Talk:G. Gordon Liddy/Archive 1

Controversial Statements
Having just come across Liddy's defense of his advice about where to shoot ATF agents, I added it to the article. The quote I've inserted is too long, but I couldn't find a good way to shorten it.

Talking of edited quotations, the text given for the 2 quotations seems to be taken from the FAIR article in the external links. Given that FAIR is Not Exactly Fond of Mr. Liddy, we should find, and cite, a better source, with no elisions. Unfortunately, my efforts to Google for one were totally unsuccessful.

Cheers, CWC (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with using FAIR as a source. They may not like Liddy, but that doesn't mean they'll misquote him. They may spin, but they don't lie. User:texasmusician (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2006

Hmmmmm... Does someone have the context of that Hitler-electrified-me quote? I find it hard to believe he might actually endorse Hitler and what he stood for, so there's gotta be more to it than those words... Later! Nomad Of Norad 01:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the revised version makes things much clearer now. Thank you, whoever it was that clarified that. -- Nomad Of Norad 05:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Liddy's Involvement with Bud Wilson?
This site: [] references that Alexander "Bud" Wilson created this "Hurricane Force Training Academy" with G. Gordon Liddy. Now, from what I can find out, Mr. Liddy used it for photo ops only, and wasn't really involved. I'm looking for citations, and haven't been able to find any.

Does anyone know anything about this endeavor? Pyrogen 04:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Major copyediting needed
This article is a disaster. I've removed huge chunks of OR which -somehow- hadn't been challenged previously, despite being completely ridiculous. Everything in this article needs a source and anything that doesn't have one is liable to be removed immediately under WP:BLP. I've also removed the trivia section since it violates WP:TRIVIA and was pointless anyway. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Weight training w/ Fruit of Islam?
Are you sure it was weight training with the Fruit of Islam? That sounds rather mundane and not much of an honor, like he was allowed to play pinochle with them and it was an historical event. Wasn't it martial arts training or something? --Howdybob 17:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The fundamental aspect of this passage is that the Nation of Islam (NOI) is an all-black organization that neither admits white people nor publicly socializes with them. And within this racially exclusive community, the Fruit of Islam (FOI) is the highly elite (very zealous, very strong, and, if necessary, very deadly) adherents of the NOI.


 * Thus, it would, metaphorically speaking, be a very snowy day in Mecca for a group of FOI Federal Inmates to work out with any white people.


 * Now, the FOI ain't stupid. They picked the right white guy to work out with; ex-FBI Agent-Government Spook-Black Bag Operative.  It is likely that the FOI inmates wanted to gain some knowledge hitherto unknown to them about working out and maybe, just maybe, a fact or two about hand to hand combat.


 * 71.168.139.165 08:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Liddy claims martial arts practice with FOI in his autobiography and on his radio show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image
Is this the best image we can do? Shouldn't we have a recognizable picture of him with his iconic mustache? -R. fiend (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Liddy's connections to John McCain
In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 in 2008.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain said "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family." "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,3136852.column —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.189.28 (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it significant though? Are we to mention everyone in the world with some sort of connection to McCain? -R. fiend (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Not newsworthy. Must consider WP:Weight.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not newsworthy? Really? Then why does the analogous Bill Ayers page have an entire section devoted to the Obama controversy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.226.191 (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You may have noticed that the Ayers situation has had a little coverage in the media. What coverage has this connection had? It really isn't terribly newsworthy. The situations are not the same. -R. fiend (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mccain's campaign has pressed the Ayers issue. Obama's campaign hasn't touched on Liddy. Thats where the lack of coverage comes from. By your definition, newsworthiness is determined by frequency of use in stump speeches and campaign advertisements.

The media has made plenty of mentions of the Mccain Liddy situation. Obama just hasn't taken it for a ride. Actually, David Letterman just mentioned it last night, for one example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.226.191 (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I should also mention, I do agree with your edits to the article, and I do not in any way feel that this relationship reflects poorly on Mccain. I just feel that as this issue gets more coverage, a lot of people will go straight to the first Google search result on Liddy (this article), and should have good information about the nature of Liddy's relationship with John Mccain. I'm not pushing for any superfluous statements like "Mccain hangs with criminals" or anything like that. Just the relevant facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.226.191 (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

firebombing the Brookings Institute
The Washington Post says this was the brainchild of Chuck Colson.12:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Describing this plan as a plot to firebomb the Brookings Institution is misleading. I've seen several recent instances of this description being used to portray Liddy as some sort of would-be domestic terrorist.

