Talk:John Dean

message: I think this article really needs more on Dean's role in the Watergate hearings. Right now there's too much stress on where he spent 127 days.-R. fiend 15:35, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I've tried to rectify this a little bit by researching and documenting the details of Dean's plea, incarceration, and the reason his sentence was reduced, since the subject seems to be so far up a previous contributor's ass.  Hopefully you feel this is an improvement as well.  --Branden 05:14, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I found a lot of the language of this article to be tripping over itself so I attempted to expand and rewrite it some.  A good portion that I found lacking in the article was Dean's role in Watergate.  There was plenty in there about whistle-blower but very little about what he did in the cover up.  I've tried to hit on that some, lay out the chronology leading up to his firing on April 30 and go from there.
I also standardized the references, added the photo, and broke it up into sections.  Comments and suggestions always welcome.
--Wgfinley 03:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work, Wgfinley! --Branden 06:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Well done. The improvement from the page is it is currently from how it was almost a year ago is amazing. -R. fiend 15:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I have to say I'm disappointed by this article. Dean was a major figure in the Watergate scandal, which is what makes him such a notable person, yet the part about his role in Watergate is very slim. There's as much about some historically insignificant defamation lawsuits as about Watergate. The Watergate section needs to be seriously expanded.  --MiguelMunoz 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: The more I read about Dean the more I started to call into question some facts.  Then I stumbled upon what has been going on in recent years regarding allegations of Dean being the main force behind Watergate and it was done to cover up a prostitution ring he was running with his wife.  At first I dismissed this as nutjob stuff but the more I look at it the more it seems to have some merit.
First off, I found evidence that Dean has admitted to not writing his first book, that it was ghost written for him, and that whole sections of it are fabricated.  That really set me off because he admitted this in 1995, the author who really did write it has acknowledged it on his own personal website yet the story hasn't seemed to have much traction.  The star witness at Watergate admits he didn't write his own "tell all" book on the subject and that parts of it are totally made up and no one seems to care?  That bothered me.
Before I get into this I decided to get the source material myself: the books Will by G. Gordon Liddy (certainly to be taken with a grain of salt), Secret Agenda by Jim Hougan which seemed to start this ball rolling after Liddy's book and the latest one, Silent Coup by Len Colodny.  The last book has interested me because both Dean and the DNC Secretary also implicated have lost their civil suits against Liddy and Colodny.  Also John Ehrlichman ended up doing a documentary/interview video with Tom Clancy as the host that went into some of these issues some and finally, Investigative Reports on A&E did a show called The Key to Watergate covering this material.  When Bill Kurtis puts his name on it (I'm a Chicago guy so Bill Kurtis carries a lot of weight with me) that really got me to thinking this isn't the usual conspiracy bunk.  Also when I found out that Colodny is a liberal Democrat and has no love at all for Nixon that swayed me quite a bit because I didn't want Nixon apologist stuff.
So, what I've decided to do is get the books, read them, do some follow up research and come back at this article and the other Watergate articles to see how it should all fit.  So, for now I think I will leave the article as it is rather than piecemeal revise things before I've done some more work.  Once you get interested in this topic it really seems to eat you alive!!  For me it all started wanting to flesh out some of the bios on Watergate figures and has snowballed into something else completely.  I had always been a believer that Nixon's paranoia coupled with controlling and overzealous trusted aides (Ehrlichman and H.R. Haldeman) led to his demise.  The more I look at it the more it seems this is really a story of ambitious thirtysomethings (Dean, Jeb Stuart Magruder, Egil Krogh and Gordon C. Strachan) who seized some power, mimicked and magnified the personal faults of Nixon, and brought down a presidency.  In the case of Dean it could be even more than that.
--Wgfinley 19:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So Dean has been accused by some reliable sources of having been the primary planner of the Watergate break-in? Is that what your'e saying? When you say "the main force behind Watergate" it's a little unclear exactly what that entails. That to me seems somewhat far fetched. And how does it connect with his alleged prostitution ring? I'm curious now. -R. fiend 19:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Basically it boils down to who ordered the Watergate break in.  Dean's story, and the accepted story since he cooperated, has always been that John N. Mitchell ordered it.  While Watergate was on the list of plans it wasn't at the time the break-in took place because that DNC office wasn't in full use, the candidate hadn't been picked, etc.  In other words it had little practical use as a target for political espionage.  Mitchell was no political neophyte, to think he would order that just doesn't seem right.  Liddy states that Dean (stating he was acting on behalf of Mitchell) ordered the first infiltration and they successfully planted the bugs, one wasn't working right.  Liddy was going to have the burglars go back to repair the defective bug when Magruder turned a simple repair operation into a major photo mission and allegedly the target was a secretary's desk where she was keeping these files on the prostitution ring.  It's immense and there's some facts to back it up including a key taped to a notebook one of the burglars had, the key opened one thing -- the secretary's desk.  From there it's a whole boatload of information, I need to sift through it some more which is why I'm holding off on doing anything.  The major repository for Colodny's research for Silent Coup can be found online at The Nixon Era Center.  I've gone through some material there and really want to have at the books some more to try to sort it all out.  If you want a decent overview they have that entire Investigative Reports piece available here.  It's pretty shocking stuff.  This was right after Colodny's book came out but Dean's admission his first book wasn't written by him, etc.  --Wgfinley 23:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About to Get Hairy 

