Talk:Watergate burglaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the Past Political Scandals and Controversies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scandals and political controversies. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's quite a long rant. Do you have specific issues that concern you, or are you more generally just worried that because the sources are only cited at the end, that incorrect and biased data could easily be inserted? --Dhartung | Talk 04:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, both would be true. I took and take the liberty to write in detail because a claim that an article is biased should not be made carelessly. Some length is also necessary because the whole material is quite complicated. If you are familiar with the Watergate literature as a whole (I think I am), you can easily notice that the whole article adopts the perspective of a few authors as opposed to the majority perspective. It does so in quite an argumentative fashion (in itself problematic in light of the NPOV policy), most of the time sounding like a lawyer’s presentation (“there is no physical evidence”), giving you the facts, the circumstantial evidence and the sources fitting the argument, but essentially leaving out everything that contradicts it.
Take the passage I rewrote as a case in point in the article. It concerns the so-called Gemstone III meeting of March 30, 1972. The version of “Huntley Troth” concluded: “The Key Biscayne memo does not survive. The earlier Liddy plans do not survive. There is no physical evidence to support any of the anecdotal accounts.” The dispute here is about whether John Mitchell, Nixon’s Attorney General and head of the Committee-to Re-elect the President, signed off on a downscaled plan for political espionage presented to him by his deputy Magruder but written by G. Gordon Liddy. Every reader not familiar with the bulk of Watergate literature and the findings of the courts and Congress in this regard must conclude that the claim of Mitchell’s involvement stands on very shaky, that is, above-all, self-contradictory ground and that there seems to be no evidence supporting that claim. You never even learn about the fact that both the Ervin Committee and the Rodino Committee in Congress and the jury in Mitchell’s trial, after weighing all this evidence, concluded that it suggested that Mitchell in fact had supported the Gemstone III plan (that’s one of the reasons Mitchell went to jail). The bulk of circumstantial evidence in this regard, the fact for example that the surviving copy of a “Talking Paper” prepared for a meeting of Nixon’s Chief of Staff Haldeman with Mitchell suggests that the consequences of an adoption of the Liddy plan were discussed between the two of them just 5 days later is not mentioned at all in the article, although it plays, for example, such a large role in the narrative of Fred Emery’s well-known Watergate book.
And you would have to add this kind of detailed information in almost every passage of the article in order to get an unbiased perspective. This all-in-all is clearly the attempt to rewrite history, to question the findings of a whole generation of Watergate researchers. And this attempt is based on very questionable ground. I don’t know how many times the Liddy deposition of 1996 (that was given 24 years after the events in question!) is cited as “evidence”. But if you read that deposition in whole and pay attention to the passages where Liddy is pressed by oppositional lawyers on his memory, it becomes quite clear that concerning many details he has no first-hand memory at all but has to rely on “refreshing his memory” when re-reading passages from two books on Watergate (see f.e. p. 50-52), his own memoirs “Will” and the conspiracy book “Silent Coup” that was the issue of that 1996 trial and which Liddy calls quite revealingly “the new bible on Watergate” (p. 52). That must have created an almost surreal situation in the courtroom, but is that the kind of evidence that fits Wikipedia standards? I think not. And to make myself clear: I am not against an article on the first Watergate break-in which the caveats of some authors concerning the “conventional wisdom” in this regard is mentioned and the reasons therefore are given. But I am totally against an argumentative article which tries to CONVINCE you that the traditional narrative is false. -- Beek100 10:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully will avow that there are no theories whatsoever expressed in the article. If you are going to claim that a "conspiracy theory" is any part of the article, please cite it by quotation and not by unsupported allegation.
I also will submit emphatically that the bulk of the article is nothing whatsoever but recitation of sworn testimony by the co-conspirators themselves in congressional hearings, as is entirely reflected in the list of references. The other sources that are relied upon to a substantial degree are mainly the autobiographies of co-conspirators Hunt and Liddy, are completely valid sources, and are relied upon mainly for issues not covered in the congressional testimony. That you make an issue out of one sole reference in the text to Colodny's book, which concerns an otherwise verifiable reference to a telephone company sweep of DNC headquarter--which has NOT been "discredited--I consider disingenuous indeed. And nothing in any of it constitutes either NPOV or "original research." You claiim these "offenses" at great length, but never quote anything from the article itself to support it. I submit that's because your position is unsupportable.
The article does nothing at all except compare the testimony of the co-conspirators. And no, calling them "co-conspirators" does not constitute a "conspiracy theory": that's how the court labelled them. Any "conclusions" or "theories" that you have reached by reading the article are your own, they are not in the article itself. If they were, you could quote them. But there's nothing to quote except claims made by the participants themselves in completely valid sources.
Given all the foregoing, I recommend that you remove your alert from the article and devote your energies to something that has some validity. Huntley Troth 23:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing these questions, Huntley. I have looked closely at the article and I don't see the covert bias that Beek100 implies. I don't see an argumentative article, and I certainly don't see one trying to "convince" me that the traditional narrative is false -- in fact, the article conforms pretty squarely with what I know of Watergate. Beek100, welcome to Wikipedia, but please, in your criticisms of articles, assume good faith of other editors and not hidden agendas. It may be that the other editors have developed another view objectively, or may simply not have the same information. In your lengthy critique you draw grave inferences from minor points. That's really not a good way to ingratiate yourself or to build consensus.--Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I still maintain that the article contains original research. My problem is that to counter some of the alligations or conclusions I would have to rely partly on material that is not published in book form, especially on files of the FBI investigation that are available in microfilm form. I give you an example of the validity of that material: In the article it is said that "no physical" and no testimonial evidence concerning the first Watergate break-in existed except for what the co-conspirators (I never questioned the validity of that term) said. In fact, there was hard physical evidence for burglary attempts at the DNC headquarters around Labor Day weekend 1972. On Monday, May 29, 1972, the DNC informed the Washington Metropolitan Police that, over the weekend, someone had tried to burglarize the place as was clearly shown by marks left behind on the door. Investigations of policemen confirmed this [FBI-Summary Report of Watergate Investigation, p.14-5.].