According to Liddy in his autobiography, Will, the plan was originally proposed by Charles Colson and Liddy later collaborated on the details. The story begins on or about page 170. It was shortly after the Pentagon Papers were published and Nixon's white house wanted to get into Brookings because they believed Daniel Ellsberg had stashed additional classified documents there. The rather extravagant plan was to set a fire at Brookings one night, allowing operatives to gain access to the building disguised as firemen. The White House nixed the plan, which involved purchasing a fire truck which would subsequently be abandoned, as uneconomical. Liddy uses the term firebomb in his book, describing it as a time-delayed device set to go off at night in order to avoid needlessly endangering lives. The image invoked in this account is clearly different from that of the article's current content. Rocco Bamba (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While that account is my understanding as well (based on Haldeman's book, I believe) I wouldn't exactly classify the description here as unfair. We're still talking about arson used to abet a burglary, including impersonating a fireman. 3 felonies, I believe. Ask any fireman and he'll tell you there is no such thing as intentionally setting fire to a building in a "safe" way. Even if the building is empty (can one ever guarantee a building is 100% empty?) the real firemen are put in danger when they enter the building to extinguish it. It's pretty tough to put a positive spin on this one. -R. fiend (talk) 14:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed that that stuff wasn't cited in the article, and in looking for it when I added the conspiracy book. If he uses the word firebomb, then it is appropriate to call it a firebombing plan. I'd like to know what page he uses it on, since it is not on page 170-174. Unless I'm looking at a different edition ...


 * The word "firebombed" is on page 237 of the edition you referenced. I have no particular objection to the use of the term, but the objective of the plot was to burglarize Brookings. The proposed use of a firebomb, while obviously not a benign undertaking, was incidental to the primary objective. Rocco Bamba (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement about the ATF
I've removed the statemetn that his comments were made "after the Branch Davidian compound raid", as his comments came more than a year afterwards. I also realized that his ATF comments were made twice on this page, so one of them should be deleted.

I advocate deleting the first mention (under "controversies" and not the one under "controversial statements"), as well as "Libby's connections to John McCain." Personal political leanings notwithstanding, there is nothing controversial about someone having a relationship with a long-serving, generally respected Senator like McCain (albiet, the converse could easily be considered controversial...that is, a Senator and Presidential candidate having a relationship with a former felon like Libby).

Removing both "Advice to listeners" and "Libby's connections to John McCain" leaves just "Watergate burglaries" under the controversy section. Simple solution would be to do away with "controversies", give "Watergate" a section all to itself, and preserve the "controversial statements" section. Anyone agree/disagree? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Watergate
Liddy never actually broke into the Watergate, did he? He wasn't one of the five arrested, he just was a planner/organizer, right? This article doesn't make that clear, but I don't want to change it until I'm certain. -R. fiend 1 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)

I would argue that the comment about Liddy's plan to break into the Watergate complex 'caught the eye' of the White House is wrong. It was rejected a number of times, it should also be noted that different people in the White House were involved and had different views.

Answer: Liddy did not physically enter the Watergate, but he did supervise the break-in via handheld radio from a hotel across the street. He was convicted however of burglary as under the law this distinction was irrelevant to the commission of the offense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.86.110 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

White House Years
The citation link out here ([4]) points to a page about the IRS - I haven't found where Liddy is mentioned in this volume. And the statement "At CRP and at the behest of John Dean (operating on his own to impress his superior, John Erlichman, unbeknownst to Liddy at that time), Liddy concocted several plots, some far-fetched, intended to embarrass the Democratic opposition.[4]" forms a basis for Dean's libel charge. Why would a notoriously mild-mannered White House counsel need to put a man like Liddy up to anything? It's absurd and unsupported and was probably written by Liddy himself. Re-write or remove. Granulorhoek (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP question
Pursuant to an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation, I've courtesy-listed this article at BLPN relating to the accuracy of statements about John Dean in the section entitled "White House Years." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Race
does anyone have anything to back up the Irish-Italian claims? I've also heard that he is at least part German - any one have any sources for any of this?


