Talk:Watergate scandal/Archive 2

Vague description of Supreme Court decision
The opening session has this sentence: After a series of court battles, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the president was obliged to release the tapes to government investigators... This sentence has no citation, and no mention of the name of the court case, making it hard to track down. Could somebody clarify this? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I found that the material was added with this edit ten years ago yesterday. The editor who added the material did tag his own edit for requiring a citation, but he later removed the tag after adding citations for the sentence that followed. Things have changed a far amount since then and it appears that the first two citations in the sentence that follow do back-up the material in the sentence you have quoted. The name of the case is mentioned in the first of those two citations: . -Location (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There is actually a separate Wikipedia article devoted to this Supreme Court decision; it contains more detail and includes links to further sources. I added a link to that article and removed the "citation needed" flag.--Ted Pudlik (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Watergate scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120628033603/http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/14/v-fullstory/2639954/the-profound-lies-of-deep-throat.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/14/v-fullstory/2639954/the-profound-lies-of-deep-throat.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Watergate scandal → Watergate – This is both overwhelmingly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the WP:COMMONNAME. The event is rarely, if ever, refereed to as the "watergate scandal;" everyone, even people outside the US know what "watergate" means. Every other major use of the word appears to be political slang stemming from the event, even other events with the suffix "-gate" (e.g. "Emailgate" 146.229.240.200 (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)) 146.229.240.200 (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination, especially since Watergate already redirects to Watergate scandal, instead of the other way around. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Watergate is name of a building. The event is watergate scandal. Later that scandal became so notorious/well known that most of the major scandals get "gate" in the name, ie "coal-gate", "filegate", "leakgate" and whatnot. The primary topic if article is the scandal, not the building. Also, the name just "watergate" seems like a scandal with water. — usernamekiran (talk)  23:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And no, outside Americas, extremely few people know about watergate scandal. They are aware about adding "gate" to scandals, but they dont know the reason. — usernamekiran (talk)  00:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I live outside the US. Everyone knows what Watergate is. Do not underestimate the predominance of US media. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur. Watergate is one of the most infamous political events of all time. We non-Americans do indeed know about it. Unreal7 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support move, oppose nominator's rationale. There is one other major Watergate with a name that cannot be traced back to the scandal... the hotel itself, from which the scandal took its name! However, the primary topic for Watergate is the scandal, and the hotel's article name has been stable at Watergate complex.  ONR  (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - There is already a redirect that seems uncontroversial, so there's no reason to append the "scandal" part.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Obama, and Barack both uncontroversially redirect to Barack Obama. But it doesnt mean we should shorten it. — usernamekiran (talk)  23:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "Watergate" is like "Tiananmen" or "September 11th". It isn't a full name. We don't have an article at Obama. Why should that rule apply only to people? It is important that Wikipedia not give the impression that "Watergate" on its own is the name of a scandal. Just because it's fine journalese doesn't make it good for an encyclopedia. Srnec (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose although there's no problem at all with the redirect, title is WP:PRECISE, properly defining the scope of the article while staying WP:CONCISE, using WP:NATURALDIS, and is stable. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Watergate hotel is rather prominent, as is the topic of the watergate of a castle. And the generic use of watergate as nickname for scandal. It's best to be clear about this on the article title. -- 70.51.45.76 (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unlike the other scandals with "-gate" suffix, which are unambiguous unique neologisms or portmanteaus that can stand on their own, the name of mother of the "gates" is derived from the Watergate complex, thus the title should stay as is for WP:precision. Most political scandals which don't have "invented" names, are described using terms such as "scandal", "affair", "controversy", "case", etc. wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Watergate scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140910195819/http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/sites/dcd/files/12-mc-74_memorandum_opinion.pdf to http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/dcd/sites/dcd/files/12-mc-74_memorandum_opinion.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Too vague, too few details, names, titles or dates
Watergate -- as a whole -- was THE most infamous scandal in 20th Century American politics. Period.

This is a fact generally recognized by both supporters and opponents of President Nixon. Whether what happened was honorable or not, it was notorious in the public eye, and remains so across the political spectrum.

The scandal included not only the burglary noted here, but is generally -- in historical literature, and Congressional documents and actions -- regarded as including:
 * The revelation of a sweeping organized program of "dirty tricks" designed to deceptively and/or criminally sabotage opposing candidates' campaigns, by agents acting on behalf of -- and sometimes at the direction of -- the President of the United States.
 * Attempts by the President of the United States to use key agencies -- including the FBI, CIA and IRS -- to unlawfully and secretly attack his enemies, and/or interfere in an opposing presidential campaign.
 * Statuory and Criminal violations of campaign finance law, and related crimes, throughout a Presidential election campaign, orchestrated at the hightest level.

