Talk:John Dean

Untitled

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)

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)

Rewrite

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)

Great work, Wgfinley! --Branden 06:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

About to Get Hairy

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)

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)

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.[1] 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)

• Okay, someone jumped the gun on me a bit with the issues regarding Blind Ambition so I decided to put what I have up there so far. Consider this very much a work in progress as I'm gathering additional information. --Wgfinley 19:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • The prositiution ring seems fishy to me. If it were true, and known by the Nixon administration, why wouldn't they go public with the information to discredit Dean when he became the star witness of the Watergate hearings? -R. fiend 19:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Nobody knew, Dean was intercepting the files from the FBI on their investigation so he could stay ahead of them. There's a lot to it that really merits research. I think for now saying "these are the claims" and "Dean sued because they claimed that" and "dean lost the suit" is staying factual without getting into whether they are merited or not. The book is extremely well researched and documented so it's not like it's an Oliver Stone conspiracy theory (interestingly Stone never went into why there was a Watergate break-in in Nixon, it would be right up his alley!. I'll keep probing, can't wait until the books show up actually. --Wgfinley 20:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

John Dean about John Dean

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050909.html

There are exceptions, however: When I read the Wikipedia entry for myself, for example, I found it falsely states that in 1995, I admitted that my book Blind Ambition was ghost-written. Not only did I never make such an admission, but the book was not, in fact, ghost-written. Obviously, I could make a submission to Wikipedia to correct this misinformation, but so far, I've held off, for I am more curious to see if the open sourcing is self-correcting, than I am concerned about the error. Maybe my entry will next read that my last five books, and my columns, were ghost-written as well. For now, I'll just watch and wait, for seeing if this error is corrected, will help me judge the reliability of research with open source tools.

Can anyone check this out? -- 84.176.195.148 09:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to confirm this reference for the ghostwriting admission:

John W. Dean deposition on September 12, 1995 in Maureen K. Dean and John W. Dean v. St. Martin's Press et al United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Case No. 92 1807 (HHG)

Anybody know how to look up this case or this deposition? Steve Summit (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Deposition transcripts aren't routinely filed with the court -- at least they aren't in any American legal system I've heard of. All or part of a transcript might be filed as an exhibit to motion papers. Someone could go to the office of the Clerk of the Court in D.C. and ask for the docket sheet for that case. It's old enough that it might be in some offsite storage, so the inquirer might have to come back a day or two later. (This happens in some federal courts but I've never dealt with this one.) The docket sheet lists each item that's in the clerk's file. You might find some item that seemed likely to include the relevant passages; you could then borrow and photocopy that part of the file. If nothing listed seemed likely to include the deposition, the file would have the contact information for the attorneys. You could see if by some miracle one of them still had the transcript and would let you copy it. I'm inclined to think that the assertion should be removed from our article unless and until confirmed in this fashion, or at least until the editor who added it can provide more information on exactly what the transcript says and how s/he came by a copy. JamesMLane 09:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The text in question was added by Wgfinley, who's currently on a wikibreak. (User:Lupo has already left a note on Wgfinley's talk page.) Now, Wgfinley does discuss his research in the "About to get hairy" section farther up on this talk page. I'm starting to wonder if one of those sources was seriously exaaggerating or outright fabricating some claims. (Skepticism has already properly been voiced about the prostitution ring claim.)

For the record, here are three successive versions of the problematic text. (All of these follow the sentence "Dean chronicled his White House experiences, with a focus on Watergate, in the memoirs Blind Ambition and Lost Honor" which I have retained.)

