![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This sentence in the third paragraph is, at minimum, badly punctuated (e.g. "pyramid" needs a capital letter and following comma); I'd go further and call it unclear and badly written - I can't quite tell what it's trying to say:
Felt lives in Santa Rosa, California, and has completed an update of his 1979 autobiography, The FBI pyramid which he wrote along with his son, provides information on his past as "Deep Throat,"but not revealing himself as such just yet (it will take 33 years.)
Confirmed by Woodward; [1]
The Washington Post article cites Ben Bradlee as confirming Felt, he is one of the four men who knows the identity; [2]
I deleted this sentence:
Felt is now considered by most Americans to be a traitor.
as it is inflammatory and unsubstantiated. If you want this in the article you need to back it up and rephrase it, e.g.:
According to the Blandy and Jones survey 72% of U.S. citizens consider Felt a traitor (external link to survey information)
Cheers, Funkyj
Listen to the radio: Democracy Now, 6-2-05 rean a segment introduced as follows:
Mark Felt -- who was exposed this week as Deep Throat -- was one of only two FBI officials ever to be convicted for ordering COINTELPRO operations. In 1980 he was convicted for ordering FBI agents to break into the home of Jennifer Dohrn and other associates of the Weather Underground. He was later pardoned by President Reagan. Jennifer Dohrn discusses the FBI surveillance, break-ins and a secret FBI proposal to kidnap her infant. Democracy Now! co-host Juan Gonzalez also reveals that as a leader of the Young Lords that he, too, was also a target of a similar FBI campaign. [includes rush transcript]
I removed and oppose a Merge notice to merge with Deep Throat (Watergate) - worth a discussion of course, but I think we should wait til this settles down though to see what info we end up with and how to best hash it out. -- John Kenneth Fisher 21:48, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone investigate what "W." stands for and include it in the full name? — Cantus… ☎ 17:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
I asked the anon who said it was Walter to provide a reference, but so far he hasn't bothered. I wonder if we ought to take this out. "Walter Mark Felt" returns no results in Google, and I'd much rather we had missing information than wrong information, with all the people that will be coming to look at this article. — Trilobite ( Talk) 18:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
It's gushy and weak, I know, but good work; I came home for tea and scones, and searched Wikipedia for 'mark felt' and there was nothing. This would have been about 17:00 GMT. Now, there is an article. And a picture. The gasman has taken me hostage; my knee is not purple. However, with regards to this article, [4] does Woodward explicitly state that Mark Felt is Deep Throat? The paragraph beginning "Woodward said Felt helped The Post..." seems ambiguous, and I'm surprised that the headline isn't "Post's Woodward confirms Felt etc".- Ashley Pomeroy 22:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
How could Ronald Reagan have pardoned anybody of anything in 2001?
Another date problem: How could Hoover promote Felt on July 1st of 1972 when he himself died on May 2nd, 1972? Brendan 20:39, June 2, 2005 (UTC)
"In 2080, Felt was convicted of violating the civil rights of people thought to be associated with the Weather Underground by ordering FBI agents to burglarize their homes." How can ANYTHING have happened in 2080--still a long way off. Should this be 1980? Serkul 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
An anon had added a note that some of the article was plagiarized, but the article in question was previously cited at the bottom. I reverted the note without any other changes. — siro χ o 01:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
New York Times has an interesting piece on reaction at the Washington Post. The scoop by Vanity Fair clearly caught them off guard. Throughout the day, they denied, then changed headlines on the same article numerous times:
"The Post's confirmation of Deep Throat's identity appeared on the paper's Web site in the form of a news article, but with a variety of headlines. It said that Mr. Woodward had confirmed Deep Throat's identity, but without a quote from him. It then said that The Post had confirmed the identity. Later, it went back to saying Mr. Woodward had confirmed it."
