Jump to content

Talk:Mark Felt/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Bad sentence

This sentence in the third paragraph is, at minimum, badly punctuated (e.g. "pyramid" needs a capital letter and following comma); I'd go further and call it unclear and badly written - I can't quite tell what it's trying to say:

Felt lives in Santa Rosa, California, and has completed an update of his 1979 autobiography, The FBI pyramid which he wrote along with his son, provides information on his past as "Deep Throat,"but not revealing himself as such just yet (it will take 33 years.)

Confirmation

Confirmed by Woodward; [1]

The Washington Post article cites Ben Bradlee as confirming Felt, he is one of the four men who knows the identity; [2]

traitor

I deleted this sentence:

Felt is now considered by most Americans to be a traitor.

as it is inflammatory and unsubstantiated. If you want this in the article you need to back it up and rephrase it, e.g.:

According to the Blandy and Jones survey 72% of U.S. citizens consider Felt a traitor (external link to survey information)

Cheers, Funkyj

Tell us something we don't already know

Listen to the radio: Democracy Now, 6-2-05 rean a segment introduced as follows:

Mark Felt -- who was exposed this week as Deep Throat -- was one of only two FBI officials ever to be convicted for ordering COINTELPRO operations. In 1980 he was convicted for ordering FBI agents to break into the home of Jennifer Dohrn and other associates of the Weather Underground. He was later pardoned by President Reagan. Jennifer Dohrn discusses the FBI surveillance, break-ins and a secret FBI proposal to kidnap her infant. Democracy Now! co-host Juan Gonzalez also reveals that as a leader of the Young Lords that he, too, was also a target of a similar FBI campaign. [includes rush transcript]


Merge

I removed and oppose a Merge notice to merge with Deep Throat (Watergate) - worth a discussion of course, but I think we should wait til this settles down though to see what info we end up with and how to best hash it out. --John Kenneth Fisher 21:48, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the removal and would also tend to oppose, but we'll see how it turns out. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't merge it. Felt was significant beyond his involvement in watergate. He was the highest ranking FBI official to ever be tried and convicted (he was later pardoned). This was for authorizing searches of private homes without a warrant. Ydorb 22:33, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
oppose: Even if, or when, Deep Throat's identity is confirmed, there are two distinct personas involved, and two parallel scenarios that will be complementary, rather than redundant. Ombudsman 22:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
(copied from Talk:Deep Throat (Watergate)) I support a merge. This seems to be the precedent set on Wikipedia with other articles involving individuals who were better known by handles or whose real name was unknown for quite some time. Examples of real-life "secret identities" of this nature are fairly rare, but one example is Theodore Kaczynski. We don't have a separate article for Unabomber; it's a redirect. (I don't mean to slight Mr. Felt by this analogy; it was simply the only other similar case of a widely-known alias that I could think of on the spur of the moment.) As with Felt, Kaczynski was known only by his alias for a long period of time, but we still have the article under his real name. Firebug 07:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
oppose for the reasons stated by Ombudsman and Ydorb.--Kristjan Wager 13:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC) (added later, as I apprently forgot it before)
Support an eventual merge for the reasons stated by Firebug. But not yet; let's let the facts become clear and the story die down a bit. I say, wait a week and then merge. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 10:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What on Earth is wrong with a merger? Some say the Deep Throat article should be separate for the benefit of those looking into the history of speculation etc. Simple answer: Deep Throat (Watergate) would obviously be changed to redirect to W. Mark Felt, and the speculation as to Deep Throat's identity could be a sub-section only a click away from the contents box.
oppose because Deep Throat was a pop culture phenomenon. As far as the secret identity argument, there are separate articles for Clark Kent and Superman. Jokestress 15:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose: these are separate entities. Ian Pitchford 15:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, agreeing with all oppose voters above especially Jokestress. Samaritan 15:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, for reasons I set forth in the debate on the Deep Throat talk page. Plainsong 20:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oppose; the history of various speculations on DT's identity would seem to be unnecessary to an article on Felt. MisfitToys 22:05, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Superman is a comic character. Felt isn't.
Oppose - A merger with the Deep Throat article should not be rushed, even though we now know that Felt is Deep Throat. As Angr said, let the facts become clear first and some time pass, then look at merging the two articles.
JesseG 22:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
It makes no sense to merge the articles. The decades of speculation, and forever changing of the face of journalism have essentially nothing to do with Mark Felt. Deep Throat is more than just Mark Felt. And, Mark Felt is more than just Deep Throat. 2005 23:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:, for all the reasons already mentioned above. I can't believe anyone even considered merging two obviously seperate articles.

W.