1. [Revision as of 22:37, 20 July 2005; text originally added 19:26, 9 March 2005 by Wgfinley] In 1995 he admitted Blind Ambition was ghostwritten by Taylor Branch, that he never reviewed the book "cover to cover" and that portions of the book were fabricated "out of whole cloth" by Branch.[2] Branch has denied claims of fabrication.[3]
2. [Revision as of 09:49, 9 September 2005; by 134.102.222.106] Dean claims to do his own research so what role, if any, Taylor Branch, could have played in writing Blind Ambition is uncertain. In all events Dean specifically denies having had any ghost writer pen Blind Ambition [1]. Consequently, claims that he did not review the book [2] should be examined more closely, especially since Branch has denied claims of fabrication.[3]
3. [Revision as of 01:46, 11 September 2005, by Ummit] There is some controversy surrounding these memoirs, however. In a 1995 case, Dean allegedly admitted that Blind Ambition was ghostwritten by Taylor Branch and that portions of the book were fabricated "out of whole cloth" by Branch[2]. Branch has denied claims of fabrication[3], and today Dean specifically denies any admission of ghostwriting at all[6]

Steve Summit (talk), 14 September 2005

I agree with your removal of this material, but apparently the footnotes don't renumber automatically. (I tend to use embedded external links instead of a separate section of footnotes.) The numbers aren't consecutive now, and some orphan references, such as the one to the supposed deposition transcript, are still in the "Notes", even though they don't relate to anything in the text. It seems that, in the current state of the software, embedded links are still esier to work with. Is there any reason to keep the footnote structure? JamesMLane 07:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I knew the notes were going to be screwed up, but I figured it was okay temporarily (which is to say, I was too lazy to fix them :-) ). But also, the note numbered 6, at least, is worth having there still, as it's the one that directly pertains to the controversy. But I wouldn't object if someone reworked them. Steve Summit (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ghost-writing Controversy

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)

Whatever the case, I will locate the PDF I had on this, will provide it for others to review and look forward to seeing that passage returned to the article.

Again, I don't think that cited material should be removed from an article just because someone says it's not true, you should demonstrate the cited material doesn't reflect that fact, especially something that's been there for a substantial amount of time without challenge. --Wgfinley 17:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

It is interesting portions where Branch reportedly denied ghost-writing Blind Ambition yet his very own site on Literati states that he did. Still looking for that demo, the section in question may have been quoted in Silent Coup, I'm trying to find the actual depo. --Wgfinley 00:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

If the evidence that John Dean says he did not write Blind Ambition comes from a court deposition, that would count as "original research." Wikipedia guidelines say "no original research." If you cannot find a reliable book, article, etc., that says John Dean says he did not write the book, then this claim should be removed. Since is clearly on the record saying he wrote Blind Ambition, any statement in this article addressing the controversy should only say that certain persons claim that Blind Ambition was ghost-written. Jbgilm 22:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

John, are you reading?

I hope you are John! I exchanged some emails with the author of Silent Coup, Len Colodny, who was helpful in retracing where I was pulling some information on. Now I see why he is a published author and I am not! Anyway, there's a few sources on this, the first source is the deposition itself which I cited in the original text. Mr. Colodny sent me a WordPerfect file with the entire depo. Now, this is not an official copy of the depo but I have no reason to believe that it's incorrect and this depo was videotaped. I have seen portions of the depo online somewhere and Mr. Colodny is helping me find those or see what we can do. But, I have made the WordPerfect file a PDF and uploaded it to one of my servers [2].(This link is dead as of 2012-09-27).

Relative to this there are some interesting articles and documents online concerning this issue on Blind Ambition. I should point out this all comes from the Nixon Era Center which is online at watergate.com -- the Nixon Era Center was set up at Mountain State University when Mr. Colodny donated almost all of the materials he had accumulated while researching Silent Coup':

• Main Nixon Era article concerning Blind Ambition issues (scroll down to bottom): [3]
• Excerpt from Dean testimony (this is from p.249 of the depo) where he states Branch fabricated a portion of the book: [4]
• Dean's editor responding to his allegations that the publisher encouraged fabrications and encouraged Branch to fabricate portions of the book (includes audio): [5]

Now, Mr. Dean may be splitting hairs on exactly what "ghost-written" means but to me it is simple -- when someone else writes vast portions of your book, you admit under oath you haven't even read your own book (depo p.212) and you lay out the following on how the book was constructed:

(Dean) My agent, David Obst, who saw this project stalling and falling apart, suggested that we bring a writer in to write those sections (note: if you read earlier you will see "those sections" are concerning Watergate itself) of the book. That's exactly what was done. Taylor Branch was brought in. He took the material I had already written and he took my testimony and the tapes and he wrote that section of the book.

