Talk:Roger Hollis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] From spycatcher

Correction: Arthur Martin was not sacked by Dick White, he was sacked by Roger Hollis himself.

At the time of his termination, Arthur Martin was in the employ of MI5, which was Roger Hollis's bailiwick - Dick White was head of MI6 at the time.

Moreover, after his termination from MI5, Dick White himself brought Arthur Martin into MI6 where he worked until retirement.

Source: Peter Wright's 'Spycatcher'.

The above removed from the end of the article. Rich Farmbrough 14:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)



Given that the only real public domain information abouut this affair came from Peter Wright's book "Spycatcher" this version is a fair synopsis of the book

GraemeSmith 18:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced

Stating and tagging this as unreferenced is clearly unmerited. I just read through Nigel West's book and Peter Wright's and it is all there save one item. The only thing not in those two texts is the bit on Hollis not telling Profomo certain details but I could have missed it. I also sorted out an ambiguous bit about Profomo who was involved with C. Keeler, not Hollis

Further details and depth are disclosed in Nigel West"s "Mole Hunt" (1987. Wiedenfeld and Nicolson, London) which came out the same year as Peter Wright's book. The demand for sources placed at the top of the article is unwarranted. This really is a synopsis of what is in Peter Wright's book and this is clearly stated in the article as a source. Nigel West's book substantiates much of what Wright wrote and is in this very brief article.

Malangthon 23:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Several passages in this article are extemely subjective or slanted. For example:

Hollis was asked to come in and clear up the allegations. Having been the director, Hollis knew all about the procedures of the interrogation and investigation, in fact he was expecting to be called in anyday. He remained calm and composed throughout, denying all allegations. His memory failed when it suited him and he could not account for the inconsistencies the interrogators found. He was a very secretive man and MI5 had very little information about his past.

Not to mention this line:

At the very least, Hollis was one of the most incompetent men that had ever directed a security organization of such a scale as MI5 in the cold war era.

--Osprey39 22:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As I understand it, KGB archives have proved Spycatcher very out of date. I am surprised so much credence is given to it here.

Sorry, but "KGB Archives" do not prove anything, they could have been made up by anybody. Spycatcher is an eye-witness account by a person who was part of this affair, and should be taken as such. Kraxler 02:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV opposed

Those are direct quotes from Chapman Pincher's 'Their trade is treachery'. There are no reasons to totally trust 'released' KGB archives as is there no reason to trust in Hollis' leadership as Director.


I concur. The KGB as the final word of credibility? The KGB? The NKVD? The GRU? Their archives 'prove' anything? Who came up with that nonsense?

Malangthon 23:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If they are direct quotes then they should appear and be referenced as such. Until they are rewritten and sourced, I am deleting them but placing the content here for ease of use. Pennywisepeter 13:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

He remained calm and composed throughout, denying all allegations. His memory failed when it suited him and he could not account for the inconsistencies the interrogators found. He was a very secretive man and MI5 had very little information about his past. The Trend Committee under Lord Trend was entrusted the matter of investigating Hollis later. After a long enquiry it reported the allegations inconclusive, neither denying nor confirming them. At the very least, Hollis was one of the most incompetent men that had ever directed a security organization of such a scale as MI5 in the cold war era.

In it's present form the article is quite neutral enough, references for the accusations are given, and Hollis's only answer was "stout denial", never explaining, never convincing. If this case went to a jury, they would convict him in 5 minutes. But one minor point is lacking: his intorrogating Gouzenko in disguise for fear of recognition. I will add that. Kraxler 03:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, whatever else he may have done or said, and independant of proof for or against the fact per se, he entered History as the "Man Who Was Accused of Being a Mole", so his biography is necessarily a little heavy on this point. Kraxler 04:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Format

The "controversies" section should not be the entire article. Provide a biography section first, then you can add that section to the article.Landroo 17:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Link

The link for Arthur Martin goes to the article for North Tyneside Council


[edit] More Fact

Not to complain, but while the allogations against the man are very interesting, and could be true, to date there has been no verification of the fact that he is a spy... shouldn't there be a bit more in here regarding the rest of the man's career? I mean, what if he was innocent? A lifetime of service rewarded only by the question of his loyalty?

Certainly he was a spy, what is disputed is if he was a MOLE. If not, he was INCOMPETENT to the nth degree. Evaluate the possibilities and make your choice..... Kraxler 02:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)