Talk:G. Gordon Liddy

message: The Bio Box for Liddy makes it seem as if he was a master criminal. Many other government officials who have been convicted of crimes are still bio'd for their positions, with the crimes noted and discussed in the article body.  Examples would be Mike Espy and most clearly John Dean. 
Liddy's bio box needs to be reformatted to be like all these other cases, and not presenting him as some unique arch criminal.
This is blatent bias (against an outspoken right-winger) which does Wikipedia little credit.  
Unless someone can provide some justification for keeping it I intend to change it to a more generic sort.
24.22.76.12 (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ridiculous Bias shown in Bio Box

message: I added the more detailed information about the Anderson assassination and his enlarged testicles.  This information was revealed in a interview with Howard Stern.  A summary of the interview will be posted on howardstern.com later tonight, at which time I will post a link as a external reference.  -sk
Stating Nixon ordered the Watergate and Ellsberg break-ins seems to be going beyond what wikipedia's other articles are willing to say. It seems to me that while many people (myself included) believe that Nixon ordered these, it has not been proven beyond the allegations of a few people. I think using the word "allegedly" would be in order in this case. If anyone has objections to these changes please explain them here. -R. fiend 06:52, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So let's include this most heinous of all his crimes into the article, right? Alongside with the asinine passage from "the code"(TM) *sarcasm off* Str1977 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Early commentary

message: Liddy never actually broke into the Watergate, did he? He wasn't one of the five arrested, he just was a planner/organizer, right? This article doesn't make that clear, but I don't want to change it until I'm certain. -R. fiend 1 July 2005 21:01 (UTC)
I would argue that the comment about Liddy's plan to break into the Watergate complex 'caught the eye' of the White House is wrong. It was rejected a number of times, it should also be noted that different people in the White House were involved and had different views.
Answer:  Liddy did not physically enter the Watergate, but he did supervise the break-in via handheld radio from a hotel across the street.  He was convicted however of burglary as under the law this distinction was irrelevant to the commission of the offense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.86.110 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Watergate

message: Having just come across Liddy's defense of his advice about where to shoot ATF agents, I added it to the article. The quote I've inserted is too long, but I couldn't find a good way to shorten it.
Talking of edited quotations, the text given for the 2 quotations seems to be taken from the FAIR article in the external links. Given that FAIR is Not Exactly Fond of Mr. Liddy, we should find, and cite, a better source, with no elisions. Unfortunately, my efforts to Google for one were totally unsuccessful.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial Statements

message: does anyone have anything to back up the Irish-Italian claims?  I've also heard that he is at least part German - any one have any sources for any of this?
:I don't remember the details exactly, but I do know it's in the autobiography.
This should be called Ethnicity(just say'in),& he is in fact of Irish & Italian(paternal)ancestry  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.242.8 (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Race

message: This site: [] references that Alexander "Bud" Wilson created this "Hurricane Force Training Academy" with G. Gordon Liddy. Now, from what I can find out, Mr. Liddy used it for photo ops only, and wasn't really involved. I'm looking for citations, and haven't been able to find any.
Does anyone know anything about this endeavor? Pyrogen 04:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Liddy's Involvement with Bud Wilson?

message: This article is a disaster. I've removed huge chunks of OR which -somehow- hadn't been challenged previously, despite being completely ridiculous. Everything in this article needs a source and anything that doesn't have one is liable to be removed immediately under WP:BLP. I've also removed the trivia section since it violates WP:TRIVIA and was pointless anyway. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major copyediting needed

message: from page 179 of Hunt's book AMERICAN SPY..."Despite our friendship, there was a side to Liddy's personality that I could never quite understand.  Documents that originated in Room 16 were stamped "ODESSA" to distinguish them from other routine classified material that circulated within the White House. I would later learn that Liddy, an aficionado of Germany, had formed the word the word from a German veterans organization that some of his friends belonged to. Organization der Emerlingen Schutz Staffel Angehorigen, a group that smuggled Nazis out of Germany after World War II. I didn't know why a group like that appealed to him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (13 years later) Why is Liddy's affinity for the Nazis not mentioned in the current version of this article? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: E.Howard Hunt on G. Gordon Liddy

message: In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns -- including $1,000 in 2008.
Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain said "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family."  "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-oped0504chapmanmay04,0,3136852.column  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.189.28 (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it significant though? Are we to mention everyone in the world with some sort of connection to McCain? -R. fiend (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Not newsworthy. Must consider WP:Weight.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: You may have noticed that the Ayers situation has had a little coverage in the media. What coverage has this connection had? It really isn't terribly newsworthy. The situations are not the same. -R. fiend (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Liddy's connections to John McCain

