Talk:Deep Throat/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Deep Throat. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"Woodward/Deep Throat Connection"

I think this subsection, currently inserted under "Role in Watergate", needs to be reworked.

The main intro to the Deep Throat article is currently pretty good, but the flow is impeded, I think, by the "Connection" subsection which immediately follows it. It may be useful for someone to write a brief para on Watergate to start the story, then how Woordward met Felt, and then take it from there. Don't get me wrong, I do think the bit about how they met is interesting and important, and I thank the person who inserted it a few hours ago. I simply think it needs editing and contextualizing.

Currently, the subsection reads like this:

The Woodward/Deep Throat connection

Woodward met Felt almost by accident. On May 15, 1972, Woodward called Felt for information relating to an FBI investigation in the shooting of presidential candidate George Wallace. Felt was known as the type of person who talked to reporters, something that was generally frowned upon in the FBI and he provided a few juicy quotes, none with his name attached.

A few months later, Woodward called him again, seeking information about a burglary at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex.

According to Woodward, Felt was nervous that his role in the Washington Post investigation would be discovered. He demanded that the two stop conversing by phone, thinking that the line might be tapped, and they began meeting late at night in a Washington parking garage. If Woodward wanted a meeting with Felt, the reporter would rearrange a potted plant in his apartment window. If Felt wanted a meeting with Woodward, the source would somehow ensure that page number 20 of Woodward's daily New York Times delivery was circled. Woodward claims that Felt never gave him specific information but only confirmed information given by others and suggested avenues to explore.

—Neuroscientist 03:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Woodward-DT contact/history

Firstly, I'd just like to point out that I've moved this section of the discussion page (Woodward/Deep Throat Connection) upwards, as it appears from the "Results???" section just below that additions to this discussion page are being made upwards.

Secondly, the WaPo exclusives on DT, in particular Woodwards long article entitled "How Mark Felt became Deep Throat" have made clear that there are very substantive inaccuracies in the Wiki subsection headed "The Woodward/Deep Throat connection". The Wiki section description of how Woodward and Felt met is rather completely untrue. I'll rewrite this soon when I have the time. In the meantime, I am removing the section, with due respect to the Wiki wuthor who originally wrote it, as I don't think it's ethically sound to leave up information known to be erroneous on a public document like Wikipedia. Regards,—Neuroscientist 07:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Results???

Can anyone explain gratuitously attributing the Fall of Saigon and in particular 9/11 to the article on Deep Throat? Who the hell wrote such a stupid comment and will someone kindly remove it?

In cases of clear vandalism you don't need to discuss it first, just remove it. Badammcqueen 12:50, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

No redirect to person

In case Deep Throat's identity becomes known at some time, please refrain from turning this article into a redirect to the person in question. Thank you. -- Dissident (Talk) 18:20, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Neutrality^talk 00:21, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thirded. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fourthed. --WizardOfTheCDrive 17:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fifthed. ALKIVAR™

04:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sixed niethan

seventhed --John Kenneth Fisher 21:49, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

In that case, can we try and keep information about Felt in the article about Felt, and this article can stick to coverage of the various theories about who he was before Felt came forward. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagree I see no reason why this should not redirect to the person. As noted below, Unabomber redirects to Theodore Kaczynski (even though it should redirect to Ted Kaczynski and not the other way round). →Vik Reykja 07:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree also. Those above knew nothing about the resulting articles and could hardly have rendered an informed opinion on editing them. Most of both articles is duplication, and I can hardly see when that would change. I see no benefit to keeping them separate; since W. Mark Felt is now known primarily for being Deep Throat, it can be put as the first section in his article. 68.112.215.191 16:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strongly Agree I would strongly argue against merging this page into W. Mark Felt -- considering the two entities have been separate for 30 years, I think Deep Throat should deserve a dedicated page explaining the whole mystery around DT's identity, etc. Grume, 08:43, 1 June 2005.