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

Yeah, I have been trying to track that one down, without success so far. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
No idea either. I looked through court documents. NG but I did find some more bio details that need to be covered "On December 10, 1980, the Department of Justice moved for dismissal of the case against Gray. The district court granted the Department's motion and the case was nolle prossed. Felt and Miller were later tried and convicted. On March 26, 1981 they were given a full and unconditional pardon by President Reagan." lots of issues | leave me a message 18:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I asked the anon who said it was Walter to provide a reference, but so far he hasn't bothered. I wonder if we ought to take this out. "Walter Mark Felt" returns no results in Google, and I'd much rather we had missing information than wrong information, with all the people that will be coming to look at this article. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:33, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I've taken it out. The 9-page interview in Vanity Fair makes no mention of "Walter", and it would be very easy for someone to introduce errors like this. Best to err on the side of caution until we can find a reference. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree it could not be verified. BTW who the hell would tell their 8 year old kid the identity of deep throat? ('88 summer camp incident) lots of issues | leave me a message 18:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Name is William as per [3] --John Kenneth Fisher 21:45, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. Now I wonder whether this ought to be at W. Mark Felt, or at Mark Felt. Many news sources are leaving the W out. Anyone have a view on this? — Trilobite (Talk) 21:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I feel that we should write W. Mark Felt, and perhaps have a redirect from Mark Felt.--Kristjan Wager 13:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clap

It's gushy and weak, I know, but good work; I came home for tea and scones, and searched Wikipedia for 'mark felt' and there was nothing. This would have been about 17:00 GMT. Now, there is an article. And a picture. The gasman has taken me hostage; my knee is not purple. However, with regards to this article, [4] does Woodward explicitly state that Mark Felt is Deep Throat? The paragraph beginning "Woodward said Felt helped The Post..." seems ambiguous, and I'm surprised that the headline isn't "Post's Woodward confirms Felt etc".-Ashley Pomeroy 22:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

From the linked article:
In a statement today, Woodward and Bernstein said, "W. Mark Felt was 'Deep Throat' and helped us immeasurably in our Watergate coverage. However, as the record shows, many other sources and officials assisted us and other reporters for the hundreds of stories that were written in The Washington Post about Watergate."
—Cantus…☎ 23:08, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Date errors

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

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

Another date problem: How could Hoover promote Felt on July 1st of 1972 when he himself died on May 2nd, 1972? Brendan 20:39, June 2, 2005 (UTC)

"In 2080, Felt was convicted of violating the civil rights of people thought to be associated with the Weather Underground by ordering FBI agents to burglarize their homes." How can ANYTHING have happened in 2080--still a long way off. Should this be 1980? Serkul 02:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Rolled back plagiarim note

An anon had added a note that some of the article was plagiarized, but the article in question was previously cited at the bottom. I reverted the note without any other changes. —siroχo 01:03, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Washington Post reaction

New York Times has an interesting piece on reaction at the Washington Post. The scoop by Vanity Fair clearly caught them off guard. Throughout the day, they denied, then changed headlines on the same article numerous times:

"The Post's confirmation of Deep Throat's identity appeared on the paper's Web site in the form of a news article, but with a variety of headlines. It said that Mr. Woodward had confirmed Deep Throat's identity, but without a quote from him. It then said that The Post had confirmed the identity. Later, it went back to saying Mr. Woodward had confirmed it."

Among the headlines:

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

Jokestress 05:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template

Can we please keep the merge template off this page, it is currently linked from the main page and is almost certainly being read by hundreds of people. We don't need to mar a perfectly good article with an ugly template. Once this is all died down perhaps we can have a proper debate on whether separate articles are desirable. - SimonP 13:01, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Removed section

I removed this short section from the article because it seems kind of shoddily written and has an editorial tone. I wasn't sure how to fix it at the moment, but I think it's especially important to be careful with this article right now. Somebody else might want to start over from scratch on this subject. - Nat Krause 15:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Hero or Villain?==
Some in the media are claiming that William Mark Felt is a Hero of Democracy who saved America from a President who was extremely corrupt. Others like Pat Buchanan are calling Felt a traitor to the nation and the World because it is believed that the downfall of Richard Nixon led to 53,000 US Troops dying for nothing in Vietnam and set the stage for the holocaust in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, leaving millions dead.
I agree with this removal and combined some of the less inflammatory sentiment with the last paragraph. I suggest we send people to Wikiquote for a variety of responses. Jokestress 15:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This section is shoddy and inappropriate. In any case I can imagine radicals arguing that Felt was a villain for helping the FBI distract attention from its notorious and anti-democratic COINTELPRO operations by diverting the media to the relatively trivial Watergate scandal. Nixon also deliberately prolonged the war in Vietnam for party political reasons. Ian Pitchford 15:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Rather than cataloguing responses to the news in the article, I suggest we refer readers to Wikiquote, which already has a good range of responses. Is there a standardized way to refer this in the body of an article? Is it OK to make a direct link, or even to refer directly to Wikiquote? Jokestress 15:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Felt vs. Linda Tripp