Among the headlines:
Jokestress 05:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can we please keep the merge template off this page, it is currently linked from the main page and is almost certainly being read by hundreds of people. We don't need to mar a perfectly good article with an ugly template. Once this is all died down perhaps we can have a proper debate on whether separate articles are desirable. - SimonP 13:01, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
I removed this short section from the article because it seems kind of shoddily written and has an editorial tone. I wasn't sure how to fix it at the moment, but I think it's especially important to be careful with this article right now. Somebody else might want to start over from scratch on this subject. - Nat Kraus e 15:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rather than cataloguing responses to the news in the article, I suggest we refer readers to Wikiquote, which already has a good range of responses. Is there a standardized way to refer this in the body of an article? Is it OK to make a direct link, or even to refer directly to Wikiquote? Jokestress 15:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I tightened this analogy up and added it to the range of responses, though I feel the comparison is somewhat tendentious. The crimes committed by Nixon operatives were part of a conspiracy several orders of magnitude greater than Clinton's trysts and denials. I also don't feel it should be the final paragraph of the article, preferring to end with a summary about why he went to the press. Other thoughts? Jokestress 15:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Wikipedia's many volunteer editors weren't napping on the job as the W. Mark Felt story broke on Tuesday. A new entry (created yesterday, in fact) on the former associate FBI director and bona fide Deep Throat went up with great dispatch. A glance at the entry shows a clean, dry biography on Felt along with the circumstances of his involvement with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein on the Watergate series. It is not the first time that Wikipedia has tried to function as a sage tome of encyclopedic knowledge on breaking events, but it almost certainly is one of the most prominent, at least on its English-language site." (June 1st)
lots of issues | leave me a message 15:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not two weeks ago I read Felt's biography as part of my research on Helen Gandy and thought about writing a short entry here. And look what happens when one tarries. PedanticallySpeaking 18:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
As mentioned above under "error?" There's a question about the date 1 July 1972 in the edit made on 16:54, 2 Jun 2005. Please check and confirm. Jokestress 20:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"It is noteworthy that many commentators who decry the alleged government "leaking" of CIA employee Valerie Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak have long considered "Deep Throat" to be a hero, yet Mr. Felt's action in leaking this information to reporters Woodward and Bernstein can be considered a similar mis-deed of leaking by a government employee."
This line doesn't serve any real purpose, and is not neutral. You could just as easily write that there are "commentators" who think Felt is a traitor but also think Novak is a hero for exposing the alleged nepotism in Joseph Wilson's appointment.
Plus, Novak != Felt. Novak is a journalist. If the analogy above is to be supported at all, Novak = Woodward. Felt = still-unknown Valerie Plame leaker.
-- Pobbard 20:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I deleted a phrase about Haldeman and Nixon talking in the Oval Office because Nixon usually did his work in his hideaway office in the OEOB and did ceremonial things in the Oval Office. Which is correct really isn't important, but I removed it until someone can confirm it. (Say, in Kutler's book.) PedanticallySpeaking 21:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Article has: The use of "black bag jobs" by the FBI had been declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court on June 19, 1972. I believe this is a reference to UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) Argued February 24, 1972, Decided June 19, 1972. Jokestress 06:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The links listed are both chronological and by order of relevance. The first is the Vanity Fair revelation, followed by the Washington Post and New York Times coverage that day. The later analyses by less mainstream and more partisan outlets like Washington Times and Democracy Now! are currently listed further down. Over the past few days, 214.13.4.151 has moved the Washington Times link to the top of the list every day this week, and I believe it should stay where it is. The article at best is a side note and meta-analysis of the media coverage itself. I have started this subhead for those who wish to discuss this, rather than having this turn into an edit war without any discussion. Jokestress 15:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
lots of issues | leave me a message 16:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In his memoir, Felt writes he was charged with violating section 241 of the Civil Rights Act of 1969. Can anyone translate that into a US Code reference for me? PedanticallySpeaking 20:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
We've been using book covers as illustrations under the fair use doctrine. I wonder if someone could get a scan of Felt's book and add it. (The b&w photo that was here until someone removed it was the same shot that's on the cover of that book). PedanticallySpeaking 14:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about this documentary, The Birth of Ludi, mentioned in the Vanity Fair article? It's not in IMDB and the only three Google hits are to the VF article. PedanticallySpeaking 14:28, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Australian newspaper, The Advertiser cites article as the sole source for Felt's bio timeline.
lots of issues | leave me a message 17:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
lots of issues | leave me a message 18:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Great expansion. Would it be worthy to mention that following the LA Times (summer '76) revelation of the Justice Dept. probe, Felt voluntarily stepped forwarded and admitted approving the burglaries?
lots of issues | leave me a message 18:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am removing once again the quote marks on indented text. Text that is set like this does not need quote marks. The fact that it is indented tells us it is a quotation. PedanticallySpeaking 15:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I cite below some authorities on not using quote marks on block quotes. PedanticallySpeaking 14:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Anyone think this is perhaps suitable for nomination at WP:FAC? PedanticallySpeaking 15:38, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think we can also remove the current event tag.