message: Is this the best image we can do? Shouldn't we have a recognizable picture of him with his iconic mustache? -R. fiend (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I've removed the statemetn that his comments were made "after the Branch Davidian compound raid", as his comments came more than a year afterwards.  I also realized that his ATF comments were made twice on this page, so one of them should be deleted.
I advocate deleting the first mention (under "controversies" and not the one under "controversial statements"), as well as "Libby's connections to John McCain."  Personal political leanings notwithstanding, there is nothing controversial about someone having a relationship with a long-serving, generally respected Senator like McCain (albiet, the converse could easily be considered controversial...that is, a Senator and Presidential candidate having a relationship with a former felon like Libby).  
Removing both "Advice to listeners" and "Libby's connections to John McCain" leaves just "Watergate burglaries" under the controversy section.  Simple solution would be to do away with "controversies", give "Watergate" a section all to itself, and preserve the "controversial statements" section.  Anyone agree/disagree? Ynot4tony2 (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement about the ATF

message: It's a far stretch to say Obama was referring to the Peace Corps or Amircops in his comments about the civilian defense force.  Neither organization has anything to do with defense.  As I said, Media Matters is creating analysis and it's being accepted here as fact.
The Media Matters spin is over-reaching, and furthermore they are NOT a reliable source (they are a glorified blog funded by partisan liberals).
But, I know how Wikipedia operates...it gives extra credence to radical liberals like Media Matters, yet ignores concrete video evidence of Hillary Clinton claiming to help start Media Matters.  The double standards are appalling, and I'm not about to be banned for edit wars for simply trying to inject a little common sense and fairness into this article.
Wikipedia is NOT a mirror site for Media Matters, but it's starting to look that way. Ynot4tony2 (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "concrete video evidence" was a vague statement she made that has been twisted and contorted from a general statement of support to a supposedly factual statement that she was a founder, "evidence" that has not been substantiated by any other source.  To call this "evidence" and to include it in Wikipedia would be to pervert every standard and core policy that this site possesses.  In this article, we simply quote and attribute said quote to MMfA, as is a standard practice in many WP articles.  You are angrily denouncing a "double standard" which does not exist. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "...and to include it in Wikipedia would be to pervert every standard and core policy that this site possesses."  Wikipedia possesses NO standard or core policy regarding objectivity.  At best, Wikipedia is a source of humor and entertainment; no scholar would consider material posted here anything other than what it is - agenda based opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.240.208 (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The issue for me seems not to be what Obama meant by his statement, but if an article on Liddy is the place to go into what exactly Obama was referring to. Obama has his own article for that (this proposal may even have its own article; I'll have to check). I think there is probably a neutral way to phrase this that doesn't support Liddy's view but simultaneously doesn't sound like the page is taking the view of Obama apologists. I'm willing to bet that when we quote an individual referring to the Bush administration torturing people we don't generally follow it with a sentence describing how various other organizations don't classify waterboarding as torture. We simply make it clear that "torture" is the view of the individual in question, and leave the controversy about what exactly the administration has performed or condoned to the relevant article. That seems to be what we should do here. I'll see if I can rephrase it to people's liking. -R. fiend (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, the whole paragraph could go. Is it really relevant? Have his comments been mentioned by other sources? If we are going to cover every ridiculous thing Liddy has ever said this is going to be a very long article indeed. -R. fiend (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Civilian military force comments

message: why does G Gordon Liddy have an Infobox Criminal including criminal history info, whereas John Dean, another indicted, convicted co-conspirator and disbarred attorney who served federal prison time does not?  see page on John Dean  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.114.86.110 (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if it annoys you so much, go ahead and add Infobox Criminal to Dean's page. VolatileChemical (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think that's the wrong answer. Would you put a Criminal Box up for Halle Barry?  No, even though she was convicted of hit and run driving she isn't a criminal professionally.   Unlike Al Capone or Butch Cassidy.  
The correct fix is to change the bio-box for this entry from the ridiculously inappropriate "criminal" type to the more normal one used by well known government and media types routinely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Should we add Liddy's recent remarks about the release of the reporters in North Korea, where he said it would've been better if they had been left there and lived with the consequences of their acts? I heard it quoted in a Salon article, and someone was quoted as saying that on the Daily Show, I'm not sure if it was Liddy's remark specifically but I'm pretty sure it was. If so, anyone else think that's controversial enough? VolatileChemical (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial statements

message: The citation link out here ([4]) points to a page about the IRS - I haven't found where Liddy is mentioned in this volume. And the statement "At CRP and at the behest of John Dean (operating on his own to impress his superior, John Erlichman, unbeknownst to Liddy at that time), Liddy concocted several plots, some far-fetched, intended to embarrass the Democratic opposition.[4]" forms a basis for Dean's libel charge. Why would a notoriously mild-mannered White House counsel need to put a man like Liddy up to anything? It's absurd and unsupported and was probably written by Liddy himself. Re-write or remove. Granulorhoek (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: White House Years