(Question) Which section?

(Dean) All the sections basically that related to my testimony.

(Question) Isn't that the whole book?

(Dean) Not really. There was a lot of stuff that I had written that preceded that we never put in the book.

Deposition pages 205-206

Pretty simple to me -- Blind Ambition is John Dean's first book on himself and Watergate, he states Taylor Branch was brought in to write the sections concerning Watergate, Taylor Branch is not mentioned anywhere in the credits for the book as a co-writer or editor. Therefore, I believe this reasonably meets the criteria for being "ghost-written". More as I find it. --Wgfinley 17:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Having read Blind Ambition ( acouple of years ago) and all 335 pages of that PDF (this evening), my own conclusion is that Blind Ambition was partly ghost-written. According to Dean's testimony in the deposition you've provided, it's not true that Dean "hadn't even read [his] own book". Those are the words of John B. Williams, an attorney representing G. Gordon Liddy, which you repeat without citation (p. 215, lines 1-2). In any event, the statement is not true in the sense that most people would understand it, as Dean's testimony is that he _did_ read the galley proofs (as defined here on the Wikipedia as "a photograph, print or page layout presented as an example for proofreading or approval". And futhermore, immediately after the characterization of Liddy's lawyer which you borrowed for this discussion page, Dean and Williams go back and forth over what exactly Williams's questioning means. See deposition, page 215, line 3, to page 218, line 1.

I encourage people to read (at least) from p. 202, line 22, to p. 218, line 1, and judge for themselves what Dean does and does not "admit" to. For that matter, we cannot authenticate this deposition, and while it strikes me as plausible in a way that a supposed deposition wherein Dean volunteers confessions to rape and murder would not, it would be helpful if we could do so. Perhaps you're just enthusiastically engaging in research, for which you should be applauded, but your approach is starting to come off (in my opinon) as being non-NPOV in favor of G. Gordon Liddy.

I am also curious to read the following day's deposition of John Dean (Wednesday, 13 September 1995). Do you have that available? There is much material in the PDF you've already posted of interest to Watergate scholars, despite that fact that most of it appears to be an effort by Liddy's lawyers to personally embarrass Dean (for example, by trying to get him to enumerate the women he dated during a period when he stopped dating the woman who would later become his wife; see p. 232, line 7, to p. 238, line 15 -- and if, as Silent Coup reportedly alleges [I haven't read it], Dean was pimping these or other Washington women out, why didn't Liddy's lawyers ask him that point blank, or even approach the issue so as to lay traps for him when the case went to trial?). That this particular deposition document has shown up but the other hasn't (yet) suggests to me that while Dean's testimony of 13 September may not have been as useful to Liddy's lawyers, it may be educational for the rest of us.

Setting aside all of the above, I agree that it's probably worth mentioning in the main article that a website reportedly belonging to Taylor Branch asserts that he ghost-wrote Blind Ambition, and that Dean's own testimony from a deposition we can't authenticate (sure would be nice for a Wikipedia contributor to get a copy straight from the Distict Court of D.C. rather than via a possible Watergate revisionist historian) suggests that the book was indeed in part ghost-written by Branch. Branden 06:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

All good points and certainly I agree going through entire depositions is not fun. I did find another source for where I got the information from and it was the Slate article by Stephen Bates that I had included as a source some time ago. Here's the section from that article:

"[M]emory," as the old unindicted co-conspirator points out in RN (1978), "is fallible." So which felon should you credit, Dean or Liddy? Dean got into print first, giving Liddy a chance to concoct a macho explanation that's partly consistent with Dean's observations: Behind those glazed eyes lurked visions of guerrilla-style assassination. But Dean, in an earlier Silent Coup-spawned lawsuit in the mid-1990s, tried to distance himself from his own book. His ghostwriter had invented portions of Blind Ambition "out of whole cloth," Dean testified, and he himself never had "gone through this book cover to cover." (When the galley proofs arrived, he testified, he was bedridden with a fever. His wife didn't want him to get ink on the bedclothes, so he didn't make corrections.) But Blind Ambition's ghostwriter, Taylor Branch, denies inventing any of the book's facts--and he went on to win the history Pulitzer for Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954-63 (1988).