I tightened this analogy up and added it to the range of responses, though I feel the comparison is somewhat tendentious. The crimes committed by Nixon operatives were part of a conspiracy several orders of magnitude greater than Clinton's trysts and denials. I also don't feel it should be the final paragraph of the article, preferring to end with a summary about why he went to the press. Other thoughts? Jokestress 15:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleted the mention of Tripp and the link relating to her in the references section. She's not a whistleblower in any serious sense of the word: she reported an affair, which she had no reason to believe was a law violation. SS451 00:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Washingtonpost.com on this article

"Wikipedia's many volunteer editors weren't napping on the job as the W. Mark Felt story broke on Tuesday. A new entry (created yesterday, in fact) on the former associate FBI director and bona fide Deep Throat went up with great dispatch. A glance at the entry shows a clean, dry biography on Felt along with the circumstances of his involvement with Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein on the Watergate series. It is not the first time that Wikipedia has tried to function as a sage tome of encyclopedic knowledge on breaking events, but it almost certainly is one of the most prominent, at least on its English-language site." (June 1st)

lots of issues | leave me a message 15:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that! Source is titled:
Encyclopedia Immediata, in the "Random Access" column by Robert MacMillan, 1 June 2005. Jokestress 16:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too late!

Not two weeks ago I read Felt's biography as part of my research on Helen Gandy and thought about writing a short entry here. And look what happens when one tarries. PedanticallySpeaking 18:29, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

date discrepancy

As mentioned above under "error?" There's a question about the date 1 July 1972 in the edit made on 16:54, 2 Jun 2005. Please check and confirm. Jokestress 20:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

False equivalence?

"It is noteworthy that many commentators who decry the alleged government "leaking" of CIA employee Valerie Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak have long considered "Deep Throat" to be a hero, yet Mr. Felt's action in leaking this information to reporters Woodward and Bernstein can be considered a similar mis-deed of leaking by a government employee."

This line doesn't serve any real purpose, and is not neutral. You could just as easily write that there are "commentators" who think Felt is a traitor but also think Novak is a hero for exposing the alleged nepotism in Joseph Wilson's appointment.

Plus, Novak != Felt. Novak is a journalist. If the analogy above is to be supported at all, Novak = Woodward. Felt = still-unknown Valerie Plame leaker.

--Pobbard 20:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oval Office

I deleted a phrase about Haldeman and Nixon talking in the Oval Office because Nixon usually did his work in his hideaway office in the OEOB and did ceremonial things in the Oval Office. Which is correct really isn't important, but I removed it until someone can confirm it. (Say, in Kutler's book.) PedanticallySpeaking 21:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Court citation

Article has: The use of "black bag jobs" by the FBI had been declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court on June 19, 1972. I believe this is a reference to UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) Argued February 24, 1972, Decided June 19, 1972. Jokestress 06:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Findlaw cite →Raul654 06:55, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

The links listed are both chronological and by order of relevance. The first is the Vanity Fair revelation, followed by the Washington Post and New York Times coverage that day. The later analyses by less mainstream and more partisan outlets like Washington Times and Democracy Now! are currently listed further down. Over the past few days, 214.13.4.151 has moved the Washington Times link to the top of the list every day this week, and I believe it should stay where it is. The article at best is a side note and meta-analysis of the media coverage itself. I have started this subhead for those who wish to discuss this, rather than having this turn into an edit war without any discussion. Jokestress 15:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about removing redundant May 31st links?

lots of issues | leave me a message 16:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I am thinking of keeping only the five or so with significant original content: Vanity Fair, both Post pieces, the NYT piece, the Slate pieces by Noah, and the Washingtonian piece. The last two are important because they named felt as Deep Throat prior to the confirmation. The rest are mainly re-reporting and analysis. Thoughts? Jokestress 16:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Keep the analysis. Junk most of the May 31 articles. lots of issues | leave me a message 18:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I concur. →Raul654 16:58, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Done and done. Jokestress 23:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The indictment

In his memoir, Felt writes he was charged with violating section 241 of the Civil Rights Act of 1969. Can anyone translate that into a US Code reference for me? PedanticallySpeaking 20:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

18 USC 241 reads:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 241
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
Release date: 2004-08-06
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Jokestress 23:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! PedanticallySpeaking 14:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Felt's book cover

We've been using book covers as illustrations under the fair use doctrine. I wonder if someone could get a scan of Felt's book and add it. (The b&w photo that was here until someone removed it was the same shot that's on the cover of that book). PedanticallySpeaking 14:12, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Documentary with Felt's daughter

Anyone know anything about this documentary, The Birth of Ludi, mentioned in the Vanity Fair article? It's not in IMDB and the only three Google hits are to the VF article. PedanticallySpeaking 14:28, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