lots of issues | leave me a message 06:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I removed this but if others want to discuss this addition, it's here:
My reason for removing is that I don't really see anonymous opinions of random web surfers to be as relevant as the other links. Jokestress 03:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is an awesome article, but could we start footnoting things a bit better? I have started the ball rolling - my problem is that I know that the material came from his Memoir, but can't tell you the page number it came from. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand how the footnote system works, so I'll tell you the references and you can add them. PedanticallySpeaking 17:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
--- OK, I've run through this article with a fine tooth comb and footnoted most of it. Hope this is good! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
After seeing this article come up on the FAC, I came back here to take a second look. The article had lots of pictures, but most were only peripherally related to Felt. I've gone ahead and removed most of the unrelated ones. →Raul654 20:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
There were twelve images: Two of Felt plus the FBI seal, the Watergate building, Woodward, Bernstein, Nixon, Reagan, Pope, Tolson, Gray, and Reagan. All were related to the article. I always was cautioned in designing pages for print about breaking up slabs of text. That's what I was trying to do here. Again, I believe all the pictures were relevant. Do we have a policy about "pruning" pictures? PedanticallySpeaking 15:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I looked around on the pages related to images and don't see anything about a policy for photos. So I've added all of them back except for the FBI seal. I'd be really grateful if someone could add a picture of Felt's memoir. PedanticallySpeaking 16:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I have reverted the following - [5]. This is nothing personal, I just don't see what is meant by that, and besides that date wikilinks can be very useful for putting things into context. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The FAC was shot down partially because the footnoting hasn't been completed but also because of length. Should there be a separate US. v. Felt article then?
lots of issues | leave me a message 05:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pat Buchanan was quoted as saying that Felt was a "traitor" in a Washington Post story dated June 1, 2005 titled "Contemporaries Have Mixed Views". However, this subsequent correction to the story (now included at the top of the page) reveals that Buchanan said exactly the opposite:
A June 1 article on reaction to the confirmation that former FBI official W. Mark Felt was the Watergate source known as "Deep Throat" incorrectly said that Patrick J. Buchanan called Felt a "traitor" in an interview on MSNBC's "Hardball." Buchanan said that Felt had no personal loyalty to President Richard M. Nixon, "so I don't consider him a traitor in that sense." (The MSNBC transcript of the show segment is only an excerpt and does not include this statement by Buchanan.)
I have corrected the article. Breakall 12:41, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
I have gone through and found citations for the LA Times editorial, Colson's "oath" quote, and the article on Felt's daughter. If anyone else adds material, please tell us where it came from. And be specific! It's much easier for you to add it than for others to try to figure it out later. PedanticallySpeaking 15:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Again, I'd really appreciate it if someone could scan the cover of Felt's 1979 book The FBI Pyramid and add it here. PedanticallySpeaking 16:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
This article was displayed on CNN's "Inside Politics" on June 20. PedanticallySpeaking 16:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Can we get specific sources for this please? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think we need to include the thoughts of Felt's boss, L. Patrick Gray, in this article: [6] Badammcqueen 20:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
"Some have contrasted Felt's media treatment with that of other whistleblowers, like Clinton scandal whistleblower Linda Tripp [79], or Karl Rove, the informant who leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak (a Felt critic)."
I removed the last part of this sentence from the Deep Throat Revealed section due to the fact that Rove has not been shown to have disclosed Plame's identity to Novak (especially since Novak won't give up his source). Rove also talked via email (communiques since released) to Matt Cooper from Time, but a story in the 2005 July 18 Newsweek says, "Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative."
A passing reference to Rove (of questionable factuality) is not necessary in this article, not to mention the fact that no source is cited comparing Felt and Rove, which is supposedly the point of this remark. Breakall 20:11, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
I concur with jokestress -- Some have contrasted Felt's media treatment - those first three are weasel words →Raul654 23:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Stanley Pottinger, an assistant AG, observed stumble when a jurror asked him if he was Deep Throat during the '76 grand jury proceedding. He asked Felt if he would like the question stricken, which Felt thankfully agreed. In Woodward's new book. lots of issues | leave me a message 13:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I must say that this article looks amazing. Nice job, everybody who worked on it. -- omeg 15:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
True! Michaël 08:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I've started adding information from Bob Woodward's book, The Secret Man. Don't have my notes today, but I'll try to put it in over the next few days.
Again, I repeat my request for a scan of the cover of his 1979 memoir. We did have the photo from the cover of that book on one of the foreign versions of this article. Don't know how to import it here, however. PedanticallySpeaking 19:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I have read in a blog that Mark Felt suffered Alzheimer disease at the time his identity as Deep Throat was revealed, so he didn't get to know about it. Is it true?
