Talk:J. Edgar Hoover/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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.

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)

Does anyone know who's living in Hoover's home now? Is it a relative or another closeted gay person" Allyn (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2009 (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. Besides, Mr. Hoover is dead. We can libel him if we want and should suffer no consequences (except that this is an encyclopedia)Allyn (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

This article is dripping in POV. While it may be that Hoover was something of a Bigot to say the least, the language throughout this article consistently and subjectively casts Hoover in a negative light. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

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.

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)

Buried evidence

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

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

"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)

Birthplace

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

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)

It is probably a joke reflecting Hoover's excessive fear of anything remotely left-wing. 82.176.196.207 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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?

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)

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)

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.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.236.107 (talk) 01:13, June 8, 2006 (UTC)

I'm listening to a brodcast with researcher Eric Jon Phelps from June 26, 2008, and he states that Hoover was a 33° mason and indeed on the Council of the 33rd Degree, Southern Jurisdiction in Washington, D.C. __meco (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else there are photos of him wearing a Shriner's fez. It's sad that the statement can be seen as an accusation. as a Freemason the whole conspiracy thing makes my blood boil.Saxophobia (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Summers in his Biography of Edgar 'Official and Confidential' states that Edgar did go through the Initiation ceremony and go on to achieve 33 Degree Masonic Status. Touchingly, Mr Summers noted how Edgar's childhood Notebooks and other personal items and photographs are today kept in the House of The Temple Headquarters of the Supreme Council 33 Degree in Washington D.C. (Sourse Anthony Summers. 'Official and Confidential. The Secret Life of J.Edgar Hoover'.Johnwrd (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

A number of points seem to be overlooked in the 'President Kennedy' comments here. There is no evidence anywhere that the F.B.I. had any connection with any supposed conspiracy. Also, a problem the F.B.I. faced in Nov 1963 was the legal point that the murder of a serving President was not a 'Federal Crime'. Also the only interest the F.B.I. had with Lee Oswald in 1963 was an ongoing haggle with Lee about the immigration compliance status of his wife Marina. If they were involved in 'Conspiracy' would the F.B.I. be publicly haggling with Lee about immigration rules regarding Marina?. The F.B.I. had long expressed it's concern over unknown persons impersonating Lee when he was in the U.S.S.R. Probably the only reason the F.B.I. wanted the case closed, was that any trial of Oswald after his death would be an 'unreconcilable mess'.Johnwrd (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

“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)

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)

From time immemorial, various U.S. public figures have received honors from foreign royalty, and for political and international reasons, it would not be wise to reject them. I think it can be assumed that if Congress does not object within a reasonable period of time, it has consented. Also, it is possible that Congress enacts a resolution consenting in such cases. I have not looked it up. I would not surprise me, and I am not bothered by the practice. John Paul Parks (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Perhaps they were thinking of Herbert Hoover, who founded the Hoover Library on the campus of Stanford University. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

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)

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.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

By the way, Summers wasn't the first to bring the cross-dressing allegations to light. Woody Allen had a joke about Hoover's cross-dressing in his 1971 film Bananas -- apparently released while Hoover was still in office! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.204.131 (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Shorter

i think you should make this information shorter

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)

Allegations of racism...

....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)

i undid an edit from 5 January 2009 by "68.52.35.31" who made the following addition to the article without declaring a source. "He was investigated for the conspiracy behind MLK Jr. assasination. He was also a self proclaimed racist." It may be true; I don't know but a statement such as that really needs a credible source. Kbastin (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

there have been at least 3 attempts to add the statement " He was known as one of the biggest racists of all time. He should have been hung" twice by "24.186.251.46" and once by "69.137.89.147". There is no credible source provided for the "one of the biggest racists" statements and the "should have been hung" statement is an inflammatory opinion unsuitable for any encyclopedia. Kbastin (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dusko Popov/ counter-spying / Pearl Harbor

In criticisms do we need to include anything about Dusko Popov and Hoover's handling of spies?

Dusko Popov was Britain's best double agent and is recorded to have told Hoover that an attack was imminent on American ships in Pearl Harbour and even went as far as to name the attack methods that would be employed by the Japanese. Not only that but he presented Hoover with a questionnaire given to him directly from the Germans asking all sorts of things about American defences in the area.

Hoover refused to aid Dusko in founding a German spy-network in America completely under German control and then risked blowing his cover by using the microdot equipment Dusko received and then publishing an article in the national geographic claiming it as his own.

For evidence for all this one of the bets sources is Dusko's "Spy/Counterspy"

Political party affiliation?

I think it would be helpful to include Hoover's political party affiliation somewhere in the article. --Skb8721 (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality

Actually I couldn't care less about a man's sexual preferences, but if that man make investigation about others sexual lifes for blackmailing that is another story. The part in the article is not neutral fully, because providing he is attracted to some women doesn't make him heterosexual because he may also be a bisexual.

Hoover investigated rumors that Valenti was gay Feb 19, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — Longtime Hollywood lobbyist Jack Valenti was among the Washington figures whose sex lives were secretly investigated by the FBI in the 1960s.

