wouldn't be comfortable making a substantive change like this. Me 21:02 10 Jun 2004

There is no discrepancy. The number 10 comes from the 10 Republicans who voted against all three articles of impeachment. The other Republicans voted differently on different articles. The wording could be clarified; I'll take a crack at it.--Dhartung 08:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Recordings of presidential conversations

Presidents from Roosevelt to Nixon made recordings of their conversations - none since Watergate of course

That we know of... :) Branden 10:42, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The distinction, according to RN, Nixon's autobiography, is that his predecessors allowed themselves to turn the recorders on and off, and he claims he didn't (though there is that 18:30 minutes, of course). --Calieber 15:12, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Examination of the tape by audio recording experts revealed that the "gap" was created by intentionally erasing the tape, perhaps as many as a dozen times. It's believed that Nixon did not erase it at the time, but Nixon or an associate deliberately erased it after it had been recorded, but before it was turned over to Congress. Scooter 03:09, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Articles for all significant players

We should have articles for all of the significant players according to Woodward and Bernstein's All the President's Men:

...and, of course:

Whew. Branden 10:42, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Respectfully, All The President's Men is not a comprehensive history of this event, but an account of the Washington Post's coverage and the rolls of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their investigative reporting. Their book primarily talks about the investigation and very little else. There were quite a bit more players than than those mentioned in their book-- as amazing and deserving of the Pulitzer as it is. This event was so large and complex, I would find it a daunting task (though a thoroughly satisfying one) to collate such a list of the players, the played and the pawns. Ukulele 07:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Grammar and syntax corrections"

Hey, Scooter, while making "grammar and syntax corrections" you made inaccurate the part where I talked about Woodward and Bernstein deciding to launch an investigation based on the arraginment of the Watergate burglars. You changed it to "trial". They're not the same thing. An arraignment is simply where the charges are read, you enter a plea, bond is set, and the judge asks some basic questions, possibly to verify that the person before him or her is actually the one in the prosecutor's complaint. For instance, Woodward and Bernstein were intrigued when one of the (then-)accused burglars responded to a routine query from the judge as to his profession. The guy answered "anti-communist", and after some prodding from the judge, claimed he worked for the CIA. All this is in All the President's Men. Anyway, an arraignment is a thing that takes a few minutes, whereas a trial can take days to weeks, and I'm not sure W & B were actually in attendance during the whole trial. Please fix. Branden 07:47, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This doesn't mention what was stolen, only that something was stolen. Somebody should add that.

I am not a crook

Wasn't the "I am not a crook" declaration made in connection with the IRS investigation of deductions Nixon made for donation of his papers to the National Archives rather than anything to do with Watergate?

PedanticallySpeaking 17:17, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. "The 'I am not a crook' remark came in answer to a question about Nixon's personal finances and tax payments. Press reports had noted that Nixon paid only $1670 in income taxes in 1970 and 1971 on income of $400,000. In his answer, Nixon did not confirm or deny the figures, stating only that he paid 'nominal amounts' in taxes for those years.

"He said the situation resulted from the $500,000 wrth of income deduction he claimed by donating his vice presidential papers to the government....The President then detailed some of his personal finances.

"'I made my mistakes,' the President went on, 'but in all my years in public life, I have never profited, never profited from public service. I have earned every cent ... Well, I am not a crook. I have earned everything I have got.'"

-- From "Watergate: Chronology of a Crisis" by the staff of Congressional Quarterly Inc., c. 1975, p. 432. The report first appeared in a CQ weekly publication immediately after the Nov. 17, 1973 news conference.

That's very strange. I clearly remember Nixon saying "I am not a crook" on a nationally televised address to the nation, not to a delegation of "400 Associated Press managing editors at Walt Disney World in Florida" as the article claims. I wouldn't have seen it if he was speaking to reporters. -- MiguelMunoz 23:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One pretty good website is taxhistory.org [1]

I mean, to take a half-million dollar deduction for something that's not out of pocket at all ? ? ? Look, either donate the vice-presidential papers, don't donate them, to a public organization, a private organization, whatever, instructions that they not be released until twenty years after your death, however you want to do it. But don't try and make it a tax bonanza. Maybe he received reallly bad advice from an accountant who didn't see the larger context, Hey, this person is our leader. Paying taxes is an important part of being a citizen and at times a very frustrating part. And the president has got to lead by example.

And then the donation was back-dated and that's the technical cheat.

-----

As far as the press conference, it's often unclear to me what context a president is speaking in, and I often think it's kind of a blur. And certainly Richard Nixon, following his 1960 debate with Kennedy, I'm sure he learned that the best way to connect with people at home is to look right at the camera, and not to keep looking at the reporter who asked the question. FriendlyRiverOtter 18:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to a 1975 Time magazine article transcript talking about Nixon's taxes [2] .

And as far as the quote itself: "Let me just say this, and I want to say this to the televison audience: I made my mistakes, but in all of my years of public life, I have never profited . . . " So it kind of looks like Nixon was ad-libbing, that he started off talking to the reporters, and then broadened it. This is from Giga Quotes [3] , which I guess is okay. But maybe someone can help us get something more authoritative (although there's a lot to be said for websites that are informal and feisty and so on; in any case, multiple sources would be a good idea, please help if you can). FriendlyRiverOtter 22:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for what was being stolen?

Is there a good reference on what was being stolen? http://www.sumeria.net/politics/kennedy.html is one link that summarizes the (probably correct IMO) theory that Nixon was covering up his involvement with the Bay of Pigs Invasion and Kennedy Assassination. Interesting Bush the first also shows up prominently in both events. In other words, his administration took huge risks to prevent "the mother of all scandals" and the gambit worked. However this doesn't seem to get any mainstream attention - mainstream sources seem to ignore the motive completely regarding Watergate.. 07:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unlabeled revert

My last edit was a rever, i don't know why the edit summary didn't say that. I apologise. Gkhan 17:35, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Request for overview to begin article

Can someone who knows more about this issue than me, please provide a short overview of the scandal in the first paragraph. It is not terribly clear what the scandal was even about without reading the whole article. In particular, launching into details of the burglary is not very useful if you have no prior knowledge. Bobbis 22:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I read the article and felt the same way even before I saw your note. So I have added a short (?) overview. It covers the significance of the event: the illegalities and abuses, and the constitutional aspects. It also covers what I felt were the three areas of pressure and how they ended: 1) The judiciary committee voted for impeachment, 2) the supreme court essentially ruled that Nixon was not above the law and 3) Nixon brought himself down with the incontrovertible evidence of the tapes.

I think this is a good balance between being too wordy, or duplicating too much of the main article info, and giving a quick-to-read overview that places the main article info in context. I hope you agree!

Right now, the overview is three paragraphs which immediately follow the first paragraph. If people feel the overview is too long, my suggestion is simply to give it its own heading. Perhaps "Importance and overview", "Introduction" or just "Overview". I do think it should appear as the first heading -- before getting into all the details about the burglary, coverup, etc.

i think the standard wikipedia deal is to have a short overview at the beginning w/o a heading. i suggest you work hard to shorten the current one. maybe begin with the extreme assignment of putting what you want to say in only one sentence. keeping it to a short paragraph or so after that should be easy. if you'd like, i'll take a stab at it, though i'll probably cut more out than you want. remember, people interested in an overview need very few details. big picture. the article is there for those who want it. SaltyPig 03:35, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

I liked my three paragraph (9 June 2005) version. I think it gave the important facts necessary to gain a big picture overview. Given the complexity of Watergate, adding three paragraphs to the whole Wikipedia article wasn't a huge increase in length. But it was a huge increase in understanding why the scandal rose to a constitutional crisis. It made the next 20 long paragraphs much easier to place in context.

Salty, I did take your suggestion and cut as much as I could. I am not wild about this, which is why I didn't add it to the article. But see what you think. Maybe it will inspire your own attempt at doing a short but salient overview.

There were two main aspects of the Watergate scandal. The first aspect was a series of illegal operations against political opponents, approved by high-ranking White House officials during the first Nixon Administration. The first public inkling of these came on June 17, 1972, when police arrested burglars with wiretap equipment at the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate Office Building. The second aspect of the scandal was a secret coverup, directed personally by Nixon and his aides to prevent public knowledge of the Watergate burglary and the other operations.

For two years, all three branches of the U.S. government increasingly clashed with the President, as they tried to investigate the Watergate burglary and other operations. Trying to keep the coverup intact, the President resisted Congressional subpoenas, court decisions and even his own Executive Branch Special Prosecutors.The constitutional crisis climaxed on August 5, 1974 when Nixon obeyed a unanimous Supreme Court decision that he turn over secret audiotapes of conversations with his aides. One tape, made six days after the Watergate burglary, proved allegations that Nixon had encouraged an extensive coverup. This so-called "smoking gun" tape led Nixon supporters to encourage him to leave office, rather than face almost certain impeachment by the Congress. On August 9 Nixon resigned the Presidency.

--Pmurph5 30 June 2005 06:58 (UTC)

Pmurph5, i think it's much better, but something keeps shining through: you're just dying to do an analysis of the watergate scandal. wikipedia isn't for analysis. it may sound extremely rigid, but claiming that there are "two main aspects" of the scandal is POV. one might claim there were 5. another 3. this isn't the place. the second paragraph is headed in the right direction, though i don't agree with your framing of the watergate scandal as a president-against-the-world thing; it was a big scandal even if nixon hadn't known a thing or been involved in a coverup. it seems also that you're eager to mention "three branches" in every version, and the term "constitutional crisis". in my view, most presidents, including the first ones, have instigated constitutional crises. seems to me that it's an alliterative trendy term, perhaps out of place in a wikipedia article. and don't forget that "impeachment" is an often misunderstood word.

i think the article's fine without a larger overview, but if you're going to add one, i encourage you to steer well away from analysis, and avoid POV -- even the more neutral sounding variety. the length is about right, though it could be shorter. SaltyPig 30 June 2005 17:50 (UTC)

Salty, what I would like to see is very simple: a short explanation or overview of the Watergate scandal to put it in context. This contrasts with the current chronological list of events and facts-uncovered. The explanation/overview/summary should allow one to understand (briefly!) the main elements of the Watergate scandal. As wonderful as the 20 paragraphs of detail in this article are, having only detail makes it difficult for someone with little previous knowledge to gain an overview of the scandal.

Based on your comments, here is a further attempt at removing unconscious or inadvertent POV. I have left in "constitutional crisis" because it is a valid term for the Watergate affair, used widely both at the time and now. (I suggest doing a Google search for "constitutional crisis watergate". I could not find any results where it was claimed that Watergate was not a constitutional crisis.) I have tried to make each sentence a factual summary rather than an analysis.

From about 1970 to 1972, White House [or "high-level"] officials in the Nixon Administration approved a series of illegal operations against political opponents. The first public inkling of these came on June 17, 1972, when police arrested burglars with wiretap equipment at the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate Office Building. The press and the Justice Department began investigating the participants and purpose of the burglary. At the same time, President Nixon and his aides began a secret coverup, to avoid disclosure of additional information about the Watergate burglary and the other, earlier operations.

For two years, all three branches of the U.S. government, plus the press, continued looking into the Watergate burglary and other operations. Trying to keep the coverup intact, the President resisted Congressional subpoenas and hearings, court decisions and even his own Executive Branch Special Prosecutors. The constitutional crisis climaxed on August 5, 1974 when Nixon obeyed a unanimous Supreme Court decision that he turn over secret audiotapes of conversations with his aides. One tape, made six days after the Watergate burglary, proved allegations that Nixon had encouraged an extensive coverup. This so-called "smoking gun" tape led Nixon supporters to encourage him to leave office, rather than face almost certain impeachment (trial and removal from office) by the Congress. On August 9 Nixon resigned the Presidency.

I hope this is satisfactory, or needs only minor tweaking to satisfy your standards. If you like it, great -- please put it in.

If you don't like what I've come up with, then my modest request is that you undertake this. I think you agree about the usefulness of an introduction/overview. Since you seem to have a better handle on POV problems, and you are well-versed in Watergate, a short 2-3 paragraph intro/overview should be relatively easy for you. Certainly it would be simpler than our back-and-forth where my efforts don't quite make it in.