We had created this template for the important FBI related articles, but I did a preview of in the article and it didn't look to good. I am going to make a possaible short one and submit it here for people to take a look at it. --
Shane (
talk/
contrib)
19:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Is he still alive? Maybe I'm wrong, but I was sure that his death had been reported in the news only a short time after his identity had been revealed. AlbertSM 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The section detailing his denial of leaking anything to Woodward and Bernstein --"Felt denies he was source"-- is not specifically dated. It seems to come directly after the accusations in the preceding section, but it's not really clear. When did he make this denial and who did he make it to? Was he writing it or did he verbally say it, and to whom? The source is not online, so it can't be checked to see more details about this denial. Please elaborate on this.-- Gloriamarie 00:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added a paragraph providing some responses to the criticism of Gray voiced by Felt and others. This is in an effort to improve the nuetrality of the article. While I realize that Felt did appear to feel pretty strongly about his criticims of Gray, I think that the article itself should remain as nuetral as possible. Therefore, while the article should definitely highlight Felt's publically voiced opinions, if that is the only argument provided, then the article effectively voices the same opinion.
In the coming days, I will attempt to provide citations for the information provided in this paragraph. ( LPG3 18:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC))
In addition to the citations that I will add for the paragraph discussed above, there are a number of statements in this article that require some more citations. In particular, the discussion of Hoover's files needs more cites, especially the statement "This consisted of 167 files and 17,750 pages, many of them containing derogatory information." ( LPG3 18:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC))
I was just wondering if W. M. Felt, after having admitted his actions, ever got fined or anything of that nature for his leaking classified information. -- 70.80.98.192 ( talk) 20:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no picture of him? Rm999 ( talk) 08:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
On the most recently concluded Featured article review (September 2008), the current formatting system (with Ibid, etc) was one of the reasons for demotion. It would be nice to begin to address some of the issues brought up in the FAR. Any opinions on which format? Harvard referencing would be similar to what is used now. — ERcheck ( talk) 01:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Also nothing links to the original source, none of the references have urls to the original source articles. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 05:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The Washington Post has added this correction to Felt's obit:
CORRECTION TO THIS ARTICLE Earlier versions of this story, including in the print edition of Friday's Washington Post, incorrectly said Mark Felt died at a hospice. Felt died at his home in California, under hospice care.
Also it looks like Patricia Sullivan wrote that piece, not Woodward. Not sure about the best way to rephrase the existing text.
Starwarsian (
talk)
21:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate do add that he is killed in this video game: Watchmen: The End Is Nigh? 95.79.234.135 ( talk) 16:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't any reference made to the relevance of Deep Throat? He didn't crack the case, nor did Woodward and Bernstein. They were far less important than the US Attorneys, Senate investigators, and the special prosecutor. His only true relevance was his mystery. 76.187.152.36 ( talk) 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Still looking for the source of the statement that the CRP was pejoratively referred to as the CREEP. Any sources? Gef05 ( talk) 18:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)gef05
The intro says that “files pertaining to an extortion threat made against Felt in 1956” were released, but there is no mention of the events disclosed in the section on 1956 - if it’s notable enough for the intro, shouldn’t there be an explanation of the threat? 86.147.80.209 ( talk) 10:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
"Though Felt's identity as Deep Throat was known to some in Washington, including Nixon himself..." The only source for this claim is Felt's book, which this Wikipedia entry makes clear was dishonest about Felt's role as "Deep Throat." Specifically, the Felt book falsely denies that Felt was Deep Throat. As such, Felt's book is substantially impeached on the subject of Deep Throat and Watergate, and is not a legitimate source for a claim that, so far as I know, cannot be otherwise sourced or supported -- i.e., there are no other sources I know of which claim that Nixon knew the identity of Deep Throat. Further, it is extremely difficult to believe that if Nixon *did* know the identity of Deep Throat (i.e., Felt) that Nixon would have testified on Felt's behalf in Felt's criminal trial, which occurred some years after the Watergate scandal. To summarize: the first part of the text quoted at the top of this entry is okay, but the claim that "Nixon himself" knew the identity of Deep Throat is (i) sourced to a book that is clearly impeached on the subject of Deep Throat and Watergate, (ii) finds no support in any other, legitimate source, and (iii) is contrary to logic given the extreme unlikelihood that Nixon would have testified on Mark Felt's behalf if Nixon had known that Felt was Deep Throat. Therefore, absent a new, legitimate source for the claim that "Nixon himself" knew the identity of Deep Throat, this claim should be deleted.
