Template talk:Watergate

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 page. Ukulele 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

L. Patrick Gray
I added L. Patrick Gray, since he was the head of the FBI at the time and the first one to reveal the White House's involvement in the investigation. (Morethan3words (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

Liddy
Wasn't Liddy with the Committee to Re-Elect, rather than the White House? john k (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hugh W. Sloan, Jr.
I added Hugh W. Sloan, Jr., treasurer of CRP. Sephiroth9611 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

impeachment
How did y'all forget the impeachment article?Arglebargle79 (talk)