Thanks for all your thoughtful comments on this issue! --68.205.145.167 18:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i think it's much better. you're starting to get a real handle on NPOV. if you're happy with it, i'd suggest you put it in and let others tweak it from there. BTW, your suggestion to search google for "constitutional crisis watergate" is incorrect on two counts. first, i'm aware that it's quite trendy to say "constitutional crisis" in many situations, including watergate, so it gives me no useful information (i'm a constitutional purist, and find the term laughable as it's normally used). second, if one were trying to correlate the term with watergate, the simplest search to start with would be '"constitutional crisis" watergate'. with the search string you suggested, it could theoretically return 15 million hits, none of which contains the phrase "constitutional crisis". but that's just a side comment. unless there are major objections, you should throw that new intro in and let the wolves have at it. i don't think anybody will strike this version. SaltyPig 05:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK Salty, I added the two paragraphs in an "Overview" section. I am not wedded to every word of my text, but I do hope anyone editing it will at least keep the idea of an overview that provides a (very!) general outline/summary to help give context to all the chronological detail that follows.

Regarding "constitutional crisis". I am not wedded to the phrase except that it 1) has been used in the first sentence of this Watergate article for a long time and 2) it is a very short, IMHO accurate way to indicate why Watergate was an important event. For more info, see the Wikipedia "Constitutional crisis" article. I don't agree with all of the listed crises, but the definition is pretty good and I believe it applies very well to Watergate.

I Googled a number of search terms/phrase combinations, in trying to find any results where it was claimed that Watergate was not a constitutional crisis. I could not find a single one. I did find many results which said Watergate was a constitutional crisis. This is why I am confident that the phrase is an accurate, non-POV, commonly-used description.

Thanks again for your feedback; it has helped greatly. --68.205.145.167 04:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome, though you've once again misunderstood my objection to "constitutional crisis". further, it is fallacious to conclude that common usage guarantees NPOV, for it's when a term is commonly used that NPOV is most easily violated. fifty million elvis fans can't be POV? i won't even touch the implications of your google search for sites claiming that watergate wasn't a constitutional crisis.

every day in the modern US is a constitutional crisis; the watergate scandal was simply an abnormal (not abnormally extreme) one. i understand that my position will never prevail at the trendy wikipedia, so i'm not realistically suggesting it be removed -- only that it not be trumpeted like some magic phrase with an implied weight in excess of actual. it is mostly a meaningless term for those who read and understand the constitution, and it's overused -- probably because its alliterative. BTW, is it so terrible to log in to wikipedia? you're conversing with me like i know who 68.205.145.167 is. i don't. SaltyPig 08:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i just saw your edit summary essentially claiming that i'd signed off on your addition as NPOV. that is incorrect. i made a comment about your improvement in that regard (after merely skimming it), but made no serious POV check of your material. if you're going to claim i did something, please make it accurate. better still, take responsibility for your additions. hell, you actually requested that i add it! not a chance would i add that. SaltyPig 08:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Salty, sorry I forgot to log in earlier. I was not trying to hide or anything. I apologize for implying that you signed off or approved or agreed with the 2-paragraph overview. I have removed it and am sorry for not understanding your position. --Pmurph5 12:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"for" template?

i'm curious why the watergate hotel link at the start of the article was changed from a template with parms to a literal link. i can't find any information on the "for" template. is there an advantage to having it? why was it removed? SaltyPig 01:31, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

psychologist or psychiatrist?

"(rv vandalism - ellsberg is not a psychiatrist. Go to the article and find out.)" ~ Stevey7788

couple of things: nobody called ellsberg a psychiatrist, and advising somebody to go to a wikipedia article to find out what the article should say is a little... out there?

i thought the edit was vandalism, but i googled it, and it appears more people, including the washington post, say that the office broken into was ellsberg's psychiatrist, not psychologist. please provide external confirmation for your position, or i'm going to change it back. thanks. i'm more skeptical of the previous edit (re "current" analysis of the tapes) than that one. SaltyPig 22:20, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Lewis J. Fielding was a psychiatrist, I checked Silent Coup and Will and both refer to Fielding as a psychiatrist. Also, I noted on the American Psychiatric Association had a notice of his death in 1996 although it just had the name, "Lewis J. Fielding MD", I'm fairly certain it's the same Lewis J. Fielding. --Wgfinley 23:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Baudrillard Paragraph at the bottom

I find that the whole paragraph is irrelevant to the *facts* of the case, and not particularly *encyclopedic*, as it is mostly specious philosophic jargon. Since this article isn't "my baby" i'm not going to remove it, but consider this a definite VOTE FOR REMOVAL:

"Jean Baudrillard in 1981, commented on the scandal, and saw it as an example of third-order hyperreality. For instance, in his book dealing with simulacra he says that "It is always a question of proving the real through the imaginary, proving truth through scandal, proving the law through transgression, proving work through striking, proving the system through crisis." In other words, our political systems are corrupt, and these major scandals are just a grandiloquent scheme to proclaim and maintain Western ideas of justice and morality. These schemes however, are intended as simulations. This is a view that has provoked much discussion."

Themindset 00:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

despite not being a big philosophy jargon guy, i have recently enjoyed some of the more solid aspects of "hyperreality" theories and observations. still, i agree with you; very much out of place in this article, except perhaps as a one-liner with a link, far away from the core of the article. SaltyPig 01:08, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Debate relevancy

In the "Aftermath" section it talks about Nixon not debating McGovern because he was ahead, and that this hasn't happened since. How is this connected to Watergate? --Holdek ^(talk) 15:46, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

both happened on the same planet? yank it. SaltyPig 20:25, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

The fact there was no debate in '72 and Watergate has no relevance. JFK and Nixon debated in '60, then for the next dozen years, presidential debates died. They returned in '76 and have been conducted ever since. - Hoshie.Crat 21:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

pardon and guilt

i made major changes to the following: "Nixon proclaimed his innocence until his death, although his acceptance of the pardon implied otherwise in the eyes of many: accepting a presidential pardon is voluntary and constitutes a legal admission of guilt, as opposed to a commutation of sentence, which cannot be denied since legal guilt is established at the time of conviction."

in research, i found nothing supporting the claim that accepting a presidential pardon constitutes a legal admission of guilt. to the contrary:

the supreme court, writing in Ex Parte Garland, "A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted before conviction, it prevents . . . the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity."
gerald ford, 1974: "Was the acceptance of the pardon by the President an admission of guilt? The acceptance of a pardon, I think, can be construed by many, if not all, as an admission of guilt."
gerald ford autobiography: "His resignation was an implicit admission of guilt, and he would have to carry forever the burden of his disgrace."

the only place i found the claim that the pardon was a legal admission of guilt was this article, or sites that use this article's text. based on that and the information listed above, i removed the claim, and its associated comparison of a "commutation of sentence", which i find irrelevant even were the pardon a legal admission of guilt. a presidential pardon of a convicted party is not a "commutation of sentence". SaltyPig 10:46, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

burglary analysis

Cfs-news, i got your email about your recent change. i think you've made a bad assumption though: i didn't revert your addition before; i edited it way down. i agreed that what you were saying is important. it's there! please discuss here what important information is added by the new paragraph that isn't contained (for the last week or so) in the previous paragraph. thanks. and perhaps more important, please remember that insertions should be checked for flow. it appears you didn't read the previous paragraph when inserting yours today. if you'd like help reading/analyzing page histories (it can get weird sometimes), please email me again. your original contribution was not removed, but simply edited. that was explained in my edit summary, and visible in the diff link for that action. SaltyPig 11:40, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

also, please note the recent addition of an enhanced overview at the beginning, which covers a new sentence you added to your prior version. SaltyPig 11:47, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Date of the (second) Watergate burglary

I changed the stated date of the Watergate burglary from June 16, 1972 to June 17.

There may be confusion as to when the burglary started (late the evening of June 16?). However, the burglars were arrested at approximately 2:30 am on June 17 1972, and this is the date I see most often. For example, a Google search for watergate burglary "june 17" shows 9,040 results; a search for watergate burglary "june 16" shows only 504 results.

BTW, as the Wikipedia article states, this was the second Watergate burglary. The first was May 28, 1972. On June 8, G. Gordon Liddy gave logs from the wiretaps to Jeb Magruder, with the intent to show them to John Mitchell. On June 9, Magruder said the taps were inadequate, so a second break-in was scheduled for the June 16-17 evening. (I do not know if Mitchell ever saw the logs.) For a good chronology of the first break-in and its results, see http://www.bjornetjenesten.dk/teksterdk/watergate.htm

the problem though is that the date given in the article isn't always for when the burglars were arrested; in the burglary section, it's for when frank wills first noticed the tape on the door. i might be wrong, but something sticks in my mind about that being 11-something at night (or possibly earlier). i think the article should specify times, or try to find a way around the confusion/inaccuracy. SaltyPig 18:04, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

probably safe to say the burglary began 8/16. still nothing on when tape was first seen, but there's info here: "McCord went into the Watergate very early in the evening. He walked right through the front door of the office complex, signed the book, and, I'm sure, went to the eighth floor as he had before. Then he taped the doors from the eighth floor to the bottom floor and walked out through the exit door in the garage. It was still very early, and we were not going to go in until after everyone left the offices. We waited so long that Eduardo went out to check if the tapes were still there. He said they were but when we finally got ready to go in, Virgilio and Sturgis noticed that the tape was gone, and a sack of mail was at the door." SaltyPig 18:17, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Bay of Pigs thing

Interesting that there's no reference at all in this article to the many allegations of a deeper conspiracy behind what came to light in Watergate. Crucial to this is Nixon's instruction to blackmail the CIA over "the whole Bay of Pigs thing," a deliberate code for the Kennedy Assassination. I propose a separate article: "Watergate theories." -- James

Watergate alternative theories would be better.-- Anon

How about Watergate conspiracy theories? I know it was a conspiracy, but a conspiracy theory is not the same as the description of a conspiracy. John G Walker 17:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Massive Cleanup

Someone completely sabotaged this entry. When I looked at it today, there were no links to other resources, no headings, and many spelling and typographical errors. The first thing I did was to put up the clean-up template and I edited the text and fixed it up a little. Much of the contradictory material and mistakes remain; I'll leave it up to someone else to fix those. Webdinger 10 Sep 05

Mark Felt shouldn't be in the first paragraph of the article.

The inclusion of the Mark Felt/Deep throat aspect of the story in the lead paragraph of the article is not right. It is only a tiny part of a very big and broad story. I understand that the recent revelation has made a splash and everyone including me wanted to know who deep throat was, but to imply that the Deep Throat angle was more than a footnote to a much larger story is just silly.

Woodward and Bernstein were only one of many investigations that shed light on the issue and Deep Throat was only one of their sources. This implies that it was the Deep Throat angle that cracked the case or some such thing wheras it's clear that had there been no deep throat the result would have been much the same.

My suggestion would be to move the Felt/Deep throat bit should be moved back into the body of the article where it belongs.

Editdroid 03:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodward and Bernstein were only one of many investigations that shed light on the issue and Deep Throat was only one of their sources.

I agree. The Washington Post coverage, while ground-breaking and somewhat influential in the FBI investigation was not the only excellent and timely coverage of this event. Ukulele 06:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What caused Watergate?

As a reader that I don't know too many details about the case, I feel that there is one piece missing from the article. That is, what exactly were the burglars looking for when breaking in? Is there any evidence on that? There must have been something that Nixon thought was very very serious, and was really afraid of it. Probably information he was afraid that was available to the other side. Otherwise they wouldn't take such an extreme risk, compromising the whole campaign. Please educate me if anyone has more information on the issue. -- Peter

Good point. Nowhere does it say in the article that the burglars broke in to plant bugs, not to steal. Nor does it state anywhere that the burglary was the end point of a long project to ensure that Nixon ran against a weak Democratic presidential candidate in '72. This latter point is the key fact about the burglary, without which nothing else makes sense. This should, in fact, be in the introduction. John G Walker 17:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree its a good point that the article lacks this context. "...plant bugs, not steal" - Well they were looking for "damaging information" on Ellsberg in his psychiatrists office. Not 'stealing' in the sense of looking for goods, but in trying to dig up dirt. In court, its still called 'burglary.' -St|eve 18:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The burglers were exactly looking for a list of available prostitutes from a Washington DC call-girl ring in the desk of Ida "Maxie" Wells. This list had John Dean's (then) girlfriend, Maureen Biner as one of the prostitutes. The Watergate burglers were to secure the list with Ms. Biner's name on it and subsitute a list without her name on it. Maureen Biner eventually married John Dean.