Why is the paragraph beginning:
in the Memoir section? That paragraph does not mention the memoir - it is nothing to do with the memoir! Was somebody at a loss where else to put it? Shenme ( talk) 04:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This sentence in the third paragraph is, at minimum, badly punctuated (e.g. "pyramid" needs a capital letter and following comma); I'd go further and call it unclear and badly written - I can't quite tell what it's trying to say:
Felt lives in Santa Rosa, California, and has completed an update of his 1979 autobiography, The FBI pyramid which he wrote along with his son, provides information on his past as "Deep Throat,"but not revealing himself as such just yet (it will take 33 years.)
Confirmed by Woodward; [1]
The Washington Post article cites Ben Bradlee as confirming Felt, he is one of the four men who knows the identity; [2]
I deleted this sentence:
Felt is now considered by most Americans to be a traitor.
as it is inflammatory and unsubstantiated. If you want this in the article you need to back it up and rephrase it, e.g.:
According to the Blandy and Jones survey 72% of U.S. citizens consider Felt a traitor (external link to survey information)
Cheers, Funkyj
Listen to the radio: Democracy Now, 6-2-05 rean a segment introduced as follows:
Mark Felt -- who was exposed this week as Deep Throat -- was one of only two FBI officials ever to be convicted for ordering COINTELPRO operations. In 1980 he was convicted for ordering FBI agents to break into the home of Jennifer Dohrn and other associates of the Weather Underground. He was later pardoned by President Reagan. Jennifer Dohrn discusses the FBI surveillance, break-ins and a secret FBI proposal to kidnap her infant. Democracy Now! co-host Juan Gonzalez also reveals that as a leader of the Young Lords that he, too, was also a target of a similar FBI campaign. [includes rush transcript]
I removed and oppose a Merge notice to merge with Deep Throat (Watergate) - worth a discussion of course, but I think we should wait til this settles down though to see what info we end up with and how to best hash it out. -- John Kenneth Fisher 21:48, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone investigate what "W." stands for and include it in the full name? — Cantus… ☎ 17:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
I asked the anon who said it was Walter to provide a reference, but so far he hasn't bothered. I wonder if we ought to take this out. "Walter Mark Felt" returns no results in Google, and I'd much rather we had missing information than wrong information, with all the people that will be coming to look at this article. — Trilobite ( Talk) 18:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
It's gushy and weak, I know, but good work; I came home for tea and scones, and searched Wikipedia for 'mark felt' and there was nothing. This would have been about 17:00 GMT. Now, there is an article. And a picture. The gasman has taken me hostage; my knee is not purple. However, with regards to this article, [4] does Woodward explicitly state that Mark Felt is Deep Throat? The paragraph beginning "Woodward said Felt helped The Post..." seems ambiguous, and I'm surprised that the headline isn't "Post's Woodward confirms Felt etc".- Ashley Pomeroy 22:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
How could Ronald Reagan have pardoned anybody of anything in 2001?
Another date problem: How could Hoover promote Felt on July 1st of 1972 when he himself died on May 2nd, 1972? Brendan 20:39, June 2, 2005 (UTC)
"In 2080, Felt was convicted of violating the civil rights of people thought to be associated with the Weather Underground by ordering FBI agents to burglarize their homes." How can ANYTHING have happened in 2080--still a long way off. Should this be 1980? Serkul 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
An anon had added a note that some of the article was plagiarized, but the article in question was previously cited at the bottom. I reverted the note without any other changes. — siro χ o 01:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
New York Times has an interesting piece on reaction at the Washington Post. The scoop by Vanity Fair clearly caught them off guard. Throughout the day, they denied, then changed headlines on the same article numerous times:
"The Post's confirmation of Deep Throat's identity appeared on the paper's Web site in the form of a news article, but with a variety of headlines. It said that Mr. Woodward had confirmed Deep Throat's identity, but without a quote from him. It then said that The Post had confirmed the identity. Later, it went back to saying Mr. Woodward had confirmed it."
