Talk:J. Edgar Hoover

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the J. Edgar Hoover article.
Article policies
This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] German Spy Scandal

I have a link to a story abotu Operation Pastorious and Hoover's involvement and I'm not really sure what to do with it. http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=949 It sums up Hoover's involvement in detaining enemy combatants illiegally. Thought it was interesting.

[edit] NPOV

I read through the links on the external links section of the article, and they all look POV to me as they all seem to all be favorable towards Hoover or towards the right wing point of view. It just dosen't feel right that the only external links mentioned here are ones that are favorable towards Hoover or at least indifferent.
JesseG 04:17, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

"An FBI memorandum dated June 11, 1943, mentions rumors of Hoover being "queer" and keeping "a large group of young boys around him," and notes that such rumors had circulated since at least two years earlier. The memorandum declares such rumors are "profoundly valid" and "undisputable.""

I read through the memo, and I see nothing about the rumors being "profoundly valid" or "undisputable(sic)", so I'm removing the last line. --Ntg 19:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

J. Edgar, he knew that the crux
Of gangster control was big bucks.
Some said he was queer,
But that was a smear;
It's the other Hoover that sucks.

IS there proof that he was gay? I've heard conflicting information. --corvus13

I recently read a very thick book on J. Edgar. The author explored this possibility, but came to the conclusion that there was no conclusive evidence either way.
From Kevin Jeys article October 29, 1998 Elective Affinities, Part I:
“… The three men most responsible for the anti-Communist hysteria of the 1950s — Joe McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, and Roy Cohn — were all gay, then a serious, punishable offense in the United States. This information was common knowledge among Washington insiders, but was not considered among those subjects the public enjoyed "a right to know," even though the closeted frolics of Hoover and Cohn, and the sympathetic machinations of McCarthy in aiding the latter, resulted in direct damage to the nation. Mafia dons obtained photographic evidence of Hoover’s more or less monogamous relationship with longtime lover Clyde Tolson, and used it to blackmail Hoover and thereby deflect FBI attention from mob activities for more than 30 years; only under relentless pressure from Attorney General Robert Kennedy did Hoover at last admit the Mafia might even exist. Cohn, throughout his life a voracious consumer of young men, attached his friend David Schine as an "unpaid consultant" to McCarthy’s Senate Investigating Committee; together the two toured Europe at taxpayers’ expense, scouring American libraries for "subversive" material and ultimately consigning some 30,000 books to the ash-heap. Back in the US, Cohn attempted to use his clout as McCarthy’s chief counsel to shield Schine from military service; when the Army balked, McCarthy and Cohn pronounced the service riddled with Communists, breaking and humiliating scores of guiltless men before they were finally shamed off the national stage by Army counsel Joseph Welch and broadcaster Edward R. Murrow. …”
What level of proof is needed?

This is cute and amusing, but not up to Wikipedia standards:

President Richard Nixon's comment's on hearing that Hoover had just passed away ("That old cocksucker? We thought he was immortal.") cannot be taken literally, due to Nixon's well-documented prediliction for prevarication. — So I took it out. --Ed Poor
You don't trust the poster or Nixon? Who? - Sparky 17:46, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gay or not; there should be more to tell about a person who may have influenced somebody´s life. Even fairytales may help to cover the gap between actual presence and oblivion.

J. Edgar was buried along side Tulson (his alleged lover) according to here ( http://www.straightdope.com/columns/021206.html ). Perhaps someone can include, and verify, these facts and put them into this article? --ShaunMacPherson 04:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Uh, the most important fact regarding the life of Hoover was not his sexuality, but his huge control of domestic spying in the United States for nearly a half century. Hoover created in the FBI the core of a police state that in many cases ran roughshod over constitutionaly protected civil rights of anyone that was opposed to his moral agenda or politics. To the extent that everyone now just assumes that if the government wants to it can just tap your phone lines, read you mail, and show up at your work at will to harrass you, is the huge nasty legacy of Hoover's FBI and his maniac desire for power and control. Please somebody edit this article to summarize much of the recent scholarship on his life and influence. (I am obviously too biased.)