Agree In both history and pop culture Deep Throat has developed into an individual in his own right -- a person, I would suggest, more recognizable than Mark Felt to many people. If anything, Mark Felt should be a footnote to the entry for Deep Throat. Another point to consider is that perhaps Mark Felt isn't all there is to Deep Throat. Articles recently published suggest that some of the information Deep Throat provided couldn't have come from Felt, and that perhaps Deep Throat is a composite (though Woodstein has denied this in the past). See [1]. --Sho19132 14:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

question

i thought i had heard somewhere that eventually, the identity of deep thought will be revealed. once everyone has been dead for a while? please help. Kingturtle 23:57, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A lot of people have been dead for a while and the identity has been revealed. HTH :-) →Vik Reykja 07:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deep Throat Revealed

Woodward and Bernstein have on a few occasions, upon a suspect's request, made public disavowals that a certain person was NOT "Deep Throat." I believe they have said when "Deep Throat" dies, they will reveal his identity. I don't recall the specific mechanics, but they have left instructions with their literary executors so that one day we will indeed learn his name, even if "Deep Throat" survives them. PedanticallySpeaking 15:56, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Given that Deep Throat is supposedly quite ill at this point in time, I think we can conclude that he was none other than Pope John Paul II. The sly bastard. -Ashley Pomeroy 13:01, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interesting if true. Which it isn't. But it would be interesting. -- Cyrius|✎ 15:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It can't be true for four reasons: 1. The Pope wasn't one of Nixon's cronies. 2. The Pope doesn't live in America. 3. Even if he did, there is no way he could go to anywhere in public, let alone a parking garage, without being mobbed. 4. Two words for you: Long distance. --WizardOfTheCDrive 02:29, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, people. Let's understand that JPII was still Karol Cardinal Wojtyla - not the Pope yet. How many people actually know the names of Cardinals we have now? And that is mostly because of all the hoopla concerning the election of the new Pontiff. As such, it is possible, however improbable, that Cardinal Wojtyla could be in DC at the time, right? It's like one of those Occam's Razor type of things: Yes, a Cardinal or some alien in disguise COULD have been Deep Throat, but the simplest explanation is that is was someone with knowledge of the inner workings of the Nixon administration. Who knows: Maybe the erased portion of the Presidential tapes is Nixon discussing the sitation with Wojtyla! --J rath 6 May, 2005

Even though we know Deep Throat is Felt, I don't think there was any way for JPII to be someone like Deep Throat in any event. He wasn't the Pope yet. Even though Cardinal Wojtyla was becoming internationally known, his main concern was his Diocese in Cracow, Poland. I don't think he would've had the knowledge or the access that Deep Throat had. And even if he did, I don't know if the Vatican would've let him do so.

JesseG 05:28, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Woodward on Deep Throat

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were on Larry King Live. Woodward made this comment about Deep Throat:

We will tell that story, and it's a -- it's kind of one of the last missing pieces of the puzzle. And I think once people see who it is and exactly what happened, will understand why the super secrecy and the confidentiality, and why it was not revealed for such a long time. [2]

