Talk:Silent Coup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Edit War

There has been an ongoing back-and-forth edit war with this article since the beginning of September. Both sides should resolve their disagreements on this talk page so that progress can be made on the article.
Revision of August 29, 2007
Major revision of September 20, 2007 by Lcolodny
Revert on September 24, 2007 by 130.156.31.150 - it has been a steady stream of reverts since here.
There seems to be plenty of overlap between these two basic versions. What topics should be included or excluded should be discussed here. --George100 01:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I accept your comprimise edit. Furthermore I will continue working on what we appear to agree is a flawed article. However, Colodny, whether real or imagined, continues to vandalize the page. 130.156.31.33 15:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently researching the lawsuits surrounding this book. It would help if you could locate the specific date for that Washington Post review. --George100 08:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link regarding one of the lawsuits.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/29/national/main267968.shtml

I'll continue to look for the Washington Post review 130.156.29.50 14:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This link might help. It mentions the quotes contained in the article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/1997/07/23/AR2005112200817.html?referrer=digg

130.156.29.134 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added that reference using the Citation Template for news articles. --George100 14:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I smell a skunk

There are several items that make no or little sense in this wikiarticle:

In 1992 John Dean began legal action against Len Colodny and G. Gordon Liddy. Dean objected to information that appeared in books by Liddy (Will) and Colodny (Silent Coup) that claimed that Dean was the mastermind of the Watergate burglaries, and the true target of the break-in was to destroy information implicating him and his wife in a prostitution ring. That case was settled in 1999 when State Farm Insurance Company paid Colodny $410,000.00 to allow Dean to dismiss the case without going to summary judgement. Dean also had to agree not to sue Colodny again and that was in the Court Order.^{[citation needed]}

It was added by a now banned user.[1]

CBS news:

John and Maureen Dean have denied Liddy's theory and sued him for libel in 1992. That case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning it could be refiled.[2]

Okay the wikipedia paragraph makes no sense. When a case is dismissed without prejudice, like the article says, the case can be refiled--that part is correct. It is possible that the two parties later settled 7 years later, but why doesn't the 2001 CBS article mention this settlement? Dean is the plaintiff, Colodny is the defendant, a summary judgement benefits Dean. So why would State Farm Insurance Company, who I assume is Dean's insurance company, pay "Colodny $410,000.00 to allow Dean to dismiss the case without going to summary judgement" Is the author trying to say that Dean is now barred from refiling the same case again? He filed in 2001 which was a mistrial. I am removing this paragraph. It is just terrible.

This conclusion' of this case is also unsubtantiated, and absurd, I seriously doubt the one of the questions for the jury was whether the theory of Silent Coup was correct:

John Dean encouraged former DNC secretary Ida Wells to sue Gordon Liddy on the same subject as his original suit in US District Court in Baltimore. In July, 2002, jurors reached a unanimous decision in favor of Liddy and the theory put forward in Silent Coup.^{[citation needed]}

This also was added by a banned user.[3]

The Associated Press completely shows that the Wells case explanation is a fraud. There was a mistrial. In addition the dates are all wrong.[4]

Travb (talk) 04:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes this article needs a lot of revision, and the edits by user Lcolodny are very biased. --George100 07:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the entire article, with references. Lcolodny edits were more than biased, they were blatant lies. Travb (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] L colodny himself got banned?

User:Lcolodny got banned because of this article. I wonder if it is the author of this book. He sure added a lot of half truths and lies in this article. If it is actually the author of the book, his edits here say a lot about his honesty. Travb (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)