Now, if I tried to improve the article by adding this information, even if I give a reference to this source, wouldn't that offend Wikipedia's "original research" and "published sources" policy, because I can't find a readily available reference to this fact in printed materials? And Huntley: It's absurd to claim that this article does not contain conclusions, in fact it's full of conclusions that are at odds with the findings of Watergate researchers. I specifically referred to the question of the adoption of Gemstone III at Key Biscayne. You have not reacted at all to my correcting the misleading conclusion that, except for "anecdotal accounts," there is "no physical evidence" for the adoption of the Gemstone plan (hardly a minor point). Strachan's "Talking Paper" for Haldeman clearly says otherwise. However, assuming good faith, I would appreciate your engaging me in a discussion on these issues that, given the energy you invested, seem to be of some concern to you. I'll remove the bias-button as a first move to open up a discussion. -- Beek100 08:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think you're overinterpreting the "no original research" injunction, because I don't see novel conclusions being drawn. (If anything, I see this as touching on the expert editors angle.) Although you are saying there are potentially misleading inferences readers can draw, that is not the same thing, and is simply a point to bring up here in Talk or improve directly as possible. What you are bringing up are some verifiability issues, which I'm certainly open to hearing about. Do note that microfilm, if it's indexed, is certainly citeable, as long as someone else can go to the same resource and locate it. It may not be as convenient as other sources, but I do not see any explicit prohibition.
Ultimately, we need to remember that the justice system has run its course in these events, and I think it's valuable to have as much information as we can get in this article. I don't see why a consensus isn't achievable. My greatest concern is that while I consider myself a reasonably knowledgeable person, I'm not privy to some of these sources you're bringing up, so I think we need to expose this issue to a larger audience. I suggest that we bring this up on requests for comment, so that more eyes can review the issue. --Dhartung | Talk 22:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your informative and well-balanced reply containing information about Wikipedia rules and procedures that were new to me. I certainly welcome a larger audience for these issues and I am prepared to engage in any kind of fruitful discussion on them. I also hope that my recent additions to the article show that I’m writing from an informed position and that I also try to make as clear as possible what my sources for specific statements are. -- Beek100 01:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. Hopefully we can get some good input from people with experience in editing historical articles. --Dhartung | Talk 02:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Beek, I was entirely familiar with the FBI door-marring report, and reference to just such marring of the door is in the first Washington Post article on the break-in, but the Post gives a date for when the marring was noticed that is inconsistent with both the FBI report, and with Liddy's claim that it happened on 27 May 1972 during the purported "second attempt." I'm beginning to suspect that the only POV that is trying to be inserted into this article is your own, which POV clearly is that a break-in and all the purported attempts absolutely took place, and that we all must be saddled with the burden of attempting to reconcile hopelessly contradictory testimony in order that we all can join you in your own POV that these things actually took place, despite the complete lack of actual physical evidence that proves they did. You never, then, reach the other consideration: that someone could have marred the door specifically to create the appearance of an attempted break-in. Yet that possibility is equal to any likelihood that a trained locksmith would have accidentally scratched up the door. Not trying to force the conclusion one way or another is NPOV. And in the article as I originally wrote it, I included Liddy's statement that marring had taken place. The reader was allowed to draw their own conclusions. It seems that you, though, are concerned about getting in the FBI report of it in addition to what I had included, solely because you feel the FBI report will "prove" that a break-in attempt took place, and so impose a POV that there actually was a break-in. That's simply a POV.
The long explanation you've added concerning the 33mm photos purportedly taken inside O'Brien's office also reflects your POV, and your insistence that these non-existent photos actually were taken inside O'Brien's office, when there is absolutely no concrete physical evidence that they were, and when the person, Barker, who was overall responsbile for the photography said under oath they never had been in O'Brien's office on Memorial Day weekend at all. Furthermore, despite all the contradictory testimony that even you include, including oral descriptions of carpet in the photos (which of course are no longer available, having been destroyed) that was not the carpet inside DNC (which damning fact you curiously characterize as being "less dramatic"), you close your additions with the extreme POV statement: "All in all, books and testimonies by Liddy, Hunt, Magruder, McCord, Barker, Martinez and photo shop employee Richardson support the Watergate investigators' conclusion that during a burglary at the Watergate office building in the night of May 28/29, 1972, photos were taken of DNC documents, that the prints of these photographs were developed in Miami on June 10, 1972, and that Gordon Liddy subsequently handed over these prints to CREEP." That's your own conclusion, and you invoke a "Watergate investigators' conclusion" that simply doesn't exist: Baldwin gave the story of the "first break-in" to U.S. Attorneys beginning 25 June 1972, and most of the other participants pleaded guilty and told the same stories, short-circuiting any in-depth investigation into the purported "first break-in." In fact, the real conclusion reached by the "Watergate investigators" is a theme that I alluded to in the introductory matter with Senator Baker's quote, a theme revisited constantly by the Senators on the Senate Select Committee, which is that there was a complete absence of physical evidence to support or disprove any of the conflicting anecdotal claims. So your statement that I just quoted is unquestionably POV, and not even supported by citeable fact.
After rechecking the Watergate books of Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworksi and Assistant Special Prosecutor Richard Ben-Viste, two men most intimately familiar with the whole investigation, I'm going to reinstate my choice of words on "Watergate investigators" concluding that photos were made during a Watergate break-in on May 28/29, 1972 and that these photos subsequently went to CREEP. I quote: "And on Memorial Day weekend of 1972 McCord and the Miamians entered the Democratic National Committee headquarters at Watergate undetected, installed wiretaps, photographed documents and slipped away undetected." [Richard Ben-Viste & Peter Frampton, Jr., Stonewall - The Real Story of the Watergate Prosecution, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1977, p. 46.] Another quote: "On Memorial Day weekend a crew of burglars directed by Hunt and Liddy broke into DNC headquarters. They photographed documents and placed electronic devices on telephones. Some days later Magruder showed Mitchell the photographs and synopses of wiretap records." [Leon Jaworski, The Right and the Power: The Prosecution of Watergate, New York: Reader's Digest Press, 1976, p. 112]. So now I feel pretty safe in claiming that it is a "citeable fact" that Watergate investigators concluded that the photo shooting at Watergate really took place. In other words: This is anything but POV.
I therefore request that you remove it forthwith, and anything else you've done to the article that seeks to impose your own very obvious POV: that all events described, in very conflicting detail, by the co-conspirators are some kind of incontrovertible truth. They are not. There are perfectly intelligent people in the world who consider in good faith that the conflicting claims of the co-conspirators about that weekend are whole-cloth fiction to cover up what the co-conspirators actually had been engaged in that weekend. That view is equally supportable by the known facts as is your own POV that the co-conspirator claims are truth. If the article is not allowed to accommodate either view, then a POV is being imposed. So I respectfully ask you to give that due and sober consideration, that you take into account other points of view, and that edit your edits accordingly to the middle ground so that readers can think for themselves and not be told what to think by you. Huntley Troth 04:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