Ydorb 17:49, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Move this page

I think this page should be about the film instead of the person. This page should be called 'Deep Throat (person)' or something like that. The best thing would be to have a pae, 'Deep Throat' that is a disambiguation. Joost de Kleine (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose to move this page to Deep Throat. The "other" deep throats are derived from this one. --Ji ang 19:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This article says that the porn film came first, but when people hear "Deep Throat", they typically think of Watergate, not the film. 21:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree; 'Deep Throat' acts as an index page to the different Deep Throats, and if we moved this article there we'd have to have an ugly paragraph on the end, reading "Deep Throat is also X and Y and Z". Furthermore, the film seems to be famous enough to warrant re-releasing later this year, according to the IMDB. [3] "Deep Throat, regarded as the most successful porn film of all time (it cost $25,000 to make in 1972 and has earned more than $600 million) will be re-released later this month as both an NC-17 production and an R-rated censored edition, Daily Variety reported today (Tuesday). The release coincides with that of Inside Deep Throat, an NC-17 documentary produced by Imagine Entertainment's Brian Grazer, that discusses the trials and tribulations of those involved in producing the original movie." -Ashley Pomeroy 21:37, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:disambiguation. The most important article takes precedence. What is at [Deep Throat] should be moved to [Deep Throat (disambiguation)] and {{otheruses}} placed on top to link there. Otherwise, we can list them out and not make a disambiguation page either way. It will be clean and simple either way, not what you propose. Disambiguations at the bottom are not discouraged. --Ji ang 22:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that Deep Throat, the Watergate informer, is significantly more well-known than Deep Throat, the porn film. Google searches for '"Deep Throat" Lovelace' and '"Deep Throat" Watergate' return 39,800 and 36,600 results respectively, and the latter part of my post stands; the film has grossed more than half a billion dollars and is set for a theatrical re-release this year. I agree that in an ideal world, the Watergate chap should be more well-known than a film about fellatio, and I'm sure when the source is revealed the meme will pop back into the public eye; but Linda Lovelace's 'Deep Throat' has timeless appeal, and will be remembered long after Watergate is just a short paragraph near the end of Wikipedia's article on Richard Nixon. And on another level, I think things are perfectly fine as they are. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) (dot dot dot) And more to the point, the film came first; I should really be debating with whoever agreed with you, but they forgot to sign themselves in. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In light of evidence that the porn film is more well-known, I withdraw my proposal. The pages linking to Deep Throat needs to be fixed (I was led here from there). --Ji ang 08:39, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That a pornographic film is more frequently referred to than an incident in twentieth century American political history on the internet proves nothing.

Strongly disagree. Yes Deep Throat (person) is, when all is said and done, part of a more pivotal moment in history than the film, the importance of the film should not be diminished because it's a pornographic production. The film was hugely influential both cinematically AND politically, sparking one of the biggest obscenity cases in US history. The informant's name was a take on the film, and speaks to the deeply ingrained knowledge of the film in the collective consciousness of the 1970s. If you ask people you know what "Deep Throat" is, they will usually think of the film first. That's been my experience anyway, even though I run with political junkies! "Deep Throat," the film, is of huge cultural significance, so I believe that readers should be directed to a disambiguation page first. Deep Throat (film), Deep Throat (person) and perhaps even Deep Throat (sexual act.) --HillbillyProfane (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Deep Throat (Watergate) → Deep Throat

And Deep Throat → Deep Throat (disambiguation)

Watergate is primary meaning. Neutrality^talk 00:17, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. Even so many years later, the movie seems to have become a permanent fixture in porn folklore. The Watergate usage is even admittedly derivative. But I don't have a major concern either way. Neutral. older≠wiser 01:14, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Not only is the movie still mentioned somewhat often, but the generic term is also still in use (and with the passage of time, both the movie title and the Watergate source will become less prominent). With all that competition, no one meaning is so predominant that it should displace the dab page. JamesMLane 02:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose as well, agree with JamesMLane. -- Netoholic @ 03:04, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
Oppose. The act is the primary meaning. The disambiguation page needs reordering. — Davenbelle 03:12, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
The act is certainly the original meaning, the movie a derivative of it, and the Watergate figure a derivative of the movie. All three are common contemporary usage, so I must oppose this move. — Ливай | ☺ 03:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Though it's certainly the first thing I think of (lacking context), it's not the overwhelmingly prevailing meaning. Oppose. ADH (t&m) 04:52, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose The movie came first, and the memory of Watergate, unfortunately, is dying. BlankVerse 09:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose The sexual practise is far more widely known than the pseudonym of Woodstein's unnamed source. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oppose The term wasn't used to describe the act until AFTER the film was released. Director Gerard Damiano invented it to describe Linda Lovelace's character's "talent" in the film. The use of the term to describe the particular sexual act is in direct response to the film. Also, while Watergate might be a bigger chapter in American history, most people, I think you'll find, think of the film when they hear the term. The film was extremely culturally and even politically important. It shouldn't be dismissed just because it is a pornographic film. --HillbillyProfane (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed material

I removed this because it just looked wacky, but on second thought, I don't know if this is just plain silliness or just confusing:

EDIT: Due to his appearance at the Super Bowl on February 6th, 2005 we can safely rule out George H.W. Bush.

