Jump to content

Talk:Deep Throat (Watergate)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jwy (talk | contribs) at 00:50, 11 August 2021 (→"Fictional Portrayals": typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Photo of garage meeting spot

Hey, so I just visited the spot in the parking garage where Deep Throat met Woodward. Got a photo, too. So now I'm wondering: do people think it would be a nice addition to add a small photo near the appropriate section? --Qwerty0 (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, be bold! (Morethan3words | talk) 17:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, please post it. Vidor (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that the above file was deleted (for what reason?). The parking garage will be torn down in 2017 [1].

It's located at 1410 Wilson Blvd., Rosslyn, VA. In particular space 32D. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish

Well was he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeerlife (talk • contribs) 19:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer is no. Even if the Composite Character theory is to be completely believed I don't think any of the currently suspected 'other' individuals that make up Deep Throat are Jewish, and I'm fairly certain Mark Felt was not (he was married by a chaplain, not to mention being very successful in Hoover's FBI...). However, there is still the possibility that, if the composite character theory is true, one or more of the individuals who spoke to Bob Woodward and whose information would later be attributed to Deep Throat were Jewish. It would all be speculation at best, however. (Morethan3words | talk) 15:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction/Metal Gear Solid

In Metal Gear Solid 2, the "informant" who provided you with information, and who was "neither friend nor foe" was named Deep Throat (until the identity is later revealed, but still)

Is this worthy of being mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.133.25 (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Throat

I read the article, and was unable to find Deep Throat's famous quote "It's the money, just always follow the money". I thought this to be significant, not only for this subject, but for many subjects where money seems to do all the talking. Chase c ryder (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, that quote comes from the character Deep Throat in the movie adaptation of All the President's Men, and is not something that is actually attributed to any of Woodward's sources. I could be wrong about that, so it might be good if someone with access to the book could double-check that. (Morethan3words | talk) 05:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Deep Throat (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates

Should section headlines really be titled "More credible candidates" and "Less credible candidates"? It seems to violate NPOV, and OR for candidates without references. Also, why does Fred Fielding have a section devoted to him alone? It might just be best to group all the false candidates together since Felt (or a composite if you believe that) was Deep Throat.108.207.39.63 (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having all of that there with very few references is a problem. Someone could go through and add [citation needed] tags all over the place, but ideally we would need citations for each candidate from reliable sources. It appears that Fred Fielding has his own section because he was considered the most likely ("another leading candidate") if it was not Mark Felt or a composite, and that there was less general acceptance of the other candidates listed. This is mostly speculation on my part, and if true, that definitely needs to be spelled out in the article rather than implied by the formatting. It also bothers me that the introduction seems to be clear that Deep Throat was clearly Mark Felt, but the body of the article seems to present the question as still fairly open. -- Benjwgarner (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't John Dean also regarded as a credible candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Tondowsky (talk • contribs) 22:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus for merger. wctaiwan (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Deep Throat (Watergate) be merged into Mark Felt. I think that the content in the Deep Throat (Watergate) article can easily be explained in the context of Mark Felt, and the Mark Felt article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Deep Throat (Watergate) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Hummer12007 (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Support. Mateng (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this article has speculation that Deep Throat could be others, while the Felt article is just about one man.Frmorrison (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose out of deference to the historical name and significance. The psuedonym should not get lost in a biography. By all means flesh out details to Mark Felt bio. --DHeyward (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per reasons listed directly above. Cyclonius (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Support. JAF1970 (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with @DHeyward above. 68.175.115.117 (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the "character" Deep Throat", and the decades of speculation about who it was, have independent historical significance beyond just the person it turned out to be. Also, there would be too much information in the Mark Felt article that is not about Felt. Neutron (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger Proposal

As Wikipedia grows, times change and auxiliary, specialized, on-line information dissemination organs become available to preserve obscure factoids of dubious general import, we must continuously reexamine existing articles to determine if their status as noteworthy have withstood the test of time. I propose that Deep Throat (Watergate) be merged into Deep Throat (film)#Porno chic and pop culture influence. I think that the content in the Deep Throat (Watergate) article and the term's impact in pop culture are best explained in the context of Linda Lovelace's film, and the Deep Throat (film) article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Deep Throat (Watergate) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. This proposed merge would both cut-down on extraneous entries on obscure arcane minutia-passing pop-culture phenomena, such as the nickname once used for a now incontrovertibly known figure whose prior anonymous fame will surely soon be eclipsed; and would place the term in the appropriate context for an uninformed researcher's edification. A short section on pop-references could be added to the end of that article, including All the President's Men and other particularly notable tertiary references among the more numerous and enduring direct references. 71.235.31.212 (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this article needs more references

There are many paragraphs in the article that do not have any citations at all. Specifically, in the following sections:

  • Identity
  • Role in the Watergate scandal (entire first portion)
  • Methods of communication
  • Controversy over motives
  • Revelation of identity (last bullet point and several paragraphs after the list)
  • Other suspected candidates (all sub-sections)
  • Fictional portrayals

—howcheng {chat} 23:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deep Throat (Watergate). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Fictional Portrayals"

Most of the items in this section are more "pop culture references" rather than fictional portrayals. My inclination is to remove the pop culture references as I don't see any real use for them. Perhaps in the context of a paragraph showing how much Deep Throat became a pop reference, but this seems to be a list of "isn't it cool they referenced it this way."

My preference would be to pare it down to try "Fictional Portrayals," but am not feeling bold. Failing that, how about renaming the section to Pop Culture References. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 00:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deep_Throat_(Watergate)&oldid=1038182192"