Valenti, who died in April 2007, was a special assistant and confidant to President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 when J. Edgar Hoover's FBI investigated rumors that he was gay, the Washington Post reported Thursday, based on agency files obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.

The FBI records show that the Republican Party carried out a similar investigation.

Valenti had been married to Johnson's personal secretary for two years at the time. But he was suspected of having a gay relationship with a commercial photographer friend.

When the FBI initially reported its suspicions to Johnson, the president defended his top aide as "all right." He prevented the bureau from getting a sworn affidavit from Valenti or interviewing the photographer. But days later he relented to an investigation.

When the FBI approached the photographer, he swore that Valenti "never engaged in homosexual activities and he does not have these tendencies," according to the records.

The investigation was apparently abandoned shortly afterward.

Valenti, a Texan who served as a consultant to Vice President Johnson and was in the Dallas motorcade the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, became Johnson's special assistant immediately after he was sworn in as president.

He served Johnson until taking over as chief of the Motion Picture Association of America in 1966. He retired in 2004. [17]

Potter, Claire Bond, 1958- Queer Hoover: Sex, Lies, and Political History Journal of the History of Sexuality - Volume 15, Number 3, July 2006, pp. 355-381 University of Texas Press E-ISSN: 1535-3605 Print ISSN: 1043-4070 DOI: 10.1353/sex.2007.0021

Claire Bond Potter - Queer Hoover: Sex, Lies, and Political History - Journal of the History of Sexuality 15:3 Journal of the History of Sexuality 15.3 (2006) 355-381 Muse Search Journals This Journal Contents Queer Hoover: Sex, Lies, and Political History Claire Bond Potter Wesleyan University What does the history of sex look like without evidence of sexual identities or proof that sex acts occurred? And how might an analysis of gossip, rumors, and perhaps even lies about sex help us to write political history? Answers to these questions might begin with a story about J. Edgar Hoover told by society divorcee Susan Rosenstiel, a story that was bought and paid for by tabloid journalist Anthony Summers three decades after it allegedly occurred. In 1958 the bisexual millionaire distiller and philanthropist Lewis Solon Rosenstiel asked Susan, his fourth wife, if -- having been previously married to another bisexual man for nine years -- she had ever seen "a homosexual orgy." Although she had once surprised her sixty-eight-year-old husband in bed with his attorney, Roy Cohn, Susan told Summers that she had never before been invited to view sex between men. With her consent the couple went one day not long after this odd question to Manhattan's Plaza Hotel. Cohn, a former aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy and a Republican power broker, met them at the door. As she and her husband entered the suite, Susan said, she recognized a third man: J. Edgar Hoover,... [18]

"ll fairy night clubs and gathering places are illegal, and operate only through pay-offs to the authorities. They are organized into a national circuit, controlled by the Mafia which also finds unique opportunity to sell dope in such dives. Many gangsters like it that way, too, after indoctrination in prison." Jack Lait & Lee Mortimer, 1952

Our Sister J. Edgar Hoover

In FBI Secrets: An Agent’s Expose, M. Wesley Swearingen writes:

FBI Secrets Swearingen One year after arriving in Memphis, Hoover transferred me to Chicago, Illinois. I was thrilled – my mind was full of gangsters, Tommy guns, and the FBI’s famous machine gun battles of the 1930s. It was clear to me from Chicago’s newspaper headlines that gansters ruled a Chicago underworld element in the 1950s because gangland style murders averaged close to 100 a year in the Chicago area. * * * But when I told my colleague and veteran agent Vince Coll of my big plans for Chicago, he said that Hoover did not recognize the existence of a mob in Chicago. According to Coll, Mafia leader Meyer Lansky’s organization had enough on Hoover and Tolson, as closet homosexuals, that Hoover would never investigate the mob. I laughed, thinking Coll was joking. I said he should be careful to whom he tells such stories. Coll insisted he was not joking. He made me promise never to tell anyone as long as he lived. I noted that it was true that FBI training school had taught nothing about organized crime. The thought of Hoover and his associate Clyde Tolson being homosexual shocked me. There were jokes in training school about Hoover and Tolson being homosexual, but I had passed off the jokes as being in bad taste. * * * Rumors of Hoover’s and Tolson’s homosexuality continued to permeate the field offices for years, but no agent seemed to have any personal knowledge of an affair. Still, Hoover did nothing about organized crime for thirty-seven years, until pressured to do so by Attorney General Bobby Kennedy in 1961. * * * Today it’s clear that Hoover disliked Bobby Kennedy and President John F. Kennedy because Hoover feared the Kennedys would prosecute Meyer Lansky as a gangster, and prompt Lansky to expose Hoover and Tolson as closet homosexuals.