Further, the fallout from Watergate was consequential and sweeping: Consequently, this article should be much more substantial, detailed and thorough.
 * The initiation of impeachment proceedings -- for only the second time in U.S. history -- against a U.S. President (The House Judiciary Committee passed the first of three articles of impeachment -- obstruction of justice -- before Nixon resigned);
 * The first-ever resignation of a President of the United States (August 8, 1974)
 * The first-ever pardoning of a President of the United States (by his successor)
 * The first-ever ascension to the U.S. Presidency of a person never elected to that office, nor to the Vice Presidency.
 * The implication, resignation, firing, adjudication, conviction, arrest and/or imprisonment, of several of the nation's leading government officials, including:
 * The White House Chief of Staff (two);
 * The White House Counsel;
 * The U.S. Attorney General (two);
 * The Deputy Attorney-General of the United States;
 * The former U.S. Secretary of Commerce;
 * The Director of the F.B.I.;
 * Several other White House staffers, including the President's Domestic Policy Advisor;
 * Numerous other individuals, including current and former government officials, and key officials of the President's re-election campaign committee.
 * Sweeping changes to election and campaign-finance laws.
 * Key United States Supreme Court precedents on the limits of Presidential privelege, and on the rules of evidence and other matters in proceedings against federal officials.
 * A explosion of national cynicism about -- and suspicion of -- ALL politicians (including all U.S. Presidents), thereafter.
 * An addition of a common suffix to the English-language political vernacular, ever after: "-gate": referring to any political scandal.
 * ...and many more significant outcomes.

As it stands now, far too many events and factors are noted without adequate clarity -- particularly dates, names & titles, places -- and other definitive context. I urge other editors to review this article, taking note where such lack of specificity is so conspicuous, and correcting it, with reference citations to appropriate supporting sources.

This is not just "POLITICAL NOVELTY".
 * It is MAJOR U.S. HISTORY,
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2018
As I read the money trail section I noticed that the word Cheque is not spelled correctly multiple times. Other than in America, which for some unknown reason, uses "Check" when the rest of the world uses "Cheque", shouldn't the spelling reflect the majority of the English speaking world? 2604:3D08:D07F:F7C0:DD31:FCD2:1742:904D (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The article uses American English Eddie891 Talk Work 23:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone needs to rewrite the first paragraph
It doesn't make a lot of sense unless you know what the scandal's already about. ''The Watergate scandal was a major American political scandal that lasted from 1972 to 1974, following a burglary by five men of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972, and President Richard Nixon's subsequent attempt to cover up his administration's involvement. '' This is grammatically correct, but someone who doesn't know what happened can interpret this as "five men who were of the democratic party". Also, why did they do it? The first paragraph should summarise what and why they did it. I can definitely see non-native English speakers getting confused reading it. The history. com article about it is a lot better written, and shows what happened rightaway. "The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught wiretapping phones and stealing documents." Eru777 (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comparing apples with oranges, Nixon's dismissal and Whitlam's dismissal
There is this sentence under reactions.

Just two years later, in November 1975, Australia experienced its own constitutional crisis which led to the dismissal of Whitlam by the Australian Governor-General, Sir John Kerr.

To the casual reader it would suggest that Whitlam was removed for the same reason as Nixon i.e. corruption. This was clearly not the case for Whitlam's removal. The two events also do not have anything to do with each other.

Furthermore the reference to the article does not provide any information whether Whitlam, when he "criticized the enquiry", was defending Nixon from the enquiry or criticizing Nixon for being enquired. It would be better to remove the whole section, as there is nothing like an official statement as in the reactions of the other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:10:E22:B801:794E:9381:ECAD:FFBF (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Consensus required
I have applied "consensus required" restrictions to this article:

This is indefinite. I have also applied Pending Changes protection. Please use the PC protection wisely and employ kindness towards new editors who do not fully understand the restriction. Edit-warriors may be reported to WP:ANI or WP:AE. Guy (help!) 23:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Intro
In the last phrase in the Intro - "and some other parts of the world" - the word "some" is redundant. It should just say "and other parts of the world." Mikevanoost (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the note. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding Infomation about the Plumbers
I really feel that information about the activities of the Plumbers before the June 17, 2972 break-in at the DNC ought to be included, especially the Ellsberg break-in because that provided the motivation for the Watergate cover-up. The Watergate Source (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Such as Watergate scandal? Since this article is specific to the Watergate, perhaps it's White House Plumbers that needs expansion? Lindenfall (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Small update required
The wording "has since insisted" in the sentence "Liddy was nominally in charge of the operation, but has since insisted that he was duped by both Dean and at least two of his subordinates" should be updated to reflect the recent death of Liddy.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1976 campaign button f.JPG

Disputed
Added a dispute tag, this article treats the Smoking Gun tape as indeed being about the cover-up, while the Nixon White House tapes states it was about a smaller matter and mistakenly assumed to be the cover-up. These are both contradictory accounts of a big event of this investigation, so getting the facts straightened would be ideal. JungleEntity (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Comparison Values -- needs update.
There are multiple references of 1972 dollar values ("in 2021" and "in today's dollars") that are no longer correct (in 2023). Should it be updated? Gprobins (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Watergate (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image
Shouldn't the image show the Watergate complex in the early 1970s? IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 00:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Watergategate?
Why wouldn’t it be called Watergategate if the scandal is about the Watergate Hotel? Wouldn’t “Watergate” imply a scandal against water? 2600:100E:B20B:CC16:50B4:138C:C727:877E (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Although your argument is logical, the Watergate scandal was the origination of the "-gate" suffix. The Watergate scandal is not, therefore, a "-gate" because that would cause a self-referential title.
 * However, since 2008 (around the time that the comedians Mitchell and Webb mentioned the idea of "Watergategate" in a sketch), Watergategate redirects to this page. Darac Marjal (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"No Whitewash at the Whitehouse"?

So, is this meant to be a weak 'joke' - or yet another attempt to direct attention away from this major Government scandal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.151 (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Short description
Is there any reason why the short description isn't named '1970s US political scandal' instead of the current '1970s political scandal in the US'? Qwaabza (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)