This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
L. Patrick Gray article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
L. Patrick Gray was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Question #1: Anybody want to share with the rest of us what the "L." stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.226.245 ( talk) 19:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Prosecutors are in the business of bringing prosecutions. When they fail to bring a prosecution it is not the same thing as being 'exonerated'. Indeed, even when cases go to trial and the prosecution fails, the verdict is "not guilty", rather than "innocent". If the Watergate Special Prosecution Force really did make some statement 'exonerating' Mr. Gray, it needs to be cited to the Watergate Special Prosecution Force or some independent source. Not to Mr. Gray himself. Re: [1] [2] [3] Dlabtot ( talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
(RESET INDENT) I found something that might work. An article in the Chicago Tribune (via UPI) dated December 12, 1980 which says "Washington |UPI| - A Federal judge, told by the government that the evidence was ‘unconvincing,’ Thursday exonerated former acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray of the same 32-month-old conspiracy charge on which two top aides were convicted last month." If I change the citation to this source and keep the word "exonerated" are you guys okay with that? ( Morethan3words | talk) 22:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the initial addition not because I think the information should be removed from the article, I don't, but mostly because I think there are better places for it in the article than the legal struggles section. As written, there is a bit of a mixture of information with regard to his conduct regarding the investigation (i.e., sharing of investigative files with Dean) and information regarding his destruction of files from Hunt's safe, which all involved have insisted were not Watergate related. I think this information would be best incorporated to the individual subsections on the investigation and the destruction of the Hunt files.
Having said that, I also want to voice some concern about some of the statements used in this new addition. Taken as a whole, the addition appears to try and paint a picture of Gray that comes from the contributor's own understandings and conclusions. I think this is particularly the case with the third paragraph, which provided no cited material and offered opinions like "... it is Gray’s subsequent conduct that probably saved him from an indictment ..." Without appropriate citations for these assertions, I can't justify keeping them in the article.
Nonetheless, I think there is good material here and would like to work on incorporating some of this material into the article in the appropriate sections. I certainly welcome SBmeier's assistance in this, especially since I do not currently have access to Dean and Haldeman's respective memoirs, and anyone else taking an interest in the matter.
On a side note, I will be out of town this weekend and may not get another chance to look at this until early next week. I would appreciate if any significant work on the article was held off until then. ( Morethan3words | talk) 06:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
i do not believe it can be documented that in fact the documents he destroyed were "non watergate related" as is claimed here. in can NOT say "non watergate related" unless that fact can be documented. i'm removing that phase. the reference in the ny times about the section costs 4 bucks to read. i hardly think that qualifies as the kind of readily verifiable source information that is the whole idea of wikipedia.
most of this whole article uses gray's own books as a source. this is unacceptable. it all has to be outside sourced and the burden is on those that wrote it. i'll go to work on removing the most obviously biased parts and let people justify their inclusion if they want to lobby for their return. Jackhammer111 ( talk) 19:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
i re wrote the bit about the destroyed documents to reflect what he said about them a month before he died. this article was not even clear about whether the documents regarding the Diem assassination were real or not!@@!! they were not! the plumbers had been planting rumors to that effect before watergate and they persist to this day. i was thrilled when gray spoke up and said unambiguously that they were forgeries before he died. to give credit, hunt's wiki page says the cables were forged. but it didn't say that here. the ed gray book was the source here. if the book is that unclear it's more reason why the book should NOT be source material for this page. Jackhammer111 ( talk) 03:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
L. Patrick Gray. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on L. Patrick Gray. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
L. Patrick Gray article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
L. Patrick Gray was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Question #1: Anybody want to share with the rest of us what the "L." stands for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.224.226.245 ( talk) 19:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Prosecutors are in the business of bringing prosecutions. When they fail to bring a prosecution it is not the same thing as being 'exonerated'. Indeed, even when cases go to trial and the prosecution fails, the verdict is "not guilty", rather than "innocent". If the Watergate Special Prosecution Force really did make some statement 'exonerating' Mr. Gray, it needs to be cited to the Watergate Special Prosecution Force or some independent source. Not to Mr. Gray himself. Re: [1] [2] [3] Dlabtot ( talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
(RESET INDENT) I found something that might work. An article in the Chicago Tribune (via UPI) dated December 12, 1980 which says "Washington |UPI| - A Federal judge, told by the government that the evidence was ‘unconvincing,’ Thursday exonerated former acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray of the same 32-month-old conspiracy charge on which two top aides were convicted last month." If I change the citation to this source and keep the word "exonerated" are you guys okay with that? ( Morethan3words | talk) 22:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the initial addition not because I think the information should be removed from the article, I don't, but mostly because I think there are better places for it in the article than the legal struggles section. As written, there is a bit of a mixture of information with regard to his conduct regarding the investigation (i.e., sharing of investigative files with Dean) and information regarding his destruction of files from Hunt's safe, which all involved have insisted were not Watergate related. I think this information would be best incorporated to the individual subsections on the investigation and the destruction of the Hunt files.
Having said that, I also want to voice some concern about some of the statements used in this new addition. Taken as a whole, the addition appears to try and paint a picture of Gray that comes from the contributor's own understandings and conclusions. I think this is particularly the case with the third paragraph, which provided no cited material and offered opinions like "... it is Gray’s subsequent conduct that probably saved him from an indictment ..." Without appropriate citations for these assertions, I can't justify keeping them in the article.
Nonetheless, I think there is good material here and would like to work on incorporating some of this material into the article in the appropriate sections. I certainly welcome SBmeier's assistance in this, especially since I do not currently have access to Dean and Haldeman's respective memoirs, and anyone else taking an interest in the matter.
On a side note, I will be out of town this weekend and may not get another chance to look at this until early next week. I would appreciate if any significant work on the article was held off until then. ( Morethan3words | talk) 06:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
i do not believe it can be documented that in fact the documents he destroyed were "non watergate related" as is claimed here. in can NOT say "non watergate related" unless that fact can be documented. i'm removing that phase. the reference in the ny times about the section costs 4 bucks to read. i hardly think that qualifies as the kind of readily verifiable source information that is the whole idea of wikipedia.
most of this whole article uses gray's own books as a source. this is unacceptable. it all has to be outside sourced and the burden is on those that wrote it. i'll go to work on removing the most obviously biased parts and let people justify their inclusion if they want to lobby for their return. Jackhammer111 ( talk) 19:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
i re wrote the bit about the destroyed documents to reflect what he said about them a month before he died. this article was not even clear about whether the documents regarding the Diem assassination were real or not!@@!! they were not! the plumbers had been planting rumors to that effect before watergate and they persist to this day. i was thrilled when gray spoke up and said unambiguously that they were forgeries before he died. to give credit, hunt's wiki page says the cables were forged. but it didn't say that here. the ed gray book was the source here. if the book is that unclear it's more reason why the book should NOT be source material for this page. Jackhammer111 ( talk) 03:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
L. Patrick Gray. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on L. Patrick Gray. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)