Official and Confidential Anthony Summers documents the basis for Hoover’s fear in his 1993 book Official and Confidential, the Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover. The book’s dust cover states, “J. Edgar Hoover . . . was a closet homosexual and transvestite. Mafia bosses obtained information about Hoover’s sex life and used it for decades to keep the FBI at bay. Without this, the Mafia as we know it might never have gained its hold in America." A review of Anthony Summers’ book from the February 22, 1993 issue of Time magazine states:

Time Cover 02 22 93 The motto of the FBI is "Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity." How well did William Sessions' all-powerful predecessor, J. Edgar Hoover, uphold these words? Not very, according to a just published biography of the late FBI chief. Anthony Summers' Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover is sure to disturb the old crime fighter's final rest. Even as he railed against gays as "sexual deviants," Hoover apparently struggled with his own homosexuality. Summers offers fresh details of Hoover's 40-year friendship with Clyde Tolson, a handsome young agent he plucked out of the rank and file and quickly promoted to assistant director. The pair ate dinner together almost every night and vacationed together every year; Summers contends that Luisa Stuart, a former fashion model, once saw them holding hands in the back seat of a limo. According to Summers, the Mafia claimed to have the goods on Edgar and Clyde, including compromising photographs of the two men engaging in oral sex. That knowledge provided the mob with rich blackmail material. It protected gangsters like Meyer Lansky and Frank Costello from FBI scrutiny for more than 20 years and forced Hoover to insist that syndicated crime was not a national problem. Perhaps Summers' most bizarre revelation is an account provided by Susan Rosenstiel, the wife of a liquor distiller and gambling crony. Rosenstiel recalls attending what she thought would be an elegant private party at New York City's Plaza Hotel in the company of lawyer Roy Cohn, Hoover and others. Instead, Cohn introduced Rosenstiel to a woman named "Mary," dressed in a fluffy black dress, lace stockings and high heels. It was obvious Mary was no woman. "You could see where he shaved. It was Hoover," said Rosenstiel. Joined by Cohn, Hoover stripped down to a tiny garter belt and proceeded to have sex with two young boys. Cohn later joked about the evening. "That was really something, wasn't it, with Mary Hoover?" Hoover's presidential snooping included efforts to pin an illicit liaison on Eleanor Roosevelt and culminated, most famously, with eavesdropping on J.F.K. frolicking with Mafia moll Judith Campbell and Marilyn Monroe. "We had to be not only as straight as an arrow," recalled a former agent last week on PBS's Frontline. "We had to give every perception that we were straight as arrows." In 1972, at age 77, the omnipotent FBI chief became the first civil servant to be granted a state funeral, at which he was eulogized by Richard Nixon in the Rotunda of the Capitol as "one of the giants . . . a national symbol of courage, patriotism and granite-like honesty and integrity." But the year before, bedeviled by fallout from his efforts to tap the phones of journalists, the President had confided to John Ehrlichman, "We may have on our hands here a man who will pull the temple down with him, including me." It is not surprising that not one of the eight Presidents he served dared fire him.

In Stonewall: The Riots That Sparked The Gay Revolution, [New York: 2004] David Carter writes:

David Carter Stonewall Ginsberg, a man who loved both to gather and pass on gossip, had known since the late forties that J. Edgar Hoover was homosexual. * * * That Hoover was homosexual, and Clyde Tolson his lover is currently generally accepted. The history of The Homosexual Handbook, published in 1968, shows, however, that by the late 1960s, not only was Hoover’s homosexuality whispered widely in the homosexual world but also that Hoover was, understandably, extremely sensitive about any public suggestion of this information. The book’s last chapter, titled “Uncle Fudge’s List of Practical Homosexuals Past and Present with Very Short Biographical Notes—A Hearsay Reference Work,” includes Hoover’s name:

J. Edgar Hoover: Celibataire, the director of the Federal Bureau of Intelligence [sic], he has for several decades remained the eminence froide of our national great society.

After the book appeared, pressure from the FBI caused it to be withdrawn. The publisher soon reissued the book, but with Uncle Fudge’s list one name shorter.

From information published in the 1993 book Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover, by Anthony Summers, Ginsberg’s intuition has been proved correct. Not only did Summers discover that the Mafia had photographic evidence implicating Hoover in homosexual activities, but it also came to light that Hoover at times dressed in female attire. Research conducted for this book strongly suggests that Ed Murphy[19] had one or more of these photographs, which allowed him to avoid serving time in prison for leading an extensive national blackmail ring [20].

John Paul Ranieri, a former prostitute interviewed for this history, provided critical testimony for corroborating and better understanding the larger implications of Murphy’s criminal enterprises for gay history. Ranieri said that as a youth from Westchester County he had been forced by blackmail and Mafia-supplied drugs into a prostitution ring in which he remained active for three years before he escaped the mob’s control. He claimed that a number of youths in the ring had disappeared after they got careless with talk, for while most of the customers were more or less average homosexual men with money, the regular clientele, according to Ranieri, also included famous men such as Malcolm Forbes, Cardinal Spellman, Liberace, U.S. Senators, a vice president of the United States, one of the most famous rock musicians, and J. Edgar Hoover. The mob’s order, according to Ranieri, was strictly “Keep your zipper open and your mouth shut.”

Ranieri said that he met J. Edgar Hoover at private parties at the Plaza Hotel and that Hoover’s name was never mentioned. Hoover was always in drag, and Ranieri said he could tell that the FBI director was sure that no one recognized him. Ranieri said that he had ensured his own survival by having in his possession a photograph of himself with Hoover, given to him by the photographer.