I think the writer makes an excellent point though, "which felon should you credit?" I'm pretty certain that Bates is using the depo as his source for the material, the quote in particular that has always gotten me was Dean saying that Branch had invented portions of Blind Ambition "out of whole cloth" (Depo page 264) but, as you have pointed out, those were the words of the questioner, Liddy's attorney. I think what is important to note is to shy away from the catchy phrase and instead focus on what Dean admitted, there's a portion of the book where Dean states he didn't mention Strachan to the prosecutors (if I could ever find a copy I'd give you the page number) and Dean says he has no idea where that came from. This may seam like a miniscule point but leaving Strachan out makes Dean appear to be more of the person in the know at the White House. In other words, he would prefer to leave Strachan out of it so it looked like only he had information they wanted and would cut him a deal for.

Perhaps we could just say "allegations have been made that Blind Ambition was almost completely ghostwritten by Taylor Branch. Dean has denied this fact but admitted he has not read Blind Ambition cover to cover nor did he review the book after edits made by Branch before it went to press." Might need to be word-smithed some more.

--Wgfinley 04:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We could also say that "allegations have been made that John Dean is a serial perjurer and lying rat bastard." I used to crank almost daily to Mo Dean during the Watergate hearings. THAT was original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.171 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Blind Ambition info back in

I have come up with a way to present both sides of this controversy while sticking the the facts. I have removed any reference to parts of it being made up "out of whole cloth" is this was a defense question and not Dean's response. I have sticked to what Dean admitted to -- that Branch wrote the sections on Watergate, that he did not fact check them all and he has never read the book cover to cover.

I'm hoping John will be satisfied I have stuck with what he testified to. Of course, I encourage others to read up on Mr. Dean's history with the truth and find out for themselves. --Wgfinley 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow, and I did all this on Richard Nixon's birthday! How weird! It is purely coincidental!!! --Wgfinley 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I am late to this discussion, but it seems to me there are two problems: one is you are working off an "unofficial transcript" which was not the one ultimately read by Dean nor signed off by him as is customary. I would be hesitant to rely upon it. The other is, you have his denial but you don't use it on the main page. Gfwesq 03:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Gfwesq, I concur with your points and and unimpressed at Wgfinley's complete failure to make any substantive edits in light of my critique above; he said they're "all good points", but they do not seem to have informed his approach in the least. Furthermore, he took down his copies of the deposition transcripts months ago, so no one else can indepently check them. I think this comes perilously close to knocking the deposition transcript into original research territory. Given this and his increasingly strident pro-Liddy stance, I fear a rewrite of that paragraph based on verifiable information may be necessary. Branden 19:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Branden, I changed it footnoting to his denial. I forgot to explain the edit in my first time. My apologies to all. However, I did explain in the 2nd and 3rd edit and hopefully, people can figure it out from there. if an authenticated depostion transcript can be found to corroborate the original edit, I would consider putting it back in. However, I don't believe its generally fair to use documents from a court proceeding that are not available on the internet (there is a Wikipedia rule on court documents that I think is overbroad if the court document is available for inspection by all on the web. It also becomes an issue of original research which violates another Wikipedia rule). Moreover, as noted previously, here the document was not the official one which would have been reviewed and signed off on by Dean. I do think it is valid to show Taylor Branch seems to be claiming to have ghostwritten it and I included a reference to apparant claim to point out the descrepancy. It's curious. Dean gave a flat out denial that it was ghost written in his 2005 statement. Taylor Branch's website interestingly enough appears to make the claim under the heading "past writing. " Past Writing strikes me as akward phrasing for an accomplished writer. I would think it should be categorized simply as Publications or even "Books and Magazine Articles." I wonder if Branch did the website himself or if someone else did it at his behast.Gfwesq 04:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Gfwesq, I concur with the removal of references to the transcript as unverifiable, and with your reasons for doing so. Thanks for your efforts! Branden 17:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I have not been following this discussion, and I don't know what the documents in question say, but I do have a problem with calling court documents original research if they are not on the web. Unless under seal, court documents are public documents -- they are public property and they can be examined by anyone willing to visit a law library or the courthouse or make some phone calls. Just because something is not available on the web does not mean it is "original research" -- there are real brick-and-mortar libraries filled with information that is not available on the web. This information is as valid as anything on the web and should not be excluded from an encyclopedia just because we are too lazy to leave our computer screens.--csloat 18:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Your stance is not an unreasonable one, but as I understand it the issue is not as black and white as you suggest. Deposition transcripts in civil cases are not necessarily things that have been vetted by anyone in particular. This is quite distinct from a judge's findings of fact, as in the Microsoft Antitrust Trial, or a judicial opinion. Muddying the waters still further is the fact that some judicial opinions are "for publication", and others are not. Generally, opinions that are "not for publication" are those in which the judge deems that no significant case law has been established.