I'm not quite sure what the Super Bowl has to do with anything. (Why do we require George Bush to appear at the Super Bowl to demonstrate that he is not extremely ill? Probably we would have heard something if he were.) If this is a serious fact, please add it back in with some explanation, since its significance is not immediately apparent. -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At any rate, there's no absolute confirmation that Deep Throat is indeed "extremely ill." If it is true, it certainly narrows the list considerably. I have added some info relative to this concern as it pertains to Chief Justice Rehnquist, as his name had not been previously circulated to any great degree prior to the "extremely ill" rumor. This is also true of Pope John Paul II, who seems unlikely to have been able to have met with Woodward and Bernstein in a parking garage without anyone knowing about it, let alone have had inside information on the Nixon Administration. -- RPIRED 01:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CNN reports W. Mark Felt was Deep Throat

Currently as breaking news headline on http://www.cnn.com/

So is the New York Times: [4]

Someone should update the Felt article. --Blue387 16:39, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

felt article needed

Yes, shouldn't someone soon write the article about mark felt? DKK

See W. Mark Felt. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

WHOA, NELLY

Hey, just because this Felt guy claims to be Deep Throat doesn't mean it's true. Are you guys really buying his story hook line and sinker? jengod 17:21, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely he would claim something that other people could confirm easily, eventhough they haven't yet. MechBrowman 19:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Anyway its been confirmed [5] MechBrowman 21:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Wheeee! That's all I was looking for. Thanks. jengod 22:34, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Nixon on Deep Throat

The article alleges that Felt was Nixon's primary suspect. This is interesting, but unconfirmed (by the article). It needs attention.

I added that it was from the Nixon tape recordings, but I imagine it can phrased better MechBrowman 00:35, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Recommend merge with W. Mark Felt

In my opinion, this article and W. Mark Felt should be merged. 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)

Ia m not so sure it's a good idea, given that Deep Throat has become somewwhat of a concept. Also, Felt had a long career unrelated to his Deep Throat activities.--Kristjan Wager 07:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree. I'll wait for more input before I act on it, though. →Vik Reykja 07:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. The speculation on, and seach for, Deep Throat's identity is an important part of American political history, and of the Watergate Scandal in particular. That material should remain on this page despite the recent revelations. (In fact, the page has recently become 'all Felt, all the time', which is (IMO) an incorrect approach.) Elde 09:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged, but I do think that most of the material should be moved there. What Deep Throat actually did to assist Woodward and Bernstein should probably go to the Felt article, and the speculation on identity should should remain here. --Arcadian 11:02, 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.

Well if you're going to do that, why not leave it as it is and then W. Mark Felt is "only a click away" too. I don't see any need to merge them. MyNameIsClare 12:37, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am strongly agaisnt the merger. Because the identity remained secret (or at least unconfirmed) for so long, there is a history about the character that is unrelated to W. Mark Felt. It is important to have a list of the many people thought to be Deep Throat and the connections to the break in that led to the suspicion. However, that list of people and the history surrounding the secrecy of the identity should remain in a seperate article from the bio of W. Mark Felt. Badammcqueen 12:54, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose a merge, and support keeping ugly templates off pages that are being read by hundreds. The majority of this article is on the hunt for Deep Throat and Deep Throat in popular culture, things that have little to do with Felt. The Felt article has much on where he was born, his career at the FBI, and should eventually have a large section on his equally important involvement with the Weather Underground, all things that have little to do with Deep Throat. - SimonP 13:02, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I, too, disagree with the merge. Deep Throat existed as a seperate identity for over three decades, and took on somewhat of a life of its own. Felt himself clearly wished for the two to be seperate; only after long and difficult negotiations was he willing to admit to his other identity. The two articles are closely linked -- and should be linked at the top of their pages, as they are here -- but because Felt wished his biography kept seperate, the concept of Deep Throat (along with the speculation and impact on pop culture) should be in a seperate article.