Presumably the relevance of his sexuality is that it demonstrates his extreme hypocrisy. Ben Finn 14:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
His spying is part of the discussion on his work. His personal life is part of his biography. In this particular instance, it is perhaps appropriateto include some disputable details on his sexuality, because:
  • it does indeed show him as an hypocrite
  • The relationships he may have formed would have had a major influence on his work.
  • The concealment it involved may also have had a major influence on his work.
  • It illustrates the effect of the homophobe culture attitude at the time.
  • He is an extremely notable figure, and it is apprpriate to describe even the less respectable part of his bio
  • The material being discussed is public, and has been very widely discussed in the media.
  • He is not a living person. [if he were, there would be libel problems]

It does have to be presented with an eye to the reliabiity of the evidence, but this is not original research, because obviously secondary sources are being used, and this material has been compiled before. (I am not planning to contribute in any signif way to the article, btw; I was lead here by a link from elsewhere. ) DGG 18:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there may not be libel problems in calling someone gay with or without evidence. There is evolving caselaw on this because homosexuality is not "generally seen as repugnant" in the US as it once was. Furthermore, Hoover was a public figure and libel has a higher standard in that case, requiring malice and/or reckless disregard of the truth. MJFiorello 03:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"notions that he was a crossdresser, however, have been cited as urban legend" - but I recall photographs that had come to light of Hoover dressed in women's clothing at a party being published in The Times in the 1980's. The Times is a reputable news source. Unfortunately I don't have a subscription to The Times' online archive so I can't search for it. Ben Finn 14:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The photos don't exist ....

And neither does "La Cosa Nostra"!!! An 'upstanding' (he sure was ;) Presbyterian like Hoover could not possibly be [gasp] gay!!! These are all vicious rumors spread by Hoover's enemies!!! (if you believe that, then I have a pair of Clyde Tolson's edible undies to sell you ....)

Oh sure, and an upstanding christian like Jimmy Swaggart would never have commited adultery. No way.


Personally I think he was clearly gay, and very repressed, hence his cruelty. He was an incredibly unhappy, cruel human being.

[edit] Any connection with Herbert Hoover?

Was he a relative, maybe remote one, of President Herbert Hoover, or it's just a coincidence? Crocodealer 12:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

J. Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson are not buried side by side. Although they are both buried in the Congressional Cemetery in Washington D.C., Hoover is buried in his family plot. Tolson is buried more than a dozen graves away. More innuendo, perhaps? Dr. Dan


[edit] J. Edgar Hoover's ethnic backround

What was Hoover's ethnic backround? I need his ethnic backround for a report on him.

Call him a bastard (in a biological sense). You will not be wrong. (rs)


No one is really sure. You should try google and read up on the various theories that he was hiding mixed racial ancestry. Catherine Huebscher

Yeah, I always wondered that as well. His eyes and face look African. However, he was racist as well. I guess since he was a hypocrite, he was gay and hated gays(not that there is anything wrong with hating gays) and he looked like he had black in him but hated blacks. People like him are the worst.--71.235.94.254 20:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Passing as a white"

This statement, "and of passing as white while persecuting others with similar preferences and backgrounds." sounds racist to me. Many white people see the injustices caused by people of their own race and attempt to fix them, so unless he was doing this unjustly (and this can be explained), I feel this statement should be removed.


I agree --169.237.220.243 21:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain I understand. The statement says that Hoover took an anti-black stance, but covered up his own, partially black heritage. It's meant to draw attention to his alleged hypocrisy. It is opinion, not fact, but it certainly isn't an innately racist statement. 85.65.116.80 02:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birthplace

My understanding is that Hoover was born in Washington, D.C. on January 1, 1895.

[edit] Fear of turning left

How about the story I heard that Hoover had other bizarre eccentricities such as a phobia of making left turns in vehicles. He would therefore insist that his chauffeur never made any left turns, thus sometimes requiring very complex routes to be pre-planned in order to get him to his destination? Or is this an urban myth? 84.70.146.224 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the Annie Reference?

J. Edgar Hoover referenced in Annie the Musical?

I'm aware of the President Hoover references (much blamed for the depression of the era) but J. Edgar? Can we get a citing on this?

[edit] Hoover/Johnson conspiracy theory

There is very popular theory in Russia that Edgar Hoover and Pres. Lyndon Johnson have planned the murder of President John F. Kennedy. I wonder if it's widespread in the US, whether there are any English-language references and why is it not reflected in the article.

It's fairly widespread, but most Wikipedia users are hesitant to add conspiracy theories to mostly factual articles. I suppose a link to Kennedy_assassination_theories might be in order, but anything more seems excessive, in my opinion. At least until the entire article is expanded. 85.65.116.80 02:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Though I don't think it's something that has to be put in the article, what adds a bit of weight is that it's been proven that the FBI under Hoover had considered a plan to kill Canadian PM Pierre Elliot Trudeau, then kill Castro when he showed up at Trudeau's funeral. 142.177.152.72 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this truly right?