For readers to be able “to draw their own conclusions,” they must foremost receive well-balanced information from both sides. And as I’ve said before, I believe that your choice of evidence in the article has been anything but balanced and fair towards both sides of the angle. That’s why I’ve added pertinent information and I will keep on doing so. It’s not so much the point that it is MY POV that a first Watergate burglary took place, that bugs were placed and that photos were shot on that occasion (which, after years of studying Watergate, indeed it is, but I’m open for conclusive evidence to support the theory that it was otherwise), but that this is the conclusion reached by several Congressional committees, the jury in the trial against the Watergate burglars and the bulk of respected authors who have written about Watergate. And it is actually (except for Liddy in his later years) also supported by confessional accounts of all the co-conspirators who organized or participated in that burglary, even if their testimony is sometimes contradictory in the details. Even the Watergate books of Jim Hougan and Len Colody/Robert Gettlin (which I would loosely label as “conspiracy books” although Hougan is well-worth reading), at least the way I read them, do not question an entry into the Watergate on the night of May 28/29, 1972, even if the authors think that some “secret agendas” were involved in this action.

Wikipedia is foremost an encyclopaedia of established knowledge, not so much a forum in which each tiny minority (even if it consists of “perfectly intelligent people”) is entitled to present its own POV on an “equal space” basis, leaving the readers to decide what’s true and what’s false. Where would this lead us in articles on racism, evolution or the Holocaust? – What your latest posting suggests to ME is that YOU DON’T SEEM TO BELIEVE that a first Watergate burglary took place. You would be perfectly entitled to hold that position but, in the context of literally thousands of people who have studied at least parts of these events en detail, it would certainly be a minority position. As I’ve said before, my impression of your version of the article is that it is (intentionally? subconsciously?) intent upon steering people towards doubting the existence of a first Watergate break-in even if you claim or probably even honestly believe that you have presented the evidence objectively. I’ve tried to countermand that tendentious trend expressing itself, among many other things, in the fact that you consider a statement by – of all people in the world - Tony Ulasewicz to be a reliable summary of the first Watergate break-in, by adding information and testimony that supports what I would insist is the majority’s position on Watergate. I’m perfectly aware of the possibility that evidence (like the marring of a door) might have been created in order to lead people to false conclusions concerning the events between May 26 and May 29, 1972, but I am also aware of the immense amount of conspiratorial energy and sophistication that would have been necessary to create ALL the evidence that is pointing towards the theory that the first Watergate break-in indeed took place – including assuring that in several decades since the participants in and organizers of the burglary (again, except for Liddy in his Colodny-influenced years) have never wavered in their confessions that there were two unsuccessful and one successful attempt to burglarize the DNC around Labor Day weekend 1972. Finally, I consider it disingenuous to call testimony sworn under oath repeatedly “anecdotal accounts.” Rather, they are important pieces of evidence by any reasonable judicial standard.