At any rate, the main problem with Wgfinley's transcript is that it hasn't even been authenticated, let alone is it verifiable. Branden 04:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And who is the authority who authenticates such things? One can say the same about an offline NYT article or a page from a published book. If there is a cite provided that anyone can look up, it is reasonable as a source. I understand the distinctions you are making above but they are irrelevant as far as citing information in an encyclopedia -- if someone says something and it is recorded in the public record, it is quotable whether or not it makes case law or is a judge's finding of fact. (It may not be notable, but that is a different issue entirely). As for whether a particular transcript needs to be "authenticated," if you think a wikipedia editor is making stuff up, either show the evidence that suggests we have a good reason to disbelieve him (e.g. he has lied about something before?) or go down to the law library and look it up yourself and see if it exists. Again, I don't think information should be invalid just because we are too lazy to look it up in an offline source. (And again, I am only speaking to the principle here, not to the specific deposition, which I have not reviewed.)--csloat 09:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

My point about the transcript not being authenticated is not merely that we haven't authenticated it, as Wikipedia editors. It is that the copy Wgfinley put up had no indications that it had been authenticated by anyone else, including the attorneys for the parties to the suit, or the D.C. Federal Circuit court. I invite you to demonstrate how Wgfinley's purported deposition transcript, no longer available on the Web as far as I've been able to determine, satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability. If you can do that, please go ahead, edit the article, and cite it all you want. Branden 00:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not speaking to specifics here, just to the principle. I don't really understand what you mean. If you're saying that the transcripts were not published by the Court but rather by wginley, then it all seems a little silly -- either they are court documents or they are not. But if they were published by the Court, and he copied them and put copies on a website, I can't see how that de-authenticates them. I suppose the point is moot if wginley is not willing to defend them or offer a full citation for them so that you or I could call the Court and request copies. But if they are Court documents, no further "authentication" is necessary other than the citation (again, unless the editor in question has a history of making up false documents, we should assume good faith). Anyway, as I said, the point appears to be moot, but I think the principle is important - just because something is not easily found on the web does not mean it is not a real source of information.--csloat 02:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Been on vacation. I read Conservatives Without Conscience while on the plane and discovered the preface discussed the defamation suit and I added new info in the main article based upon the book. My comments re: lawsuits were based upon what another old timer wikipedain told me in a different article. I took him at his word (to my detriment). However, reviewing the policies I see Commodore Sloat is correct and I withdraw the comment. That said, Brandon's comments of 9/20/2005 re: the deposition are still valid, expecially when coupled with Dean's recent strong denial, and the fact that St. Martin's as well as Colodny agreed to settle the case rather than fight to uphold their reputations. It should also be noted that Dean appears comfortable characterizing Colodny's main source as mentally unstable (i.e Dean wasn't worried about defamation).