 * I don't remember the details exactly, but I do know it's in the autobiography.

This should be called Ethnicity(just say'in),& he is in fact of Irish & Italian(paternal)ancestry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.242.8 (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversial statements
Should we add Liddy's recent remarks about the release of the reporters in North Korea, where he said it would've been better if they had been left there and lived with the consequences of their acts? I heard it quoted in a Salon article, and someone was quoted as saying that on the Daily Show, I'm not sure if it was Liddy's remark specifically but I'm pretty sure it was. If so, anyone else think that's controversial enough? VolatileChemical (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To me that doesn't sound very controversial. Afterall, it is not like the reporters were kidnapped out of Japan. It was not a very smart decision anyway. Paragoalie (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Civilian military force comments
It's a far stretch to say Obama was referring to the Peace Corps or Amircops in his comments about the civilian defense force. Neither organization has anything to do with defense. As I said, Media Matters is creating analysis and it's being accepted here as fact.

The Media Matters spin is over-reaching, and furthermore they are NOT a reliable source (they are a glorified blog funded by partisan liberals).

But, I know how Wikipedia operates...it gives extra credence to radical liberals like Media Matters, yet ignores concrete video evidence of Hillary Clinton claiming to help start Media Matters. The double standards are appalling, and I'm not about to be banned for edit wars for simply trying to inject a little common sense and fairness into this article.

Wikipedia is NOT a mirror site for Media Matters, but it's starting to look that way. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "concrete video evidence" was a vague statement she made that has been twisted and contorted from a general statement of support to a supposedly factual statement that she was a founder, "evidence" that has not been substantiated by any other source. To call this "evidence" and to include it in Wikipedia would be to pervert every standard and core policy that this site possesses.  In this article, we simply quote and attribute said quote to MMfA, as is a standard practice in many WP articles.  You are angrily denouncing a "double standard" which does not exist. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "...and to include it in Wikipedia would be to pervert every standard and core policy that this site possesses." Wikipedia possesses NO standard or core policy regarding objectivity.  At best, Wikipedia is a source of humor and entertainment; no scholar would consider material posted here anything other than what it is - agenda based opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.240.208 (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue for me seems not to be what Obama meant by his statement, but if an article on Liddy is the place to go into what exactly Obama was referring to. Obama has his own article for that (this proposal may even have its own article; I'll have to check). I think there is probably a neutral way to phrase this that doesn't support Liddy's view but simultaneously doesn't sound like the page is taking the view of Obama apologists. I'm willing to bet that when we quote an individual referring to the Bush administration torturing people we don't generally follow it with a sentence describing how various other organizations don't classify waterboarding as torture. We simply make it clear that "torture" is the view of the individual in question, and leave the controversy about what exactly the administration has performed or condoned to the relevant article. That seems to be what we should do here. I'll see if I can rephrase it to people's liking. -R. fiend (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, the whole paragraph could go. Is it really relevant? Have his comments been mentioned by other sources? If we are going to cover every ridiculous thing Liddy has ever said this is going to be a very long article indeed. -R. fiend (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

illegal wiretapping, citation needed
I can't find a source saying Liddy was convicted of illegal wiretapping. The Washington Post says he was convicted for his role in the burglary, for conspiracy and for contempt of court. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/liddy.html. The Gerald Ford museum Watergate pages say burglary, conspiracy and refusing to testify to the Senate Watergate committee. http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=1&page=b&person=5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marfinan (talk • contribs) 12:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Stuff about Hitler
Facts: Currently the article has a completely unsourced quote in which Liddy says Hitler's speeches made him "feel a strength inside...." Here's how it got that way: 2006-06-04: User Stevenj converts an unsourced statement into one sourced (mediamatters.org) diff. Somewhere along the way someone changes the mediamatters.org link into a link to The Independent, which is really the original source. 2011-10-04: User Jprw removes the link to the source, and the part about how Liddy condemns Hitler as evil, with the edit summary "removing non-RS." diff

Opinions: This quote absolutely needs a source. The Independent seems reliable to me as a non-expert in journalism. I can't believe they would totally fabricate quotes to write a false 3000-word profile. Yes, they're probably unfriendly territory for Liddy; it sounds like they have a liberal editorial stance, and the article lead-in says "G Gordon Liddy is the rabid shock jock who gives voice to America's extreme right. Johann Hari expected to hate him...."