Concerning your protest against the conclusion inserted at the end of the passage on the photos taken during the Watergate burglary: “Watergate investigators” might indeed be too loose a term here, I’ll replace it with a reference to the findings of the Rodino Committee in this regard which should be an innocuous source, given the fact that it was YOU who inserted it into the list of sources at the end of the article (but curiously without your citing this conclusion or any other conclusion of that committee yourself). I also suggest that we start to discuss specific aspects in different threads in order to make it easier for people to join the debate. Finally, I would welcome your endorsing Darthung’s suggestion of bringing more people into the discussion. -- Beek100 10:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else interested in this topic remember a bulletin board forum all about Watergate from a few years ago? I can't seem to find it now, but anyone who remembers "Ashton Gray" from that bulletin board certainly can see similarities in "Huntley Troth" and his commentary. CQD 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source for passage on Barker's testimony

I have a verification question concerning the following passage from the article as written by Huntley Troth: “Bernard Barker testified in congressional hearings that he never was in Lawrence O'Brien's office during the first break-in, stating that the burglars never ‘came to the office of the Chairman’ until the ‘second entry’ on 17 June 1972, the night the burglars were apprehended.” What we have here is a summary of and supposed quotations from Bernard Barkers testimony before Congress. The passage makes no specific reference to the source that is quoted but the list of sources at the end of the article includes references (also given by Huntley Troth) to six pages in the transcripts of Congressional testimony of Bernard Barker. Now, I have checked out all of these six pages as they are printed in the House Judiciary Committee “Statement of Information” book also named in the list of sources in the Wikipedia article. There is nothing whatsoever on these pages that would support the statement on Barker in the quoted passage given above. Specifically, the two supposed direct quotations from Barker’s testimony “in congressional hearings” are not to be found in these excerpts. Huntley, I kindly ask you to recheck your sources and to provide us the correct reference to Barker’s statement (I'm not doubting that it exists) that the Watergate burglars were not at all in Larry O’Brien’s office in the night of the first Watergate burglary. This incidence also suggests that it would be appropriate to rework your passages of the article and list your sources as closely as possible next to specific statements and quotations, because this makes verification easier. Thanks in advance. -- Beek100 16:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source for date of renting of room 723

Huntley, I would really like to have a source for your claim in the article that a room higher than room 419 at the Howard Johnson’s “was not rented by McCord until the following day, 29 May 1972, when records show that McCord rented room 723.” Several FBI reports that are based on the interrogation of motel staff (and presumably motel records) and which I’ve located in the FBI microfilm set mentioned earlier on this page give in fact Sunday, May 28, 1972 as the day James McCord rented room 723 at the Howard Johnson Motel [see: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Watergate FBI Investigation File, microfilm edition, 9 reels, Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources, 1984, reel 1, section 1, serial 139-4089-50 and 139-4089-57].