The Advertiser cites this article

Australian newspaper, The Advertiser cites article as the sole source for Felt's bio timeline.

lots of issues | leave me a message 17:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool! Can you cite the link or printed reference? Jokestress 18:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can't find link / print: "Bob Woodward reveals: Deep Throat and me", foreign section p. 76

lots of issues | leave me a message 18:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey Pedantic

Great expansion. Would it be worthy to mention that following the LA Times (summer '76) revelation of the Justice Dept. probe, Felt voluntarily stepped forwarded and admitted approving the burglaries?

lots of issues | leave me a message 18:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I cited an article saying that, but I guess I neglected to state that fact in the article itself. I'll do that. PedanticallySpeaking 15:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Quote marks on indented text

I am removing once again the quote marks on indented text. Text that is set like this does not need quote marks. The fact that it is indented tells us it is a quotation. PedanticallySpeaking 15:46, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree, but won't put them back again. Incidently, I missed this on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cite below some authorities on not using quote marks on block quotes. PedanticallySpeaking 14:40, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • Chicago Manual of Style, 13th edition, section 10.29: "Material set off from the text as a block quotations is not enclosed in quotation marks."
  • Publication Manual of the APA, 3rd edition, section 3.34: "Do not use any quotation marks to enclose block quotations.
  • MLA Handbook, 5th edition, section 2.7.7: "Do not use opening and closing quotation marks to enclose quotations set off from the text."

FAC?

Anyone think this is perhaps suitable for nomination at WP:FAC? PedanticallySpeaking 15:38, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can also remove the current event tag.

lots of issues | leave me a message 06:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can we start footnoting? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed this but if others want to discuss this addition, it's here:

My reason for removing is that I don't really see anonymous opinions of random web surfers to be as relevant as the other links. Jokestress 03:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Footnoting

This is an awesome article, but could we start footnoting things a bit better? I have started the ball rolling - my problem is that I know that the material came from his Memoir, but can't tell you the page number it came from. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have started adding Template:Fact to the uncited sources. Let's start sourcing while we still have our authors around! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand how the footnote system works, so I'll tell you the references and you can add them. PedanticallySpeaking 17:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • General biography, Theoharis 324-5, Benfall
  • Twin Falls, Felt 11, Kessler Bureau 163
  • Dad a contractor, Felt 11
  • Senator Pope and Clark, Felt 18, Theoharis 324-5
  • Wife Audrey met at U Idaho, Felt 18
  • Red Cross toilet paper, Felt 19
  • Hoover didn't have family, Felt 25
  • Espionage work, Felt 29 forward
  • To New Orleans and LA, Felt 45
  • Mob in Nevada, Felt 45
  • "Siberia" office, Felt 45
  • Fought mob in Kansas City, O'Connor - which page?
  • To DC in 1962, Felt 59
  • To Inspection Division, Felt 67
  • "tactful with him", Kessler Bureau 163
  • Made Tolson's asst, Powers, 315 and 470; Gentry 624
  • "fair hair", "inherent" Gentry, 24
  • Tolson's resignation, Gentry 43
  • Pallbearer for Hoover, Gentry 49
  • Gandy and the files, Gentry 50, US Congress
  • "control Sullivan", Powers 470
  • "Mr. Gray, the Bureau", Felt 186
  • 3 day Gray, Felt 216
  • Gray hospitalized, Felt 225
  • "Pat, I haven't leaked", Felt 225
  • Get rid of Felt, Felt 225
  • "I was supposed to be jealous", Felt 226
  • Learned of Watergate that A.M., Felt 245
  • "agents amazed", Kessler The FBI, 269
  • "source in Executive", Bernstein 71 (my page refs are to PB edition)
  • "unique position", "fight", "gossip", Bernstein 131
  • How Woodward met him, Woodward article
  • Signal code with Woodward, Bernstein 71
  • Doubts about Woodward's code story, Havill 78-82
  • Felt wants to cooperate, Kutler 67 - HadlemanOnFeltCooperation
  • "record amply demonstrates", Felt 277 - HaldemanOnFeltUnloading
  • Gray nom'd, Felt 278 - GrayNominated
  • Gray resigns, Felt 293, Kesller Bureau 181, Kutler 347 - GrayResigns
  • "Mr. Clean", Kutler 347 - MrClean
  • "stormy" with Ruckleshaus, Felt 300 - FeltOnRuckleshausRelStormy
  • Ruckleshaus "security guard", Felt 293 - FeltOnRuckleshausAsSecurityGuard
  • Felt "bad guy", Kutler 454 - FeltNixonsBadGuy
  • "knows everything", Kutler 170 forward
  • Scapegoat, Crewdson, Ex FBI - Scapegoat
  • "shocked I was indicted", Kessler Bureau, 194 - FeltIndictmentShock
  • text of indictment, Felt, 333 - FeltIndictmentText
  • Arraignment with hundreds present, Felt 337 - ArraignmentFBIAgentApplause
  • eight delays, Pear "Conspiracy", Pear "Long Delayed" - EightPostponements
  • Indictment, Horrock, Powers 487
  • Obeying orders, crewdson Ex aide
  • Nixon testifies, Anson 233, Pear "Testimony"
  • convicted, Kesller Bureau 194
  • Plea bargins, Pear "Prosecutors"
  • Cohn's quote, Cohn
  • NYT applauds conviction, "Right Punishment"
Next section
  • Nixon's congratulations, Gentry 595, Anson 233
  • Pardon by Reagan, Public papers
  • Pardon reaction, Cannon, Lardner, Pear "President"
  • NYT disapproves, "Pardoning"
  • Appeal, Picchirallo
  • Denounces Privacy and FOIA acts, Felt 349
Next section
  • Library Journal, Steck - LibraryJournalReview
  • Suicide Pact quote: Felt, 11 - NotASuicidePact
  • NYTBR review, Wise - NYTBR
  • Hoover flame, Gentry 728 - KeeperHooverFlame
  • Woodward visits in 99, O'Connor, Kessler Bureau 179 - KesslerEvidenceOfDeepThroat
  • Info on children O'Connor, Benfell - FeltsChildren
Next section
  • Limpert in 1974, Limpert - Limpert
  • Atlantic article, Mann - MannAtlanticMonthly
  • Butterfield's ID, Rizzo - Butterfield
  • Jacob Bernstein's campmate ID, Daley - Campmate
  • Garment: "Felt theory was a strong one, Garment 146-7 - GarmentFeltTheoryStrong
  • Rules Felt out, Garment 170-171 - GarmentNotFelt
Needs some help finding these in the article...
  • Son Mark's quote, Haddock
  • Testifies to Congress, UPI
  • Identified as DT, O'Connor passim
  • How he met O'Connor, O'Connor
  • Why reveal now, Benfell