Copied from article "J. Edgar Hoover "

"Nevertheless, in 1966, he received the Distinguished Idiot Award from President Stupid Johnson for his role as Director of the FBI."

I removed it. You can do it yourself next time, if you like. Either way, it's gone. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freedom-of-Information files on Hoover

I strongly recommend the book by David J. Garrow on the FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr. It is especially relevant today in 2006, as concerns re-surface over the government's powers to use electronic surveillance. Garrow gathers and weighs the evidence quite carefully, and his analysis actually rebuts some commonly-held beliefs as to the motives of Hoover, even by people who were eyewitnesses. Additional evidence should be forthcoming in the year 2026 AD, when MLK's papers will be unsealed. Hopefully, this serves as another clue to researchers in the future.

[edit] Freemason?

I wasn't aware that Hoover was considered (in fiction? what work of fiction?) to be a member of the Freemasons. I think someone should include a reference or remove the accusatory statement from the article, no matter how innocuous the statement itself might seem. --Kooky (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

True (sorry to say) Hoover was a mason, which proves that every basket have a rotten egg i guess.--Sneaking Viper 04:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If it is, could you provide a reference? Maybe someone should integrate that statement into a more relevant section of the article. --Kooky (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Visit or call the Masonic HQ in DC. Hoover bequethed his belongings to them and they are exhibited in their museum.

[edit] Hoover's investigation into the Kennedy Murder

Hoover personally directed the investigation into the murder of President John F. Kennedy which is often called the "Crime of the Century." He decided from the beginning, that public information should be issued that the November 22, 1963 murder was the work of a sole assassin named Lee Harvey Oswald. Just hours after Lee Harvey Oswald was murdered, Hoover, said that he wanted "something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin." [1] However, by this time, Hoover already knew through the FBI's own surveillance and CIA data that someone had been impersonating Oswald attempting to contact a "hit man" at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico two months before. According to a recent report on PBS, this information “electrified” top Washington insiders and has been kept secret for over 40 years. [2] - - Hoover conferred with Nicholas Katzenbach of the Justice Department about how to approach an investigation of Kennedy’s murder, and on November 25, 1963, the day after Oswald was murdered Katzenbach drafted a memorandum stating among other things that: -

-

The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial. . . . Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. [3]

- - President Johnson, who also knew about the Oswald impersonator, then appointed the Warren Commission which conducted most of its proceedings in secret. The FBI acted as the primary investigative arm of the Commission, and Hoover testified to the Commission:

-

I have been unable to find any scintilla of evidence showing any foreign conspiracy or any domestic conspiracy that culminated in the assassination of President Kennedy [4]

- - Neither Hoover nor his agents who testified revealed to the Commission that Oswald had been to the FBI office in Dallas shortly before the assassination and left a letter for one of the agents who had been trying to contact Oswald. Once Oswald, himself, was murdered while in police custody, the agent who received the letter was ordered to destroy it and its contents remain a mystery. Then the FBI agent's name was deleted from the list of names in Oswald’s address book before being turned over to the commission. [5] - - The secret proceeding by the Warren Commission and later secret investigations have not satisfied the American public that it has been told everything about the assassination and believe the government has something to hide. [6] In response, any of the secret documents held by the FBI surrounding the Kennedy assassination have been ordered declassified and released through an act of Congress in 1992, and the process was started by the Assassination Records Review Board. Many of the documents have still not been released including documents that may show whether Oswald was ever on the payroll of the FBI or CIA. [7]

--Awiseman 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is stuff that RPJ has been trying to insert into the Lee Harvey Oswald and other JFK assassination articles for some time now, to the opposition of most other editors. There's been ample discussion about it on those talk pages. Gamaliel 21:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I figured it was probably nonsense or original research, but it's here just in case. If anything, maybe the fact that he's subject to being a part of conspiracy theories should be mentioned. --Awiseman 22:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Gamaliel should read the citations PBS; a Congressionally created board, a specially appointed congressional committee. Gamaliel will have to follow the rules of the website all substantial viewpoints must be allowed in especially when they are from reputable sources. There is no original material. There is no reason to delete it even if one is a strong admirer of Hoover. That is a basic rule of this web site.

RPJ 03:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoover's murder investigation re Kennedy

The information about Hoover's role in the murder investigation of President Kennedy is well documented.