Therefore I'm going to undo Jprw's edit. The other option is to remove the whole quote. I hardly care if someone wants to take that option. It's around 51%/49% preference for me. But I'm 100% against a quote with no source.

--Officiallyover (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Update: I just read some stuff about the author of the piece (Johann Hari). As I understand it, he took quotes from other journalists' articles and passed them off as his own interviewing, and he ran a Wikipedia sock puppet. I'm leaving my change as is. As I state above, take out the whole quote and the reference if you want; I don't care, but we can't take out just half of it. --Officiallyover (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous Bias shown in Bio Box
The Bio Box for Liddy makes it seem as if he was a master criminal. Many other government officials who have been convicted of crimes are still bio'd for their positions, with the crimes noted and discussed in the article body. Examples would be Mike Espy and most clearly John Dean.

Liddy's bio box needs to be reformatted to be like all these other cases, and not presenting him as some unique arch criminal.

This is blatent bias (against an outspoken right-winger) which does Wikipedia little credit.

Unless someone can provide some justification for keeping it I intend to change it to a more generic sort. 24.22.76.12 (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
why does G Gordon Liddy have an Infobox Criminal including criminal history info, whereas John Dean, another indicted, convicted co-conspirator and disbarred attorney who served federal prison time does not? see page on John Dean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.86.110 (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if it annoys you so much, go ahead and add Infobox Criminal to Dean's page. VolatileChemical (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that's the wrong answer. Would you put a Criminal Box up for Halle Barry? No, even though she was convicted of hit and run driving she isn't a criminal professionally.   Unlike Al Capone or Butch Cassidy.

The correct fix is to change the bio-box for this entry from the ridiculously inappropriate "criminal" type to the more normal one used by well known government and media types routinely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"wild man" and "superklutz"
The assessment by a single person (variously attributed to "other FBI agents" and a "supervisor") appears to be an insignificant yet salacious sidenote that has little to no value in his BLP. Various sources place the quote of the unnamed person before Liddy's promotion at age 29 while others use it as a foil for his departure from the FBI. Regardless, the inclusion is a gross WP:UNDUE violation of BLP. No one challenges that a single unnamed person made that assessment, rather, the challenge is whether it rises to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedic biography. It is one sentence in a multi-hundred page book. There is no way to properly place the context of that single, anonymous statement. See Biographies of living persons " the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." --DHeyward (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hoff book claims it was guns that forced him out. Perlstein attributes it to this supervisor.  Newton attributes the quote to "fellow agents".  The problem is no date and no name for the quote.  Tiny minorities don't get their view printed here now matter how many sources quote the single, tiny minority.  There is no support that this was the reason or relevant to his leaving.  It's simply a salacious anecdote by one person with no attribution, date or corroboration that it was a significant view of his service.  --DHeyward (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The views of reliable sources are what should guide us, and those reliable sources highlight the importance of this assessment. Pulitzer winner J. Anthony Lukas notes that "the FBI 'encouraged' G. Gordon Liddy to leave its service because (emphasis mine)" of these specific evaluations.  So we have a three reasons to include this:


 * It is an evaluation of his FBI service from parties who are best equipped to evaluate that service.
 * It is repeatedly noted and highlighted in first rate, reliable sources. It is hardly a "salacious sidenote", it appears in the third sentence in his entry in the reference book The FBI Encyclopedia.
 * It is the reason that he left the FBI, as noted by Lukas, so it is directly relevant to Liddy's biography.