--- OK, I've run through this article with a fine tooth comb and footnoted most of it. Hope this is good! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quotes in end graphs are someone else's doing. I don't have information on their sourcing. PedanticallySpeaking 15:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Picture pruning

After seeing this article come up on the FAC, I came back here to take a second look. The article had lots of pictures, but most were only peripherally related to Felt. I've gone ahead and removed most of the unrelated ones. →Raul654 20:10, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this. It helped break up the text. All these pictures were related to the article. Sen. Pope brought him to D.C. He worked directly under Gray and Tolson. His actions helped cause Nixon's resignation. Reagan pardoned him, which goes with the text of the pardon message. All were related to the article. PedanticallySpeaking 15:22, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
It's a case of too-much-of-a-good thing. There were well over a dozen pictures, but only two actually of him(!), and as I said before, many of those pictures (for example, the FBI logo) seemed thrown in for no editorial purpose. Yes, having a picture of J Edgar Hoover, under whom he served for 20 years, is a good thing; having a picture of the guy who got him into the FBI (Pope), his boss at the FBI (Hooever), the guy for whom he was passed over, the president who pardoned him (Reagan), the FBI logo, 'etc -- this doesn't strike you as, um, overkill? In the end, (a) they end up being mostly distracting to the reader without making this article much more informative, and (b) they tend to stick out like a sore thumb. →Raul654 03:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
oppose the removal - this is an extended article, so it can neatly fit peripherally related images. lots of issues | leave me a message 05:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There were twelve images: Two of Felt plus the FBI seal, the Watergate building, Woodward, Bernstein, Nixon, Reagan, Pope, Tolson, Gray, and Reagan. All were related to the article. I always was cautioned in designing pages for print about breaking up slabs of text. That's what I was trying to do here. Again, I believe all the pictures were relevant. Do we have a policy about "pruning" pictures? PedanticallySpeaking 15:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a case of being sensible. Too many images crowds the article and distracts from it's content. Too few makes the article duller. Adding the FBI logo, for instance, isn't really necessary. Other images, like the Watergate building, might be more appropriate. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I looked around on the pages related to images and don't see anything about a policy for photos. So I've added all of them back except for the FBI seal. I'd be really grateful if someone could add a picture of Felt's memoir. PedanticallySpeaking 16:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

approve the images add no real value, and amount to picture-overloaditis N1mr0d 23:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Bobblewik reverted

I have reverted the following - [5]. This is nothing personal, I just don't see what is meant by that, and besides that date wikilinks can be very useful for putting things into context. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ways to trim article

The FAC was shot down partially because the footnoting hasn't been completed but also because of length. Should there be a separate US. v. Felt article then?