Hoover personally directed the investigation into the murder of President John F. Kennedy which is often called the "Crime of the Century." The first citation in the Kennedy murder section of the article refers to a report by a congressional committee called the House Select Committee on Assassinations. It issued its report in 1979 after a three year investigation into the assassination of John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. [8] The report by the Congressional Committee was critical of the performance by the FBI as well as other agencies.

The second citation in the section on the Kennedy murder is to the PBS Frontline news show. It was reviewing the official government records that “electrified” top Washington insiders and have been kept secret for over 40 years. These secret documents were obtained by the Assassination Records Review Board many years after they were sealed away from public disclosure. The once secret documents are fascinating, especially as reviewed by PBS. [9]

Hoover conferred with Nicholas Katzenbach of the Justice Department about how to approach an investigation of Kennedy’s murder. The former Attorney General was grilled by the HSCA 15 years later on why he was intent on convincing the public that neither a left wing conspiracy or a right wing conspiracy was involved in Kennedy's assassination. The copy of his memo is carried by Lancer. [10] If the reader wants the full version of the testimony by Katzenbach the reader should go to the House Committee Report.[11] President Johnson, along with Hoover, also knew about the Oswald impersonator right away that certainly tends to show a right wing conspiracy with an impersonator pretending to be Oswald trying to contact a "hit man." [12] Maybe there would be another motive for impersonating Oswald trying to contact a hit man other than to frame him. I don't know what it would be.

There is no question the FBI, under Hoover, acted as the primary investigative arm of the Warren Commission, and Hoover testified to the Commission as seen from these once secret transcripts of the Warren Commission hearing:

I have been unable to find any scintilla of evidence showing any foreign conspiracy or any domestic conspiracy that culminated in the assassination of President Kennedy [13]

The testimony is unsealed now.

There is no secret anymore about the FBI destruction of evidence. They were caught and its now public knowledge. There is a full pulic record. The agent involved even wrote a book about it. [14]

The American public does not believe the conclusions reached by the Warren Commission and believes the government has something to hide. This is what the Assassination Records Review Board believes. [15]

Conclusion

Therefore, any editors that think there are other reputable sources that have information please put it in. One should not simply delete well known and documented information just because one doesn't like it. If that were the criteria for deleting information, then Wikipedia would be at the mercy of every public relations firm in the country. Nothing "negative" can be written about a public figure because his or her publicist may find it unpleasant and delete it claiming the information is a "theory." No, the information is documented by reputable sources.

What I can't figure out is why Mr. Hoover's sexual life gets so much space, and yet someone doesn't want information on Hoover's job performance on the biggest case of Hoover's career.

RPJ 03:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death on the JFK assassination pages. You failed to find any support for the insertion of this material there and you're not presenting anything new here. Of course Hoover's job performance should be discussed, but in an NPOV manner. Conspiracy theories about Oswald doubles should not be presented as fact, as you have done. Gamaliel 03:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop deleting 25 lines of well researched and cited material

No, Gamaliel is incorrect. He and another person seem frantic that a PBS news show that casts J. Edgar Hoover in a bad light should be cited to in Wikipedia. Why? I don't know. May be Gamaliel has an idol worship of Hoover, may be he works for the FBI. I just don't know. But what I do know is that the PBS show is well documented and it does show exactly what has gone on behind all the secrecy with the Kennedy murder.

Under the policy of this web site every significant viewpoint on a subject such as Hoover and the FBI is to be included in the Hoover article and that will allow the reader make up his or her own mind about the man. Yet some annonymous person calling himself Gamaliel can't seem to understand that he does not have the right under the rules of this web site to delete materials by labeling the information "conspiracy theory." Gamaliel must know he is wrong attempting to do this, but doesn't care. RPJ 05:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory of one person (Newman) is not a significant viewpoint. Even if it were, it should be presented as a viewpoint, not as a fact, as you have repeatedly done. You're not even trying for NPOV. Gamaliel 05:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I might add, for the benefit of those who haven't seen the previous discussion on this issue, that RPJ is not presenting facts from a "PBS news show". A single page from an extensive supplimentary website for a Frontline documentary on Lee Harvey Oswald presents a conspiracy viewpoint by one John Newman. The documentary does not present any of this Newman material and presents a straightforward and unequivocal case for Oswald's guilt. Gamaliel 05:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Look, this is getting nowhere, you guys ought to request Wikipedia:Mediation. --Awiseman 15:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamaliel doesn't address the point

The previously secret government documents have now been released. There is no conspiracy "theory." Now,there are simply the facts as contained in government documents. This is what has made Gamaliel frantic. The Assassination Records Review Board was created by Congress in 1992 to find and publicize these closely guarded secrets. The Assassination Records Review Board has done its job on finding and disclosing the secret documents of the CIA and FBI regarding the Oswald impersonator that Hoover, President Johnson and the other high level insiders knew about and have hidden for 40 years.