On first glance, this seems but a minor point but let’s not forget that this has some impact on the reliability of quite a bunch of passages in the article as written by you, Huntley. I am specifically referring to two passages here: In the section “Events of May 28 1972” the claim that, as “records show,” no room higher than the 4th floor at the Howard Johnson’s was available to McCord that day is contrasted with a) McCord’s claim, as reported by Hunt, that he (or Baldwin) had observed from their listening post that, with only one person in the offices, there was little activity at the DNC on that evening, and b) with Liddy’s statement that, to be able “to see into the DNC offices,” McCord first had to rent a room on a higher floor. Now, I think most objective observers would agree with my assumption that contrasting the presumably irrefutable “physical” evidence of room records of the Howard Johnson’s showing that it was impossible for McCord to see into the DNC from his listening post as early as Sunday on the one hand with McCord’s statement as reported by Hunt on the other must lead readers to the conclusion that at least one of the two men has been lying. (In an aside, I have to point out the fact that highlighting supposedly or real erratic behavior and unreliable statements on the parts of James McCord and Howard Hunt is prevalent among proponents of conspiracy theories on the Watergate break-ins.) But if room 723 was actually rented on May 28, 1972 and therefore available on the evening of the first successful entry into the Watergate, the whole passage in the article is completely misleading in this regard and in my eyes would have to be written from scratch.