However, I do believe that new material relating and linking to the Deep Throat page should be in Felt's biography, both at the time of Watergate (1973-1974) and at the time of the relevation (2005). Alba 13:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with the merge. Deep Throat should be a section in the felt article, with a link to this main article. As has been said, Deep Throat involves more than discussion of Felt, and Felt involves more than discussion of Deep Throat. Jon the Geek 14:30, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Agree in principle with the merge, but realistically, I don't think a consensus in that direction will be reached until some weeks or months have passed. In my opinion, the arguments not to merge this article seem to relate to the fact that 'Deep Throat' has a larger meaning than simply W. Mark Felt. Would it not follow, then, that other articles should be linked to the disambiguation page for 'Deep Throat' - like the X-Files one? Several fictional accounts of who Deep Throat was - with respect to Watergate - exist (to fill an informational void). I do believe, however, that what will ultimately matter from a historical perspective is the true person. I'm content to let this sit and let whether or not the merge is necessary become obvious on its own. I believe it's too early to figure that out at this point. Skybunny 18:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with merger. There's much in this article, particularly when it deals with speculation about Deep Throat's identity, that would be out of place in Felt's article. The Unabomber is not a good analogy--his secret identity never reached the legendary proportions that Deep Throat's did, and there were never very important people (e.g., Kissinger, Rehnquist, Diane Sawyer) as candidates. The Unabomber phenomenon and mystique is almost totally wrapped up in Kaczynski; the Deep Throat phenomenon was an event in its own right. Keep then separate. Plainsong 20:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with merger. Horrible idea. Deep Throat was a historically significant cultural phenomenon, not just Mark Felt. Much of the article content, speculation about who he was etc., would be inappropriate for a Felt article. Leave it alone.

Oppose, as I've also voted on Talk:W. Mark Felt. Samaritan 21:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not on principle oppose a merger, but I do think it shouldn't be merged for the forseeable future. The opposition to merging is that Deep Throat is not simply Mark Felt, but something more. It is a cultural phenomenon, a meme that has become greater than the man it was used to represent. An article on Deep throat should discuss the origins of the codename, the actions of this individual, his role in one of America's most important political scandals, the ensuing cultural significance of DT and its role in literature, film, etc, and other related trivia (eg DT suspects etc).

Try imagining how you're going to write all that seamlessly in an article under William Mark Felt, while also discussing Felt's non-DT life. It won't fit. Neuroscientist 04:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reordering candidates

I'm considering re-ordering the incorrect candidates by their popularity in the Editor and Publisher Magazine's poll of February 2005. This seems like the most accurate indicator of who the plausible candidates were right before Felt was identified. Though poll isn't perfect, and it clearly has a bias in favor of people who later gained independent fame (and the people who voted for the pope were obviously joking), I still think it would be a better order than what we currently have. Any comments/objections before I go ahead and do this? --Arcadian 15:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other than Felt and Fielding that list is almost entirely famous candidates ignoring most of the plausible, but less known, people fingered by those who have done considerable research into the area. Perhaps it would be best if we used that order only for the famous candidates section. - SimonP 15:37, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

The Pope?!?

The full poll results were as follows: ...

Pope John Paul II: 2%

Am I the only one who thinks 2% of Americans need to be shot just for sheer ignorance?

