Talk:Mark Felt: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:34, 2 June 2005

Merge

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)

I agree with the removal and would also tend to oppose, but we'll see how it turns out. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge it. Felt was significant beyond his involvement in watergate. He was the highest ranking FBI official to ever be tried and convicted (he was later pardoned). This was for authorizing searches of private homes without a warrant. Ydorb 22:33, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

oppose: Even if, or when, Deep Throat's identity is confirmed, there are two distinct personas involved, and two parallel scenarios that will be complementary, rather than redundant. Ombudsman 22:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from Talk:Deep Throat (Watergate)) I support a merge. This seems to be the precedent set on Wikipedia with other articles involving individuals who were better known by handles or whose real name was unknown for quite some time. Examples of real-life "secret identities" of this nature are fairly rare, but one example is Theodore Kaczynski. We don't have a separate article for Unabomber; it's a redirect. (I don't mean to slight Mr. Felt by this analogy; it was simply the only other similar case of a widely-known alias that I could think of on the spur of the moment.) As with Felt, Kaczynski was known only by his alias for a long period of time, but we still have the article under his real name. Firebug 07:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

oppose for the reasons stated by Ombudsman and Ydorb.--Kristjan Wager 13:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) (added later, as I apprently forgot it before)

Support an eventual merge for the reasons stated by Firebug. But not yet; let's let the facts become clear and the story die down a bit. I say, wait a week and then merge. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 10:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What on Earth is wrong with a merger? Some say the Deep Throat article should be separate for the benefit of those looking into the history of speculation etc. Simple answer: Deep Throat (Watergate) would obviously be changed to redirect to W. Mark Felt, and the speculation as to Deep Throat's identity could be a sub-section only a click away from the contents box.

oppose because Deep Throat was a pop culture phenomenon. As far as the secret identity argument, there are separate articles for Clark Kent and Superman. Jokestress 15:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose: these are separate entities. Ian Pitchford 15:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose, agreeing with all oppose voters above especially Jokestress. Samaritan 15:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose, for reasons I set forth in the debate on the Deep Throat talk page. Canoeguy81 20:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose; the history of various speculations on DT's identity would seem to be unnecessary to an article on Felt. MisfitToys 22:05, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Superman is a comic character. Felt isn't.

Oppose - A merger with the Deep Throat article should not be rushed, even though we now know that Felt is Deep Throat. As Angr said, let the facts become clear first and some time pass, then look at merging the two articles.

JesseG 22:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

It makes no sense to merge the articles. The decades of speculation, and forever changing of the face of journalism have essentially nothing to do with Mark Felt. Deep Throat is more than just Mark Felt. And, Mark Felt is more than just Deep Throat. 2005 23:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

W.

Can anyone investigate what "W." stands for and include it in the full name? —Cantus…☎ 17:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been trying to track that one down, without success so far. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No idea either. I looked through court documents. NG but I did find some more bio details that need to be covered "On December 10, 1980, the Department of Justice moved for dismissal of the case against Gray. The district court granted the Department's motion and the case was nolle prossed. Felt and Miller were later tried and convicted. On March 26, 1981 they were given a full and unconditional pardon by President Reagan." lots of issues | leave me a message 18:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've taken it out. The 9-page interview in Vanity Fair makes no mention of "Walter", and it would be very easy for someone to introduce errors like this. Best to err on the side of caution until we can find a reference. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it could not be verified. BTW who the hell would tell their 8 year old kid the identity of deep throat? ('88 summer camp incident) lots of issues | leave me a message 18:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name is William as per [1] --John Kenneth Fisher 21:45, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Now I wonder whether this ought to be at W. Mark Felt, or at Mark Felt. Many news sources are leaving the W out. Anyone have a view on this? — Trilobite (Talk) 21:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that we should write W. Mark Felt, and perhaps have a redirect from Mark Felt.--Kristjan Wager 13:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Confirmation

Confirmed by Woodward; [2]

The Washington Post article cites Ben Bradlee as confirming Felt, he is one of the four men who knows the identity; [3]

Clap

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)[reply]

From the linked article:

In a statement today, Woodward and Bernstein said, "W. Mark Felt was 'Deep Throat' and helped us immeasurably in our Watergate coverage. However, as the record shows, many other sources and officials assisted us and other reporters for the hundreds of stories that were written in The Washington Post about Watergate."

—Cantus…☎ 23:08, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

error?

How could Ronald Reagan have pardoned anybody of anything in 2001?

Yes, I noticed that too and corrected it, it was 1981 not 2001. Columbia 22:42, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Rolled back plagiarim note

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)

Washington Post reaction

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:

Woodward confirms Felt is 'Deep Throat'
FBI Official Was 'Deep Throat'

Jokestress 05:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template

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)

Removed section

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)

==Hero or Villain?==

Some in the media are claiming that William Mark Felt is a Hero of Democracy who saved America from a President who was extremely corrupt. Others like Pat Buchanan are calling Felt a traitor to the nation and the World because it is believed that the downfall of Richard Nixon led to 53,000 US Troops dying for nothing in Vietnam and set the stage for the holocaust in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, leaving millions dead.

I agree with this removal and combined some of the less inflammatory sentiment with the last paragraph. I suggest we send people to Wikiquote for a variety of responses. Jokestress 15:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This section is shoddy and inappropriate. In any case I can imagine radicals arguing that Felt was a villain for helping the FBI distract attention from its notorious and anti-democratic COINTELPRO operations by diverting the media to the relatively trivial Watergate scandal. Nixon also deliberately prolonged the war in Vietnam for party political reasons. Ian Pitchford 15:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote

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)

Felt vs. Linda Tripp

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)

Washingtonpost.com on this article

"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)

Thanks for finding that! Source is titled:

Encyclopedia Immediata, in the "Random Access" column by Robert MacMillan, 1 June 2005. Jokestress 16:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too late!

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)

You added some great stuff! Better now than never! Jokestress 19:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

date discrepancy

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)

False equivalence?

"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)

Oval Office

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)

traitor

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

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 :'''Oppose''' - A merger with the [[Deep Throat]] article should not be rushed, even though we now know that Felt is Deep Throat.  As Angr said, let the facts become clear first and some time pass, then look at merging the two articles.<br>
 :[[User:Jesster79|JesseG]] 22:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
+:It makes no sense to merge the articles. The decades of speculation, and forever changing of the face of journalism have essentially nothing to do with Mark Felt. Deep Throat is more than just Mark Felt.  And, Mark Felt is more than just Deep Throat. [[User:2005|2005]] 23:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 ==W.==