Okay, we all know the concept above regarding prostitutes is complete nonsense. I added details on the leading theory regarding motive which is related to Nixon's desire to find out what DNC Chairman Larry O'Brien knew about his brother's financial mis-dealings with Howard Hughes (O'Brien was a former top aide to H Hughes.) The reason it probably was left out of previous versions of the article is that the coverup was very succesful in many respects and the evidence for the above was only revealed years later in the exhaustive research contained in Nixon: The CD-ROM. The article also avoided the question of who approved the break-in ahead of time. (Most agree that Nixon likely did not know about plans to break into the Watergate, but would not have objected either.) So who did know? Dean's sealed testimonydeposition taken prior to the public phase of the Senate Watergate Committee hearings sits in the Senate Archives in Washington D.C. -- Dean's statement, which was basically missed by the Senate Watergate Committee lawyer's, clearly names the DNC as one of the targets discussed in the first Gemstone Plan meeting. Dean did not attend the second meeting when a scaled-down version of the plan was approved. Nevertheless, his sworn testimony coincides with the long held belief that Mitchell approved the break-in and targeting of the DNC headquarters at the Watergate. Glenn4pr 04:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently posted the Watergate first break-in page. It directly addresses motive and origins for what has come to be know as Watergate, and covers the purported first break-in in detail. Since the 17 June 1972 event when the men were apprehended ostensibly was to fix problems and failures of the 28 May 1972 "first break-in," a study of that page might address some of the questions raised here. I've also edited the Watergate page to make it a disambiguation page linking to the "Watergate first break-in" and to this "Watergate scandal" page. Hope this helps. Huntley Troth 02:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt and burglary error

How could chapstic mics be used by Howard Hunt "during the burglary" while he did not actually participate? (picture)

You must be confusing Hunt with Liddy, Hunt was with the black bag crew, Liddy was observing/directing from outside. --Wgfinley 20:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long lost section due to old vandalism

Check this diff to see a section that was blanked Oct. 05 and never reverted back. Perhaps some of you may wish to put some of this back into the article. — TheKMan^talk 06:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Obscure

This article is not clear at all. There is no real overview at the beginning, and no clarity of expression to help the reader. In the first section the reader should know all the main details of the events, most importantly, why were they breaking into the Watergate at all? To replace wiretaps? What wiretaps? Have a look, it's almost wilfully unclear, assuming a tremendous amount of prior knowledge of the reader. I don't know much about the scandal, and after reading this article I can confidently say my knowledge has barely increased at all, only my confusion. FreeMorpheme 15:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Books

I've created a references section with a first title.--Wetman 05:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Wilbur Mills

The reference to Wilbur Mills in the Aftermath section says that the drunk-driving incident was what (directly) prompted his resignation. However, looking around a little bit, I could easily tell that it was only what brought his wrong-doings to widespread notice, which soon became a media scandal. Then, other incidents of intoxication and further dealings with his mistress (apparently involuntarily held) led to his decline in popularity as a 'good' congressman. In other words, the media coverage of the drunk-driving incident did show the media's increased aggressiveness, but it did not (as I see it) cause his resignation.

Anonymous - if you can find a reference to that in an article or something, go ahead and add it. Otherwise we can't really put that in, even though it's logical. --Awiseman 15:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is kooolcow here =P didn't know how to put signature... but yea, the main reference i found was in http://www.hench.net/2003/Mills.htm. Still very new to this so I don't know how to add references and other nifty things. Any help? --DNA 08:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of power and the Vietnam War

Cut from intro:

The term "Watergate" refers to a series of events, spanning from 1972 to 1975, that ~~began with U.S. President Nixon's administration's abuse of power toward the goal of undermining the Democratic Party and the opposition to the Vietnam War. The events~~ got their name from burglaries of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel complex in Washington, D.C..

I deleted the "struck out" part. It asserts that Nixon abused his power (which I actually agree he did, but needs a source).

It also mentions opposition to the Vietnam War in a puzzling way. Was this phrase meant to imply that Nixon used unlawful means to suppress anti-war activism, and that he found (or was looking for) information relevant to this suppression?

Let's fix this sentence, and then put it back in. --Uncle Ed 21:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Bombing of Cambodia

That could have been included in the Articles of Impeachment, and it was pretty bad, including submitting false reports to Congress. Except, we always cut our leaders slack in matters of war and peace. It's like we lack the language for discussing these matters. We're afraid we might be being unpatriotic, we're afraid we might be perceived as being unpatriotic. We're afraid anything we say is just going to make things worse. This applies to ordinary citizens. And it also seems to apply to members of Congress. FriendlyRiverOtter 04:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon and his income taxes

This is the one that really surprises me. For this is one people instinctually and immediately understand. Richard Nixon cheated on his own taxes and at the same time he used the IRS as a club against political opponents. Wow!

One of the Watergate prosecutors, I think it was Leon Jaworski said the income tax thing really registered on the emotional Richter scale at the time, but tended to be forgotten later because it was not including in the Articles of Impeachment. And as the person pointed out above, when Nixon famously said "I am not a crook," it was in references to his taxes.

Now, if you read the Articles of Impeachment, they are pretty general. But they do include some specific things like the break-in at Dr. Fielding's office. FriendlyRiverOtter 04:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I figure you lot ought to know, in the Nixon tapes, who is Nixon referring to when he talks of Colson, Shaprio and Bittman? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

The following sentence in the Aftermath section: "Presidents since Franklin Roosevelt had recorded many of their conversations, but after Watergate this general practice ended, at least as far as the public knows." has an extremely speculative, non-encyclopedic tone, IMO. Should I be bold? Opinions, please. Lost Number 12:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, changed it to something more neutral; I lack the in-depth knowledge of the subject to make a more authoritative edit, so please feel free to improve. Lost Number 11:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking

Please note that someone has hacked the "Watergate" article. Note references to sexual practices by "Muffin" throughout. Clearly, someone simply doesn't have enough to do.

in the media?

A number of tenuous references to "Watergate in the Media" have been added, some simply minor parodies on the name "Deep Throat." I find most of these don't meet the standard of notability. Any responses? --Graham^talk/mail/e 08:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that many, and perhaps too many, references to 'deep throat' are in this section. in fact, lynard skynard's song 'sweet home alabama' makes more of a reference to the scandal than those parodies u mentioned, with the lyrics "now watergate does not bother me." but the reality is, most people wouldn't know this phrase/name from any other source. people who know about the scandal and remember the name, will know what event is being indirectly referred to when this name is mentioned in the media. it's the same situation when the names 'john wilks booth' and 'aaron burr' are mentioned.4.230.174.188 01:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Watergate

It seems that this article lacks explanation of many of the people and events (for example, Pentagon papers and Daniel Ellsberg) listed on the template:watergate. Perhaps these people are mentioned in the subarticles, but their inclusion in the highly condensed template suggests that they are important enough to be included in the longer article. On the other hand, if they are not important enough to be in the article, they should be removed from the template. Personally, I can't make a judgement on their notability per se; I am just saying that there is an inconsistency between the article and the template, as what should be on the template should also be in the article. --JianLi 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol someone just edited that osama bin laden is behind this >.>

Confusion

So me and my friends forked our swim coaches yard the night before our biggest meet of the year, and he sat by the window and knew the whole time we were coming. he says he knew because he studied the watergate scandal. does anybody get it? - Crion 20:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

seems to me there's a "spy in the house", meaning someone on your team is feeding him information (see Deep Throat). ProfL 20:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results

If this is an article about a "scandal," then who was convicted exactly of what and how long they served (or other 'punishment') is the whole crux of the article. As it stands, that is very vague, and only by digging are SOME of the peoples' convictions/resignations apparent. How about a "list"/conclusion at the end that addresses this?

BTW, this article and related articles are not very consistant.... (Serkul 03:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Confusion of dates?

I'm extremely confused with the dates in the article (for I'm new to the event itself), especially in "The tapes" section. For example, it starts with (note the year),

...were broadcast from May 17, 1974 to August 7, 1974, causing devastating...

then goes on with,

On July 13, 1974, Donald Sanders...

and the confusing part begins in sub-section Saturday Night Massacre,

...led to the "Saturday Night Massacre" on October 20, 1973, when Nixon compelled...
...managing editors at Walt Disney World in Florida on November 17, 1973...

If you'd read the section as a whole, they seem to be in chronological order, until one takes a closer look at the dates. Do take a look, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.255.238.198 (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You are right: I'll take a look. Extremely sexy 18:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gravel?

Why is Mike Gravel's name on the "Watergate" template? Could we get a "citation needed" on there, or something? (unsigned comment)

I have already asked this question in Template_talk:Watergate. So far no response. I'm going to wait for some time before I remove it. MDfoo 11:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oval Office Recording Device

The article states that this question to Alexander Butterfield was asked by Donald Sanders. However, I have listened to and watched the tapes and the question - "were you aware of any listening devices in the oval office of the president" was asked by Fred Thompson, who of course is now in the news as a potential presidential candidate. This should be modified to state that Thompson asked the question, not Sanders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.46.252 (talk)

That is indeed correct. Extremely sexy 13:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Donald Sanders asked this question behind a closed-doors preliminary hearing and not before the Senate Watergate committee, where Fred Thompson posed the question. I believe the section has since been re-written to reflect this. Ukulele (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution for Nine men involved?

Why is there suddenly nine men involved in the Watergate burglaries when police only apprehended five men. Attribution is needed for this section. I have added a template to to the article to facilitate finding this section. --FR Soliloquy 15:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text lists five men and then states that there were two accomplices. That makes seven. This edit changed it from seven to nine without comment. It probably should be changed back to seven. And I don't know who the two accomplices are. MDfoo 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the ugly template. Reverted the aforementioned edit and left a simple (attribution required) on the section concerning the two accomplices. I also placed a citation required a little further down within the text. Thank you MDfoo for you constructive comments. --FR Soliloquy 18:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White House horrors merging

Someone has placed a tag on White House horrors suggesting to merge it into this article. I agree. I don't know enough about the subject to do it myself, however. I think it could possibly just be a two line mention in this article, and then that's it. What do you people think?Lilac Soul 13:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do also agree. Extremely sexy 00:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a mention of crimes and abuses, linking to a separate article would be appropriate for the main Watergate article, but since the list is quite long and currently lacking proper citation, it would be best to keep it separate. This is such a complex event and there are so many articles linking to and from the main article-- many of them completely lacking any citation of sources. Cleaning up all Watergate-related articles will require a tremendous effort and a lot of time. I would really like to see this main article tight and clean, as this is essentially a portal for this salient and galvanizing event. Since there is no discussion at all on the White House Horrors article, I would like to remove the request to merge. If there are no objections in a week or so, I will do so boldly Ukulele 06:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other "-gates"

I really don't think we need to include all the other things called "-gate" in here. I'm going to leave a few major ones and take out the rest. --AW 15:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a wise move, man? Extremely sexy 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sirica suspected break in was wider in scope

Citation was requested for the statement that Sirica "suspected a conspiracy involving higher-echelon government officials." I Added a cite from John J. Sirica, the judge of the Watergate burglary trial. Taken from page 56 of his book, To set the record straight: the break-in, the tapes, the conspirators, the pardon. Also removed the request for citation. Quote from page 56 of Sirica's book below:

There were still simply too many unanswered questions in the case. By that time, thinking about the break-in and reading about it, I'd have had to be some kind of moron to believe that no other people were involved. No political campaign committee would turn over so much money to a man like Gordon Liddy without someone higher up in the organization approving the transaction. How could I not see that? These questions about the case were on my mind during a pretrial session in my courtroom December 4.

Ukulele 03:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pentagon Papers and the Ellsberg "plumbers" operation.

I feel that some brief mention should be given to the publication of the Pentagon Papers, Nixon's reaction, and the resulting "plumbers" break-in to his psychiatrist's office.

Nixon and Kissinger's reaction to the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and the supporting decision of the Supreme Court for allowing the Press to publish the excerpts, represents a fundamental shift in how Nixon felt the Executive office should control information-- the press was out to get him and his court would not stop it. This event led directly to the creation of the "plumbers" unit-- to stop the leaks that could embarrass and potentially threaten the Vietnam war Paris peace negotiations, as well as endanger Nixon secret negotiations with Russia and China. The impending Moscow summit was at stake, as well as his further hopes of détente, and the tenuous opening into China. Both Nixon and Kissinger agreed that the US would lose a good deal of credibility with other world powers if leaks of this magnitude continued. The motives of these men in this regard are well-documented, {citations easily provided by the players themselves} and the results of White House's reaction ultimately led to crimes and abuses from which the President could not recover. The pentagon papers is an important event in the unfolding of the broad scandal of Watergate and should be included to some degree.

The "plumbers" operation of the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office with the specific intent to find information to discredit him publicly, elegantly draws the thread from intent to abuse to crime.

Writing a comprehensive history of complicated event such as the Watergate Scandal within the constraints of a Wikipedia article is about making choices. Every documentary I have seen and every book I have read about this event speaks at length, (or makes proper mention within the context of the Watergate Scandal) about the leak of the Pentagon Papers and the Ellsberg break-in, and its role in the history of the event. I think it would be a good choice.