How does the preceding information link Ed Murphy with J. Edgar Hoover? The connection is made evident in a news story written shortly after Hoover’s homosexuality and transvestism became public. When Summer’s book was published, a newspaper story about the 1960s national homosexual blackmail ring suddenly appeared after a quarter of a century of silence on the subject. Without mentioning Murphy’s name, it quoted law enforcement sources who had worked on the case as saying that their investigation into the nationwide blackmail ring had turned up a photograph of Hoover “posing amiably” with the racket’s ringleader and had uncovered information that Clyde Tolson, Hoover’s lover, had himself “fallen victim to the extortion ring.” After federal agents joined the investigation, both the photograph of Hoover and the documents about Tolson disappeared. * * * Very suggestive in this context is that Murphy would publicly say in 1978—before it became public information, as it did in the 1990s, that the Mafia had photographs of Hoover involved in sex acts—that he knew that J. Edgar Hoover “was one of my sisters." [21]

Q. Over the years, there have been persistent rumors that J. Edgar Hoover was a cross-dressing homosexual. Are the rumors true or false?-J. J., Ann Arbor, Michigan. (Now really, would anybody ever expect to get a truthful answer from "Walter Scott" to a question like this?)

A. In a one-hour documentary, "Jack Anderson The Fall of J. Edgar Hoover," airing Sept. 15 on the A&E Network, the Pulitzer-Prize-winning columnist explodes the myth that the late FBI director was a cross-dresser. Anderson, PARADE's Washington bureau chief, told us "Hoover was so concerned about his image that he probably wouldn't have put on a dress in his own home, for fear someone might see him. So there's no way he would have appeared in a dress in public."

The show also concludes that Hoover was not gay and notes that when he spoke about homosexuals, "his words were venomous." But Anderson told us he can't comment on Hoover's sexual preference. The answer may depend on whether physical sex is part of one's definition of "homosexual." There's no evidence that Hoover ever had sex with the man who's the other half of those rumors. Clyde Tolson, his assistant and best friend for 44 years. In the book Secrecy and Power-The Life of J. Edgar Hoover, Richard Gid Powers describes the affectionate bond between the two bachelors as a "spousal relationship."

Sounds like a pretty weak denial, doesn't it? To what kind of evidence would the public ever likely obtain access with respect to sexual relations between J. Edgar and Clyde, after all? How do we know that any childless couple with a "spousal relationship," whether they be homo, hetero, or neuter in inclination is actually doing it? And isn't it, or wasn't it in the past, a rather common thing for closet homosexuals to conceal their preference by making a big show of their hostility to homosexuals and homosexuality?

The Walter Scott collective, were it inclined at all toward the truth, would have told us right off the bat that we are dealing with something a good deal more substantive than "rumors" when it comes to allegations with respect to Hoover's sexual preference and his cross-dressing. The cross-dressing charge hit the headlines in 1993, and has been a staple of late-night monologues ever since, when the Irish writer, Anthony Summers, came out with Official and Confidential, the Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover. In chapter 23 of the book we have the eyewitness reports of Susan Rosenstiel, the fourth wife of mob-connected magnate, Lewis Solon Rosenstiel, as she told author Summers she had related them to the New York State Legislative Committee on Crime. Most of that testimony was behind closed doors and remains sealed away from the public. As related in substance by Summers, it makes fascinating reading, starting on page 253.

Susan Rosenstiel's Account

Susan Rosenstiel's final and most sensational revelations suggest her husband and Roy Cohn (Do search at www.google.com -ed) involved Edgar in sex orgies-thus laying him more open than ever to pressure from organized crime.

Susan Rosenstiel's previous marriage had collapsed because her first husband was predominantly homosexual. Now, she concluded, she had made a similar mistake. Her husband seemed little interested in having sex with her, but went to great expense to have her dress up in clothes that made her look like a little girl. She discovered, meanwhile, that he enjoyed sex with men.

"One day," Susan recalls, "I came into my husband's bedroom and found him in bed with Roy Cohn. It was about nine o'clock in the morning. I was shocked, just shocked. He made some sort of joke about it being so he could be alone with his attorney. And I said, 'I've never seen Governor Dewey in bed with you,' because Dewey was one of his attorneys, too. And I walked out."

Roy Cohn flaunted his homosexuality around Susan. He openly caressed one young man, a former congressional associate, in front of her. He seemed to take pleasure in telling her about the sexual proclivities of her husband's friends-including, especially, the homosexuality of Cardinal Spellman.

Sometime in 1958, probably in the spring, Rosenstiel asked his wife whether, while living in Paris with her previous husband, she had witnessed an orgy. "A few weeks later, when Cohn was there, he commented that I was a 'regular' and knew what life was, that my first husband had been gay and I must have understood because I'd stayed with him for nine years. And they said how would I like to go to a party at the Hotel Plaza? But if it ever got out, it would be the most terrible thing in the world. I told them, 'If you want to go, I'll go.' Cohn said, 'You're in for a big surprise...'"