message: First, let me say, I'm a little disappointed that a referenced piece of material was removed just because John Dean did an article saying he never said that.  I took that line directly from a copy of his deposition that I found when originally doing the revision.  I can't find this copy now so I am not going to revert it's removal, I will try to locate this again and will post it here.  As I've said, it's in his deposition, he denies he said that but hasn't provided any proof from the deposition as cited nor did he even mention in the article that his deposition was cited as the source.  Instead he said he would "watch and wait" to see if it would be corrected.  He also stated he can't correct it himself which is complete hogwash.
: Actually, no, he said that while he could, he chose not to -- as his own little experiment on the reliability of on-line information.  (And on that score, I think we did pretty well -- his article is datelined September 9, and before the day was out, a note had appeared on the Reference Desk and the edits to the article had begun.) --Steve Summit (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the material was indeed cited, the source wasn't readily available.  My experience, from having read many deposition transcripts, is that passages are often subject to multiple interpretations.  Therefore, I think it's a good idea for you to post the exact wording of the document you have.  Also, was the transcript signed by the witness?  Usual procedure is that the court reporter's transcript is given to the witness so that any errors can be corrected.  The reporters are only human, and I've seen them make errors that exactly reversed the witness's meaning, or that brought in something from left field that didn't relate to anything the witness had said (except perhaps for using some of the same consonants). JamesMLane 19:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Your disappointment is well-taken, and all due apologies, but as one of the ones who removed the claim, let me explain: I didn't realize you'd personally seen the deposition in question (I figured it was just mentioned in one of your other sources), and in any case, the removal was temporary.  Once we got you back from wikibreak to verify it, I assumed we'd put it right back in, if appropriate. Steve Summit 17:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: wouldn't it just count as a primary source or are all primary sources considered OR?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghost-writing Controversy 

message: I see it says Dean got his law degree from Georgetown, but I distinctly remember reading numerous times during the Watergate years that he got his JD from American University.  Are we sure that Georgetown is correct?  I always thought it was American University.  Thanks in advance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.159.186 (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law degree from Georgetown or American University? 

message: I was surprised there was no article on Maureen Dean, John's wife, who has written at least three books herself. 
67.142.130.17 (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I don't have access to the sources but this glaring contradiction still exists. The article as a whole is pretty abysmal & I do wonder about its neutrality. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Biner was her first husband’s last name. 2601:280:4C80:6C00:6CF4:FAE4:21E4:658C (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maureen Dean 

message: This article seems like an attempt at rehabilitating the image of a central figure in Watergate who was neck-deep in the coverup. It seems that since Dean has become a darling of he left for his (rather hypocritical) attacks on the Bush administration. How else can one exlpain that this person, famous only for his involvement in the largest political scandal in American history, gets a larger write-up for his Bush attacks than his Watergate involvement? I think this bio should be re-written to be more in accordance with why Dean is (in)famous, rather than as a platform for the political views of someone who was disbarred and convicted of felonies for political crimes.
It really does seem as if this article was written by Dean's publicist. 71.189.16.131 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Dean's post-Watergate section larger than his Watergate section 

message: why is John Dean's infobox not a crimnal infobox like G. Gordon Liddy?  they are both convicted felons and disbarred attorneys with time served in federal prison.  i tried to correct this and it was labeled vandalism.  one does not have to have a political persuasion to note the disparate treatment.  can anyone give a logical answer?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdneverpassesabar (talk • contribs) 20:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox person vs. Infobox Criminal NPOV?  (see Gordon Liddy page)

message: Go to page on Gordon Liddy and compare the biobox which includes charge and disposition.
Both are convicted felons, disbarred attorneys who served federal prison time.
Is this NPOV?  i attempted to correct this and edit was labeled vandalism.
Jdneverpassesabar (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  biobox: why does G Gordon Liddy have a criminal biobox and John Dean does not 

message: In this tweet Dean indicates that the Wikipedia article on him is wrong in some way (but doesn't give details).--A bit iffy (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly because it doesn't clearly indicate his criminal past, e.g., see G. Gordon Liddy's wiki article and the talk commentary this is attached to? In any case, who cares?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Dean suggests article wrong

message: "Dean stated that the federal judge handling the case forced a settlement with Liddy."  This may unintentional, but in context this statement seems to indicate that a judge forced Liddy to pay damages to Dean.  I searched the internet and could only find that Liddy won the lawsuits Dean brought against him.  I couldn't find any indication that Liddy paid damages to Dean.  I did find a picture of a huge cheshire cat smile by Liddy, as if he was pleased at having trounced Dean at law.  I think that this statement should be removed and an unambiguous statement supplied in its place.  (EnochBethany (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel Words?