Among the headlines:
Jokestress 05:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can we please keep the merge template off this page, it is currently linked from the main page and is almost certainly being read by hundreds of people. We don't need to mar a perfectly good article with an ugly template. Once this is all died down perhaps we can have a proper debate on whether separate articles are desirable. - SimonP 13:01, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
I removed this short section from the article because it seems kind of shoddily written and has an editorial tone. I wasn't sure how to fix it at the moment, but I think it's especially important to be careful with this article right now. Somebody else might want to start over from scratch on this subject. - Nat Kraus e 15:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rather than cataloguing responses to the news in the article, I suggest we refer readers to Wikiquote, which already has a good range of responses. Is there a standardized way to refer this in the body of an article? Is it OK to make a direct link, or even to refer directly to Wikiquote? Jokestress 15:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I tightened this analogy up and added it to the range of responses, though I feel the comparison is somewhat tendentious. The crimes committed by Nixon operatives were part of a conspiracy several orders of magnitude greater than Clinton's trysts and denials. I also don't feel it should be the final paragraph of the article, preferring to end with a summary about why he went to the press. Other thoughts? Jokestress 15:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Wikipedia's many volunteer editors weren't napping on the job as the W. Mark Felt story broke on Tuesday. A new entry (created yesterday, in fact) on the former associate FBI director and bona fide Deep Throat went up with great dispatch. A glance at the entry shows a clean, dry biography on Felt along with the circumstances of his involvement with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein on the Watergate series. It is not the first time that Wikipedia has tried to function as a sage tome of encyclopedic knowledge on breaking events, but it almost certainly is one of the most prominent, at least on its English-language site." (June 1st)
lots of issues | leave me a message 15:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not two weeks ago I read Felt's biography as part of my research on Helen Gandy and thought about writing a short entry here. And look what happens when one tarries. PedanticallySpeaking 18:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
As mentioned above under "error?" There's a question about the date 1 July 1972 in the edit made on 16:54, 2 Jun 2005. Please check and confirm. Jokestress 20:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"It is noteworthy that many commentators who decry the alleged government "leaking" of CIA employee Valerie Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak have long considered "Deep Throat" to be a hero, yet Mr. Felt's action in leaking this information to reporters Woodward and Bernstein can be considered a similar mis-deed of leaking by a government employee."
This line doesn't serve any real purpose, and is not neutral. You could just as easily write that there are "commentators" who think Felt is a traitor but also think Novak is a hero for exposing the alleged nepotism in Joseph Wilson's appointment.
Plus, Novak != Felt. Novak is a journalist. If the analogy above is to be supported at all, Novak = Woodward. Felt = still-unknown Valerie Plame leaker.
-- Pobbard 20:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I deleted a phrase about Haldeman and Nixon talking in the Oval Office because Nixon usually did his work in his hideaway office in the OEOB and did ceremonial things in the Oval Office. Which is correct really isn't important, but I removed it until someone can confirm it. (Say, in Kutler's book.) PedanticallySpeaking 21:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Article has: The use of "black bag jobs" by the FBI had been declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court on June 19, 1972. I believe this is a reference to UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) Argued February 24, 1972, Decided June 19, 1972. Jokestress 06:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The links listed are both chronological and by order of relevance. The first is the Vanity Fair revelation, followed by the Washington Post and New York Times coverage that day. The later analyses by less mainstream and more partisan outlets like Washington Times and Democracy Now! are currently listed further down. Over the past few days, 214.13.4.151 has moved the Washington Times link to the top of the list every day this week, and I believe it should stay where it is. The article at best is a side note and meta-analysis of the media coverage itself. I have started this subhead for those who wish to discuss this, rather than having this turn into an edit war without any discussion. Jokestress 15:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
lots of issues | leave me a message 16:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In his memoir, Felt writes he was charged with violating section 241 of the Civil Rights Act of 1969. Can anyone translate that into a US Code reference for me? PedanticallySpeaking 20:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
We've been using book covers as illustrations under the fair use doctrine. I wonder if someone could get a scan of Felt's book and add it. (The b&w photo that was here until someone removed it was the same shot that's on the cover of that book). PedanticallySpeaking 14:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about this documentary, The Birth of Ludi, mentioned in the Vanity Fair article? It's not in IMDB and the only three Google hits are to the VF article. PedanticallySpeaking 14:28, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Australian newspaper, The Advertiser cites article as the sole source for Felt's bio timeline.
lots of issues | leave me a message 17:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
lots of issues | leave me a message 18:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Great expansion. Would it be worthy to mention that following the LA Times (summer '76) revelation of the Justice Dept. probe, Felt voluntarily stepped forwarded and admitted approving the burglaries?
lots of issues | leave me a message 18:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am removing once again the quote marks on indented text. Text that is set like this does not need quote marks. The fact that it is indented tells us it is a quotation. PedanticallySpeaking 15:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I cite below some authorities on not using quote marks on block quotes. PedanticallySpeaking 14:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Anyone think this is perhaps suitable for nomination at WP:FAC? PedanticallySpeaking 15:38, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think we can also remove the current event tag.