A few days later Rosenstiel took his wife to the Plaza, the venerable hotel overlooking New York's Central Park. They entered through a side entrance and took an elevator to a suite on the second or third floor. She had the impression her husband had been there before. "He knocked," Susan recalled, "and Roy Cohn opened the door. It was a beautiful suite, one of their biggest, all done in light blue. Hoover was their already, and I couldn't believe what I saw.."

According to Mrs. Rosenstiel, Edgar was dressed up as a woman, in full drag. "He was wearing a fluffy black dress, very fluffy, with flounces, and lace stockings and high heels, and a black curly wig. He had makeup on, and false eyelashes. It was a very short skirt, and he was sitting there in the living room of the suite with his legs crossed. Roy introduced him to me as 'Mary' and he replied 'Good evening,' brusque, like the first time I'd met him. It was obvious he wasn't a woman, you could see where he shaved. It was Hoover. You've never seen anything like it. I couldn't believe it, that I should see the head of the FBI dressed as a woman.

"There was a bar set up with drinks, and we had drinks. Not too much. I think it was about then that Roy muttered to me that Hoover didn't know that I knew who he was, that I'd think he was someone else. I certainly didn't address him the way I had at other times, as Mr. Hoover. I was afraid of my life by then.

"The next thing, a couple of boys come in, young blond boys, I'd say about eighteen or nineteen. And then Roy makes the signal we should go into the bedroom. It was a tremendous bedroom, with a bed like in Caesar's time, with a damask spread, blue, I think, like the suite. And they go into the bedroom, and Hoover takes off his lace dress and pants, and under the pants he was wearing a little, short garter belt. He lies on the double bed, and the two boys work on him with their hands. One of them wore rubber gloves."

After a while, said Susan Rosenstiel, the group returned to the living room. "Cohn had brought up some food. Cold stuff, so as not to have room service. So we had a little something to eat.

"Then Rosenstiel got into the act with the boys. I thought, 'You disgusting old man...' Hoover and Cohn were watching and enjoying it. Then Cohn runs to get himself satisfied-full sex-with the two boys. Those poor boys. He couldn't get enough. But Hoover only had them, you know, playing with him. I didn't see him take part in any anal sex. Rosenstiel wanted me to get involved, but I wouldn't do it."

Later the Rosenstiels went home in their limousine, leaving Cohn and Edgar, with the boys, in the suite. Rosenstiel would not discuss Edgar's part in the evening's events, but Cohn later laughed about it. "He said, 'That was really something, wasn't it, with Mary Hoover?" He told me, as if it had happened before, 'I arrive at the Plaza first, with his clothes in a suitcase.' Cohn said Hoover came in through the side entrance on Fifty-Eighth Street, so he didn't have to go through the lobby. I guess he made it his business not to be followed....."

A year later, according to Susan, Rosenstiel asked her to accompany him to the Plaza again. She agreed, in return for an expensive pair of earrings from Harry Winston's, and the jprocedure was the same as on the previous occasion. Cohn ushered them into a suite to find Edgar, again attired in female finery. His clothing this time was even more outlandish. "He had a red dress on," Susan recalled, "and a black feather boa around his neck. He ws dressed like an old flapper, like you see on old tintypes.

"After about an hour some boys came, like before. This time they're dressed in leather. And Hoover had a Bible. He wanted one of the boys to read from the Bible. And he read. I forget which passage, and the other boys played with him, wearing the rubber gloves. And then Hoover grabbed the Bible, threw it down and told the second boy to join in the sex." (end excerpt)

Susan Rosenstiel insisted to the author Summers that she could not have been mistaken about Hoover's identity and signed a sworn affidavit to that effect. Summers notes further that Rosenstiel was known to be bisexual by his friends, and although Cohn, who died of AIDS not long after being disbarred in New York for unethical dealings with gangsters, was a loud public homophobe who denied his own homosexuality to the end, his unconventional personal proclivities were notorious.

Demonstrating that his entire case for Hoover's cross-dressing does not rest upon the word of one woman, Summers relates further in Chapter 23 the experience of a couple of men in Washington, DC, with friends in the homosexual community. They describe photographs of Hoover in women's clothes that have been shown to them.

It may not be ironclad proof, but Summers' evidence of Hoover's cross-dressing would seem to be a lot stronger than Jack Anderson's pure conjecture. Furthermore, what we have here is not just rumor, as the Walter Scott operation would have you believe. They are charges made by an identified person, and to lay the matter to rest the charges have to be addressed. The Parade people are not aiming at the sort of audience that reads books, though, so they feel no such obligation.

Further Research

At this point the reader of this little essay might want to do some more of his own research by going back to Google.com and typing in "Roy Cohn" "J. Edgar Hoover." Cohn's character seems to have been captured quite well at "Roy Cohn."

Now that you see how revealing this line of inquiry can be, instead of relying simply upon what you are fed by our press propagandists, why don't you try searching the subject "Roy Cohn" "Si Newhouse."