 * If reliable sources repeatedly note and highlight this information and the significance of it, we cannot substitute our judgment for theirs.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Liddy has his own biography where he names his supervisor, Milton Jones, when he resigned and it was for pay (he just had 4 kids). He said Jones would welcome him back if he changed his mind.  He also named another agent that selected him for his next assignment had he remained (chapter 11, "Will", pg 97).  To counter your list, 1) there is no evidence that the quote originated from Liddy's supervisor or that it was contemporaneous with his departure or was an evaluation of his service.  Three sources have three different stories from an anonymous person with the title of Supervisor (but not Liddy's supervisor).  2) it is repeated as a quote from one person, not a reflection by the FBI or in any official review.  The quote is widespread but is hardly authoritative without corroboration.  3) It is noted differently in different sources as to when the quote applied. It is always anonymous and not consistently applied.  There is no doubt the quote exists.  It's just never attributed to more than one persons evaluation and it's never put in context to his career.  Three different sources have three different accounts of its origin and none have any account of its weight.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Linking it to his leaving the FBI does directly put it in the context of his career. If you feel that Will offers contradictory or complimentary information, you are welcome to add that material to supplement more reliable sources.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, you cite Lukas but that was co-wrote with Hoff. In Hoff's other book she uses the same quote and says it arises from Ehrlichman's papers and that the reason for Liddy's departure was "gun craziness".  It's not even consistent with the same authors.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You've misread Hoff. She does not say that quote comes from Ehrlichman's papers, she mentions it in passing in a discussion of the fact that Ehrlichman's papers contain information on Liddy.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I beleive she says the background material that Ehrlichman had on Liddy is the source for "wild man" and "superklutz". Regardless, it is still one, anonymous person that said it with no dates.  Unless Milton Jones came out with a "I pushed Liddy out over this...", it's an extraordinarily small minority view.  It's not corroborated as being widely held or even a notably small minority.  It's always one person, anonymously.  Minority views don't get any smaller than a single, anonymous person.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Deloach's "Hoover's FBI: The Inside Story by Hoover's Trusted Lieutenant" confirms Liddy's supervisor was Milton Jones. Pg. 96.  It's an anecdote of a practical joke Liddy played on Jones.  Pretty funny, too.--DHeyward (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What Hoff actually says is this: "box 21 of the Ehrlichman papers contains background information on Liddy, the former "wild man" and "superklutz" of the FBI who was encouraged to leave the agency in the mid-1960s out of fear over his gun-craziness". It is clear from the sentence construction that this is contextual information about Liddy and not a claim that box 21 was the source of this specific information.  It also is identical to the information offered in the book by Lukas which you say she co-wrote, but according to Amazon, she only wrote the foreward.  So we have four different reliable sources highlighting this information, with nothing to contradict it except Liddy's unsourced and uncorroborated autobiography, so it's clear that the Milton Jones claim is in fact the minority viewpoint.  This can be presented to compliment the information presented by mainstream historians and journalists provided it is clearly identified as a claim by Liddy himself.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So Hoff says "gun craziness". None of the authors use their own voice.  They attribute the words to a single individual.  In fact there is nothing to say about it at all in the encyclopedia bio except that Liddy left the FBI in 1962.  Everyone is quoting the same, unnamed person.  It is not a widely held viewpoint at all, it's an anonymous viewpoint of one person that is repeatedly quoted in critical pieces.  Simply being told often does not make it more credible.  It's salacious and fits the story they write (just like other stories omit it), but it's still ONE person making the statement and each author is very careful to say it comes from just one person.  They never identify the person or any official document from the FBI.  They don't put names to the quotes relate how the quote was used.  ONE anonymous person's statement is simply not sufficient to overcome the tiny minority viewpoint.  You've seen conspiracy theories so you should at least be familiar that repetition does not mean widely held. --DHeyward (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * These concerns are irrelevant because we're talking about reliable sources, not urban legends or conspiracy theories, so the information has been weighed and vetted appropriately, and the fact that independent reliable sources have come to the same judgment does in fact give this statement more weight and importance. The fact that multiple authors have cited it demonstrate that it is hardly a minority viewpoint and is quite appropriate for an encyclopedia bio.  In fact, it's already featured in his entry in an existing encyclopedia.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Not true. They are relevant because BLP is policy. Each of those sources is quoting ONE individual or attributing it to a small group (conflicting accounts also makes it problematic, "small group" or "one", a supervisor or his supervisor, why isn't there a name for this person that alleges these things). They are not claiming it is widespread. The "FBI Encyclopedia" attributes it to a group of agents. It is a extremely small minority viewpoint and none of the sources attempts to say otherwise as they always quote and attribute it to a single person. It's not matched by contemporary sources at the time (I added two sources) nor is it congruous with his promotion and subsequent use of FBI recommendation to get the prosecutor job. Therefore, regardles of how many times the extremely small minority viewpoint is requoted and republished, it is still an extremely small minority view of one person. This is a WP biography, not a POV book where every salacious point that someone has to say about another is worthy of inclusion. --DHeyward (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * BLP is policy, but BLP policy doesn't make irrelevant statements relevant or minority claims the mainstream viewpoint. It's very simple.  A WP biography reports what reliable sources say.  The reliable sources report this information, and you have a single source that supposedly contradicts it, a minority viewpoint. the subject's own unvetted and unsourced autobiography.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources say ONE anonymous person called him a "super klutz". One.  Only one.  You can spin it any way you like but it's still only one person.  That makes "super klutz" an extreme minority viewpoint.  The Watergate book writers might like that angle and include it in a multihundred page book, but it doesn't fit any of the sources at the time or his career.  Multiple commendations from Hoover, job recommendations from the FBI, nabbing top 10 fugitive, promoted to supervisor at 29.  I have yet to see it in a source before the 1990's.  I have yet to see it written as the opinion of the FBI or of Liddy's superviors or as the reason he quit.  You simply cannot hang the opinion of one anonymous source as definitive or even noteworthy.  No one denies that one anonymous person said it, but one anonymous person doesn't deserve space.  Note that the "Gettysburg College" press release has nearly all the same information except the anonymous claim.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you identify where in the Kernan article it says he received multiple commendations? Gamaliel ( talk ) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought it was there. I found a different one.  It's not hard.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Was that snark really necessary? Please try to restrain yourself.  Or we can start a pointless pissing match if you want.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ?? What snark? Not sure what you took offense with but I apologize as none was intended.  --DHeyward (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "It's not hard" struck me as a snarky attack for not fixing your error and replacing the Kernan article myself. I thought the mistake was mine, that the information was in the Kernan article and I'd missed it, which is why I was surprised by your reaction, or what I thought your reaction was.  Thank you for your response, I am glad to hear that this discussion is not degenerating in that manner.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Early commentary
I added the more detailed information about the Anderson assassination and his enlarged testicles. This information was revealed in a interview with Howard Stern. A summary of the interview will be posted on howardstern.com later tonight, at which time I will post a link as a external reference. -sk

