Talk:Watergate complex

message: what exactly did they do for it to be a scandal???????? And why was it a big deal?????
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.70 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Betts, Jack. "What `Watergate' meant, before it meant scandal (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/columnists/jack_betts/9348327.htm)," Charlotte Observer August 8, 2004
that site requires you to register.. should external links that require registration be allowed in wikis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.236.133 (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes external links that require registration should and must be included in wikis. In fact many of the most reliable sources (such as trade journals, archvies, and university librarys) may require payment or even using non-online sources. This is in line with WP policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost --Drewder (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *But let's be clear:  Aside from citations, external links requiring registration should be avoided. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Before the scandal

message: The article title is misleading. While there is a Watergate Hotel, the best-known event took place at one of the two Watergate Office Buildings, not the hotel.
I have fixed this as best I could by adding a paragraph to this effect, for those interested in the Watergate burglary.
However, I suggest changing the article title to something like "Watergate complex", "Watergate Office Building" or "Watergate buildings". The article text then could be further refined to begin with the office building, and also discuss the residential buildings (and their famous occupants) and the hotel. I would change the title myself but I am very new to Wikipedia and don't know how to do it without screwing up links.
I did like the part about the derivation of "water gate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmurph5 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs to reflect the complex

message: Oh yes, my key sources for the Watergate Office Building addresses and other burglary-related facts are:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001526.html (the addresses of the buildings)
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5456826/ (the HJ becoming a dorm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmurph5 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 June 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A bit more about recent edits

message: I am fairly certain that Bob Dole still lives in Watergate.  He currently works at the law firm Alston & Bird in the Washington office.  I'll check this for accuracy, but I'm fairly certain it's true.  Anyway, check out Bob Dole; it may have some backup for this. CommKing 20:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Residents

message: See reasoning above; the Watergate Hotel is just one component of the Watergate Complex, and it was not the part where the 1972 break-in occurred. This article is really about the entire complex, not just the hotel. —Chowbok 18:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for move

message: I am straightening out Watergate redirects, and have run across the term watergate which refers to a structure (for example, see Pulls Ferry, Norwich.  In the history of the naming of the complex, this article links the word "Watergate" to the scandal, and not the terraced set of steps.
So, my question is:  When I create a Watergate page which refers to a structure, what should the title of the page be?  Is a watergate a structure?--Broux 13:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Term "Watergate"

message: I removed the statement "it is alleged the Vatican owns the complex"; in reality at one time the Vatican had a 20% stake in Societa Generale Immobiliare, the Watergate's construction firm.  I do not know if this is still the case. --Broux 20:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vatican and the Watergate Complex

message: Would the Watergate Hotel in fiction be a noteable section? One episode of Futurama revolves around a break-in into the building. A recent Justice League of America comic much of the building thrown into the Potomac... Lots42 (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Watergate in fiction?

message: Good evening! As I see, the complex was founded in 1962 and its building was finished in 1967, am I right? These years are defined in the article in a bit ambiguous way, I would like to ask you to refine it a little :) Thank you much.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.205.173 (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of founding / building

message: Although a "Single Source" tag was tossed onto this article, I've removed it.  No discussion of single source was added to this Talk page, so it is difficult to see why the tag would have been added.  I assume the tag was added because Cite #4 (Livingston, Mike. "Watergate: The Name That Branded More Than A Building." Washington Business Journal. June 14, 2002.) is used 34 times.  Notice, first, that there are 128 other sources used in this article.  Second, Cite #4 is used in conjunction with other sources 22 of the 34 times Cite #4 is used.  Cite #4 is a stand-alone cite only 12 times—as much as Cite #2, #13, and #83.  There are 378 total citations in this article, of which only 12 are stand-alone references to Cite #4.  This is not "single source" by any means. - Tim1965 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: No single source

message: Hi -- I am not an editor but wanted to make a suggestion under 4.2.2 Office Building. See below for suggested text that could be added per the provided source. 
Suggested text: The DNC, more than $10,000 behind on rent in 1972, was almost evicted from the Watergate building before the break-in took place. Giuseppe Cecchi, the SGI executive in charge of the Watergate at the time, wanted to send the DNC an eviction notice but was convinced otherwise by a colleague. After the election, in July 1973, the DNC settled its debt to the Watergate with a $2,500 check.
Source: Politico Magazine, "How the Watergate Scandal Almost Had a Different Name" February 18, 2018.
Link: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/18/how-the-watergate-scandal-almost-had-a-different-name-217016
Kb1455a (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for 4.2.2 Office Building  

message: Hi -- I am not an editor but wanted to suggest the following addition to section 2 (Name Origins).  Please see below for suggested text and citation.  
Suggested text: In THE WATERGATE: Inside America’s Most Infamous Address (William Morrow), author Joseph Rodota revealed three different accounts for how the complex came to be named: Playwright and novelist Warren Adler maintains he gave the complex the name, while working as a publicist for the developer; financier Nicolas Salgo recalled acquiring the name from Marjory Hendricks, proprietor of the nearby Water Gate Inn; and SGI executive Giuseppe Cecchi said he and his colleagues suggested the name to the main office of SGI in Rome.
Source: Rodota, Joseph. The Watergate: Inside America’s Most Infamous Address. William Morrow, 2018, p. 21-22.
Kb1455a (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for 2. Name Origins 

message: The article is very detailed, yet I have a few questions about how the complex even got built to its current heights.  
1. Edit: Okay, I see in the article the DCZC approved the plans in July, 1962.
2. More important than that, though, is how were the developers talking about - and haggling over - heights like 140 feet and 170 feet with District officials when the Height of Buildings Act caps heights off certain parts of Pennsylvania Avenue at 130 feet?  The Wiki article on the list of tallest buildings in DC actually shows this building at 151 feet (and oddly something like 50 buidlings surpassing 130 feet).  There is no way that 21 extra feet in height above the 130-foot limit is not habitable space (elevator towers, mecahnical pentouses, parapets, what have you) right?  I'm confused how this building and so many others greatly surpass the general 130-foot height limit along most commercial streets when all I've ever heard is how the Height of Building Act is the end-all/be-all of max building heights in the district.  Can someone explain? --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height 

message: I noticed a "gap" in the image usage on this article around the Construction/History parts. Although the article has got many images of the building already, I found this one to be impressive and think perhaps it would work well to fill that gap. What does everyone else think? QRep2020 (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another building image? 

message: The architectural style is listed as "Modern Monument" but Googling and Wikiing don't offer any insight on that term. I'm not an author nor architect, but I can't tell the difference between the complex and straight-up Modernism. 97.102.79.128 (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Modern Monument"?