As for depos in general, they are used for gathering information. It is not the same as live testimony in front of a trier of fact (in jury trials, the jury, in bench trials where there is no jury, the judge) which the jury/judge weigh with other evidence and decides to accept or reject in determining the facts of the case. Putting it another way, the mere fact that someone said X in a depo, doesn't make it true. It is not a finding of fact. When a jury reaches a verdict, the jury has made findings which are considered the true facts of the case after weighing all the evidence. Once the facts of the case are decided the trier of law (the judge) instructs the jury as to the laws they must apply. Thus jury instructions provide alternatives based upon the possible finding of facts by the jury "if you find X, then ... conversely, if you find Y then ..." Here is a fairly common instruction as to witness testimony: "If you believe that any witness has been so impeached or has testified falsely, then it is your exclusive province to give the testimony of that witness such credibility or weight, if any, as you may think it deserves. You may believe such parts of their testimony as you believe to be true and reject such parts as you believe to be false, or you may refuse to believe any part of such testimony, for it is a matter for you to determine, from all the testimony taken and all the circumstances surrounding the case, what witnesses have testified truthfully and what ones, if any, have testified falsely." Notice the alternatives. It is entirely possible that a jury will never hear or know what was said in deposition, thus testimony in a deposition may never have been throughly examined as to it credibility.

Also, when a deposition is taken, the deposed party is always given the opportunity to review the steno's work and make corrections. The deposed party then signs the deposition indicating they read it and it is accurate. As I understand it, the depo here was not one which Dean signed. We don't know if it was accurate. Gfwesq 03:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Law degree from Georgetown or American University?

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)

Maureen Dean

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)Deena67.142.130.17 (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Under the "Personal Life" section, his wife Maureen's maiden name is given as Kane. But, under the "Life after Watergate" section, she's referred to as "the former Maureen "Mo" Biner (his then-fiancée)". This should be clarified and corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfgreene (talk • contribs) 16:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

Why is Dean's post-Watergate section larger than his Watergate section

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) JD

Infobox person vs. Infobox Criminal NPOV? (see Gordon Liddy page)

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)

biobox: why does G Gordon Liddy have a criminal biobox and John Dean does not

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)
 Done - I wondered the same thing, so I added it per the article. Jusdafax 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dean suggests article wrong

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)

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)

Weasel Words?

"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))

Serious NPOV issue between this page and the Gordon Liddy page

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)

Just read Wiki report on John Dean

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Dean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

John Dean and Memory for Conversations

Hello Wiki World,

I think a valuable addition to this page would be to include what John Dean's testimony and the later discovery of the recorded tapes did for conversational memory research. I'm thinking about adding a section about his memory and the research on it. Below is what I'm thinking.

John Dean and Memory for Conversations

While the Watergate Scandal prompted the first and only resignation from the Presidency, sent people to prison, and undermined the public’s trust in Government there was a silver lining.

John Dean statement spanned 245 pages and involved dozens of different conversations. His memory was so precise that reporters dubbed him the “human tape recorder." When it was later uncovered that President Nixon secretly recorded all the meetings in the oval office, a famous psychologist and memory researcher, Ulric Neisser, saw “a valuable data trove."

Neisser was a sharp critic of studying memory in the laboratory. He believed that memories created in a laboratory environment were something very different from how memory works in everyday settings. “Psychology . . . usually work[s] with laboratory material that has no reference beyond itself." However, everyday memory is often difficult to study because it is difficult to establish controls and know whether the events the participants remember actually occurred. When the tapes surfaced, Neisser saw an ecologically valid opportunity to study memory for conversations. Likewise, Dean claimed he was “ecstatic” that there were tape recordings because he believed that the tapes would corroborate everything he told to the Senate Watergate Committee.

However, despite Dean’s confidence, the tapes proved that his memory was anything but a tape recorder. Not only did he never remember conversations verbatim, he often failed to even recall the gist of conversations correctly Yet, Neisser did not explain the difference as one of deception, rather that memory is itself not a tape recorder but reconstructions that are greatly affected by rehearsal. “What seems to be specific in his memory actually depends on repeated episodes, rehearsed presentations, or overall impressions.” While Dean was questioned by the investigatory committee he explained that he used newspaper clippings to refresh his memory. This may be the explanation for the discrepancies between the tapes and his testimony, because “[w]hen we rehearse inaccurate information which may have infiltrated our recollections during attempts to fill gaps in fragmentary engrams, we may unwittingly create mistaken–though strongly held–beliefs about the past.”