message: Pursuant to an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation, I've courtesy-listed this article at BLPN relating to the accuracy of statements about John Dean in the section entitled "White House Years." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP question

message: I can't find a source saying Liddy was convicted of illegal wiretapping. The Washington Post says he was convicted for his role in the burglary, for conspiracy and for contempt of court. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/liddy.html.
The Gerald Ford museum Watergate pages say burglary, conspiracy and refusing to testify to the Senate Watergate committee.
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=1&page=b&person=5  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marfinan (talk • contribs) 12:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  illegal wiretapping, citation needed 

message: Facts: Currently the article has a completely unsourced quote in which Liddy says Hitler's speeches made him "feel a strength inside...." Here's how it got that way:
2006-06-04: User Stevenj converts an unsourced statement into one sourced (mediamatters.org) diff.
Somewhere along the way someone changes the mediamatters.org link into a link to The Independent, which is really the original source.
2011-10-04: User Jprw removes the link to the source, and the part about how Liddy condemns Hitler as evil, with the edit summary "removing non-RS." diff
Opinions: This quote absolutely needs a source. The Independent seems reliable to me as a non-expert in journalism. I can't believe they would totally fabricate quotes to write a false 3000-word profile. Yes, they're probably unfriendly territory for Liddy; it sounds like they have a liberal editorial stance, and the article lead-in says "G Gordon Liddy is the rabid shock jock who gives voice to America's extreme right. Johann Hari expected to hate him...."
Therefore I'm going to undo Jprw's edit. The other option is to remove the whole quote. I hardly care if someone wants to take that option. It's around 51%/49% preference for me. But I'm 100% against a quote with no source. 
--Officiallyover (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I just read some stuff about the author of the piece (Johann Hari). As I understand it, he took quotes from other journalists' articles and passed them off as his own interviewing, and he ran a Wikipedia sock puppet. I'm leaving my change as is. As I state above, take out the whole quote and the reference if you want; I don't care, but we can't take out just half of it. --Officiallyover (talk) 02:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff about Hitler 

message: I removed this section due to it being original research (where are the sources stating these are controversial) and being entirely undue with respect to the rest of the article. This section compared to Watergate puts far too much emphasis on these statements.  If they belong anywhere, it should go under his radio career and in much less verbosity. That man from Nantucket (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial statements 

message: Article says "Separately, along with" making an apparent contradiction. Will the editor clarify please? (PeacePeace (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to mean they worked in parallel. I have made it a little less confusing.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix apparent contradiction "Separately, along with" or clarify 

message: I have written a similar comment today on the John Dean talk page, where the disparity between the generally neutral presentation of John Dean and the downright menacing presentation of G. Gordon Liddy was raised as an issue by editors a decade ago, and corrected.  Sadly it has now reappeared.  
It seems that there are many comparisons to be made, as the entire group of "convicted Watergate conspirators" is well known and have been correctly seen as part of a single conspiracy and coherent group since the original events.  How does Liddy's biography in general, and bio-box in particular compare with his fellow convicted Watergate co-conspirators? 
It appears that Liddy is being presented in a much harsher light than the other convicted co-conspirators in the Watergate scandal.  
The bio-box for Liddy rather gratuitously manages to make his felony conviction for that scandal a huge part of the summary of his life -- having three separate sections.   In contrast the felony convictions of most other Watergate villans is not mentioned at all in their bio boxes. 
* John Dean - no mention 
* Jeb Stuart McGruder - no mention 
* Charles Coulson - no mention 
* H. R. Haldeman - no mention 
* John Ehrlichman - no mention 
* John N. Mitchell - no mention (does have separate "Watergate" box, in addition to bio box)
* Kenneth Parkinson - no mention 
* E Howard Hunt - no mention 
The presentation of the single conviction in Watergate in Liddy's bio appears unprecidented and unwarrented, and violates Wikipedia NPV policy.  
It should be updated in line with those of the 8 people cited above, and the three gratuitous mentions of his conviction removed from his bio box. 
ZeroXero (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Dean was able to plead, thus avoiding conviction.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disparity of Bio Box information  

message: Did his radio show have a name? I can not find a reference to any name anywhere, even though he was on the air for decades. 199.120.30.198 (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of radio show 

message: Did Liddy get disbarred? I would think so, but this article says nothing about this. The pages for Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Dean all say they were disbarred. This feels like an oversight. (If he didn't get disbarred, that info should also be present. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disbarred?