The same thing applies to a passage in the important last section “Summary of first break-in”: Here we read the inference that McCord “and Baldwin would have to have moved the receiving equipment the co-conspirators say McCord earlier had installed in room 419 up to room 723 and reinstalled it there on the very day after the purported first break-in,” a passage vaguely suggesting (in my reading) that such a sequence of the events is highly unlikely. Again: If room 723 had already been rented on May 28, 1972, this whole passage is obsolete because McCord and Baldwin could have conveniently moved the receiving equipment to room 723 on a lazy Sunday afternoon. Huntley, I wasn’t able to locate the presumably false dating of the renting of room 723 and the inference that is drawn from it anywhere in the available Watergate literature. Right now, my guess would be that your own false conclusion concerning the date led to yet another false inference on your part. This would justify the concern I earlier expressed about your version of the article being at odds with traditional narratives of the first Watergate break-in and it would discredit your avowal that “there are no theories whatsoever expressed” in your original version of the article. (And actually, I think the whole argument of McCord needing an equal-level window to see if someone is working at night in an office suite in a building across the street is completely bogus. Ever heard about lights being a good indicator for office activity in the evening?) But maybe I’m wrong and there really is conflicting evidence. So, Huntley, it’s appropriate to give you some time for reaction. But if you can’t provide us with a reliable source for your dating of the renting of room 723 on May 29, I’m afraid I’ll have to erase or work over the mentioned and other relevant passages in the article. -- Beek100 20:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Beek, the testimony and evidence you're so busy questioning is in the records and cited testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (also known as the Watergate Committee). I personally have audio of the relevant Barker testimony. Your lack of familiarity with the cited sources doesn't call the sources into question, and I'm not your personal librarian. Unless and until you review the cited sources yourself, and then come here with some quoted foundation for your meddling, I think you're here to sabotage the article. You've destroyed all hope of my any longer being able to believe in any "good faith" on your part.Huntley Troth 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Articles here are nobody's individual possession and everyone is free to make improvements as long as he or she sticks to Wikipedia rules. In this regard, I kindly ask for any evidence in my contributions supporting your notion that I'm here to sabotage the article. I claim that all my reworkings were carried out with the best intentions and are supported by published sources. If you're not satisfied with particular aspects of the article as written by me, just bring up your concerns here and let's start a discussion!
Concerning Barker's testimony: I didn't question at all that Barker made a statement that the burglars where not in Larry O'Brien's office during the night of the frist Watergate burglary. Rather, I specifically stated "I'm not doubting that it [the statement] exists." (Could I've been any clearer?) I just wanted to have a correct reference to the source (including page number), information which your original version of the article unquestionably did not provide.
Page numbers are not a requirement here. If you'd like to make up your own rules as you go along, tell somebody who cares. And yet, the original cites did, and still do, have the page ranges for all cited testimony before the SSC. Most people who decide to be editors learn to read first.Huntley Troth
I didn't say they are a requirement, rather providing them is a courtesy toward other users. But then again, already your addressing me as "bright boy" and "real piece of work" suggests that courtesy toward other users is not a top priority for you.
But everyone here should be in a position to be able to check sources of statements in the article and especially quotes and their context for themselves. I reiterate that your habit of referring only very generally to your sources and quotes without providing individual page numbers makes it very difficult to check up on the validity of your claims.
The standards of cites for this article when it was posted, and now, were and are probably among the top 1% of what's on Wikipedia. You've made it clear that they don't cleave, though, to your lofty standards. I think you've made that abundantly clear in the most abrasive and insulting ways you could find. I think you're a real piece of work.Huntley Troth
And a reference to a tape of Barker's testimony in your possession, according to Wikipedia standards, is no quotable source at all.
I didn't cite a tape for the cite. What's cited for the article is the records of the SSC, which exist in printed form. I merely said that I had an audio of the testimony at issue. Learning to read might be an excellent first step for you before you continue the club-handed hatchet job you've so far done on the article.Huntley Troth
If I would conclude that someone else is doing a "club-handed hatchet job" on parts of a Wikipedia article I've written, I would discuss specific points here, not make general statements. Also, if I would conclude that discussion with a certain user wouldn't work at all, I'd try mediation according to Wikipedia standards. [3] Feel free to bring in third parties to this discussion any time!
For everyone who's interested: I found the quote in the published transcript of Barker's testimony on page 378, SSC, book 1.
What a bright boy you are. That's because Barker's testimony was cited.Huntley Troth
As said before: Your original list of sources did not include a reference to page 378 of Barker's SSC testimony. Anyone here can check up on that.
Okay. I checked. Apparently there was a typo, and the last page of the supplied page range was typed as 377 instead of 378. You could simply fix someone's typo without making a federal case out of it. But the "federal" case is exactly what you're here to plant, isn't it, Beek, even though it never had a scrap of physical evidence to back it up, because that's who's buy your groceries.Huntley Troth
Tell us where you accessed the published transcript now, and the FBI reports. I'm interested in that. I've been waiting to hear. I know where they're available easily and readily. Where are you getting them, Beek?Huntley Troth
What kind of question is this? I accessed them in a university library.
Is a question going to how you have so much time to devote to your work on this, and your immediate easy access to all these documents. So which "university library"? I'd like to confirm your access to these documents you claim to be citing.Huntley Troth
Actually, Barker is referring here to the "chairman of the Democratic National Convention," not Committee (remember your careful distinction between the two of them in the article, Huntley!), but I'd accept the theory that this is just a slip of the tongue.
Wow! Thanks for reminding me of the distinction I'd made, Beek. I'd clean forgot. You haven't figured out, yet, I suppose, that O'Brien was chairman of both. When you do, you'll have the blinding realization that you don't need to "accept a theory." Of course you've already accepted the theory of the first break-in (which is the only thing any of the "investigations" you hug so hard ever produced), and now you're desperately scrambling like mad to "prove" that their theories are and always have been correct. Oh: while claiming that you're Mr. NPOV.Huntley Troth
The first Watergate break-in is not a theory but an established historical fact according to Wikipedia standards. Two Congressional committees, the Watergate prosecutors, several juries and the overwhelming majority of authors who have written about Watergate concur in this point.
Publish the actual findings of the Congressional committees and juries if you're going to make that claim. The grand jury certainly drew no such conclusion of fact--but unfortunately, you've forced me to expose below that you've never even bothered to read the grand jury indictments, so how would you even know? You're running off collecting up third-party literary works to shore up your completely unproven theory--and it is an unproven theory--is because you know that the actual counts for conviction came not from physical evidence but from extremely conflicting testimony of the perpetrators in making "confessions" and pleading guilty, and it was their guilty pleas, not physical evidence, that convicted the two window dressing holdouts. You cite several of the prosecutor's commercial books as making a case they never made in court, but of course could make in commercial publishing with its "standards," and of course that's the foundation for your "investigation." You are a joke, pal.Huntley Troth
The article should say so unambiguously in the first sentence.
Glad you finally were forced to expose your entire agenda here, Beek. Who's paying you to push it? The same people who are feeding you all the fed docs?Huntley Troth
If you think that there is still reasonable doubt in this regard, feel free to create your own Blog or to publish your own Watergate book. But Wikipedia exists to present established knowledge, not to accomodate every fringe position in our societies.
I'm still waiting for a reference to your source supporting the idea that room 723 at the Howard Johnson's was rented as late as May 29, 1972. As I said before, considering the unambiguous evidence in the FBI reports I referred to, I would have to change the relevant passages in the article soon if you're not in a position to provide us with such a reference. -- Beek100 00:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
By all means, if you can tell us all where these FBI reports are available for others to confirmHuntley Troth
WorldCat lists 32 academic and public libraries in the U.S. alone that own this microfilm collection including the university libraries of Yale, Stanford, Harvard, Duke, Indiana University as well as Boston Public Library and New York City Public Library. Try interlibrary loan in case you don't live near to any of these places.
When you replied, you deleted parts of what I had written in this discussion. I don't know what your game is, but I demand you restore everything of mine that you deleted, and don't do it again.Huntley Troth
--your standards, of course, and I know you won't hypocritically impose them on others while evading them yourself--please, please change the date to May 28, 1972. I'd very much like to see you do that very thing. Please do it. I'm looking forward to it. Huntley Troth
I interpret this as an admission on your part that you actually don't have a source for your original dating of the renting of room 723 on May 29, 1972. This in fact stresses my point that checking up your statements is urgently called for. I do not say at all that you deliberately falsified the evidence but you certainly made grave mistakes that have to be corrected. -- Beek100 09:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, Beek, I'd really hoped you'd stop asking, and would at some point say something that would prevent me from having to embarrass you this way, but the grand jury, in its wisdom, after sifting through the same rubble you're sifting through (30 odd years after they did it), opted to say that room 419 had been surrendered "on or about May 28, 1972," and that room 723 had been secured by McCord's company (no absolute confirmation that it was done by McCord himself) "on or about May 29, 1972." So you have set yourself up as an "expert," and you haven't even bothered to read the grand jury indictements. Which, I now have to point out to you, came after the FBI had collected their evidence on this point, and which august body had access to other testimony that neither you nor I have, or are likely ever to have. And those prudent people, after reviewing all the evidence, elected, even while using the language "or about," to set the date for room 723 being secured as May 29, not May 28. So if you've set yourself up as being smarter than all those people, over 30 years later, especially after you haven't even bothered to read their conclusions of fact, and when you have absolutely no access to what they reviewed in drawing their conclusions of fact, you go right ahead and put the date wherever you, in your infinite wisdom, think it best fits and supports your theory of a "first break-in." Put it in March 1971 for all I care. You'd have as much foundation for moving it there as for moving it to May 28, 1972. Sorry you forced me to expose that you haven't bothered to read the grand jury indictment. It's in the records of the SSC, too. HTH. HAND.Huntley Troth 14:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I have one small suggestion for you, though: when you do, make very sure that you carefully have traced and tracked which men had which set of phony I.D. when. Just a friendly suggestion. You do your own due diligence, though. Or not.Huntley Troth 04:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I wonder who is paying this Beek character to sabotage the important work posted here by Huntley Troth. Mr. Troth has made his record and it is being eradicated. WHY???
It's a shame that anyone can just come here and erase the work of another. It should be forbidden. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is WHY is this being challenged and cencored??Demian D 18:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I can tell you pretty exactly why, Demian. At the same time that "Beek" started his whitewash job on this article, probably the biggest and most respected Watergate education forum in the world was exposing the "first break-in" for the hoax it was, and some of the messages I read there establishing that were linking to this article. That forum has now, within the last 24 hours I understand, been hit with a malicious virus and is down for probably two days, just while "Beek" is over here very busily finishing his handiwork, and finally declaring his intention to get it stated right at the very opening that a "first break-in" actually did take place. It seems there's a mad scramble by the feds to keep the hoax and the fiction alive, and "Beek" is their point man here, having every federally-generated "support" for the lies at his fingertips, and able to devote all the time he wants to "fixing" what wasn't broken in the first place. The wheels are coming off of the cover-up of the hoax (the real cover-up of Watergate), and you're seeing mad desperation to try to do damage control. "Beek" is the Dutch boy who's been sent over here to try to put his finger in the dike. (By the way, I fixed your indenting, and what looked like some mistaken sigs you put right at the top of this discussion.)Huntley Troth 18:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole thread is becoming virtually unreadable so I’ll list my brief answers here:

>>>Huntley Troth: “Okay. I checked. Apparently there was a typo […]”

No, this was not a typo at all. You listed the Barker SSC testimony as part of the House Judiciary Committee Statement of Information book. But page 378 of Barker's testimony does not appear at all in that book. I didn't say that this is a federal case, but it shows some negligence on your side in making correct references to your sources.

>>>Huntley Troth: “Tell us where you accessed the published transcript now”

No need to do that. I kindly ask you to adhere to Wikipedia rules and not to comment or to speculate on my person, my background or my intentions but rather to discuss constructively specific aspects from the article. (This is a reaction to quite a number of passages from your recent postings.)

>>>Huntley Troth: “Publish the actual findings of the Congressional committees”

I will refer to and quote from the sources in the article whenever it seems appropriate (and I’ve already done so). The Watergate literature I’ve been referring to does not consist of “third party literary works.” Rather, it represents the acknowledged consensus of scholars and journalists who have studied this subject matter intensively. On the other hand, I am not aware of respected works on Watergate that doubt the existence of a Watergate burglary on Memorial Day weekend 1972. You personally are entitled to hold the view that that burglary never took place and that Congressional committees were sloppy when concluding that it did. But that is not the basis for a Wikipedia article (as I’ve said before).

>>>Huntley Troth: “You are a joke, pal.”

I have to refer you to Wikipedia’s rules concerning civility and kindly ask you to engage in a more constructive discussion of specific points in the article (not on this discussion page) while avoiding personal attacks.

>>>Huntley Troth: “When you replied, you deleted parts of what I had written in this discussion.”

The page history is available for everyone to check up on whether I censored Huntley or not (I think I did nothing of the kind).

>>>Huntley Troth: “Well, Beek, I'd really hoped you'd stop asking….”

Instead of feeling embarrassed I actually feel emboldened in my position. I cannot see at all how the conclusion that room 723 was rented “on OR ABOUT May 29, 1972” justifies your flat statement that room 723 was not available to McCord before May 29. -- Beek100 19:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "first break-in"???