message: This matter has been raised previously but it is still (as of 2012-09-27) outstanding. The bio box on the Gordon Liddy page has criminal charges and felony conviction information at the top, right after the birth info. The bio box for John Dean on this page does not give any felony conviction info. If it is Wikipedia policy to put felony conviction information prominently in bio boxes, then it should apply to both Dean and Liddy equally. If it is not Wikipedia policy, it should be in neither bio box. To be clear, I am not expressing any opinion as to whether it should or should not be Wikipedia policy to put felony conviction info in bio boxes. I am pointing out that NPOV requires people to be treated equally. The impression left by a comparison of the John Dean and Gordon Liddy pages is that Wikipedia editors like John Dean, and want to de-emphasize his felony conviction; and/or don't like Gordon Liddy, and want to flag his felony conviction prominently.
Barbacana (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious NPOV issue between this page and the Gordon Liddy page 

message: First note ever written on a Wiki report - and -  first time I disagreed with Wikipedia. What a whitewash of that weasel. What a coward, what a snitch. I'm guessing Dean's ghost writer penned this as well. Shame! Shame!71.62.233.207 (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just read Wiki report on John Dean 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on John Dean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111229040222/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/washington/01kutler.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/washington/01kutler.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on John Dean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220083602/http://www.taylorbranch.com/pastwriting/ to http://www.taylorbranch.com/pastwriting/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040505002437/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F04%2F06%2F1354218 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04%2F04%2F06%2F1354218
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517020754/http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/07/11/john-dean-on-countdown-conservatives-without-conscience/ to http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/07/11/john-dean-on-countdown-conservatives-without-conscience/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Dean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722012105/http://www.watergate.info/burglary/fbi-files1.pdf to http://www.watergate.info/burglary/fbi-files1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091115194249/http://slate.msn.com/id/1007011 to http://slate.msn.com/id/1007011/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While Dean's situation clearly assisted this researcher's work on memory and is therefore worthy of mention, I'm not sure it deserves such a lengthy section here containing so many specific details about this one researcher's findings. Perhaps a single paragraph would suffice, or maybe two relatively brief ones. It's already a stretch to have a whole section dedicated to this topic, and I'd even argue that it would be better deployed in the section above, perhaps in a final separate subsection there with a heading about the larger legacy of Dean's Watergate situation. Thoughts? RJ0053 (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I came here to point that out myself. I think a single sentence would be more than enough. --Jackminardi (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of memory section  

message: Ten years ago we had a discussion on this page about the difference between the biography, and specifically the bio box, for John Dean and that for his fellow convicted Watergate conspirator G. Gordon Liddy.   
Now we see that Dean's bio box has been cleansed of all mention of his conviction, while Liddy's contains both "Criminal status	Released when parole came up after 4.5 years in prison" as well as "Criminal charge	Conspiracy, burglary, illegal wiretapping" and also "Penalty	20-year imprisonment, later commuted to 8 years by President Jimmy Carter" 
Many people accuse Wikipedia of systematic Leftist POV, which I like to think is not true.   In the years since working for Nixon Dean has been an outspoken critic of Republican administration and has been employed by left and center-left media outlets as a pundit.  
Liddy has had a similar trajectory, only his commentary has been as a right-wing pundit and has taken place on right wing media outlets. 
Why do the two convictions as part of the same political scandal merit such disparate treatment from Wikipedia editors?  Occam's razor suggests that Liddy is viewed as a bad person, and his convictions are tangible proof of this, while Dean is "one of us" and a rehabilitated guy, who made a few mistakes in his past but heroically brought down Nixon, and so doesn't deserve to the the "felon" label attached to his bio box AT ALL, while Liddy gets it THREE TIMES. 
It's not a good look for Wikipedia. 
ZeroXero (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once again the Bio Box has been cleansed of any mention of his felony conviction. 

message: Based entirely on "The Ends of Power," H.R Haldeman's memoir, one user claimed that Dean had tried to get immunity from Nixon. This is false, Dean never tried to get immunity from Nixon, but went to federal prosecutors who denied him immunityThe Watergate Source (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing false claim about immunity