lots of issues | leave me a message 05:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The quick answer here is: we shouldn't. When you remove the footnotes and references section and just leave the main body of the article, the size goes from 54KB to 40KB. Compare W. Mark Felt with W. Mark Felt/Temp - click on Edit this page to see for yourself! The question I think we need to ask ourselves is: do we want a well sourced article, or do we want a "short" article? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... might have misread this. On second thoughts, it might be a good idea to split it off, if there is enough material. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Buchanan "traitor" quote incorrect

Pat Buchanan was quoted as saying that Felt was a "traitor" in a Washington Post story dated June 1, 2005 titled "Contemporaries Have Mixed Views". However, this subsequent correction to the story (now included at the top of the page) reveals that Buchanan said exactly the opposite:

A June 1 article on reaction to the confirmation that former FBI official W. Mark Felt was the Watergate source known as "Deep Throat" incorrectly said that Patrick J. Buchanan called Felt a "traitor" in an interview on MSNBC's "Hardball." Buchanan said that Felt had no personal loyalty to President Richard M. Nixon, "so I don't consider him a traitor in that sense." (The MSNBC transcript of the show segment is only an excerpt and does not include this statement by Buchanan.)

I have corrected the article. Breakall 12:41, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Good work :-) Ta bu shi da yu 02:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cites, please

I have gone through and found citations for the LA Times editorial, Colson's "oath" quote, and the article on Felt's daughter. If anyone else adds material, please tell us where it came from. And be specific! It's much easier for you to add it than for others to try to figure it out later. PedanticallySpeaking 15:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of the stuff about Felt's daughter: what is the point of having information about the religious group that she belongs to? Is that supposed to be a counterpoint to the "family pressuring Felt to come out so they could cash in" theory? Breakall 00:54, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Felt's book

Again, I'd really appreciate it if someone could scan the cover of Felt's 1979 book The FBI Pyramid and add it here. PedanticallySpeaking 16:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

On CNN

This article was displayed on CNN's "Inside Politics" on June 20. PedanticallySpeaking 16:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Anybody have a screenshot? Breakall 19:27, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Unsourced material

"Speculation about Felt's motives at the time of the scandal has varied widely as well. Because Nixon passed over Felt as FBI director following Hoover's death, some media commentators have suggested that Felt possibly sought to sabotage Nixon's presidency. Others have suggested that Felt acted out of institutional loyalty to the FBI. Many FBI senior officials and agents believed that the Nixon White House was seeking to politicize the bureau, and use it to cover up its own lawbreaking."

Can we get specific sources for this please? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

L. Patrick Gray's thoughts on Felt's motivation

I think we need to include the thoughts of Felt's boss, L. Patrick Gray, in this article: [6] Badammcqueen 20:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Rove / Novak

"Some have contrasted Felt's media treatment with that of other whistleblowers, like Clinton scandal whistleblower Linda Tripp [79], or Karl Rove, the informant who leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak (a Felt critic)."

I removed the last part of this sentence from the Deep Throat Revealed section due to the fact that Rove has not been shown to have disclosed Plame's identity to Novak (especially since Novak won't give up his source). Rove also talked via email (communiques since released) to Matt Cooper from Time, but a story in the 2005 July 18 Newsweek says, "Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative."

A passing reference to Rove (of questionable factuality) is not necessary in this article, not to mention the fact that no source is cited comparing Felt and Rove, which is supposedly the point of this remark. Breakall 20:11, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

Why not just remove the specific reference to Karl Rove (which was added in the last couple of days) and leave the sentence as it was:
"Some have contrasted Felt's media treatment with that of other whistleblowers, like Clinton scandal whistleblower Linda Tripp [79], or the informant who leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak (a Felt critic)."
I argued earlier that the comparison was tendentious, but I didn't want to be accused of NPOV by removing the comment altogether. Many have made this comparison, even though I think it's inaccurate. Jokestress 20:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
"Why not just remove the specific reference to Karl Rove (which was added in the last couple of days) and leave the sentence as it was..."
That's exactly what I did.
Can you please link here to a source comparing Felt to Rove? Breakall 21:56, 2005 July 11 (UTC)
I haven't seen anything like that. I'm sure someone (like the editor who added it) has made the analogy, but I haven't seen it in the mainstream press. However, there has been plenty of comparison or Felt and the Miller informant who outed Plame. There was a good Post article comparing Felt to Miller's informant: "Miller, who is married to retired Random House editor Jason Epstein, 76, calls the case against her "positively Orwellian." She recently told CNN the case was not about her but "whether or not there could be a Deep Throat today.""
Howard Kurtz. A Case Most Clearly Defined By Its Shadows. Washington Post, July 7, 2005; Page A12. [7] Jokestress
You have given me what I asked for, but I still don't think it it appropriate for this article. Kurtz's piece is not "public response" to Felt coming out, as the current revision says. He is responding to the Plame case by comparing it to the media's treatment of Deep Throat. This belongs in the Reaction/response to Plame "leak" section of the Valerie Plame article. Breakall 22:47, 2005 July 11 (UTC)