Well, what do you know? It turns out that the notorious, underworld-connected power broker, Cohn, and the Parade-owning media magnate, Newhouse, were close friends from childhood up until Cohn's death. One can even learn how Cohn once used his influence with Newhouse to get a Cleveland Plain Dealer series on mob connections to the Teamsters Union flushed by reading the book, Newhouse All the Glitter, Power, and Glory of America's Richest Media Empire and the Secretive Man Behind It, by Thomas Maier. (By coincidence, I assume, two books with very similar titles have been written about the two men as well, Citizen Newhouse Portrait of a Media Merchant, by Carol Felsenthal and Citizen Cohn, The Life and Times of Roy Cohn, by Nicholas Von Hoffman. Citizen Cohn was made into a critically acclaimed HBO movie starring James Woods in the title role in 1992. )

Parade Magazine hardly needed the personal connection, of course, for it to stand up for the reputation of J.Edgar Hoover. Had the question been, "Has the FBI ever framed anyone for political reasons?" you can be sure that our phantom Walter Scott would have assured us that the agency is as free of taint as the former director who's name adorns its ugly Washington headquarters. (Search "Geronimo Pratt," "Jose Solis Jordan," or "Judi Bari" for a propaganda antidote on this subject.) Protecting the establishment is what a propaganda operation is all about.

Considering the job that the entire American media have done in covering up every major domestic scandal and selling every major foreign adventure for about the last century or so, it is abundantly clear that the mythical Walter Scott and his Personality Parade are hardly alone as a propaganda operation. For continued reading on the subject I commend to your attention the following two items, as well as almost anything else one might find on my own web site

www.davesweb.cnchost.com/cnn.htm
www.swans.com/library/art7/gowans12.html

David Martin
November 18, 2001 [22]

How any sane rational person can believe the disgusting vile acusations made about Mr Hoover in this section is beyond beliefe. The worlds top police man walks into a hotel room full of strangers and engages in perverted sex in front of them? Get a life.Johnwrd (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if you find crossdressing and gayness disgusting fine but, there is serious claims from non-conflicting parties, on Hoover was involved in them, so Hoover might be to blame, not wikipedia. Also there is no direct relation between profession and sexual preferences that is known or proved scientifically. Moreover it is not about believing or not believing, it is about which reliable sources covers a point or claim, with which arguments. That is the point. By the way if he was a crossdresser he won't be recognized in a woman costume so easily anyway.

Your question is easy to be answered, he was not world's top police man in the first place, he had never been. He was head of the FBI in its scandaleous years, that is all. He committed to many crimes including blackmail according to many sources. Get a behaviour like talking politely. Kasaalan (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The question is not what is true, what is right, or what is fair, but what can be verified. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Cross-dressing and homosexuality are not interchangeable terms. One can be gay and not cross-dress and likewise, one can cross-dress and not be gay. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Who argues any other way. Kasaalan (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• It seemed like the anon editor was using the terms as being interchangeable. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a place for pederast's rumours promotion? There are no facts in this section - only gossips.92.101.114.44 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Arguments by Richard Hack

"Though this does not necessarily corroborate Hoover's heterosexuality, as it would not exclude bisexuality, or the practice, common amongst gay men throughout history, of female escorts as cover girlfriends (see "beard"). And, sexual orientation of one sort or another, either way, or both, does not exclude the practice of crossdressing."

This may sound like original research, but his arguments are completely logical fallacies. He argues, his alleged sexual relationship with a woman proves he is not gay. Or his close friend cannot be his gay partner, because they appeared in public too often. It shouldn't be concluded as Original Research, because I don't try to prove anything. But I try stressing, his arguments are not proving he is not gay or crossdresser, even if his claims are completely true. Kasaalan (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Though this does not necessarily corroborate Hoover's heterosexuality, as it would not exclude bisexuality, or the practice, common amongst gay men throughout history, of female escorts as cover girlfriends (see "beard") and even get married with them. Likewise, longtime Hollywood lobbyist Jack Valenti who was a special assistant and confidant to President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, though being married to Johnson's personal secretary for two years at the time, investigated by Hoover's FBI because of the rumors that he was having a gay relationship with a commercial photographer friend as Washington Post reported based on agency files obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. 'Gay' Probe of LBJ Aide by Washington Associated Press at NY Post newspaper February 20, 2009 Moreover, sexual orientation of one sort or another, either way, or both, does not exclude the practice of crossdressing"

He has investigated a married man's gayness because of rumours, so according to his own actions, having sexual relationship or being married to a woman is no proof of being not gay. Readded the reply to logical fallacy of Conflict of Interest writer.Kasaalan (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

: Could I suggest that the hypothetical parts of these contribution be appended as a single footnote, because they interrupt the flow of the text and are points that while 'valid' are not particularly relevant (this is not a trial). That is, to leave the reference to Jack Valentini (omitting the 'likewise'),

"Likewise, longtime Hollywood lobbyist Jack Valenti who was a special assistant and confidant to President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, though being married to Johnson's personal secretary for two years at the time, investigated by Hoover's FBI because of the rumors that he was having a gay relationship with a commercial photographer friend as Washington Post reported based on agency files obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. 'Gay' Probe of LBJ Aide by Washington Associated Press at NY Post newspaper February 20, 2009"

and adding a neutralised footnote at the end:

"This does not preclude the possibility of bisexuality, or the practice historically where homosexual men had cover girlfriends or wives (see "beard"). Men who are heterosexual as well as homosexual can practice crossdressing."

because I don't see it is our job to enter into speculation within the article. Mish (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the issue is, the actual part was the first blockquote like you referred, but people tried to remove it because it is based on Original Research, so I had to "proof" being married or having sexual relationship with any women does not necessarily imply you are not bisexual or crossdresser. So I found what Hoover done to a married man because he had some rumours about being gay. Good proof if you ask me, and certainly it fits the case. Kasaalan (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I get it now - sorry, I misunderstood - no, that's synthesis and shouldn't be in. Sorry, I agree with them in that case. I don't think we need to be concerned with whether he was gay, bisexual, a transvestite, or not. We need to be concerned with what people have said about him, and how people have responded to that, and do that accurately. Hoover investigaing people who are married but who he thought were bisexual doesn't come into it. We provide the information, and if people want to explore this further then that is up to them - but if nobody has suggested that he might have been bisexual or a heterosexual transvestite, then it is not up to us to make that connection - that would be original research. Sure he could have been either - or simply using women as a cover - but to honest, we will never know the truth about this, and it would be wrong of us to engage in speculation. Mish (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, people claimed he was bisexual and crossdresser by 1st hand witnesses and solid reference, yet his "official biographer" try to reply that allegations by he was having affair with 2 women, so he could not be crossdresser or gay. That is a big logical fallacy and no proof. Hoover proved that himself, by investigating "gay rumours" about even married man. I just point out that having sexual relationship with a woman (even if it is true) will not prove anything. I do not state he is bisexual or not, which we may only guess. Kasaalan (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Whether what you are saying is true or not, it is your opinion that it might relate to Hoover and WP:OR. If you can find a wp:rs that gives the same opinion and relates it to Hoover, then feel free to use it. Otherwise, it doesn't belong in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong for various reasons. First the writer has WP:COI conflict of interest with Hoover. Second his arguments on Hoover was having affair with 2 women (even if it is true) therefore he can't be gay is a logical fallacy for the best. So he claims an argument as a reply to bisexality and crossdressing arguments, yet it doesn't prove any further than he had sex with women (even if it is true). Third Hoover's own gayness investigations about married men (because of rumours) by solid WP:RS reliable source further proofs being married or having sex with women is no proof of not being bisexual, since bisexual means having sex with both sexes. (actually we don't even need any proof for having sex with women does not proof one is not bisexual it is very clear by term's definition) If any WP:OR original research involved in this case, it is the writer's thesis. Stating his claims are actually no actual proof is not original research, but stating solid facts. Kasaalan (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way"In 1958 the bisexual millionaire distiller and philanthropist Lewis Solon Rosenstiel asked Susan [Rosenstiel], his fourth wife, if—having been previously married to another bisexual man for nine years—she had ever seen "a homosexual orgy". Although she had once surprised her sixty-eight-year-old husband in bed with his attorney, Roy Cohn, Susan told Summers that she had "never before been invited to view sex between men. ..." So Rosenstiel who was a married bisexual is a good example. Even though Rosenstiel was a married bisexual, some might claim Hoover was having sex or dating with women is a proof for his heterosexuality. And some editors try deleting the note with OR claims. Kasaalan (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Under "Masonic connections" - is it "coronated" or "coroneted"?

Under "Masonic Connections" the words "coronated" and "coroneted" both appear for what looks like the same ceremony. But which is right? Paulburnett (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sort of both: the ceremony is a Coronation and the recipient is symbolically awarded a gold coronet. In actuality he'd receive a gold embroidered Scottish Rite cap. Getting the 33rd Degree is a great honor but not all that unusual. It carries few practical advantages or duties. Saxophobia (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Last passage of "Sexuality"

"A Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Washington Post revealed that Longtime Hollywood lobbyist Jack Valenti, a special assistant and confidant to President Lyndon Johnson was investigated by Hoover's FBI in 1964. The investigation, which was carried out despite Valenti's two-year marriage to Johnson's personal secretary, focused on rumors that he was having a gay relationship with a commercial photographer friend."

I see this topic has been discussed above, but in the current version, this does not have anything to do with Hoover's sexuality. So either the context is to be explained, or the passage to be removed. --KnightMove (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the issue is, it is not FBI's job to "investigate" who is gay or not. The claims against Hoover's own sexual identity do just strengthen the contradiction. Kasaalan (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, in many cases it was the FBI's job to investigate who was or was not gay. The FBI often has a responsibility to investigate matters involving security clearences and the activities of the holders to see if they are vulnerable to coercion by an enemy power. At that point in history, homosexuality was considered an unacceptable risk factor because homosexuality was so unaccepted at the time, the feeling was that it made people possible targets for blackmail or coercion. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The TV movie depicted Hoover wearing a red dress while "diddling" his chief assistant (male) and listening to a tape-recording of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. cheating on his wife. What better place for a closeted early twentieth century homosexual to hide than as the public critic of other people' sexuality? I think that is the most appropriate context here. Wowest (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Made up citations

I have removed this entire paragraph:

Eccentricities

The book No Left Turns, by former agent Joseph L. Schott, portrays a rigid, paranoid old man who terrified everyone, and increasingly became a caricature of himself. Hoover liked to write on the margins of memos and, according to Schott, when one memo had too narrow margins he wrote, "watch the borders!" No one had the nerve to ask him why, but they sent inquiries to the Border Patrol about any strange activities on the Canadian and Mexican frontiers. It took a week before an HQ staffer realized the message related to the borders of the memo paper. Schott has also stated that the mistakenly increased border activity during this period resulted in the arrest of American Communist Party leader Gus Hall.