All Gamaliel wants to do is now hide these known facts from Wikipedia readers claiming it is a "theory."

The odd thing about Gamaliel's argument is that even if it were only a theory about the existence of government documents showing the exisentence of some one impersonating the alleged assassin of President Kennedy, the "theory" should be put in the article because the theory is espoused by a respectable source, and all significant points of view should be included.

Finally, Gamaliel deletes everything else that he doesn't seem to like for no apparent reason.

70.137.184.160 19:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] “occasional shortcuts”

The term “occasional shortcuts” in

Comstock's reputation for relentless pursuit and occasional shortcuts in crime fighting.

is spin. A phrase that doesn't wink should be used. —12.72.71.31 12:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where is this in the constitution?

This isnt exactly about Edgar but i saw this line written here "United States' Constitution prohibits its citizens from being knighted (or receiving similar honors) by foreign royalty."

Ive glanced over the US constitution site and couldnt find anything about this. Is this correct? Im curious where its to be found at. Thanks. Sojourner99 01:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State." see Article I, section 9. --Mnemeson 01:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoover as librarian?

I am editing the list of "notable librarians" which includes "people notable in other fields who have worked as librarians". Hoover is listed there , but I can find no evidence that he has ever been a librarian. I know little beyond the WP article, which does not mention it. Is anything known about this? DGG 22:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wholesale Deletions

Here is a diff page that shows the removal of whole sections dealing with Hoovers alleged cross dressing, homosexuality, mafia ties, and african-american ancestry. These are admittedly controversial topics, but I think they have been written in an NPOV way by many editors. The statements even refer to the sources that are making the claims, in the text. To remove this info wholesale should be reconsidered. I suggest that it be restored in total and any arguments to remove the text be made on the talk page. Mytwocents 07:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misinformation?

Here is a diff that shows a systematic reversal of older statements. Did Hoover support or oppose the internment of Japanese during WWII? Did he fire people because of there looks? Was he gay? Did he have black ancestry? The "watch the borders" story sounds like a cute tall tale, is it true? I think the older version of the page is more accurate than what we have now. We should revert the page back to the earlier version. Mytwocents 05:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reinserted a couple of paragraphs and corrected the misstatement that he "supported" the WWII internment of Japanese Americans. In general, this article really needs the attention of someone willing to research the subject, fact-check everything and add about a bazillion reputable-source references for all of its many contentious, questionable or plain weird-sounding statements. KarlBunker 13:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This page needs some cleanup. I think it's a potential good article. It is a fairly well balanced article about a very controversial figure in history. Some of the writing need to be smoothed up, better formatting, and some fact-checking Mytwocents 16:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This statement was removed recently;

Despite this, Hoover was also known to be a supporter of civil rights and liberties on several occasions, most notably for his vocal opposition to the mass internment of Japanese-Americans that took place during World War II.[citation needed]

Did Hoover defend civil right during his carreer? If so, it should be told in the article to balance the dark picture most people have of him. Mytwocents 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed that sentence, and noted my reason in my edit summary: I saw a few historians/biographers who were in agreement that Hoover's motivation for opposing the internment was not a love of civil rights. Rather he believed that the FBI was aware of every Japanese American who was likely to pose a threat to the U.S., and all of them were either arrested or under surveillance. So he saw the internment as both unnecessary and an insult to the FBI. If he was ever a supporter of civil rights, this was apparently not an example. KarlBunker 20:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Given all these paragraphs, shouldn't there be a mention in the article about Hoover's opposition to the Japanese Internment in WWII? --85.92.186.68 (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Innuendo

I recently deleted the cross dressing information because the information is largely unsourced, and the one source that is used may not satisfy WP:RS. If someone can source this info, then it should return. Ramsquire 00:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

When Hoover died, Clyde Tolson inherited his estate of approximately $1,235,000 and moved into his home, having also accepted the flag that draped Hoover's casket. Tolson is buried a few yards away from Hoover in the Congressional Cemetery.