Neisser concluded that the brain does not encode conversational memory verbatim and often has trouble remembering the gist of single independent conversations, but what Dean’s memory and likely everyone else’s does do well is retain “the common characteristics of a whole series of events.” In other words, Dean may have gotten some details wrong, who said what at what time, but he did get the big picture of all the conversations combined right. “Nixon wanted the cover-up to succeed; he was pleased when it went well; he was troubled when it began to unravel; he was perfectly willing to consider illegal activities if they would extend his power or confound his enemies.” Deans mind is “not a tape recorder, but it certainly received the message that was being given.”

Let me know what you think!

Best, Kmdoiron (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Kmdoiron (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This case had a large and lasting impact on memory research, so this article would be greatly improved with this additional information. However, it is important to stay away from using primary sources whenever possible. At the moment, a lot of your sources are Neisser's articles themselves, which, generally speaking, is not the best source-type for Wikipedia articles as they could incorporate the author's bias. Other than this, the only potential issue I saw was a possible contradiction: you state that Dean often could not remember the "gist" of conversations, but on the whole could get the "big picture" correct. To me, gist and big pictures are mostly synonymous terms, so you may want to clarify what you mean by each term. Overall, however, this looks like a great edit to make. Darcy.watts (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both of you! As an addition, while looking at other Wiki entries I saw many news articles being cited, so perhaps that could be a way to find some secondary sources. Adaaka (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! However, I have to disagree with you about the citations. I cite two of Neisser's papers. One I cite solely to show his position on ecological validity and the differences between laboratory and natural experiments. This actually came from a speech he gave. Obviously, he is the best source to go to on what his own opinion is. The concern about bias you raised is inapplicable if I'm using the citation to show only that it is indeed his opinion; in this matter a secondary source is far more likely to be biased. The other paper I cite I also believe is the most appropriate citation. Normally, I would at least understand Wikipedia's position on the value of secondary sources over primary sources. But here the nature of the paper makes a secondary source unnecessary (even though I cite multiple). The paper is a case study. All Neisser does is look at the actual conversations recorded in the Oval Office and what Dean testified his memory of the events were. And he draws the axiomatic conclusion that they are different. This is not some high level quantitative analysis where a subtle change could make a big difference, and maybe a secondary paper confirming the results would be more valuable. Instead, he reads both, discusses how they are different, and then draws some conclusions about why this might be the case. For all those positions I cite him and other secondary sources generally confirming what he said. I think this citation is crucial for two reasons. First, people should have easy access to the actual paper to draw their own conclusions and to learn more about it if they are interested. And second, what is interesting here is Neisser saw a natural experiment in the Watergate Scandal that no one else saw. He should be credited for that with a citation to his original work for his observation of that, not having it would frankly just be weird.

As for your gist comment, this is a good point. I found it a little weird first too, but that's the language he is actually using and the other secondary sources do as well. I try to make the distinction that he had trouble remembering even the gist of single conversations but overall the big picture of all the conversations put together he was right about. For example, if we talked 5 times over the last month, I might not remember exactly what was said in each of those conversations or even the gist of what those conversations were about, but if there was an overarching theme of all those conversations, I'm likely to remember that. Does that make sense? I added a few words to try to make it a bit more clear. Let me know if that helps or if you think an additional edit is necessary.

Thanks,

Kmdoiron (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Length of memory section

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)

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)

I went ahead and shortened that section substantially and am of the mind that this is just a start. Unless an editor comes forth to defend the memory section following these edits, I would push to remove the section entirely and migrate the info to the end of the section on Dean's testimony as perhaps a pair or so of sentences. RJ0053 (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Once again the Bio Box has been cleansed of any mention of his felony conviction.

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)

fromcott Searle did you live innapa calif my dad nameis Richard Searle is dad name was dave Searle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.214.71 (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Removing false claim about immunity

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)