Stating Nixon ordered the Watergate and Ellsberg break-ins seems to be going beyond what wikipedia's other articles are willing to say. It seems to me that while many people (myself included) believe that Nixon ordered these, it has not been proven beyond the allegations of a few people. I think using the word "allegedly" would be in order in this case. If anyone has objections to these changes please explain them here. -R. fiend 06:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) I don't think that anyone who has studied the Watergate history believes that Nixon ordered the Watergate break-in. He ordered the cover-up. The article shouldn't even say he "allegedly" ordered the break-in. That's the ultimate in weasel words; anybody can allege anything.Barbacana (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just brought back a sentence nuked by another editor, for the sole reason that this particular person hasn't got a single valid edit under his belt. The diff is currently at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G._Gordon_Liddy&diff=0&oldid=14992002, I could be wrong. -- Kizor 20:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are some awkward parts of this article, like the correspondence between Hoover and Liddy over E. Roosavelt. Since I don't really know much about the subject and just copyeditted it I couldn't figure out how to deal with it. Also, the stuff on films Liddy's been in is duplicated. One of them should go. Felix Dance 14:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Liddy still thumbing nose at USA: See photo on main G Gordon Liddy page here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy - The problem is he wears a US Flag Lapel pin in direct violation of the US Flag Code - USC Title 4, Chap. 1 Subsection 8 paragraph j. which in part is - "The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart. However, Mr. Liddy wears it on the RIGHT lapel in all the photos since conviction.
 * So let's include this most heinous of all his crimes into the article, right? Alongside with the asinine passage from "the code"(TM) *sarcasm off* Str1977 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Catholicism?
Liddy often talks about being a lapsed Catholic and often seems hostile to the Church. He states that his wife is the one who practices Catholicism faithfully. He also states that he is a 32nd Degree Mason; Freemasonry has often been seen as being antithetical to Catholicism. So I guess I'm asking if this is accurate. Rlquall 23:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In the autobiography, he mentions losing his faith in young adulthood. I recall a brief mention in Time magazine (late '80s, IIRC) that he once again considered himself Catholic.  This article states "Contrary to popular belief, Liddy has remained a Roman Catholic throughout his life" -- this could use a source.  As for Masonry, it is my understanding that this is no longer forbidden for Catholics.
 * That's to casual a comment to warrant inclusion, especially if it goes against other sources. Str1977 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Controversial statements
I removed this section due to it being original research (where are the sources stating these are controversial) and being entirely undue with respect to the rest of the article. This section compared to Watergate puts far too much emphasis on these statements. If they belong anywhere, it should go under his radio career and in much less verbosity. That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Fix apparent contradiction "Separately, along with" or clarify
Article says "Separately, along with" making an apparent contradiction. Will the editor clarify please? (PeacePeace (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC))
 * That seems to mean they worked in parallel. I have made it a little less confusing.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Disparity of Bio Box information
I have written a similar comment today on the John Dean talk page, where the disparity between the generally neutral presentation of John Dean and the downright menacing presentation of G. Gordon Liddy was raised as an issue by editors a decade ago, and corrected. Sadly it has now reappeared.

