Template talk:Watergate

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: American Politics portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. This template is supported by American politics task force. United States: Presidential elections / Presidents United States portal This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts This template is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. This template is supported by WikiProject Presidents of the United States.

Pentagon Papers belong?

Maybe I just don't get it, but how do the Pentagon Papers and Watergate connect? They're really two separate events, right? 24.118.229.252 02:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the above comment is 9+ months old, but I'm inclined to agree -- including Ellsberg feels like a stretch. I see the rationale, but if we go down that road, there are a LOT of other, more pertinent people who would come first (Katie Graham, Robert Bork, Elliot Richardson). There is also the issue of including the Pentagon Papers link itself. Any thoughts? Editor Emeritus 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on including the Pentagon Papers and the Ellsberg break-in in the Talk:Watergate_scandal#Pentagon_Papers_and_the_Ellsberg_.22plumbers.22_operation. page. Ukulele 19:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gravel

What is he doing in this template. He barely is connected to Watergate (through the Pentagon papers, which is under dispute). And he not mentioned in the main article either. MDfoo 01:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gravel doesn't belong at all - Watergate isn't even mentioned in the Gravel article, which discusses everything Gravel ever did. There are some Gravel nuts in Wikipedia, and this addition must have been their work. I've removed it. Wasted Time R 16:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Lano

I added Angelo Lano, the FBI agent who headed the investigation in Washington. Hope that's ok. SGGH ^speak! 16:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L. Patrick Gray

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

Liddy

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

Hugh W. Sloan, Jr.

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

impeachment

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

Image

Randy Kryn I don't see how the 2006 photo is preferable by any metric. It's not of particularly good quality, with a digital camera haze. It also doesn't show the Howard Johnson's motel, the second most important building in the plot after the hotel. The framing also isn't ideal, with plenty of random buildings cluttering the background. The contemporary, historical photo (which Congress deemed high quality enough to admit as an exhibit!) is vastly superior. ~ HAL333 05:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct HAL333, I initially thought that the photo you provided was taken recently. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no worries — looks like we've just had "a failure to communicate". Sorry if I came across a little too spirited. ~ HAL333 08:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]