Why? I own this book. It has many entertaining anecdotes about Hoover's loonyism. The described portrayal is accurate enough. However the "Watch the borders" story and the "Gus Hall" story are simply not in this book at all.

First sign your comment, then readd the paragraph you removed. In the book or not I provided sources below. Kasaalan (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Watch the Borders

"A friend there is defined as someone

who stabs you ... in the front.

Tom Holliday mentioned that all the border agencies are now under me. That brings to mind a story about J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime Director of the FBI.

Hoover received a memorandum from a subordinate, and after reading it, Hoover scribbled a cryptic note on the memo that read: "Watch the borders." Well, when J. Edgar Hoover said "jump," they jumped. So, FBI Agents were immediately dispatched to the border with "Watch the borders."

Well, when J. Edgar Hoover said "jump," they jumped. So, FBI Agents were immediately dispatched to the border with Mexico and Canada.

Eventually, one of Hoover's aides summoned the courage to ask the Director - What were they watching for? Hoover explained that he was referring to the margins on the page of the memo. He thought they were too narrow!

Now, there are many differences between Hoover and me, but when I say, "Watch the borders," I really mean "Watch the borders."

customs.gov official site Remarks of Commissioner Robert C. Bonner Customs and Border Protection Town Hall Los Angeles

"Ah, well. When it comes to borders, Americans have always tended towards the paranoid and illogical. There is the story of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and his penchant for scribbling his views in bright blue ink in the margins of memos and reports he received from underlings. Sometimes he would fill all four borders of a typewritten sheet with his observations handwritten with a fountain pen. Once an assistant made the mistake of sending him a typewritten page in which the copy ran almost to the edges of the paper, leaving Hoover very little room to write. "Watch the borders!" Hoover printed in angry, bright blue block letters across the top of the page. And nothing moved across the Canadian and Mexican frontiers for the next five days." gfwadvertiser.ca Arthur Black

"that’s an actual quote* from j. edgar hoover. he liked people handing him reports to leave extra space on the side margins, for his notations. one agent didn’t leave enough space, so in large red letters he wrote “WATCH THE BORDERS!” in annoyance. this sent the FBI in a pants-shitting frenzy to watch for communists coming into america (to do some sort of communist activity no doubt) through canada. *possibly totally fabricated" some blog

"Agents admittedly quaked at the thought of the director's disapproval, expressed typically in the bright blue ink of Mr. Hoover's stub pen in the margins of their memorandums. His language was vehement (This is

asinine!"); the filling of all four borders around a typewritten sheet was known as a "four-bagger." Once, it was said, when an assistant's memorandum so filled the page that Mr. Hoover barely had room for a comment, he wrote. "Watch the borders," and his puzzled but obedient aides

dispatched agents to patrol the Canadian and Mexican borders for a week." [23]

Official story. Kasaalan (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gus Hall

"Meanwhile, in New Orleans, Oswald had ordered a thousand copies of an FPCC-leaflet at Jones

Printing Co., five hundred application forms for a New Orleans chapter of the FPCC and three hundred membership cards with Mailer’s Service Co.

Having picked up his cards at the printer’s, Oswald wrote to ‘The Worker’, the magazine of the American Communist Party, giving two honorary membership-cards to Gus Hall and B. Davis. Oswald did exactly the same things an FBI-undercover agent was asked to do: link the FPCC with the Communist Party. Oswald’s FPCC-chapter in New Orleans didn’t exist because it did not have the backing of the FPCC. But on paper it would have seemed that way. The undercover agent then contacted the Communist Party, linking both groups. This was exactly the kind of information Hoover needed to defend his policy against the FPCC: he had information, however incorrect in reality, that the FPCC had ties to the Communist Party and everybody knew that the

Communist Party was ‘dangerous’." This is not America The assassination of President John F. Kennedy by journalist Philip Coppens

141. Quoted in Donner, Surveillance, p. 239. In still another collaboration, WCKT asked the FBI to prepare a list of questions, 44 in all, asked of CP presidential candidate Gus Hall during a 1968 “special.” The express purpose of the queries was to “place [the] communist spokesman on the defensive.” “To Disrupt, Discredit and Destroy” The FBI’s Secret War against the Black Panther Party by Ward Churchill

I don't have the book but I will try finding sources. Kasaalan (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Under Masonic

Why is devoted in quotations? Either he was, or he wasn't, and from his advancement through the Craft it looks like he truly was a devoted brother. Can we remove the quotations around the words since they seem to insinuate sarcasm or doubt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitsme (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"coronated"??? Should this be "crowned"? Paul Magnussen (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)