Somebody make me feel stupid. Why is it that this article is called "Watergate first break-in" as opposed to "First Watergate break-in" or just plain "Watergate break-in" (since there was only one that I know of)? Why these referrals to a "first break-in" as opposed to just a "break-in"?--Hnsampat 15:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't answer your first question, as I feel that the article is awkwardly titled, and should be renamed to "First Watergate break-in". As to your second question, the general historical consensus is that there were two distinct break-ins to the Watergate building by operatives of the Committee to Re-Elect the President. You can reach much more about this in the main article on the Watergate scandal. Branden 06:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I looked back at the Watergate scandal page and it reminded me that the second break-in was when they were caught. (I had forgotten about that.) Still, since the Watergate first break-in article covers both the initial break-in and the subsequent one in which the CREEP burglars were caught, it should be simply entitled "Watergate break-in" (or, to be more precise, "Watergate break-ins"). --Hnsampat 14:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this might work best as a break-out section of the main Watergate article. I've been a little concerned about its, shall we say, isolation. Yes, the naming is quite awkward, and I'm pretty sure that "burglary" would be a better word. Watergate burglaries, then? --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Hnsampat 12:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the current article about the final break-in, the one where they got caught by police.... so the article shouldn't be titled Watergate Burglaries... maybe, "Watergate Break-in: First Burglaries?" And while SILENT COUP is problematical, I've not seen much to refute the basic investigation work covered by the more reputable author Hougan, writer of SECRET AGENDA. Yes, he speculates about motives in later chapters, but on the face of it, he does seem to be one of the few people who bothered to examine if McCord's account of what Hunt and the Cubans were doing is at all accurate. Watergate is of course the ultimate political football, and since anything McCord told the judge in 1973 was bad news for the GOP and Nixon Admin, the Dems went along with it without much scrutiny. The trail led higher quickly and so the "third rate burglars" were soon mere footnotes to the whole affair. Perhaps someday the term "third rate" will also be generally applied to the investigation of the initial crime itself by the supposed law enforcement body in charge, the FBI under the tainted directorship of J. Patrick Gray. ````Anon. guest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.185.195 (talk)

The title "Watergate burglaries" makes no sense, if this sub-article is exclusively about the first one. How about "Watergate scandal: First Watergate hotel burglary"? Patzer42 06:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

See, the problem is that there's currently nothing on Wikipedia describing the second burglary. What we hoped, by changing the title from "Watergate first break-in" to "Watergate burglaries," was that this article could be expanded to include a discussion of both. (One is incomplete without the other.) So far, it hasn't been expanded. However, I still say we keep it as "Watergate burglaries" and push for an expansion of the article. --Hnsampat 12:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length of article and Original Research

For starters, this article is far too long and detailed. Furthermore, it appears to me from a cursory scan of it that it involves rather a lot of comparing accounts of the incident, and some author's conclusions stemming from these - original research. I would much rather see an article based on the work of a respected historian, than this which is wholly based on primary sources. This is OR, make no mistake. It needs completely overhauled. Cripipper 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs some re-working. There is hardly any mention to the second break-in. Was this originally an article solely about the first break-in and eventually moved to the more generic title of "Watergate Burglaries?" This article also needs a good deal more citations of sources, and perhaps more sources in general. This talk page shows a history of unpleasant and uncooperative communication between several contributors, and I do not wish to fan the flames of any hard feelings which may still be smoldering, but I believe it is time to tighten up this article-- it is quite long. I also feel that we should re-examine for original research, re-evaluate sources in general.Ukulele 20:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed this was initially an article solely about the first break-in and was subsequently moved. I don't think this article says enough about the second break-in, though, and gives way too much detail about the first one. As such, I agree that it needs quite a bit of re-working. (No other article seems to give any significant details about the second break-in, which is a bit odd considering its historical significance.) --Hnsampat 21:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure as how to best approach this problem. I think this article would be quite strong with some solid work with the citations, and could possibly stand alone as such. Including information about the second break-in would of course further lengthen this article, perhaps beyond what would be appropriate for a good article. I am hesitant to consider a major pruning job on what represents a serious effort of contributions here-- though there does seem to be some issues with POV and OR. I am curious what other contributors here would think about creating a separate article (perhaps a stub at first) with concise info about both break-ins, and referencing main articles for the first and second break-ins. Another option may be to seriously prune this article, include info about the second break-in and either include most the info here about the first break-in in the White House Plumbers article, or create a separate page about the White House Intelligence section. What are your thoughts? Ukulele 04:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please confirm spelling

Since "yellow volkswagon" is in quotes, I did not edit it to "yellow Volkswagen," assuming it was quoted from incorrectly spelled and capitalized original material. Please confirm that this assumption is correct and place a comment in the text to that effect. Thanks. Kyriosity 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)