It seems that there are many comparisons to be made, as the entire group of "convicted Watergate conspirators" is well known and have been correctly seen as part of a single conspiracy and coherent group since the original events. How does Liddy's biography in general, and bio-box in particular compare with his fellow convicted Watergate co-conspirators?

It appears that Liddy is being presented in a much harsher light than the other convicted co-conspirators in the Watergate scandal.

The bio-box for Liddy rather gratuitously manages to make his felony conviction for that scandal a huge part of the summary of his life -- having three separate sections. In contrast the felony convictions of most other Watergate villans is not mentioned at all in their bio boxes.


 * John Dean - no mention
 * Jeb Stuart McGruder - no mention
 * Charles Coulson - no mention
 * H. R. Haldeman - no mention
 * John Ehrlichman - no mention
 * John N. Mitchell - no mention (does have separate "Watergate" box, in addition to bio box)
 * Kenneth Parkinson - no mention
 * E Howard Hunt - no mention

The presentation of the single conviction in Watergate in Liddy's bio appears unprecidented and unwarrented, and violates Wikipedia NPV policy.

It should be updated in line with those of the 8 people cited above, and the three gratuitous mentions of his conviction removed from his bio box.

ZeroXero (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Note that Dean was able to plead, thus avoiding conviction.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Name of radio show
Did his radio show have a name? I can not find a reference to any name anywhere, even though he was on the air for decades. 199.120.30.198 (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

E.Howard Hunt on G. Gordon Liddy
from page 179 of Hunt's book AMERICAN SPY..."Despite our friendship, there was a side to Liddy's personality that I could never quite understand. Documents that originated in Room 16 were stamped "ODESSA" to distinguish them from other routine classified material that circulated within the White House. I would later learn that Liddy, an aficionado of Germany, had formed the word the word from a German veterans organization that some of his friends belonged to. Organization der Emerlingen Schutz Staffel Angehorigen, a group that smuggled Nazis out of Germany after World War II. I didn't know why a group like that appealed to him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC) The book goes on with more detail(page 179)..."I would only find out about his[Lidddy's] affinity for Nazi Germany little by little over the course of our relationship. At one point early in our friendship, he asked if he could come over to my house in Potomac, Maryland, to play an important record. I agreed. It turned out to be a recording of the arrival of Hitler at a massive crowd of supporters. Liddy described the scene as though he were there, his face taking on a rapturous glow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (13 years later) Why is Liddy's affinity for the Nazis not mentioned in the current version of this article? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)