Template talk:Watergate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pentagon Papers belong?

Maybe I just don't get it, but how do the Pentagon Papers and Watergate connect? They're really two separate events, right? 24.118.229.252 02:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I know the above comment is 9+ months old, but I'm inclined to agree -- including Ellsberg feels like a stretch. I see the rationale, but if we go down that road, there are a LOT of other, more pertinent people who would come first (Katie Graham, Robert Bork, Elliot Richardson). There is also the issue of including the Pentagon Papers link itself. Any thoughts? Editor Emeritus 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I commented on including the Pentagon Papers and the Ellsberg break-in in the Talk:Watergate_scandal#Pentagon_Papers_and_the_Ellsberg_.22plumbers.22_operation. page. Ukulele 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Gravel

What is he doing in this template. He barely is connected to Watergate (through the Pentagon papers, which is under dispute). And he not mentioned in the main article either. MDfoo 01:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Gravel doesn't belong at all - Watergate isn't even mentioned in the Gravel article, which discusses everything Gravel ever did. There are some Gravel nuts in Wikipedia, and this addition must have been their work. I've removed it. Wasted Time R 16:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angelo Lano

I added Angelo Lano, the FBI agent who headed the investigation in Washington. Hope that's ok. SGGH ^speak! 16:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)