I concur with jokestress -- Some have contrasted Felt's media treatment - those first three are weasel words →Raul654 23:23, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know how I have ended up in a position of defending comparisons I have said since June 2 (see above) are irrelevant, but if the criterion for citation is a source, it's not too hard to find all sorts of comparisons to Tripp and the Plame informant. That's why I put it back in-- because there is a source. If you want to lose the weasel words, you can say "Clinton whistleblower Linda Tripp's lawyer compared media treatment of Felt and his client, and several articles has compared the Valerie Plame leak to the Felt leak." Then cite the articles. Jokestress 23:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Woodward: Random dude knew his identity

Stanley Pottinger, an assistant AG, observed stumble when a jurror asked him if he was Deep Throat during the '76 grand jury proceedding. He asked Felt if he would like the question stricken, which Felt thankfully agreed. In Woodward's new book. lots of issues | leave me a message 13:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Great work

I must say that this article looks amazing. Nice job, everybody who worked on it. --omeg 15:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

True! Michaël 08:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Woodward's Book and Felt's

I've started adding information from Bob Woodward's book, The Secret Man. Don't have my notes today, but I'll try to put it in over the next few days.

Again, I repeat my request for a scan of the cover of his 1979 memoir. We did have the photo from the cover of that book on one of the foreign versions of this article. Don't know how to import it here, however. PedanticallySpeaking 19:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Alzheimer

Hi, I have read in a blog that Mark Felt suffered Alzheimer disease at the time his identity as Deep Throat was revealed, so he didn't get to know about it. Is it true?

I have not seen this blog entry. However, when the news was revealed, Felt was shown greeting the press at his doorstep in Santa Rosa, California, and press accounts said his family said he had talked about his role in Watergate in recent months. As for his illness, the press reported he suffered a stroke a year or two ago. I do not know about an Alzheimer's diagnosis, however, and would welcome someone pointing me to a source on this subject. PedanticallySpeaking 15:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:FBI

We had created this template for the important FBI related articles, but I did a preview of in the article and it didn't look to good. I am going to make a possaible short one and submit it here for people to take a look at it. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 19:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Also created this template: Template talk:Infobox FBI Agent. Looks pretty good. :) -- Shane (talk/contrib) 20:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Alive?

Is he still alive? Maybe I'm wrong, but I was sure that his death had been reported in the news only a short time after his identity had been revealed. AlbertSM 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As of this date, Felt is alive. Jokestress 20:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Date of denial

The section detailing his denial of leaking anything to Woodward and Bernstein --"Felt denies he was source"-- is not specifically dated. It seems to come directly after the accusations in the preceding section, but it's not really clear. When did he make this denial and who did he make it to? Was he writing it or did he verbally say it, and to whom? The source is not online, so it can't be checked to see more details about this denial. Please elaborate on this.--Gloriamarie 00:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Gray Criticism

I've added a paragraph providing some responses to the criticism of Gray voiced by Felt and others. This is in an effort to improve the nuetrality of the article. While I realize that Felt did appear to feel pretty strongly about his criticims of Gray, I think that the article itself should remain as nuetral as possible. Therefore, while the article should definitely highlight Felt's publically voiced opinions, if that is the only argument provided, then the article effectively voices the same opinion.

In the coming days, I will attempt to provide citations for the information provided in this paragraph. (LPG3 18:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Citation Request

In addition to the citations that I will add for the paragraph discussed above, there are a number of statements in this article that require some more citations. In particular, the discussion of Hoover's files needs more cites, especially the statement "This consisted of 167 files and 17,750 pages, many of them containing derogatory information." (LPG3 18:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Repercussions

I was just wondering if W. M. Felt, after having admitted his actions, ever got fined or anything of that nature for his leaking classified information. --70.80.98.192 (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Picture

Why is there no picture of him? Rm999 (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering that myself. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting


  • (1) In-house only
  • (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
  • (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
  • (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
  • (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
  • (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
  • (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
  • (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
  • (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
  • (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
  • (4) Typos and misunderstood coding
  • (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
  • (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
  • (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
  • (5) Edit-mode clutter
  • (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
  • (6) Limited application
  • (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
  • (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reworking citation formatting

On the most recently concluded Featured article review (September 2008), the current formatting system (with Ibid, etc) was one of the reasons for demotion. It would be nice to begin to address some of the issues brought up in the FAR. Any opinions on which format? Harvard referencing would be similar to what is used now. — ERcheck (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you but maybe we're troubled by the same issue. Today, there are two footnote formats present and they should be standardized to one. A great many footnotes are using a NOTE template, and only four are using the REF format. Oddly, the mix of formats separates them out at the bottom of the article. This is not just unsightly, it's confusing. I lack the skills to make it right, and hope someone more expert than I can convert the four REFs to NOTEs, or vice versa, if that's appropriate. -- LisaSmall T/C 02:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Also nothing links to the original source, none of the references have urls to the original source articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

discrepancies in details of death announcement

The Washington Post has added this correction to Felt's obit:

CORRECTION TO THIS ARTICLE Earlier versions of this story, including in the print edition of Friday's Washington Post, incorrectly said Mark Felt died at a hospice. Felt died at his home in California, under hospice care.