An additional allegation that Hoover was also a crossdresser is generally considered to be an urban legend, though rumors still exist that the New Orleans and Chicago Mafia had blackmailed Hoover with photos of him in drag and performing homosexual acts. These rumors (that were detailed by journalist Anthony Summers) are used to explain why he allegedly never went after the mob, but according to sources in the Mafia, no such photos existed [16]. Other sources claim that Hoover pursued them zealously after being ordered to go after the Mafia. However, Peter Maas, a notable journalist, has criticized accusations that Hoover had deep ties with the Kennedy family, and these allegations in turn were heavily criticized in Anthony Summers's book on Marilyn Monroe.[citation needed]

[edit] Recent edits

Some problems with User:Kevin Murray's recent edits:

  • During his life he was virtually revered by the US Public, but in the years since his death many allegations have clouded his image. "virtually revered" is awkward writing and unsupported; it needs to be referenced, and something like "highly thought of" would be better. "US Public"--"Public" shouldn't be capitalized. "have clouded his image" is an awkward use of metaphor; simple statements of fact are preferable to metaphors in an encyclopedia article.
  • He was a committed crime fighter, staunch anticommunist and exceptional bureaucrat; All of these adjectives are POV and don't belong in a WP article. If such words are included, it needs to be stated whose opinion they are, with references.
  • however for many years he denied the existance of organized crime, resisted the civil rights movement, These two statements are unreferenced.
  • and employed questionable methods "questionable methods" is meaningless.
  • Despite any shortcomings, he built the world's most effective investigative agency Obviously this is pure opinion. You need to state who has this opinion, and give some reason why this person's opinion is important enough to include in the article. Regardless, unless you can show that it's a widely held opinion (and it isn't), it doesn't belong in the introduction.
  • and kept it independent of outside influences. This phrase is meaningless.

Since there is no part of your edit that isn't incorrect or problematic in some way, I suggest you let the revert stand the next time someone reverts it. KarlBunker 03:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KarlBunker's suggestions above and have made all of the changes suggested. I do believe that much of what was said is fairly common knowledge, but KB is 100% correct that Wikipedia requires a higher standard of reference. My goal here was to interject some varying points of view to balance some see-sawing between pro Hoover and Anti Hoover in the last several months. I think that both sides should be reported here in an articulate and well supported fashion. But the article should flow as a result of team work not a patchwork among adversaries. --Kevin Murray 04:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Persons in Hiding

I suppose it's technically accurate to say that Hoover's 1938 book Persons in Hiding was ghosted by an "FBI employee" (since the ghost would have no doubt received a fee for his services), but I think it's generally accepted that Courtney Ryley Cooper wrote that book.

Cooper was a prolific author of novels, screenplays and popular non-fiction. I wrote a brief article about him a few days ago.

(A footnote in Curt Gentry's book identifies Cooper as the author of Persons in Hiding.)

Kurtt78 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shorter

i think you should make this information shorter

[edit] inadequate explanation for reversion

Regarding this, what's "weird-ass" about it? - BanyanTree 01:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Hoover is among the "Persons who have lain in state or honor in the United States Capitol rotunda" is an obscure piece of trivia that doesn't accurately reflect anything about his life or career or (least of all) his posthumous reputation. One could put together an infobox for "Presbyterians in law enforcement" or "Notable people reputed to be gay" or "Washington DC residents with big round heads", and while all of these categories apply to Hoover, that doesn't mean that such an infobox should be added to the article. RedSpruce 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
First, it's not an infobox. It's a succession box, allowing a reader to move in chronological order through the biographies of the people granted this honor.
Second, lying in state/honor has been granted to 32 (I believe) people since 1852. Both the Presidential Medal of Freedom and Congressional Gold Medal have far more recipients. Whatever you may think of Congress approving people to lie in state/honor, "trivial" does not apply, unless of course one wishes to state that national honors have nothing to do with the individuals to which they are awarded.
Third, the Congress passed a resolution declaring that Hoover should be granted the honor of lying in state. That tells me a lot about his reputation at the time of his death, which appears to be otherwise ill-covered in the article.
In summation, lying in state is a substantive honor and information about it adds value to the biography. Besides the value to this particular article, the succession box format allows readers to navigate in a manner that allows them to see what American politicians over the past 150 years have considered worthy of great honors. It's pretty clear cut to me, but maybe someone besides the two of us has an opinion? BanyanTree 03:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I assume from the deafening silence that you find my argument convincing. I have readded the lain in state box. - BanyanTree 05:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
From what you say, I think some mention of Hoover's lying in state is worth including in the article. I still don't think a succession box is a good way to add that mention, however. Using a succession box implies that the "succession" in question is highly significant, but it doesn't explain that significance. For this reason, succession boxes are generally used for things where the reader can be assumed to know the significance of the thing -- monarch of Great Britain, or director of the FBI, etc. They're usually used in reference to an article subject who has held public office, and there's no question in the reader's mind about the significance of the office, because the subject's holding of that office is most likely the focus of the entire article. In this case, the whole "lying in state" thing is just dropped in out of the blue, and yet the succession box is presented as if it's as significant as the director the the FBI succession box. Furthermore, the "succession" part of the succession box doesn't make sense. Lying in state isn't a position that's passed from one person to another. Who preceded and succeeded Hoover as a recipient of this honor doesn't tell us anything significant. Rather, the significance is revealed by the rarity of the honor. When mention of lying in state is added to the article, the passage should include something describing this rarity. At the same time, there's no reason at all why such a passage should include mention of Hoover's "successor" and "predecessor" to the honor of lying in state. RedSpruce 10:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(reindent)While I agree that there should more information about lying in state in the article, I disagree that removing the succession box is the solution. It appears to me that an explanation of lying in state would make the succession box more interesting and relevant, not less. There is also the issue that I'm looking at this from the perspective of lying in state, in which the succession is inherently fascinating, while you appear to be looking at it from the perspective of the Hoover article, in which the honor and the two other people in the box appear random. I thus find your position on this unsupportable. If you are not willing to budge, we appear to be deadlocked.