- Sherurcij 08:23, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The results are from a poll of journalists only, which may explain the number and haphazard guesses a little better. Jokestress 08:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not as a defense of their obvious silliness, but to provide context: there was a rumor going around (which turned out to be correct) at the time of the poll that Deep Throat was very ill. That's one of the reasons Rehnquist scored so high - because he was so ill in February. So, that's probably the joke that the 2% of the editors were making -- since the Pope was so visibly ill, the Pope might turn out to be Deep Throat. --Arcadian 12:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rehnquist is so high for the same reason. Realistically it would be almost impossible for him to have been Deep Throat and he was never considered a serious candidate by anyone who had examined all the evidence, but he did have well publicized health problems when the poll was taken. - SimonP 14:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Mark Felt and Weather Underground

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/02/1445247 Listen to the show. There's an interesting interview with a former member of The Weather Underground. --jenlight 19:26, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Copyrighted info

The paragraph that goes from "He is belived...to explore" loosk like it is ripped out from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4597669.stm with the exception of the last sentence.

I assume it's been taken care of (?) since no paragraph in the article currently starts that way. func (talk) 23:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to paragraph two under the section "Secrecy was key", which goes like this,

Woodward claimed that when he wanted to meet Deep Throat he would move a flowerpot with a red flag on the balcony of his apartment and that when Deep Throat wanted a meeting he would circle the page number on page twenty of Woodward's copy of The New York Times and draw clock hands to signal the hour.

The BBC article goes,

He is believed to have demanded that the two stop conversing by phone, thinking that the line may be tapped, and they began meeting late at night in a Washington parking garage. If Woodward wanted a meeting with Deep Throat, the reporter would rearrange a potted plant in his apartment window. If Deep Throat wanted a meeting with Woodward, he would somehow ensure that page 20 of Woodward's daily New York Times delivery was circled.

That Wiki paragraph was written (or inserted) by Pedantically Speaking. To be fair to him there are only so many ways you can convey that information about the red flag in the flower pot (it was not a potted plant, why do people keep writing that) and the NYT pg 20 thing. As well, I really don't see that they are plagiarized. I do think the section needs to be reworked, but not because of plagiarism (as far as I can see). If you meant another paragraph, please be more specific when you post. The words "to explore" do not appear anywhere in either the Wiki article or the Beeb report. —Neuroscientist 23:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarized?

Over these last couple of days I've been reading an enormous amount of DT stuff, and the following para seems to me very familiar (I know there have been several mentions of Woodward's characterization of DT in ATPM, with quotes). However I currently haven't been able to find a match. Does anyone know if this is plagiarized? It's from the section entitled "Secrecy was key"

Woodward, in All the President's Men, first mentions Deep Throat on page 72. He describes him as "a source in the Executive Branch who had access to information at CRP, as well as at the White House." The book also calls him "an incurable gossip", "in a unique position to observe the Executive Branch", and a man "whose fight had been worn out in too many battles."

—Neuroscientist 23:49, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image Usage Recommendation

I would recommend using a picture of W. Mark Felt from the early '70s as the top picture. The picture of him at age 91 when he was revealed could be placed in a section further down talking about the unveiling of Deep Throat.

I concur with this recommendation. The photo of Mark Felt as a senile old man does not do justice to him. Deep Throat was not old. Mark Felt looked like a character out of a hollywood movie about any FBI G Man. The photo of him in his old age is not flattering and does not do the story or him justice.

Whitfield Larrabee 15:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Why did Felt reveal himself?

There has been a fair bit of speculation recently by commentators about why Felt revealed his identity as Deep Throat. While it very well could be to ease his conscience or something, several people have pointed out (including, if I'm not mistaken, some in his own family) that his family was in debt. Did he do it for money? Should this be a topic addressed in this article? cluth 05:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

According to Woodward, Felt could not coherently speak about the events of Watergate in his later years. He appears to suffer from a great deal of senility. Whitfield Larrabee 15:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This article and the Mark Felt article.