Also it looks like Patricia Sullivan wrote that piece, not Woodward. Not sure about the best way to rephrase the existing text. Starwarsian (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Video game

Would it be appropriate do add that he is killed in this video game: Watchmen: The End Is Nigh? 95.79.234.135 (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people like to include things like this in a "trivia" or "cultural references" section, but I understand that these kinds of sections are offically frowned upon. I know it is an issue we have had with the "Deep Throat" page, as there are so many references such as this one that they can take over the page. (Morethan3words | talk) 16:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Importance

Why isn't any reference made to the relevance of Deep Throat? He didn't crack the case, nor did Woodward and Bernstein. They were far less important than the US Attorneys, Senate investigators, and the special prosecutor. His only true relevance was his mystery. 76.187.152.36 (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an issue we address more specifically on the Deep Throat page, and given the continued argument against Felt being the only source that made up what would become "Deep Throat", I think it is more appropriate to discuss issues directly related to the figure (such as its overall effect on the investigation, etc.) on the page dedicated to it. (Morethan3words | talk) 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

creep

Still looking for the source of the statement that the CRP was pejoratively referred to as the CREEP. Any sources? Gef05 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)gef05

Extortion?

The intro says that “files pertaining to an extortion threat made against Felt in 1956” were released, but there is no mention of the events disclosed in the section on 1956 - if it’s notable enough for the intro, shouldn’t there be an explanation of the threat? 86.147.80.209 (talk) 10:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no legitimate evidence that Nixon knew that Mark Felt was Deep Throat

"Though Felt's identity as Deep Throat was known to some in Washington, including Nixon himself..." The only source for this claim is Felt's book, which this Wikipedia entry makes clear was dishonest about Felt's role as "Deep Throat." Specifically, the Felt book falsely denies that Felt was Deep Throat. As such, Felt's book is substantially impeached on the subject of Deep Throat and Watergate, and is not a legitimate source for a claim that, so far as I know, cannot be otherwise sourced or supported -- i.e., there are no other sources I know of which claim that Nixon knew the identity of Deep Throat. Further, it is extremely difficult to believe that if Nixon *did* know the identity of Deep Throat (i.e., Felt) that Nixon would have testified on Felt's behalf in Felt's criminal trial, which occurred some years after the Watergate scandal. To summarize: the first part of the text quoted at the top of this entry is okay, but the claim that "Nixon himself" knew the identity of Deep Throat is (i) sourced to a book that is clearly impeached on the subject of Deep Throat and Watergate, (ii) finds no support in any other, legitimate source, and (iii) is contrary to logic given the extreme unlikelihood that Nixon would have testified on Mark Felt's behalf if Nixon had known that Felt was Deep Throat. Therefore, absent a new, legitimate source for the claim that "Nixon himself" knew the identity of Deep Throat, this claim should be deleted.

There's other evidence that Nixon knew, or at least strongly suspected, that it was Felt, including a taped conversation in October 1972 in which Nixon says of Felt, "You know what I'd do with him, the bastard?" Though it's true that it's odd that Nixon didn't lash out at Felt in any way even after resigning. (Unless he was worried that Felt still had some secrets to reveal.) How about this rewrite: "Though Felt's identity as Deep Throat was strongly suspected by some in Washington, including Nixon himself, and was speculated by many others, it generally remained a secret for the next 30 years." Korny O'Near (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
That rewrite, plus that CNN article as the source rather than Felt, works for me. Thanks.
Done - I'm glad we could something we could both agree on. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease

Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Jarring, strange placement for Kessler mention

Why is the paragraph beginning:

Kessler said in his book that the measures Woodward took to conceal his meeting ...

in the Memoir section? That paragraph does not mention the memoir - it is nothing to do with the memoir! Was somebody at a loss where else to put it? Shenme (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Timeline discrepancy needs a fix or explanation

The article says,

The stress of following her husband's career as well as the separation of her daughter, resulted in Audrey suffering a nervous breakdown in 1954

But it also says that Joan didn't graduate from high school until 1961, so how could Joan's separation have contributed to a nervous breakdown in 1954? 2601:281:D880:7880:CC13:9994:AE2C:8CC4 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Felt/Archive_1&oldid=1256975007"