I think that we let third parties decide this whether or not the succession box stays or goes, rather than lamely engaging in an edit war. I suggest starting a content WP:RFC on this page, making note of it on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies and asking Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government Agencies and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government for input. If there is not immediately overwhelming support for one position, I am willing to abide by a simple majority of whoever shows up over the next two weeks. What do you think? - BanyanTree 11:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"It appears to me that an explanation of lying in state would make the succession box more interesting and relevant, not less." Wouldn't it make the succession box redundant? If not, why not?
"I'm looking at this from the perspective of lying in state, in which the succession is inherently fascinating, while you appear to be looking at it from the perspective of the Hoover article," This is the J. Edgar Hoover article after all; material about irrelevant topics, however fascinating, doesn't belong here. As you point out, the other people in the box are, from the point of view of a J. Edgar Hoover article, quite irrelevant.
As a further argument, look at the list in J. Edgar Hoover#Honors. One could argue that the first three items listed there is just as worthy of a succession box as lying in state. And Hoover no doubt received many other honors not yet listed there. And virtually every notable person with an article in Wikipedia has some sort of list of honors to his/her name. For every award, honor, prize, fellowship, medal, etc. etc. that is given out, there is a "succession." Should this article, and each and every other WP article about a notable person, have a long series of succession boxes added to it?
Before we go to RFC or whatever, I'd like to hear your responses to these points.
RedSpruce 13:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
There is also the question of WP:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. I have access to three books about Hoover. Here is the coverage of the "lying in state" issue in these:
J. Edgar Hoover and His G-Men
by William B. Breuer; 254 pages
Mentioned in two sentences, 40 words.
J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets
by Curt Gentry; 848 pages
Mentioned in a few places, with a total of about 100 words.
The Boss: J. Edgar Hoover and the Great American Inquisition
by John Stuart Cox, Athan G. Theoharis; 489 pages
No mention of lying in state
None of these books mentions the successor or predecessor to Hoover for the honor of lying in state.
In keeping with having this article reflect the relative amount of coverage that WP:Reliable sources give to this issue, I believe that a succession box is excessive (though a brief mention in the body of the article seems appropriate). These sources also indicate that there is no justification for noting the successor and predecessor to lying in state.
RedSpruce 14:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to have to get a rain check. You appear to desire an interaction to determine how much we disagree, which will undoubtedly take up much of my wiki time. I am on the point of diving into an article that I have been thinking about revising and expanding for several weeks, and I would prefer to defer this rather than that as being more consequential. I will respond to your questions at that time. Feel free to remove the succession box in the interim. Cheers, BanyanTree 22:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. For the record, I don't desire "an interaction to determine how much we disagree," and I'm not even sure what that means. All I desire is a logical examination of the issues involved. RedSpruce 10:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I see RedSpruce's point that perhaps a sucession box for lying in state maybe pointless as it is not an office or a position that is passed down in sucession, perhaps two may even share it simultaniously (although this has never happened). Nevertheless, all these arguments are reasons for disposing with the box entirely for lying in state in which case it should be removed from all pages where it is present. As I see it a succession box should allow the reader to navigate from page to page without a break, therefore the box should be present on either all pages or none at all and not merely on some and therefore should be added back to this page seeing as noone seemed to have aproblem with the box on any of the other pages where it is present. I look forward to hearing anyone's opinion on this. Azrich 10:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The "navigating from page to page" argument is a good one. I still think that the idea of a lying in state succession box is a silly one, but as you say, if it's in other articles then it should be in this one. I'll replace it. RedSpruce 10:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I for one am getting sick of...