lots of issues | leave me a message 06:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I removed this but if others want to discuss this addition, it's here:
My reason for removing is that I don't really see anonymous opinions of random web surfers to be as relevant as the other links. Jokestress 03:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is an awesome article, but could we start footnoting things a bit better? I have started the ball rolling - my problem is that I know that the material came from his Memoir, but can't tell you the page number it came from. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand how the footnote system works, so I'll tell you the references and you can add them. PedanticallySpeaking 17:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
--- OK, I've run through this article with a fine tooth comb and footnoted most of it. Hope this is good! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
After seeing this article come up on the FAC, I came back here to take a second look. The article had lots of pictures, but most were only peripherally related to Felt. I've gone ahead and removed most of the unrelated ones. →Raul654 20:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
There were twelve images: Two of Felt plus the FBI seal, the Watergate building, Woodward, Bernstein, Nixon, Reagan, Pope, Tolson, Gray, and Reagan. All were related to the article. I always was cautioned in designing pages for print about breaking up slabs of text. That's what I was trying to do here. Again, I believe all the pictures were relevant. Do we have a policy about "pruning" pictures? PedanticallySpeaking 15:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I looked around on the pages related to images and don't see anything about a policy for photos. So I've added all of them back except for the FBI seal. I'd be really grateful if someone could add a picture of Felt's memoir. PedanticallySpeaking 16:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I have reverted the following - [5]. This is nothing personal, I just don't see what is meant by that, and besides that date wikilinks can be very useful for putting things into context. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The FAC was shot down partially because the footnoting hasn't been completed but also because of length. Should there be a separate US. v. Felt article then?
lots of issues | leave me a message 05:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pat Buchanan was quoted as saying that Felt was a "traitor" in a Washington Post story dated June 1, 2005 titled "Contemporaries Have Mixed Views". However, this subsequent correction to the story (now included at the top of the page) reveals that Buchanan said exactly the opposite:
A June 1 article on reaction to the confirmation that former FBI official W. Mark Felt was the Watergate source known as "Deep Throat" incorrectly said that Patrick J. Buchanan called Felt a "traitor" in an interview on MSNBC's "Hardball." Buchanan said that Felt had no personal loyalty to President Richard M. Nixon, "so I don't consider him a traitor in that sense." (The MSNBC transcript of the show segment is only an excerpt and does not include this statement by Buchanan.)
I have corrected the article. Breakall 12:41, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)
I have gone through and found citations for the LA Times editorial, Colson's "oath" quote, and the article on Felt's daughter. If anyone else adds material, please tell us where it came from. And be specific! It's much easier for you to add it than for others to try to figure it out later. PedanticallySpeaking 15:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Again, I'd really appreciate it if someone could scan the cover of Felt's 1979 book The FBI Pyramid and add it here. PedanticallySpeaking 16:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
This article was displayed on CNN's "Inside Politics" on June 20. PedanticallySpeaking 16:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Can we get specific sources for this please? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think we need to include the thoughts of Felt's boss, L. Patrick Gray, in this article: [6] Badammcqueen 20:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
"Some have contrasted Felt's media treatment with that of other whistleblowers, like Clinton scandal whistleblower Linda Tripp [79], or Karl Rove, the informant who leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak (a Felt critic)."
I removed the last part of this sentence from the Deep Throat Revealed section due to the fact that Rove has not been shown to have disclosed Plame's identity to Novak (especially since Novak won't give up his source). Rove also talked via email (communiques since released) to Matt Cooper from Time, but a story in the 2005 July 18 Newsweek says, "Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative."
A passing reference to Rove (of questionable factuality) is not necessary in this article, not to mention the fact that no source is cited comparing Felt and Rove, which is supposedly the point of this remark. Breakall 20:11, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
I concur with jokestress -- Some have contrasted Felt's media treatment - those first three are weasel words →Raul654 23:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Stanley Pottinger, an assistant AG, observed stumble when a jurror asked him if he was Deep Throat during the '76 grand jury proceedding. He asked Felt if he would like the question stricken, which Felt thankfully agreed. In Woodward's new book. lots of issues | leave me a message 13:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I must say that this article looks amazing. Nice job, everybody who worked on it. -- omeg 15:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
True! Michaël 08:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I've started adding information from Bob Woodward's book, The Secret Man. Don't have my notes today, but I'll try to put it in over the next few days.
Again, I repeat my request for a scan of the cover of his 1979 memoir. We did have the photo from the cover of that book on one of the foreign versions of this article. Don't know how to import it here, however. PedanticallySpeaking 19:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I have read in a blog that Mark Felt suffered Alzheimer disease at the time his identity as Deep Throat was revealed, so he didn't get to know about it. Is it true?
