Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Sandwedge/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2016 [1].

Operation Sandwedge

[edit]
Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 08:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is less about a minor cog in the Watergate machine than about one which was never even set in motion—Operation Sandwedge was the proposed covert strategy eschewed by Nixon in favour of what ended up happening. This article is part of a continued fascination of mine with things that didn't happen (cf. Ronnie Rocket, Project A119) and I hope you find it as intriguing as I did. It received a GA review from Sp33dyphil in 2012, and a recent peer review from Nikkimaria which identified a potentially troublesome source which has since been removed. The text also benefitted greatly from a copy-edit by Relentlessly. The first nomination received some useful attention from Wehwalt and Dank, and an image review by Nikkimaria, but unfortunately stalled due to interference by the White House Plumbers a lack of attention. I'll hopefully be able to garner a few more reviews a second time around; thanks in advance to anyone who wants to have a look at it. GRAPPLE X 08:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a former Watergate buff – I was endlessly facinated during my student years in the 70s – I was interested to see this article, but somewhat dismayed at its brevity: 731 words in total does not seem adequate. Although in itself a peripheral element in the Watergate scandal, Sandwedge was the likely origin of some very significant events and deserves, I think, rather more detail than we have here. Here are a few points for consideration:

  • The Background section should be expanded, to summarise the general mindset of Nixon's men in 1971, with regards to intelligence gathering, surveillance, dirty tricks etc. This was the era of the "enemies list", Ellsburg, the "Plumbers Unit" etc. It's important to understand that Sandwedge was conceived in that atmosphere, and was by no means an isolated initiative.
  • The sources I have looked at (Fred Emery's Watergate, 1994; Theodore White's Breach of Faith 1975; John Dean's Blind Ambition 1976) all suggest that Caulfield was the initiator of Sandwedge, rather than someone to whom the task was delegated by Dean. See in particular Dean, pp. 73–75. Dean gives a detailed account of his attempts to sell Caulfield's idea to Mitchell, Haldeman & co, and of the distrust the senior Nixonites had for Caulfield.
  • The same sources give a lot more information on the contents of Caulfield's 12-page memo, and of the proposed modus operandi – Caulfield would set up a private security firm to disguise the White House connection. He suggested various Nixon luminaries as co-principals in the firm, including Joe Woods, brother of the president's secretary.
  • There's plenty in the sources about the possible funding of the project. Although the article suggests that the project was virtually stillborn, in fact money was passed to Caulfield: $50,000 in or around October, by Herb Kalmbach who acted as a kind of paymaster for campaign intelligence activities. Emery gives details of how this money was disbursed.
  • The article does not give the date of the meeting between Haldeman, Mitchell, Magruder and Gordon C. Strachan. It was 28 October 1971, and although these powerful figures did not indicate confidence in Caulfield, it's not entirely accurate to say that "as a result of this meeting, control of the operation was passed along to G. Gordon Liddy". Liddy did not enter then frame until November. As Emery observes, Sandwedge was a long while dying; in January 1972 Dean was requesting further funds for the ooperation, because the original $50,000 was running out (he didn't get it).
  • In addition to the above, personally I would like to see a bit more fleshing-out of some of the principal figures. Who were Magruder, Strachan, Hunt, McCord? Who for that matter was Liddy? Links are not enough.

In short, I think that the article as it stands needs considerable fleshing-out before it meets the criterion of comprehensiveness. There is surely no shortage of reliable sources. I can help with citations if necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be honest, the brevity reflects what sources I was able to find for the article—the books you've mentioned didn't turn up even as mentions on any searches I made and so I didn't know there was more material out there; the article gives the impression the project stopped before it started because I genuinely thought it had. I'd be willing to shelve this for now to try to locate the books you've named and use their material for it; that would also address your last concern some, as I hadn't gone into great detail on each figure named for fear it would seem like padding. GRAPPLE X 18:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be better withdrawn for the time being. The article is distinctly threadbare, and I'd have to oppose at present on the grounds of non-comprehensiveness. I'll help as far as I can to flesh it out; apart from the books I've mentioned there are other potentially useful texts, which I'll try to look up. Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've ordered up the three texts you've mentioned so I should be able to get picking them apart within a week or two. I've never had to withdraw a nomination before but I've just removed this listing from FAC, I presume that does the requisite. GRAPPLE X 01:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I'm not disagreeing with anything Brian said, just noting that I've copyedited and supported on prose before, and nothing has changed. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Operation_Sandwedge/archive2&oldid=699048587"