....whites at Wikipedia constantly eliminating what I feel are relevant topics regarding race. Hoover was white, but it was an open secret that he had some degree of African-American ancestry, but people want to deny this; it's okay to say that he's gay, but please, Jesus, don't let him be black.

And this isn't the only article I've seen this on. I'm reluctant to post anything regarding race for fear that some white reactionary will delete it and call it irrelevant..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex1932 (talk • contribs)

Comment on content not the contributor. I did not delete the edit the question, but I've noticed that the person who did has given ostensibly valid reasons for his deletion. The better response would be to show how this is significant as it is reliably sourced, and not attack the racial motives of editors. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
And if the information you talk about has reliable sources, as Ramsquire said, it should be fine. We can't post "open secrets" unless they're cited somewhere reliable. --AW 19:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But the contributor is changing content that is important. What reasons has s/he given that are so valid. Rex1932 19:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Rex1932

A valid reason to delete reliably sourced information from an article is that it represents a tiny minority or insignificant viewpoint. If you can show the significance of Hoover's race, I will gladly support its inclusion, and I suspect others will too. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the McGhee section you're talking about, right? Note that this section was quickly restored after it was deleted. RedSpruce 20:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I see that, but the user did state its opinion that it was irrelevant. I disagree with the anon, but I also wanted to make clear to Rex, that trying to ascertain user's motives (or cast this guy's actions as an indictment across the entire Wiki) is an exercise that will lead to nothing but frustration. I suppose that this seems to be over for now. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death

How did Hoover die? This is not mentioned anywhere I saw in the article. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 09:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Gambling

There's no mention about his gambling problem and how it affect the mafia investigations, not even disputed here on the talk page. --Vuo (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second paragraph

Anyone else think that the second paragraph in the opening area seems to, well, almost attribute the rise of America to Hoover? I agree we can put in place the events that happened during his years, but the very last sentence of the paragraph seems attributary.Scryer_360 (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the tone of the paragraph seems odd. At the least, I think the last sentence should be removed, since there's no real connection between Hoover and the FBI and foreign policy. Perhaps the whole paragraph should be deleted. RedSpruce (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quote parameter

  • Here we go again, more wasted time and effort deleting and restoring, rather than creative research and writing. Some people get their stimulation by tearing down, others by careful research and detailed writing. Finding new information is hard work, deleting other peoples additions seems to provide the same stimulation with less effort. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WARGS

http://www.warg.com/other/hoover.html Ancestry of J. Edgar Hoover (1895-1972) was blacklisted, so I had to remove it in order to save a deletion of vandalism --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem, right at the top

In the infobox, Hoover is listed as the 1st Director of the FBI, as well as the 6th Director of the FBI, with both terms starting on the same date. The 6th term is cited in the article, but the dates don't match the article, and the article also states that he succeeded William J. Burns as Director, making it impossible for him to be the 1st Director. But, the 1st term has the correct dates listed. Can this be fixed? I don't know enough about Hoover to know the correct fix. Leobold1 (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I missed one word in the 6th Directorship, "Federal" which makes it the BOI, not the FBI. My fault. But, both dates exist, and the FBI didn't exist (apparantly) when he was named 6th Director of the BOI, so wouldn't his term as Director of the FBI start when the FBI started, instead of when he was named as the Director of the BOI? Leobold1 (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense to me - I've change the start date of his directorship of the FBI. RedSpruce (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blackmail by Hoover?

I had heard that Hoover blackmailed a lot of his opponents yet I was surprised I didn't find even any mention of this (or refutation, etc. if it's not corroborated). Sounds pretty important to bring up. I hope the authors of this page don't feel threatened by his ghost? ;) 116.76.215.251 (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vacuums

Can we stop talkin about whether he was gay or black? What about his connections to the vaccum company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.12.77 (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)