Ukulele 06:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media and fiction

I moved this large section off to its own new article The Watergate scandal in popular culture. GhostPirate 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was a good choice. the Fiction section is large, and this main page is already a bit cumbersome. Ukulele 02:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Jim Hougan...

Wikipedia's Watergate article contains numerous errors, perhaps because it is heavily biased toward the received version of the affair, as reported by the Washington Post, John Dean and academicians such as Stanley Kutler.
Because the subject is one on which I have spent a great deal of investigative effort (I wrote a book about the affair, entitled "Secret Agenda"), I thought I would test Wikipedia's receptiveness to the correction of factual errors in a politically sensitive topic. Accordingly, I tried to correct an assertion in the article's first paragraph, where the claim is made that "...this burglary was just one of many illegal activities authorized and carried out by Nixon's staff."
While it is true that Nixon's staff carried out any number of illegal activities, the Watergate break-in was not one of them. Howard Hunt, Gordon Liddy and James McCord were responsible for carrying out the operation, but we still don't know who actually authorized it. Jeb Magruder, John Dean and John Mitchell are likely candidates, but proof is lacking in each case, and so this very important issue remains unresolved. By failing to acknowledge this, the Wikipedia article closes avenues of discussion that, in the interests of truth, ought to remain open.
So, too, and contrary to the assertion that I have quoted, it is not true that the burglary was "carried out by (anyone on) Nixon's staff." On the contrary. When the Watergate break-ins occurred, Gordon Liddy and James McCord were attached to the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CRP). Howard Hunt was employed by the Robert R. Mullen Company, a CIA front. Frank Sturgis and the Cubans had no direct connection to the Administration at any time
As I recall, the edit I suggested was a simple one: changing "Nixon's staff" to "Nixon loyalists." ("Ostensible Nixon loyalists" would have been even more accurate, but I suspect that would have been seen as argumentative.)
Despite the simplicity of the suggested edit, which served to correct a mistatement of fact, the edit was undone by one "Ukelele."
I think that's unfortunate. I like Wikipedia, but fear that its utility is undermined by contributors who are content to sacrifice accuracy to a political point of view. Accordingly, I suspect any effort to correct the Wikipedia article on Watergate (and other sensitive topics) is probably a waste of time. Good luck, in any case. Jimhougan 17:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Jim Hougan[reply]

Mr. Hougan, it was not my intent to sacrifice accuracy to a political point of view. The statement you edited, and I reverted attempts to place the second break-in in a larger context of crimes and abuses-- which were indeed authorized and carried out by Nixon's staff. Perhaps the statement is written awkwardly and both our points could be better represented in the lead-in. Ukulele 06:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CREEP

"CREEP" is a pejorative term, the Committee was referred to as "CRP," for the same reason that we don't have a Federal Investigation Bureau. As much as we all loved calling it "CREEP," in a neutral article that term should not be used unless noted as being the pejorative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.203.117 (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though "CREEP" was used by critics of the Committee and the term was used pretty commonly. I think a simple cited mention of this would enough, and any further references to the Committed in the body of this article should use the correct abbreviation, CRP. Ukulele (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the Vandalism!

Look next to the section "Saturday Night Massacre". How the hell did that get in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.200.154 (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not see what you are trying to point out. Could you provide an example of the vandalism? Brothejr (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Gump

Should there be a reference to this in the popular culture section ? Machete97 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be a Popular Culture section ? there are probably a million and one references to this in films etc. Machete97 (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, be bold, man, add away! (Morethan3words (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There used to be a section on references in media and fiction but it was removed with this edit [[4]]. The intention was that a new page would list the references, but it was shortly thereafter deleted. Truthfully, the section was just a long list and not very encyclopedic. My feeling is that the article should mention that it has many popular culture references, but not list them as there are too many. MDfoo (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodward and Berstein in the lead

Recently an anonymous editor added this to the lead: "The story was broken by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post citing Deep Throat as an anonymous source." I reverted for two reasons:

The names of the reporters are less important than other info in the lead.
The "breaking" of the story happened in several phases, only later parts of which involved Deep Throat, and at many stages the NYT was as important as the WP.

-Colfer2 (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like you are nitpicking to me. Woodward and Bernstein bringing down Nixon IS the watergate story. Why would you delete them from the intro summary, especially when the article itself is so long? And the NYT were just as important as the Washington Post in breaking the story? Come on. There is no need to bite off a newbie, I say let the addition stand as the article is better off with the content than without.EditorsWithEgosPatrol (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out again because your arguments do not seem to justify the edit. You have made three arguments:

"Woodward and Bernstein... IS the watergate story... NYT... Come on." In fact, the NYT broke many important parts of the story, and even the movie-style versions of history you seem to be referring to describe the fierce competition between the WP and NYT writers on getting breaks as the story developed over more than a year.
"The article itself is so long... better off with the content." But this about what should go in the lead.
"... nitpicking... bite off a newbie..." These are not arguments against the change.

The material was added the same day I removed it, 27 June 2008. The editor was 192.114.4.36 (talk · contribs), who made a number of other weak edits that same day, attempting to re-do reverted edits of Boaznb (talk · contribs), see User talk:192.114.4.36. The comment I am responding to here is by EditorsWithEgosPatrol (talk · contribs), account with only one article edit so far, the reversion is question. Do other editors have an opinion on this edit? -Colfer2 (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm a little concerned since I viewed your own talkpage. You have a tendency to assert your own views on articles, have a number of editing block warnings against you, have a tendency to accuse others of being sockpuppets on talk pages and have several ongoing edit wars.

You seem to make several edits without much justification, this being only one of many. Please remember that Wikipedia is a community that belongs to everyone, it is not your personal fiefdom. I'll revert your changes once again and then ask for your patience to await other editors' input. Thank you for your cooperation.EditorsWithEgosPatrol (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been blocked, my edits have generally been supported. Like most people, I can make mistakes. All I am asking is that you justify adding this material to the lead. Reverting. -Colfer2 (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the journalism aspect of the story is added to the lead of the article, it should be accurate. Woodward and Bernstein must not have cited "Deep Throat" until they wrote their book, right? -Colfer2 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you agreed to my truce and a request for a third party opinion. If you recall, I didn't actually add the sentence, I only questioned why you jumped on the newbie who did and deleted it without discussion. When I said I disagreed with your decision, you quickly revert my re-add. Then you did it again. Personally I'm amazed at your insistence on forcing your view. Personally I think it is crucial information to the Watergate affair and that it is useful in an intro summary of such a long article. But in the grand scheme of things, I think whether the line is included or not, is generally inconsequential. Which is why I am so amazed that you are so determined in having your way. I think that is a dangerous streak to have in an editor and a look at your talk page and your hundreds of reverts supports my concern. I only asked you for some patience before rushing to judgment and the delete button as I assume you are far from an expert on the subject. I would like others to contribute to the opinion and to reference the discussion on Colfer's talkpage see User talk:Colfer2. Regardless of the outcome, I ask you to remember that we are here for the good of the community.EditorsWithEgosPatrol (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with your characterization of me, but more to the point, you have not addressed the substantive criticism I made of the anonymous edit which with your new account EditorsWithEgosPatrol you supported. To wit:

Woodward and Bernstein may not be important enough to be in the lead. Your response is to exclaim, "Woodward and Bernstein bringing down Nixon IS the watergate story". That does not seem to be a serious argument.
"citing Deep Throat as an anonymous source." That is not correct is it? I would like to address it in detail if you would.
"The story was broken by Woodward and Bernstein." I have reservations about this categorical statement. Would you discuss it? Which aspect of the story do you mean, the initial break-in, the connection to CREEP, the involvement of other gov't agencies, the slush fund, the existence of a taping system, etc.?

I realize your account is new, and so you may be a newbie, but this does not explain your immediate recourse to 3RR accusations against me, and citing other Wikipedia policy catchwords. And your supposed review of my "hundreds of reverts" should uncover that they are mainly for obvious vandalism and spam and generally supported by the community. The edit we are discussing here at Watergate scandal is a change which was substandard, and from start I asked for discussion on the talk page.

If you are not the same person that made the initial edit, 193.217.191.135 (talk · contribs), fine, but I note you use the same wording in your comments, "crucial information" as 193.217.191.135 did, and that your account EditorsWithEgosPatrol appears, by its name even, to have been created especially for this particular edit.

To address your other points, I am not involved in any "ongoing edit wars" and the request for a third party opinion was certainly not yours. -Colfer2 (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the third party to view my response on Colfer2's talk page: talk. As for Colfer2 not being involved in edit wars, I see no less than four on his talk page at just a glace. And numerous more complaints from newbies who clearly did not have the knowledge or expertise to revert his edits. But any that did, he quickly reverted back over and over until the other party quit or filed a complaint. His talkpage is rife with other concerning issues as well such as plagiarism and sockpuppet accusations.

Colfer2: As for the content in question. I did not add the line but saw no reason for your rush to delete it. You could have requested a reference if you doubted its accuracy. Content is important but there is a certain way to deal with these things that you seem unable to grasp. Harrasment, quick deletes and edit wars are not the answer. And while the Post reporters did not make public Deep Throat's existence until they published their book, that does not mean that he wasn't their source from the beginning. In other words, the line was factually accurate. And they referred to their source as Deep Throat throughout the investigation, to both their colleagues and editors (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/part1.html). And while the Washington Post was only one of many newspapers who covered the initial break-in, that is not the crux of what Watergate is about. What made Watergate a story of import was not that there was a break-in, but that the President of the United States of America was involved! So yes THAT IS the Watergate story. And it was the Washington Post reporters who exposed this connection. Every elementary student learns this lesson and I don't understand why you are so desperately trying to rewrite history to take away their right or to claim the New York Times was just as important in bringing down Nixon. So tell me, without rushing to look up the information, if the NYT was equally involved what reporter did the NYT put on the case? I bet you don't know since it just isn't that important. But I think just about anyone who was alive during the Nixon administration can tell you who the Post's reporters were without hesitation. Woodward and Bernstein.

But again, it wasn't I who started this since I didn't add the line. It was you who clicked "undo" not once, but 3 times before agreeing that we needed a 3rd party editor (though you had no choice since you've already hit undo 3 times in less than 24 hours on this and several other articles). But as much as I love Wikipedia, I have better things to do with my life than argue over one sentence with someone who I can see from his history is difficult to reach consensus with. Who, rather than have a constructive discussion on the quality of an argument, chooses to take comments out of context and accuse other editors of sockpuppetry. So if you want to "win" so badly since you seem to think that it is a contest to see whose edit stands last, then so be it, you win. But I still encourage you to look through your own talkpage, at all the complaints and warnings you've received and do some soul searching. For Wikipedia is more than just a collection of articles; it is a community, a collection of editors. And we all have a certain responsibility to each other, even (or perhaps especially to) the newbies. I bet even you were a newbie once. EditorsWithEgosPatrol (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those so-called "edit wars" have been resolved and are not "ongoing" and you had indicated. My further response to that aspect of your comment is here: User talk:Colfer2. As for Deep Throat and "factually accurate", the edit said "citing Deep Throat as an anonymous source". 1. They did not cite "Deep Throat" by that name. 2. They did not cite anything he said or provided even just as an "anonymous source", he was strictly deep background, as I recall it. 3. The "break" referred to in the edit probably did not involve Deep Throat, but you have not specified which "break" you mean. I think the sentence could be improved, but you have not suggested an improvement. -Colfer2 (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note, editor EditorsWithEgosPatrol (talk · contribs) above takes credit for making the "request for a third party opinion." In fact, that was me. The third party opinion is in the next section. -Colfer2 (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodward and Bernstein in the Lead 2.0

Wow, this argument flared up quickly. Anyway, just a couple of comments:

First, the assertion that Woodward and Bernstein were the ones who made the connection between the White House and the Watergate burglaries is incorrect. Technically, this connection was never really made. The indictments of Nixon's staff, and what surely would have been an indictment of Nixon himself had he not been given immunity by Ford, was not for ordering the break-ins, it was for obstructing justice by engaging in an active cover-up of the truth and impediment of the FBI's investigation.

Nor would it be accurate to say that Woodward and Bernstein were the ones who first made the connection between the White House and the cover-up. The White House's involvement in the investigation was first made public by Pat Gray, the acting director of the FBI at the time, when he volunteered in his confirmation hearing with the Senate that he had been supplying internal FBI progress reports to John Dean, the White House chief counsel, as he had been instructed that he was legally obligated to do so. However, the truly damning evidence for White House staff came in Nixon's secret tapes and the so-called "smoking gun" tape, which recorded Nixon and his staff planning the cover-up.

None of this was first uncovered by any member of the press. Recent historian's have shown that Woodward and Bernstein were at no time revealing information that was not already known by the FBI and/or the special prosecutor. In fact, many historians now argue that Nixon would most likely have been forced to resign with or without the work of the press, as the known efforts to cover-up the truth and impede the investigation did little more than delay the FBI's investigation by 2 weeks, and did nothing to stop the investigations by the congressional sub-committees and the special prosecutor.

Therefore, I would argue that the Watergate Scandal would have been the biggest political scandal in American history with or without the press. However, it may not have captured the fears and emotions of the American public in such a way had Woodward and Bernstein not published their book, or made their movie. And in that respect, I think we can say that Watergate is a lot more important to Woodward and Bernstein than Woodward and Bernstein is to Watergate.

Nontheless, to say that the role of the press is entirely insignificant would also be incorrect. Watergate is a household name because of Robert Redford, who could not have made that movie without Woodward and Bernstein. Therefore, while I do not think Woodward and Bernstein truly deserve to be named in the opening sentences of this article, I think a new section discussing the role of the media is warranted, as this can help people to understand how Watergate has come to be such a part of American culture.

What is important to have in the opening sentences, as EditorsWithEgosPatrol rightly pointed out, is that this is about the events that lead to the only president to ever resign in disgrace, i.e., the burglaries, subsequent attempted cover-up, and the successful investigations.

So, to summarize, I think that Woodward and Bernstein themselves do not belong in the first section, but that we should start a new section talking about the role of the press in the Scandal. How does that sound? (Morethan3words (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That all sounds fine to me. Thanks. -Colfer2 (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks Morethan3words, you sound like you really know this stuff. Thank you for clarifying everything and I think you made some very valuable points. I think that sounds like a good solution. See Colfer2, if you are open to discussing a problem instead of rushing to delete or start an edit war, these things usually find a way of working themselves out to the betterment of the article. It is not who gets the last edit in that matters, but rather what makes the article be the best that it can be. Thanks for coming to the rescue Morethan3words, I was worried that things were starting to get ugly. Cheers! EditorsWithEgosPatrol (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EditorsWithEgosPatrol (talk · contribs) was subsequently blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of Boaznb (talk · contribs). His or her last statement is inaccurate about "open to discussing a problem". Longer diatribes from this editor, and my explanation of the techniques he or she uses to try to confuse the resulting discussion, are at User talk:Colfer2#Sockpuppet Accusations - 2nd warning!! and User talk:Colfer2#Watergate, should you be interested in such things. Another editor deleted the last comment of EditorsWithEgosPatrol here, "Wow, thanks Morethan3words...", I suppose for violating WP:personal attacks, but the 3rd opinion editor restored it. I don't think it matters much either way in understanding the history here, or working on the article. -Colfer2 (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morethan3words (talk · contribs) wrote: "However, [the Watergate scandal] may not have captured the fears and emotions of the American public in such a way had Woodward and Bernstein not published their book, or made their movie." In addition to the book and movie, I would add the Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize for public service for their reporting. While it is true that Woodward and Bernstein were not the only or even the primary investigators in Watergate, they brought the scandal into the realm of pop culture and made it a part of our lexicon, as Morethan3words (talk · contribs) suggested. For this reason, they should be included in the first paragraph of this article.--Dcooper (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did undue the deletion of EditorsWithEgosPatrol (talk · contribs)'s comment, only because I thought there should be a record of him accepting the proposed compromise. As for WP:personal attacks, I suppose that, if we followed that strictly, just about all of his comments above should be deleted. But if Colfer would like to delete it again, I don't have a problem with it.

To the issue at hand. My understanding is that the lead should stick to the most important information contained in the article. To me, the most important information about Watergate is that there was a break-in at the democratic national headquarters, an attempted cover-up of the same by the president and his senior staff, and a successful investigation of these crimes that resulted in Nixon's senior staff being indicted and Nixon himself avoiding impeachment only by resigning in disgrace. The fact that the press did a good job of telling us all about this, IMHO, is not at the core of what is important about the Watergate Scandal, and therefore does not belong in the lead.

But please remember that I am discussing above about what belongs in the lead of the article. I fully agree that there should be a section in the body of the article devoted to press coverage and the pullitzer prize winning Post team. Although perhaps this argument would be better served if I can show what I propose. As soon as I get a chance I'll make some edits, just need a schedule that permits it... (Morethan3words (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sounds good to me, but I could go with Dcooper too. I was more concerned that the original edit was inaccurate, with weight as a secondary concern. -Colfer2 (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CREEP

I removed as many instances of CREEP as possible (the real name for the committee is CRP, CREEP is a derogatory term for it used by Nixon's critics), but there's one mention of CREEP that I can't figure out how to change: On that sidebar under the "Groups" list (control F "CREEP" and you'll be able to find it). Can a more advanced user change it, and if possible, tell me how to do it in the future? PÆonU (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's in a template: Template:Watergate Tedickey (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. PÆonU (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no problem Tedickey (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little mention of Washington Post

I have read the article and have previously read external material (i.e. outside Wikipedia). I find it very hard to see why the first mention of the Washington Post occurs in the third-from-last paragraph of the Investigation section. Surely the Washington Post's involvement - whilst not the complete story - is far more important than implied in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ormers (talk • contribs) 12:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the discussion is in order of time, rather than the after-the-fact attributions Tedickey (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, I had proposed to add a new section to the article discussing the role of the press throughout the scandal, and would of course highlight the contributions of the Washington Post and its subsequent pullitzer. As for their involvement, it has been pretty widely recognized that there was no member of the press, Woodward and Bernstein included, that "uncovered" anything that the FBI, special council and other governmental investigators did not already know. The very fact that Woodward's most important source, Mark Felt, was in charge of the FBI's investigation highlights this. The idea that the Washington Post and other news agencies were the ones that "cracked" the Watergate case and that without them the cover up would have worked is, to be frank, a myth. Nonetheless, they certainly did do their job of keeping the public interested in the scandal, and that should be recognized. I just need to actually have more than about 5 minutes to come in and add to this article... (Morethan3words (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Tapes reveal Nixon ordered Watergate burglaries

I think it was in June of 1999 that I read articles in the Kansas City Star in which the Associated Press reported that the Nixon tapes revealed that Richard Nixon had personally ordered both Watergate burglaries. The National Archive invited members of the Associated Press to take notes while listening to tapes that had not been transcribed. On that tape, Richard Nixon orders the burglary. The next week there was another article in which AP reporters listened to another tape. On that tape, Nixon and his cronies berate those who carried out the burglary because they failed to place an eavesdropping device on Lawrence O’Brien’s personal phone line. His office was behind a second locked door and the burglars did not have the proper lock-picking tools to defeat the lock on that door. Nixon orders them to go back to the Watergate with the correct tools and place a microphone on O’Brien’s phone. On June 17, they went back for a second run and were arrested in the building. I remember reading all this but I am having some difficulty locating any reference to these articles on the Web. Has anyone heard of this? Smythology (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. If you can find that Kansas City Star article, or any other publication for that matter, that talks about this I would be very interested to see it. To the best of my knowledge, there is no tape that definitively shows that Nixon knew about any of the burglaries before they actually happened. In fact, my understanding is that the predominating theory is that Nixon likely did not know beforehand, and that it was Mitchel who was really in charge of the whole thing. Nonetheless, Nixon certainly knew about the cover-up after the fact and actively participated in the same. It's partly for that reason that everyone says that it was not the crime that was really so bad, but the ensuing cover-up.

Having said that, you are correct with regard to the fact that the burglary that was interrupted was actually the second burglary of the DNC's HQ by the Plumbers, that information has been published in more than one book or article. I don't recall preceisely where I first saw it, you could probably check Stanley Kutler's The Watergate Wars, that's a pretty good take on the whole thing. (Morethan3words (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Northrop-Grumman (sic)

Comment states Northrop-Grumman, but according to the topic's history, the corporation was formed in 1994. An accurate comment would point out which (if either) of the merging corporations is being commented upon. Tedickey (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, could you be more specific as to which comment you are referring? (Morethan3words (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

see Watergate scandal#Corporate campaign contributions Tedickey (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, using google books I found this quote in the cited publication: "Northrop was revealed to have spent $30 million to grease its arms sales overseas." (Pg. 32) I went ahead and made the necessary change already. (Morethan3words (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

P.S. From Northrop's wiki article "The Northrop Corporation was a leading aircraft manufacturer of the United States from its formation in 1939 until its merger with Grumman to form Northrop Grumman in 1994."

I'm afraid you are constructing a statement which is untrue - Northrop was merged with Grumman and other companies over the years. It's likely that the original Northrop is not even a majority of the modern corporation. So your statement is untrue. Tedickey (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying. I am happy with the sentence as you have amended if you are. Thanks for the clarification. (Morethan3words (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

thanks Tedickey (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Secret Agenda

Just wanted to query why the article has no mention of the Jim Hougan book "Sectret Agenda" from 1982

I've read it and agree with a lot of people that it is a balanced and very well researched book that contained some original historical facts, written in an engaging but restrained manner.

Jeravincer (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that Hougan's research deserves a place in this article. I will try to check his book out from the library again to provide good sourcing for it, it needs to be done precisely and carefully.Ben Kidwell (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer on the Presidency and other conversations

I would like to provide some more information on several of the taped conversations that are important evidence in the Watergate coverup. I have begun with a section on the "Cancer on the Presidency" conversation. I would like to also add sections on the "Smoking Gun" conversation, the "I don't give a shit what happens, just stonewall it" conversation, and perhaps the April 14th-16th conversations, as well as some of the tapes released in the post 1990 period. All of this material can be authoritatively sourced via the Watergate special prosecution force transcripts available from the Nixon library, and the "Abuse of Power" conversations transcribed by Kutler. I don't want to totally unbalance the article with too extensive treatment of the tapes, however. Any suggestions or comments? Ben Kidwell (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balance is definitely an issue. You can try adding more and we can go from there. Happyme22 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used the existing material to frame a new subsection on the "smoking gun" tape. I think that "cancer on the presidency" and "the smoking gun" are definitely the two most important tapes from a notability standpoint, so I'm not sure if any of the other conversations need specific subheadings. There are a few quotes such as the "stonewall it" quote, and the "modified limited hangout", which are fairly famous and probably deserve inclusion. Currently the watergate tapes article doesn't seem to focus on the content of the tapes, where would be a good place for something like a chronology of notable white house tapes and quotations from them? Ben Kidwell (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That content would be better suited in the Watergate tapes article. Perhaps expand on the specifics of the tapes there, chronology, etc. and we can summarize, if need be, in this article. Happyme22 (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, started a bit of work on an outline on my user page, but it will take some time to get something properly encyclopedic. One of the challenging things is that a lot of the relevant material is in the conversations released 20+ years after the main Watergate coverup trial. Consequently, many of the secondary sources for Watergate information were written prior to the publication of important information. This makes avoiding original research/synthesis in writing summary material very difficult. The "Abuse of Power" transcripts book has Stanley Kutler's summaries and interpretation, but relying so heavily on a single scholar's characterizations makes me worry about neutral point of view. I think it is still possible to work the material into a balanced and well-sourced form, though. Ben Kidwell (talk) 05:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Countermanding ignorant deletion

I am countermanding this ignorant deletion of sourced content by User:Happyme22 on 29 August 2009. I am adding additional sources, which User:Happyme22 could have easily found in a couple of minutes by simply running a search on Google Books. The influence of the Watergate scandal on the subsequent reforms to the American legal profession is well-known, widely reported, and is taught in all professional responsibility courses in all law schools in the United States. --Coolcaesar (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there is no need to run around labeling edits as "ignorant." Everything that was done was done for a reason. I had previously reduced the amount of material related to that topic because, when placed in context alongside the rest of the article, the size of the paragraph and the weight given to the topic was too much, in my opinion. When compared with some other laws and reforms enacted after Watergate, the public's opinion of lawyers being damaged didn't rank up there as one of the select few, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I honestly felt that the long paragraph (which you readded) had too much information on the topic. I didn't have any need to "simply run a search on Google Books" because expanding the topic was not a positive. Again, I could be wrong, but I didn't think so at the time. So perhaps you could have been a bit less feisty and more open than labeling edits which I had the right to make as "ignorant." I'm always open to discussion, and that's all that would have had to have been asked of me. Thanks. Happyme22 (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusingly worded sentence

I found the following sentence confusingly worded: "The men were connected to the 1972 Committee to Re-elect the President by a slush fund and investigations conducted by the Senate Watergate Committee, House Judiciary Committee and the news media." Read literally, this sentence seems to say that both a slush fund and some investigations are doing the "connecting". It seems like the word "connected" is being used in two different ways, or perhaps an accidental edit removed a chunk of this sentence at the end. The use of passive voice also serves to obscure the agent doing the connecting. I wanted to reword this but I am not an expert in Watergate and I wasn't sure what this sentence was intended to convey. Maybe somebody can help me out. CosineKitty (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, it is both poorly worded and inaccurate :) I will try to fix it now. (Morethan3words | talk) 16:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot more sense now. Thanks! CosineKitty (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I have rewrote the first couple of sentences. Previously it read "The Watergate scandal was a political scandal in the United States in the 1970s. It was named after the Watergate office complex...". You needed to read down to the third sentence to understand what this scandal was about. I have combined this info into one sentence: "The Watergate scandal was a political scandal in the United States in the 1970s, resulting from the break-in into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C.". Now the first sentence tells you what the scandal was about, and it is obvious what it was named after. Then User:Coolcaesar accidentally reverted my editing while removing some vandalism, but I have restored this. If you don't like it, please explain.BorisG (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the lead are fine. I apologize for trampling over them while attempting to fix the earlier vandalism by the anonymous IP editor. What really irritated me about the anon IP's edits was the replacement of "promulgated" with "stipulated." The latter word choice simply doesn't make sense because the ABA wasn't actually involved in litigation or negotiations (the usual contexts in which that word is used) and therefore couldn't technically stipulate to anything. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watergate, Watergate Scandal, White House Horrors refer to a series of scandals that led to the resignation of United States President Richard Nixon in the face of near certain impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate, the only United States President to resign to date. The most prominent scandal involved the cover up of White House involvement in the attempted burglary and wiretapping of the office of the chairman of the Democratic Party at the Watergate Complex in Washington D.C. by President Nixon and key members of his staff." Edkollin (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing from the article

As a person who was around at the time there are some glaring omissions here particularly in placing the events in context and providing background.

Nixon was an unusual politician, he did not like people. As a Californian coming from a hardscrabble background he despised to the point of paranoia the "Eastern Establishment" whom he felt was privileged and looked down upon people like him. The "Eastern Establishment" at the time meant The New York Times, Washington Post, Harvard ,Yale, The Kennedy family. The Washington Post was run by Ben Bradlee a Kennedy family confidant. Special Prosecutor Cox was associated with The Kennedy's. From the beginning Nixon and his confidants many who would still be there when he was president believed in "rough politics"

In reaction to the Great Depression and World War Two, the previous decades prior to Watergate saw the growth of the imperial presidency. It became more accepted that the president was allowed to do things that skirted with if not crossed the line of illegality.

That era saw the country divided as it had not been since the Civil War over The Counterculture in general and The Vietnam War in particular. Since a lot of the anti-war movement seemed to come from the elite colleges this fed into Nixon's (and his administration's) hatred and paranoia. The team the burglarized the Watergate was known as the plumbers. They started operations by breaking into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrists office. Ellsberg had leaked a Secret history of the Vietnam War to The New York Times, those eastern establishment types (thus the "plumbers" were attempting to plug leaks). Since the administration considered this treason that was justification for this. This led to acceptance to more and more brazen illegalities and eventually to the Watergate break in. The political "dirty tricks" altered in a major way the 1972 nomination process of the Democratic Party. The IRS was sicked on hostile news organizations. This hatred was not one sided. Nixon personality and looks had a way a making people despise him, add to that to say the least the brutal disagreements over Vietnam, and that was atmosphere that colored both intense reporting of the scandal once it did begin and Nixon's response to that reporting.

The article does not mention that it took a hell of lot of lawyering to prevent the grand jury from indicting Nixon. Also not discussed is the firestorm after the release of the transcripts. People at the time were legitimately shocked that a president would talk like a character from the Godfather. For the first time some Midwest Republican newspapers advocated his resignation. The allegations by Woodward and Bernstein in their book The Final Days that Nixon was mentally unstable are not discussed.

I do not know about the more recent histories but this background was discussed constantly at the time. Edkollin (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but I think your criticism speaks more to a style of article that Wikipedia generally does not adapt. This article is supposed to be in the style of an encyclopedia, and as such does not seek to provide its reader with the atmosphere and nuances surrounding an event, merely the facts about that event itself. For example, it could be (and has been) argued that this article should contain a discussion about the Daniel Ellsburg case and the creation of the Plumbers, as these were preludes that significantly contributed to the reasoning and motivations behind the actions that would later become the Watergate Scandal. However, the conclusion was ultimately that this information was better held in the respective articles on Daniel Ellsburg and the Plumbers, and that this article should limit itself to events more directly a part of the Watergate scandal (i.e., the break-ins, ensuing investigations, and the fall-out from the same). As such, I would say that such issues as the growth of the imperial presidency, the division of the country over the counterculture and the Vietnam war, the paranoia experienced by officials in the Nixon administration (and causes thereof), the effect of the "dirty tricks" on the 1972 Democratic nomination process, the hostility between the Nixon administration and various news and media organizations leading up to this scandal, and the allegations by Woodward and Bernstein about Mr. Nixon's mental state are all issues that would fit better in other articles.

Notwithstanding the above, I agree that it would be useful to have a more robust discussion of the intense lawyering to prevent the grand jury from indicting Nixon and the "firestorm" and public reaction to the release of the tape transcripts. I would certainly encourage you to provide any cited information you have on these topics, and would be happy to work with you in any reorganization of the article that may be necessary as a result. (Morethan3words | talk) 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You and me must look at different articles. In is not uncommon at all to have a few paragraphs of background information. American Civil War, World War II,Hippie . Perhaps a paragraph with see also links would be a compromise.

"The audio tapes caused further controversy on December 7, when an 18½ minute portion of one tape was found to have been erased. Nixon's personal secretary, Rose Mary Woods, said she had accidentally erased the tape by pushing the wrong foot pedal on her tape player while answering the phone. However, as photos all over the press showed, it was unlikely for Woods to answer the phone and keep her foot on the pedal. Later forensic analysis determined that the tape had been erased in several segments — at least five, and perhaps as many as nine.^[1]

While Nixon continued to refuse to turn over actual tapes, he agreed to release transcripts of a large number of them. What to release caused internal divisions. All parties involved agreed that all pertinent information should be released. Whether to release profanity and vulgarity unedited divided his advisers, his legal team favored releasing the tapes unedited while Press Secretary Ron Zieglar preferred using an edited version where "expletive deleted" would replace the raw material. After several weeks of debate it was the decided that the edited version would be released. Nixon announced in the release of the transcripts in a speech to the nation on April 29, 1974. Nixon noted that any audio pertinent to national security information could be redacted from the released tapes.

The release of the transcripts caused another firestorm of reaction. Republican House minority leader John Rhodes said Nixon should consider resignation, Republican Minority leader Hugh Scott described the material in the transcripts as “deplorable”, ”disgusting” and “immoral”. Senate Democratic Leader Robert Strauss said he was embarrassed to have his children read it. In the following weeks Republican newspapers in middle America that had earlier in the scandal defended Nixon such as The Chicago Tribune ,Omaha World Herald, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer ran editorials calling for Nixon’s resignation Time Magazine reported it's polling showed an increase from 38% favoring Nixon’s resignation pre-transcript release to 49% of those its surveyed favoring Nixon’s resignation post transcript release".

Source: 'Breach of Faith : The Fall of Richard Nixon by Theodore White 1975 Readers Digest Press Athineum Publishers Pages 296-298 Edkollin (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's been forever since I looked at this, I didn't mean to leave the conversation hanging. And thank you for providing that source, certainly some of this information should make it into the article, if it is not there already.

To continue on your discussion about background and atmosphere, I guess I'm not totally against providing some background information, if it is pertinent, but in doing so we should be comparing this article to other similar articles. Comparing an article about a political scandal to wars and social movements is not really fair. But if we compare this article to other articles on political scandals, like the Pentagon Papers, Iran-contra, the Whitewater scandal, the Lewinsky affair, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, and the Plame affair, we can see that only the Plame affair really bothers to give any background at all, and that article has been tagged as too long (though admittedly not necessarily because of the background section). Nonetheless, I think it might be helpful to have some brief discussions in the beginning about who the Plumbers were and who was giving them orders. I'm mainly just concerned that getting too bogged down in discussions about Vietnam, the societal mindsets of the day, and the personality traits of the various players will prevent the reader from having easy access to the real nuts and bolts of what happened and why it was important. ((Morethan3words | talk) 22:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The Ends of Power

In the book The Ends of Power, Nixon's chief of staff H. R. Haldeman claimed that the term "Bay of Pigs", mentioned by Nixon in a tape-recorded White House conversation as the reason the CIA should put a stop to the Watergate investigations,[2] was used by Nixon as a coded reference to a CIA plot to assassinate Fidel Castro during the John F. Kennedy administration. The CIA had not disclosed this plot to the Warren Commission, the commission investigating the Kennedy assassination, despite the fact that it would attribute a motive to Castro in the assassination.[47] Any such revelation would also expose CIA/Mafia connections that could lead to unwanted scrutiny of suspected CIA/Mafia participants in the assassination of the president. Furthermore, Nixon's awareness as vice-president of the Bay of Pigs plan and his own ties to the underworld and unsavory intelligence operations might come to light. A theoretical connection between the Kennedy assassination and the Watergate Tapes was later referred to in the biopic, Nixon, directed by Oliver Stone.

I don't understand the last but one sentence in this paragraph:

a/ Nixon was vice-president before Kennedy's Bay of Pigs thing, not during. And if aware before Kennedy's presidency, it was still not his responsibility so why would he need to cover it up ?

b/ What ties to the underworld and 'unsavory' intel operations ? It seems mere character assassination. The Kennedys had known ties to the underworld ( which does not detract from Kennedy accomplishments ); I'm unaware of Nixon being linked to organized crime. And virtually all intelligence operations are 'unsavory' from a moral basis; to indicate he was unique in this regard is pejorative terminology.

However, I know nothing about Watergate, so would rather not edit when unsure. Claverhouse (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worth mentioning the key to Wells's desk?

It seems to be the main piece of evidence for the "Call-Girl Ring" people. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2002/06/25/AR2005111001241.html It's talked about briefly there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiditm (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 24.213.255.200, 30 November 2010

Bold text{{edit semi-protected}} This page sucks and is lacking much of the information needed to gain a good knowledge of the watergate scandal. This page is lacking a strong backround and inside look on several of the culprits in this scandal.

24.213.255.200 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)I could make this page much better with some of my knowledge on this subject. Please let me fix this page.[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. What you ask is impossible. There is no way for us to allow one IP editor to edit the page, while still keeping the general semi-protection. If you have specific changes you would like to make, you may request them with a specific edit request in the form of "Please change X to Y" or "Please add A to Section B".

Alternatively, you can register for an account. You don't have to give any information other than a pseudonym and a password (you can optionally given an email address to help you in case you forget your password). Then, once your account has been registered for at least 4 days and you have made at least 10 edits (to articles that aren't semi-protected like this one), you'll be free to edit this and all other semi-protected articles.

Please note that one requirement of editing, whether it be through requests like this one or as an autoconfirmed editor, is that you provide sources for everything and keep all of the information neutral. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a nightmare to read because the first paragraph doesn't explain anything, ie why is the break-in a political scandal? I had no idea what it was all about and had to google it. PS for non-Americans too. I suggest editing it to :

The Watergate scandal was a 1970s United States political scandal resulting from the Watergate burglaries, the politically motivated break-in to the Democratic National Committee headquarters by opposing party Republicans later connected to the president and his office, that took place at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. Effects of the scandal involving the cover-up, ultimately led to the resignation of the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, on August 9, 1974, the first and only resignation of any U.S. President. It also resulted in the indictment, trial, conviction and incarceration of several Nixon administration officials.

Also I think you should edit the second sentence in the second paragraph without "the" payments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.4.138 (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Financial significance

In one of the tapes, one of Nixon's men noted that Britain had floated the Pound and that this was threatening the Lira. Nixon said, "I don't give a d*** about the lira (unintelligible)." This is how the Bretton Woods agreement worked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Bretton Woods System. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was Haldeman or Ehrlichman who was talking to Nixon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was probably in the August of 1971.

See www.londonandoxford.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See www.londonandoxford.com/The_Euro/The_Euro_media_3.9.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.25.238 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haldeman was the one who was talking to Nixon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.25.238 (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to the News International Phone Hacking Scandal

It appears that many commentators are comparing the Watergate scandal with the unfolding scandal covered by the "News International phone hacking scandal" article. I drafted a summary of commentators comparison points with supporting information, which is currently available at my user sub-page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bryantbob/Comparisons_of_%22Murdochgate%22_to_%22Watergate%22. Contributors to the "News International phone hacking scandal" discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:News_International_phone_hacking_scandal) do not feel the comparison is notable. I would appreciate comments from "Watergate Scandal" contributors on its notability, specifically whether it warrants status as a stand alone article that should be included as a "see also" link to the "Watergate Scandal" article. Thanks. Bryantbob (talk) 04:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost never appropriate to link from a historical article to a current affairs article, and I doubt that this is an exception. See WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Hans Adler 12:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Points well taken. Thanks.Bryantbob (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page is originals research, Very interesting and well sourced original research but original research. Since we already have a line about "gate" scandals a sentence or two noting that the scandals are being compared updates the "gates" line to 2011. If a second sentence is needed I would use for the Dean comment since he was a major part of Watergate. Edkollin (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The absurdity of the burglary

If this article gets the cleaning up it needs, it would be worth pointing out that the wiretaps and other mischief that Nixon's people had in mind were aimed at the candidacy of his opponent in the election, George McGovern. By the time of the break-in, it was clear to most people that McGovern's chances against Nixon were scant at best. Thus, authorizing the break-in and simply attempting it—which had a Keystone Kops quality to it from beginning to end—was unnecessary or, as I suggest, absurd, perhaps driven by Nixon's paranoia which emerged during the investigation in the aftermath of Watergate. Josephlestrange (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now this is just your and my opinion. Find a reliable source that agrees with this and then you can put this in even before a any cleanup. Edkollin (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No background

This article is distinctly lacking in any background information about the Plumbers and their activities prior to the attempt to bug the DNC. Surely this information is relevant to this article. john k (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A couple of years ago I argued that this article should not be limited just to the break in and coverup but should have an opening paragraph with context since the events occurred before most people were born. Not just the Plumbers but how the combination of divisions in society, Nixon's personality Imperial Presidency etc led to the mindset in the view of many reliable sources led the administration to act that way. I was overruled, the consensus was that we had separate articles for those things and that was that. Watergate was considered an umbrella term for abuse of executive power during the Nixon administration. There are plenty of Reliable sources that define it that way. Edkollin (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, there's nothing at all in the article approaching a discussion about why the burglary and wiretapping of top level Dem locations was undertaken, with the inherent high risks. There would have been more specific reasons than just "guys, it's convenient to listen in on what they re talking about over there". One very likely reason would have been that Nixon wished to be able to sell to the voters in the '72 elections that McGovern and the Democrats in general were closely involved with some kind of youthful radicals who could be shown up as going too far, the anti-war liberals, draft dodgers, people like the Kent State students or whomever: "vote for McGovern and you vote for the hippies and junkie radicals!". There has to be some research or political historians discussing this, though I admit that the books I've seen about Watergate are not big on discussing Nixon's motivations either. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiretapping of the Democratic Party's headquarters

...which involved burgling the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters...

It seems to me that "burgling" would require that something actually be stolen, which I do not believe was the case. Perhaps the phrase "breaking into" would more accurately portray the actual 1972 event. Dick Kimball (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No action. Burglary does not require or imply theft. At least 7 persons were convicted of burglary. 75.210.3.179 (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be burglaring the HQ though? 83.254.154.164 (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the asshole...

Two alternative quotes are offered in the article for Nixon's reaction of the break in, “Who was the asshole who ordered it?” and "Who was the asshole that did it?" (the two have different quotation marks, by the way).

So which one was it? --Diblidabliduu (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Hello.

On May 13 I added a link to dozens of House Judiciary Committee hearing transcripts on its investigation of Watergate. These pdf files, on archive.org, digitized by public libraries, are valuable primary sources for people researching the history of Watergate. They were removed by ENLO #9 eight hours later. Not moved to some other part of the external links section, but entirely deleted. I don't understand why this important resource would be removed from the external links section, while there are some links to dead web pages (http://www.woodwardandbernstein.net) that remain unmolested. I don't want to start a flame war, but any help that folks could provide to explain what does and does not go into "external links" would be appreciated.

In the meantime, here is the link that I proposed adding, which I assumed would be totally uncontroversial: Hearing Transcripts and "Statements of Information" from the House Judiciary Committee on its investigation of Watergate

Tsg946 (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for information regarding what may or may not go into the "External links" section, please see Wikipedia:External links. Regarding links that should generally be avoided, WP:ELNO #9 states: "Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds." (You could also seek a second opinion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard.) Location (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Lock

I think that this page should be looked into to fix some slack in some areas, and I also think that this page should be locked,as protected as the presidents' Wiki pages, due to the fact that it was such a big deal internationally when it happened.Deweypants (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Deweypants[reply]

Political and cultural reverberations - Unsourced

This lacks source/reference: 2nd paragraph refers to Congress enacting National Emergencies Act and infers that this is a direct result of Watergate. Upon some searching, I found the full text of the National Emergencies Act, and indeed, in the short Introduction section (I'm so glad!), they state,

"The Vietnam War and the abuses known collectively as "Watergate*' have led Congress to assume a more prominent role, most notably in foreign policy and the budgetary process...The National Emergencies Act is consistent with these efforts to make the Executive accountable for his actions and to restore Congress as an equal partner in the government."

Include the link and/or edit the 2 sentences? Thanks --Springwoman (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Headline in main section

In the main first section of the article, the text reads, "...and the resignation of Republican Richard Nixon, the President of the United States..." I felt that the Republican in front of Richard Nixon is irrelevant to the subject of the article. However, I felt that my opinion could be bias and wanted an outside opinion before I made the edit. Greatpopcorn (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection due to vandalism

I have noticed many unconstructive edits coming from the Killeen Independent School District (IP 198.97.37.6) User talk:198.97.37.6 to this article. Maybe should it have semi-protection to prevent any further vandalism? Warrenkychu (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add "international reactions" section?

NAC:There is support for and no opposition to adding the section. Section is currently named 'Reactions' but is really specifically international reactions. ~~Closer will rename section.~~ Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can we add reactions by the United Kingdom, China, Taiwan, Soviet Union, etc. toward the scandal? --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can include them, only if they were made by the head of states and other prominent leaders of the country. Noteswork (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The examples I come up are Mao Zedong (China) and Leonid Brezhnev (Soviet Union). From List of Prime Ministers of Queen Elizabeth II: Gough Whitlam (Australia), Pierre Trudeau (Canada), Michael Manley (Jamaica), Norman Kirk (New Zealand), and Edward Heath (United Kingdom). I'm trying to find their reactions, but they would come up short. --George Ho (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reactions of Brezhnev and Mao are probably the best to include due to the policy of Detente that Nixon started with China and the USSR. In addition, it would be interesting to include their reactions due to their positions as dictators of their respective countries. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found interview with Brezhnev and Mao's comments. I don't know how to implement it in prose format (except adding references), but you do? --George Ho (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can quote the best quote word for word and then cite the interview if you want to. You can do it manually or as a template (in this case, manual is probably better). PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. A section on International reactions will be a good addition. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - "International reactions" would be useful. STSC (talk) 06:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because Wikipedia is global and multiple notable opinions are always good. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified yes. These "reactions" sections can turn into giant quote farms. I guess there's no harm in collecting a few, but don't go crazy and add a hundred quotations from random people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support per NinjaRobotPirate. James ^{(T • C)} • 3:03 PM • 04:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding media portrayal and public reactions

Consensus appears to be in favour of adding this, as long as it is reliably sourced and notable. Number 5 7 23:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shall worldwide analyses about media coverage of the Watergate be added? Also, I wonder if worldwide public reactions are worth adding. --George Ho (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Yes Of course, if they are deemed notable. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This RfC would be valauble if it were more specific. What specific coverage is being referred to? Capitalismojo (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It seems obvious that reliably sourced material could be included, so I'm wondering what was the impetus for a Rfc. - Location (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @George Ho:: Please clarify your request. Are you talking about international media coverage of the watergate scandal? Or are you talking about international analyses of the media coverage of the Watergate scandal? DNA Ligase IV (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Mostly if they are notable enough. Noteswork (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Location. It all depends on what kind of international reactions you're talking about. Russian conspiracy theories, French tabloids or Japanese comedians (for example) are irrelevant and don't warrant any inclusion. Similarly, any international sources that simply repeat or re-phrase what American sources have said are irrelevant. However, if there was fallout from the scandal in Canada or the UK, then yes, that deserves mention. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Watergate burglaries

For those following this page, please see Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Watergate burglaries. - Location (talk) 06:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with List of Watergate conspirators

I don't know why this separate article just exists by itself. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This list will never get larger and is more informative with the full context of the Watergate scandal.- Mr X 15:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do think this should get bigger, because my understanding is that there are something like 20 more people who were indicted whose names I couldn't immediately find, but certainly there is an upper limit. Merging it with the main article is fine with me, the author of this one. I'm new here and I just wanted this list to exist, one way or another. Jcretan (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per MrX. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MrX [[User:TheInsatiablist|TheInsatiablist] (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2015 (GMT)

I have struck this duplicate ivote from the ISP immediately noted below. - Location (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further Support Per MrX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.98.10 (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge or delete. In my opinion, it is a bit simplistic to label a bunch of people as Watergate conspirators. See, for example, L. Patrick Gray. - Location (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the redundant article List of Watergate conspirators. This list ALREADY EXISTS here in the main article for Watergate Scandal. The list in the main article includes references while also excluding random unproven "conspirators", as mentioned earlier by User:Location. Jmg38 (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have redirected the article here per this edit. - Location (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George McGovern

Since George McGovern was most affected by the [[Watergate scandal], his template should stay, as well as the link to it in said template.--24.186.96.236 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

McGovern's role in the scandal was not really ongoing. I disagree that this WP:NAVBOX should be added to the article. Also, you didn't actually add a link to the navbox, you merely added words, and they were poorly formatted. Please do not re-add the navbox until you establish consensus on this talk page.- Mr X 00:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Throat

Some may see it as a minor point, but this article states that "Woodward and Bernstein had nicknamed..." Deep Throat, whereas the subsequent article cites Howard Simons as the originator of that nickname. Also, it's worth mentioning that Woodward's and Bernstein's book and its movie adaptation ("All the President's Men"), both clearly point to Simons as the coiner of that nickname. sugarfish (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend locking this article

... as it is a common conspiracy topic for basket cases.

137.124.161.53 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Watergate scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/09/us/national-archives-has-given-up-on-filling-the-nixon-tape-gap.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, unsourced claim should be changed.

In the section titled "Final investigations and resignation", it states in the second-to-last paragraph: "The tape, which was referred to as a "smoking gun" by Barber Conable, proved that Nixon had been involved in the cover-up from the beginning." But above, the only thing described "Recorded only a few days after the break-in, it documented the initial stages of the cover-up: it revealed Nixon, Swingle, and Haldeman meeting in the Oval Office and formulating a plan to block investigations by having the CIA falsely claim to the FBI that national security was involved." I looked into this article because of last week's CBS Sunday Morning show, which had a montage of video about "lies", showing Nixon saying that he hadn't known of the Watergate breakin before it happened. (Thus, implying that Nixon was lying.) Nixon may have been literally telling the truth, that he didn't know of the breakin before it occurred. Yet the article now claims he was involved "from the beginning". Aside from not providing an actual source, it doesn't explain what "the beginning" actually means. The beginning of what? The planning for the burglary? The approval for the burglary? The burglary itself? The cover-up? Evidently, this article is subject to some POV problems. Let's not use an open-ended and undefined claim, "from the beginning" unless there's a source and definition. 174.25.12.120 (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly referring to the cover-up; no-one seriously believes Nixon ordered the break-in.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken Article in progress

Good afternoon! A note to the users/editors: I will be working on fulfilling the request for a Spoken Article version of this topic. I hope to have the Spoken Article completed and submitted within two weeks, projecting a submission date of September 12, 2016. Sincerely, MirrorSpock — Preceding unsigned comment added by MirrorSpock (talk • contribs) 18:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New information on the CIA's role in Watergate

Courtesy Judicial Watch and Fox News.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Reflections" section?

What's this "Reflection on Watergate and Nixon's Intentions" section towards the bottom? It has no citations and feels like the straight-up opinion of a single person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.126.66.250 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of events (non-encyclopedic) with obvious bias and no citations. I've removed it. WP:BOLD Neurophyre^(talk) 09:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation is invalid to the article

The citation, http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/06/woodward-and-bernstein-downplay-deep-throat-125950.html is invalid to the article. The article is not a neutral article to follow for the Watergate Scandal. The article is written about two reporter who supposedly downplayed FBI source, Mark Felts statement about the Watergate scandal. The article then goes on to say the Mark Felts was a key source to the details of the Watergate Scandal Cynthia Jackson 1824 23 January 2017.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjackson2521 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, Politico meets the Wikipedia requirements for a Reliable Source (though personally sometimes I have doubts). In this particular case it comes down to how it's been used and for what. Most of the article just reports on the interview with Woodward and Bernstein, the two reporters who broke the story. Here it is being used to source the claim that Woodward and Bernstein got some of the info from Judy Miller, and as far as I'm aware that's not controversial. So the source here is basically fine.

The problem I see with that paragraph is that the source only works for the last, maybe last two, sentences. The first two sentences should have a separate, additional, source verifying the info in them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

link no longer working

The link,http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/14/v-fullstory/2639954/the-profound-lies-of-deep-throat.html, is no longer working. Cynthia Jackson 1839 23 January 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjackson2521 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a version of the same op-ed here. I'll replace the link.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"-gate"

The articles says the -gate suffix has been frequently applied to other political scandals "in the United States". But it certainly isn't just the United States - for instance, the recent uproar over French presidential candidate François Fillon's alleged large payments to his wife Penelope for work she didn't in fact do is already being referred to as "Penelopegate". The Wikipedia article "List of scandals with -gate suffix" lists examples from as far afield as Israel, the UK, South Korea, New Zealand and Pakistan, and the suffix evidently isn't only used in English.213.127.210.95 (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False and undocumented statements

The following statement from the article is sheer fiction:

In May, McCord assigned former FBI agent Alfred C. Baldwin III to carry out the wiretapping and monitor the telephone conversations afterward.

Baldwin had absolutely no skills or experience whatsoever to "carry out the wiretapping." No one in all of Watergate, including the FBI, ever suggested he did. James McCord swore under oath, and wrote in his autobiography, that he, and only he, installed any bugs or wiretapping. (That is not a stipulation that he did.) There is no evidence or testimony anywhere in the record that Baldwin was assigned to "carry out the wiretapping."

This section also is fiction, being perpetrated by using passive voice, using inadequate sources, and ignoring vital FBI reports that completely contradicts it:

"Two phones inside the offices of the DNC headquarters were said to have been wiretapped.[19] One was the phone of Robert Spencer Oliver, who at the time was working as the executive director of the Association of State Democratic Chairmen, and the other was the phone of DNC secretary Larry O'Brien.[citation needed] The FBI found no evidence that O'Brien's phone was bugged.[20] However, it was determined that an effective listening device had been installed in Oliver's phone.[21]

Despite the success in installing the listening devices, the Committee agents soon determined that they needed to be repaired.[21] They planned a second "burglary" in order to take care of this.[21]"

It's hard to know where to start. "Were said" by whom "to have been wiretapped"? You keep citing a forum that happens to contain all kinds of false claims, but there were TWO sweeps of DNC headquarters at relevant times by professionals—including the phone company that had installed the phones, and the FBI laboratory—and BOTH found that there were no bugs in any of the phones at relevant times. This is a matter of FBI record, and I have copies of the reports, which are also on the FBI Watergate site.

And "it was determined" by WHOM that "an effective listening device had been installed in Oliver's phone"? The alleged bug in O'Brien's phone wasn't "discovered" until months after the fact, in September 1972, by which time the entire scene had been hopelessly compromised, and any number of people could have planted it to be "found" long after the fact, when it had no relevance to there ever having been any bugs planted to begin with.

Also, about this claim: "One was the phone of Robert Spencer Oliver, who at the time was working as the executive director of the Association of State Democratic Chairmen, and the other was the phone of DNC secretary Larry O'Brien." Just more fiction. It completely contradicts the sworn testimony and autobiographies of two of the main perps, Liddy and McCord. I don't know how anybody could have written this while patently being so ill-informed or simply uninformed.

I hope somebody will get busy and write some well-sourced and supported facts, rather than the fictions that's here now. If not, I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestia Jung (talk • contribs) 18:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:GOFORIT -Location (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Various discussions at WP:RSN have said that Spartacus is not a reliable source, so I have removed those citations and tagged with {{citation needed}}. You won't get any arguments from me about the state of this article, so feel free to jump in and remove and/or edit that material... or anything else that you think needs to be addressed. -Location (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that removing the Spartacus links served a good purpose. I can, and will, supply some authoritative and valid citations, and accurately stated facts from them. I have quite a stack of the FBI 302s from Watergate, and all the Watergate hearing transcripts, etc. It will take me a few days to compile the information for posting. I'm new to this, but will learn the ropes. Sorry for overlooking to sign earlier. Celestia Jung (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made numerous edits to the first section, renaming it and rewriting much of it to reflect accurate and verifiable facts. In doing so, I added 26 new references, including Congressional documents and FBI reports. I also added many citations to some of those sources where the previous content had a lot of "citation needed" codes. I have made every good faith effort to make this a comprehensive and informative article in accordance with Wikipedia policies. A great deal of work has gone into this edit and finding reputable sources. Please consider carefully before undoing this work. Thanks.Celestia Jung (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestia Jung: I didn't read it carefully yet, but I skimmed through it. As far as I can tell, it is a good edit. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A lot of research and work went into it, and there is only so much time I can devote to it, but I hope to be able to enhance some of the other sections with solid citations, many of them directly from the FBI's Watergate files.Celestia Jung (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theory content

Can someone please review the edits added by User:Celestia Jung between May 12 and 15? The contributions seem to be mostly or entirely sourced to Watergate: The Hoax, a poorly referenced book which advances a Scientologist conspiracy theory that Watergate was a CIA operation to cover up an assassination attempt on L. Ron Hubbard. 2601:645:8200:B33A:488D:1C18:FF3A:E63B (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Poorly referenced"? You obviously don't have or haven't read the book. It is 600 pages long with 495 citations, many of them the original FBI documents, many of them ones that never have been published, analyzed, or cited in any other work on Watergate. Also, your allegation that my edits were "mostly or entirely" sourced from that book is false on its face. I cited at least 26 different sources in my edits, including Hougan's "Secret Agenda," quotations from actual Watergate legal proceedings and Congressional hearings, and quite a few of the original FBI reports. As for your "conspiracy theory" allegations, there is not a single word of any "conspiracy theory" in my edits. They contain solid, irrefutable facts, solidly sourced. My edits also don't contain a single word about any "Scientologist" connection, so it sounds like you're simply trying to foment a biased attack based on—well, based on nothing at all. Your comment is baseless and frivolous, and antipathetic to the intent of Talk pages. If you have a valid complaint about the content, then please refer specifically to which stated fact you challenge, and give a sound, rational reason for challenging it.Celestia Jung (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDITED TO ADD: By the way, the entire government case, in court and Congress, was never anything but an elaborate "conspiracy theory." If you have a non-conspiracy theory of Watergate, how about you present it for all of us? I sure would like to see it. Otherwise, it isn't the fact of "conspiracy theory " you object to; you just don't want anything exposed or documented that might in any way damage your own "conspiracy theory."Celestia Jung (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I see you also referenced the equally dubious Secret Agenda, as well as several original documents. My concern is that you have inserted a great deal of heterodox analysis without flagging it as such, possibly including original research. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to sort through it all at the moment, hence my plea for someone else to review it. I suppose I'll get around to it eventually. 12.12.163.81 (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Ashton Gray and Jim Hougan are definitely not WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. On that alone those edits should be reverted entirely. This requires many more eyes than I have, so I've posted a notice at WP:FTN. -Location (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this on FNB. Manually reverted new additions that added info based on Fringe or Primary sources. There may be usable material that I removed, if so, it's still in the article history. Geogene (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those of you who have contributed to this "reversion" are not gatekeepers of truth or fact; you are the most base vandals of knowledge. In a cavalier sweep, you have wiped out of existence inarguable, well-documented, incontrovertible facts, and replaced them with your own reprehensible brand of pure fantasy, which you are knowingly, willfully foisting off on the world at large as "truth." It is pure fiction, and you peddle it as fact. You are beneath contempt. You are beneath snake-oil salesmen. You are self-anointed, arrogant, disdainful High Priests of your own pet theories and delusions, which you shove down the throats of the rest of the world in unspeakable, haughty totalitarianism—claiming, of course, the "moral high ground."

You believe in nonexistent "bugs" that the FBI proved conclusively never were installed in DNC headquarters. So you erase out of existence every documented FACT that proves that your delusional beliefs are as insane as belief in gryphons or unicorns, and shove your "religion" of Watergate down the throats of the rest of the world, as though it's your Eucharist. Not ONE of you can document the existence, ever, of a single working bug planted in DNC headquarters. No, you can't, any more than you can document the unicorn in your back yard or your stigmata.

You believe in nonexistent "logs" by Baldwin that never existed in the real world. You cannot document the existence, ever, of even one such log—just as not one of you can document the Virgin Mary or Tinkerbell coming and standing at the foot of your bed. But you push this swill off on the world, because it's your religion, and you are the High Priests of sheer fiction.

You cannot document the existence, ever, of any "alarm" on the door of the Continental Room of the Watergate, because one never existed. It is sheer mythology—yet your ENTIRE BELIEF in the "official story" of Watergate hinges ENTIRELY on blind-faith belief that there WAS an alarm, that there HAD TO BE an alarm where none existed. Why? Because all of the disciples of your mad-dog religion, all of your so-called "reliable sources," have TOLD you that there had to be an alarm there, otherwise the burglars would have broken in on Friday, 26 May 1972—even though the FBI PROVED that Alfred Baldwin was 300 miles away that night, so could not possibly have participated in the lying FICTION that he foisted off on Congress and the world. Oh, but you lap up the sewage spilled in gallons by Baldwin as though it were the blood of one of your saints, because without his lies—which have been proved conclusively as lies—your entire mythology that you reign as High Priests over goes up in smoke. And that would be a supreme waste of perfectly good smoke.

You sate yourselves like vampires on "reliable sources" like the L.A. Times, who published Baldwin's original scandalous lies that he had driven back to D.C. on Thursday, 25 May. Have you ever bothered to check your so-called "reliable source"? Well, HAVE YOU? No, you haven't, because you cling like blithering psychos to your Watergate religion—which is sheer fantasy—and you make sure that all heretics speaking actual facts are excommunicated, banished, silenced. If you had ever bothered to check your "reliable source," the L.A. Times, you would have learned that the FBI proved conclusively that Baldwin's car was STILL IN SERVICE AT BRANHAVEN CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, just outside of New Haven, Connecticut all day on 25 May. Did you bother to check? No, you didn't, did you? Ashton Gray did. His book is the first and only book in the annals of all the millions of gallons of ink to find that in the FBI files and reveal the truth to the world. That's exactly why Baldwin had to change his story in Congress, moving the date of his return to Washington to the next day, 26 May. The only problem is that the FBI also discovered that he was still in Connecticut on THAT day, too. And the ONE AND ONLY SOURCE IN THE HISTORY OF WATERGATE COVERAGE who ever found that out was Ashton Gray. And you call his book "weird"? You have the reprehensible gall to call Gray "unreliable" as a source?

Well, of course you do. You are the High Priests of Lies, Mythology, Fiction, and Fantasy Posing as "Fact." Anything or anyone challenging your religious fanaticism with actual FACTS has to be pilloried, branded as a heretic, and burned at the stake—fed with the flames of your oh-so-righteous book burning.

You are worse than any vandals who ever trampled truth into the ground. You are worse than those who sacked and destroyed the Library of Alexandria. You poison the very groundwater of mankind's knowledge with your revolting, autocratic, tyrannical priesthood of arrogance and disdain.

The saddest part, though, is that you believe in fairy tales, and don't even know it. That kind of ignorance is its own reward.Celestia Jung (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Talk pages are for rational discussions about how to improve articles. There are plenty of other venues for airing incoherent rants; please take yours to one of those. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 11:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looking over some of the terminology used in the above post compared with what appears in the Spartacus/Education Forum, I think we've got Ashton Gray attempting to edit this article. -Location (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice regarding "notice board"

The article is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Watergate_scandal. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Clymer, Adam (May 9, 2003). "National Archives Has Given Up on Filling the Nixon Tape Gap". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-01-17.

[1] Clymer, Adam (May 9, 2003). "National Archives Has Given Up on Filling the Nixon Tape Gap". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-01-17.

[1]