It seems like there is a lot of overlap between Deep Throat (Watergate) and W. Mark Felt. I think that this article should probably be limited to the phenomenon of "Deep Throat" as created by Woodward, and the various theories, and so forth, and leave most of the details on the information Deep Throat actually gave to Woodward for the W. Mark Felt article. At any rate, some kind of rationalization is in order. john k 01:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have not closely examined the two side-by-side, but I would think overlap would be a good thing so a reader could read either and be informed. PedanticallySpeaking 13:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Some overlap is obviously necessary. But we should try to minimize it. We should always be clear on the question "Why do we have two separate articles - what is each one doing?" I also haven't examined the articles closely enough, though. john k 15:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FAC Mark Felt

I nominated this article at WP:FAC today. I'd welcome everyone's comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The secret Man

On July 8th, someone created a short Stub about The secret man, the new book from Woodward explaining his relation with Deep Throat. The article was quickly merged and redirected to this one. I think that The secret man deserves to have its own article. It should describe what is the aim of the book, the new material etc. I unfortunately haven't read the book yet. If one of you has, I warmly encourage you to restore the the secret man article and add new info. Glaurung 13:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

State Department?

The article says the Watergate scandal "implicated large numbers of the Nixon White House and State Department [employees?]."

Like who?

The scandal implicated large numbers of the Nixon White House, re-election campaign, and Department of Justice employees, but who was implicated from the State Department?

Henry Kissinger and some of his aides were involved in initiating some wire taps of reporters and government officials, but at the time he was National Security Advisor, not Secretary of State.

Is this a part of the Watergate scandal I'm not familiar with? Who in the State Department was implicated, and in what?

66.82.9.55 20:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Craig Polhemus, Sept. 28, 2006, 4:00 pm EDT

I'd have to agree - there is no State Department implication in Watergate. Secretary of State Rogers was intentionally cut out of most Foreign Policy decisions anyway. I will remove. CQD 03:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan calling him a traitor

The existing citation now includes a retraction at the top of the page indicating that they (the Post) misquoted Buchanan, and the cited article makes no mention of Liddy calling him "traitor", so I have simply deleted that sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.166.62.50 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Popular Culture?

Why isn't there a section for Deep Throat in popular culture? I can think of at least three examples that paroty this.Wild ste 22:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wasn`t there an episode of The Simpsons in which Smithers plays a Deep Throat-like character? 210.226.24.22 (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Washington Post June 1 2005 cover.jpg

Image:Washington Post June 1 2005 cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Composite Character Theory"

Not sure that the second paragraph of the section is written well for an encyclopedia, to wit "tells the grandkids..." Might the whole section be re-worked into a single paragraph? CQD 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

korff deathbed confession

OK, so on this page, it says that Baruch Korff confessed falsely to being Deep Throat on his deathbed. But on the Baruch Korff page, it says he confessed that Diane Sawyer was Deep Throat. Which one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.1.245 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Felt's Conviction

The previous statement about Felt's Weathermen conviction was slightly inaccurate. Previously, it that, after the pardon from Reagan, Felt's conviction "was later overturned on appeal". Felt's own book (G-Man) can show this to be inaccurate on page 278 it reads:

"The jury found us guilty on November 6, 1980, but President Ronald Reagan gave Miller and me full and unconditional pardons in March 1981. The convictions "grew out of their good-faith belief that their actions were necessary to preserve the security interests of our country," Reagan said. "The record demonstrates that they acted not with criminal intent, but in the belief that they had grants of authority reaching to the highest levels of government." In 1983 the appeals court ordered the lower court to dismiss our indictment, and the conviction was expunged from the record. The appeals court never reached our argument that we had been convicted for violating procedures that had not been established."

In other words, the conviction itself was expunged by Reagan’s pardon, not on the merits of an appeal, which was never actually heard.