We had created this template for the important FBI related articles, but I did a preview of in the article and it didn't look to good. I am going to make a possaible short one and submit it here for people to take a look at it. --
Shane (
talk/
contrib)
19:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Is he still alive? Maybe I'm wrong, but I was sure that his death had been reported in the news only a short time after his identity had been revealed. AlbertSM 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The section detailing his denial of leaking anything to Woodward and Bernstein --"Felt denies he was source"-- is not specifically dated. It seems to come directly after the accusations in the preceding section, but it's not really clear. When did he make this denial and who did he make it to? Was he writing it or did he verbally say it, and to whom? The source is not online, so it can't be checked to see more details about this denial. Please elaborate on this.-- Gloriamarie 00:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added a paragraph providing some responses to the criticism of Gray voiced by Felt and others. This is in an effort to improve the nuetrality of the article. While I realize that Felt did appear to feel pretty strongly about his criticims of Gray, I think that the article itself should remain as nuetral as possible. Therefore, while the article should definitely highlight Felt's publically voiced opinions, if that is the only argument provided, then the article effectively voices the same opinion.
In the coming days, I will attempt to provide citations for the information provided in this paragraph. ( LPG3 18:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC))
In addition to the citations that I will add for the paragraph discussed above, there are a number of statements in this article that require some more citations. In particular, the discussion of Hoover's files needs more cites, especially the statement "This consisted of 167 files and 17,750 pages, many of them containing derogatory information." ( LPG3 18:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC))
I was just wondering if W. M. Felt, after having admitted his actions, ever got fined or anything of that nature for his leaking classified information. -- 70.80.98.192 ( talk) 20:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Why is there no picture of him? Rm999 ( talk) 08:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
On the most recently concluded Featured article review (September 2008), the current formatting system (with Ibid, etc) was one of the reasons for demotion. It would be nice to begin to address some of the issues brought up in the FAR. Any opinions on which format? Harvard referencing would be similar to what is used now. — ERcheck ( talk) 01:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Also nothing links to the original source, none of the references have urls to the original source articles. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 05:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The Washington Post has added this correction to Felt's obit:
CORRECTION TO THIS ARTICLE Earlier versions of this story, including in the print edition of Friday's Washington Post, incorrectly said Mark Felt died at a hospice. Felt died at his home in California, under hospice care.
Also it looks like Patricia Sullivan wrote that piece, not Woodward. Not sure about the best way to rephrase the existing text.
Starwarsian (
talk)
21:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate do add that he is killed in this video game: Watchmen: The End Is Nigh? 95.79.234.135 ( talk) 16:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't any reference made to the relevance of Deep Throat? He didn't crack the case, nor did Woodward and Bernstein. They were far less important than the US Attorneys, Senate investigators, and the special prosecutor. His only true relevance was his mystery. 76.187.152.36 ( talk) 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Still looking for the source of the statement that the CRP was pejoratively referred to as the CREEP. Any sources? Gef05 ( talk) 18:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)gef05
The intro says that “files pertaining to an extortion threat made against Felt in 1956” were released, but there is no mention of the events disclosed in the section on 1956 - if it’s notable enough for the intro, shouldn’t there be an explanation of the threat? 86.147.80.209 ( talk) 10:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
"Though Felt's identity as Deep Throat was known to some in Washington, including Nixon himself..." The only source for this claim is Felt's book, which this Wikipedia entry makes clear was dishonest about Felt's role as "Deep Throat." Specifically, the Felt book falsely denies that Felt was Deep Throat. As such, Felt's book is substantially impeached on the subject of Deep Throat and Watergate, and is not a legitimate source for a claim that, so far as I know, cannot be otherwise sourced or supported -- i.e., there are no other sources I know of which claim that Nixon knew the identity of Deep Throat. Further, it is extremely difficult to believe that if Nixon *did* know the identity of Deep Throat (i.e., Felt) that Nixon would have testified on Felt's behalf in Felt's criminal trial, which occurred some years after the Watergate scandal. To summarize: the first part of the text quoted at the top of this entry is okay, but the claim that "Nixon himself" knew the identity of Deep Throat is (i) sourced to a book that is clearly impeached on the subject of Deep Throat and Watergate, (ii) finds no support in any other, legitimate source, and (iii) is contrary to logic given the extreme unlikelihood that Nixon would have testified on Mark Felt's behalf if Nixon had known that Felt was Deep Throat. Therefore, absent a new, legitimate source for the claim that "Nixon himself" knew the identity of Deep Throat, this claim should be deleted.
Why is the paragraph beginning:
in the Memoir section? That paragraph does not mention the memoir - it is nothing to do with the memoir! Was somebody at a loss where else to put it? Shenme ( talk) 04:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)