Therefore, I have taken the liberty to change the article so that it states that the conviction was, subsequent to Reagan's pardon, expunged from the record. As this uses Felt's own wording, I think it should prove accurate/neutral enough. (LPG3 15:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Changes to Deep Throat Page

I'm making some changes to the Deep Throat page so that it better reflects some of the latest thinking by scholars on the subject. Specifically, I'm re-writing some sections so that it better takes into account the concerns voiced by John Dean in this[6] article and by Ed Gray in the book In Nixon's Web: A Year in the Crosshairs of Watergate, whose main argument in this regard can be found here[7]. These authors argue, convincingly in my opinion, that Mark Felt can not possibly be the only person whose leaked information is attributed, by Woodward himself, to Deep Throat. In this light, I think the article should better recognize that both Felt and Woodward have something to gain by making Felt Deep Throat, and that the composite character theory is not, by any means, dead. (Morethan3words (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC))

Also, I made some changes to the "motives" section, as this was poorly sourced and mainly concerned istelf with conjecture about the motivations driving a particular person's actions. I've attempted to limit it to publically stated information and attributed those statements, to the extent that I could, to the appropriate people. (Morethan3words (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC))

Redirect of search term 'deep throat'

Why does the search term 'deep throat' redirect to this article? The term is more commonly associated with the film, and (as this article itself acknowledges) the Watergate source was called 'Deep Throat' in reference to the film. Are the editors of this article claiming the term for their own or is this just Wikipedia being prudish? --Thoughtcat (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed many times, each time ending in it staying as is. IMHO, there seems to be an odd obsession on Wiki regarding the film... (Morethan3words (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Deep Throat's Death

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/19/mark.felt.obit/index.html

HaploTR (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

He was assassinated!!!!!111oneoneone --nlitement ^[talk] 12:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

secret source sounds silly

It reminds me of the Big Mac... 2 all beef patties special sauce... it sounds like special sauce. Perhaps we change the word secret to a different sound? LaidOff (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why it sounds silly to you, except that both words happen to start with S. I say there's no reason to change it, since it is a clear and concise way of saying exactly what Deep Throat was, a source of information that needed to remain secret, i.e., a secret source. (Morethan3words (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

Hit job, a.k.a the motives section

It looks like a place to insert right wing speculation. But it refers to specific speculations by actual well known right wingers which has been widely disseminated. However, they didn't have actual knowledge of motive but were making what is often called lawyer's arguments of what may be the worst motives. As such they are sepculative. That is, it could be possible but there is no credible basis yet. Speculation may be interesting and may later be borne out but as yet they have not and often times they are simply self serving lies... We need later to rewrite to say they are mere theories of motives as yet proven or supported. It is possible and maybe even reasonable, but the exact opposite is just as if not more reasonable, that is we can make a reasoned argument... not quite a clear and convincing case or argument though. LaidOff (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely follow your argument above, but I agree the section Speculations as to bad motives could use an overhaul. As is, it is not very clear and does not really drive home the point that Felt had personal reasons for doing what he did, and there is further evidence that could support this theory which is not yet included in this section (namely, that Felt was leaking to more than just the Post, and that many of the statements attributed to Felt were flat lies, and lies that were pretty clearly aimed at discrediting Pat Gray, the man who took the post he wanted). I assume people don't mind if I take a stab at a re-write, which I will try to do this weekend. If there are objections, I am happy to hear them, but most of my early edits will just be to, more or less, clarify and corraborate what is already written. (Morethan3words (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

Woodward's Jeopardy appearance

I recall once seeing Woodward on Jeopardy (an American TV game show) before Felt was revealed. I don't recall the "question" (phrased as an answer), but someone "answered", phrased as the question, "Who is Deep Throat?" The host, Alex Trebec, then stopped to ask Woodward, "who is Deep Throat?" There was some laughter and Woodward declined to reveal that information. It seems like there should be some place to locate this information within the article. Here are a couple of links: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13337-2004May9.html, http://forums.speedguide.net/archive/index.php/t-152401.html. 220.76.15.101 (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a recitation of an appearance that Woodward made on Jeopardy is really noteworthy. And even if it is, it is probably more appropriate as an anectdote on the Woodward article, rather than the Deep Throat page. (Morethan3words (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC))