Talk:Oliver North

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Vietnam Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Drug Trafficing

This section was removed without explaination so I am restoring it. If you don't think it belongs at least have the guts and decency to tell me why. H57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by H57 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Changed Photo

I just added a new photo I took of Ollie last week. Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cocaine

Actually, the article fails to mention the key words to the funding of the arms trade... Colombian drugs cartels cocaine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.24.42.212 (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a source for that statement, and you'll probably need to log on.Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

 someone has written that he was part of an SS division - I removed the remark. It would be wise to lock this article....

[edit] Noriega

This article is a good one, but I am concerned that it does not mention in more detail his relationships with known drug runners which he had contact with such as Norieaga. Norieaga was involved with the contra drug money supply system the govenment had going on. Which brings me to another point. Where is all of the drug scandle section which doesn't seem to be on the page. Mabye I'm not looking in the right places but the only mention of it is on the Iran-Contra link. -Nate

This is a collaborative effort. Feel free to contribute and make it better. --GD 05:01, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The article refers to Noriega as a druglord in the context of North's 1986 communications with him. North's communications with Noriega at that point were in the context of Noriega being President of Panama at the time. The wording of this raises questions as to the objectivity of this portion of the article since the intent is clearly to link North's actions with the illicit trade of narcotics. Suggest changing text from 'druglord' to 'Panamanian President'.

[edit] Ollie's Medals

Almost every military official's Wiki page has mention of his medals earned. What medals or awards did Oliver North win for his military service?

Medals are earned, NOT won. He earned his Silver Star during combat service in Viet Nam, NOT during the Viet Nam war. Engineer1234 18:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to get pernickety i assume the war you are referring to is the Vietnam war, not the Viet Nam war...unless this is another covert war we are not aware of?Mark 139.184.222.94 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge distinction between "winning" a medal and "earning" a medal. Medals are earned, this has a very precise meaning. Viet Nam takes after the Vietnamese and Vietnam is the anglicized version. Both terms are correct and even Wikipedia accepts that. Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1994 Senate

Senator Warner endorsed Marshall Coleman, a Republican who ran as an independent that year NOT Senator Robb. Pimpalicious

I corrected. Don't hesitate to be bold in fixing factual errors, if you're wrong, it'll get re-fixed by someone. Ellsworth 00:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oliver North Medals include: the Silver Star (for conspicuous gallantry), the Bronze Star (for Valor), and two Purple Hearts (for wounds received in combat)

[edit] Author

North has written at least one book. Someone may wish to add this. I would but I have no time right now.

[edit] Information concerning Colonel North's acquittal

Colonel North was tried in 1988 in relation to his activities while at the National Security Council, and convicted of three charges: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines and 1,200 hours community service.

A three-judge appeals panel on July 20, 1990, vacated North's conviction for further proceedings to determine whether his immunized testimony influenced witnesses in the trial. The Supreme Court declined to review the case. Judge Gesell dismissed the case September 16, 1991, after hearings on the immunity issue, on the motion of the independent counsel.

The first paragraph is OK, although specifying the sentence of an innocent person seems redundant. He didn't serve any sentence at all. The second paragraph reads like it was translated by Altavista from the original Thai. I cannot understand what it means and I doubt others do. The DoJ charged him with sixteen different offenses and he was acquitted of all them. Yes he was convicted on three counts and a retrial was ordered. The retrial came and the charges were dismissed. If you can think of a better way of putting it that's fine. But the bottom line is the article when I stumbled on it painted him as a convict, when in fact he is innocent of all those charges, as it is defined in our system. The Ollie North article is actually a perfect example of the cancer eating at Wikipedia. Have a look at the article before my edits, is that really what you want Wikipedia to be?

Ollieplatt 10:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The second paragraph is a precise description of the legal rulings, which is what's necessary here. North's conviction was overturned on extremely narrow technical grounds, and readers are entitled to know what those are. Inserting any claims about his alleged innocence would be extremely POV. Appeals courts typically do not make claims about individual's guilt or innocence when overturning convictions, especially on technical grounds. In this case, North confessed to virtually everything he was charged with on national television. The only cancer I see eating Wikipedia is the never-ending free reign given to chronic trolls and POV pushers to disrupt the community and damage articles. RadicalSubversiv E 10:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Precise?

It is not precise at all, it is vague.

Your POV about why he was acquitted is interesting but can it be expressed in NPOV terms in the article?

He is innocent. It is a fact. He was not proven guilty and is therefore innocent, I chose the word deliberately.

I won't respond to your personal attack although suggest you look in the mirror.

I don't think you're right about him confessing on television but have an open mind about it.

The article falsely painted him as a criminal, ignored his recent success and only referred to him by his surname. That is the Wikipedia you seem to want. That is the cancer eating away at Wikipedia, blatant, unremitting extreme left-wing partisanship.

BTW, I think you mean "free rein" rather than "free reign", spell your cliches carefully. And in light of the trolling of every single edit my proud alliance of sockpuppets and I have made (and even sockpuppets that are not me but are SUSPECTED by your starchamber) to say I have a "free rein" is truly amusing. By having a different view to the Wikipedia "community", I am guilty of "disrupting" it. I find this rather jarring.

I am concerned that while you espouse liberalism, you are in fact authoritarian. You like cliches, so I'll give you another one: "be the change you seek."

Ollieplatt 10:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)



[edit] Ollieplatt's latest edit

  • The purpose of a lead section is to introduce the most basic information about North. That is he a "best-selling author" clearly does not fall into this category
It's his current occupation isn't it? Seems entirely appropriate. I have all his books. They sit next to Ann Coulter and Rush and Bill. Ollieplatt 06:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The sale of weapons to the Contras was against the law, it was not merely "outside of policy and regulation"
Yes but he was not convicted of any such thing. Ollieplatt 06:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely no reason to remove information about North's original sentence
There is absolutely no reason to include it. He was acquitted. Ollieplatt 06:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
He was convicted of several charges, which were later overturned. That's not the same as an acquittal. RadicalSubversiv E 06:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The description of the overturning of North's conviction includes a significant amount of poorly worded legal commentary of dubious accuracy. It also falsely claims that North was found not guilty in a re-trial.
It replaced vague, misleading commentary. It's not perfect but is adequate, I'd welcome your improvements. North was absolutely found not guilty, in a criminal trial in the United States you are either Guilty or Not Guilty, there's no other option. He was found not guilty. Please look it up if you don't believe me. Ollieplatt 06:51, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See above. The overturning of a conviction is not the same as a jury finding him not guilty. Moreover, there wasn't a re-trial, so your edit is untrue. RadicalSubversiv E 06:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RadicalSubversiv E 06:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Radical, what happened was that the judge ordered to rehear the charges dismissed them on the basis there was not sufficient evidence. He was declared "not guilty" (as all defendants in that situation are) and that was the end of it. May be Fred or an attorney or someone more familiar with this should decide how best to put it. My clear understanding is that all charges were dismissed and that he was "not guilty." Ollieplatt 09:26, 21 Jan 2005

HAVING LIMITED IMMUNITY WHICH RESULTED IN ALL CHARGES BEING DISMISSED ON APPEAL DOES NOT EQUATE INNOCENCE, IT IS MORE THEN A STRETCH TO ASSUME OTERWISE. WHEN WE ALLOW THE LAW TO BE TROUNCED UPON FOR ANY REASON WHETHER UNDER THE GUISE OF NATIONAL SECURITY OR FOR LESS CLANDESTINE REASONS WE BEGIN TO DESEND DOWN A SLIPPERY SLOPE. HOW THEN CAN WE ASSURE OURSELVES THAT CERTAIN MEMBERS OF OUR SOCIETY ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW. MR. NORTH WAS GRANTED LIMITED IMMUNITY FOR HIS CONGESSIONAL TESTIMONY AND DUE TO FEARS THAT HE MAY HAVE ADVERSLY AFFECTED THE OUTCOME OF HIS OWN TRIAL BASED ON THIS TESTIMONY THE JUDGE AT HIS APPEALS HEARING OVERTURNED HIS CONVICTION AND DISMISSED THE CHARGES. THIS DOES NOT EVEN INSINUATE INNOCENCE. IT IN FACT SAYS JUST THE OPPISITE. IT SAYS THAT THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTE M FOUND HIM TO BE GUILTY. HOWEVER DO TO PROMISES MADE REGARDING IMMUNITY, THIS CONVICTION COULD NOT STAND. TO PARA-PHRASE FOR THE INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM CHOSE TO ALLOW THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS TO REMIAN AT LARGE RATHER THEN UNCOVER THE YEARS (DECADES) OF LAWLESS GUN AND DRUG RUNNING PERPERTRAITED BY THE AMERICAN MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, THE CIA, CONGRESS, THE SENATE AND THE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE.

I AM NOT SURE WHY THIS SHOCKS YOU SO. IT IS THE AMERICAN WAY THE RIGHT HAND NEVER DOES WHAT THE LEFT HAND WANTS AND VISA VERSA. TO QUOTE ERIC CARTMEN IT IS CALLED HAVING YOUR CAKE AND EATING IT AS WELL.

[edit] Middle name

I can't document this, but a coworker tells me his middle name is Lawrence. If anyone has a source for that, it's be good to be rigorous about it. grendel|khan 13:35, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

I was unable to find anything suggesting his middle name is "Lawrence." I'm going to go ahead and revert until there is a solid source. --Holdek 22:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
His middle name is spelled Laurence. [1], [2], [3], [4]. RadicalSubversiv E 05:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bits of Nulla's edits---explanation for putting them back in.

Not everything Nulla added was terrible POV pushing. For instance, the image of North testifying before Congress is an iconic one, very memorable to anyone who remembers the Iran-Contra hearings. And there's no reason why we shouldn't link to North's Townhall.com column. If you want to learn about North, reading his writings is a good place to start. grendel|khan 17:30, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

[edit] Can we cut out the reverts please?

Can people please stop reverting back to the version that has "Oliver North testifies before Congress and becomes a national hero." It's getting annoying, as it's obvious, flagrant POV. --Holdek 06:43, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

As longtime lurker I am familiar with this dispute, although it is first change. I don't agree North was convicted validly and then escaped on a technicality. Just wrong. Winston88 04:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you really think it's neutral to put "Marine Colonel and Best-Selling Author" in the photo caption? Do you think it's OK for you to remove external links from this article? Claim that North is a "national hero to conservatives"? Certain types of conservatives would find that statement repulsive. Rhobite 04:25, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
But that's what happened. You may not like it, and you may be a fan of North, but your edits are inappropriate to an encylopedia article. --Holdek 20:53, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
It is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article to be an attack upon North no matter what his alleged crimes are. Nor should it contain only praise, the article as it now stands reflects both the criticisms made of him but also his achievements and a truthful exposition of his legal status. There are plenty of people convicted in a court where "technicalities" like the rules of evidence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and technical stuff like that got in the way of the government imprisoning them forever. Presumably it is liberal critics of North who come up with this junk, I wonder whether the ACLU would welcome these attitudes at their cocktail nights. Remember, these basic rights are for all of us, especially the most reviled and vilified. Ger6 17:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The claim that North is a national hero is clearly PoV. The whine that it's all these 'liberals' who are against you and North is familiar and irrelevant. We're concerned with facts here, not with party politics. And many of us aren't from the U.S., so ad hominem stuff about the ACLU, etc., sails straight by us. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you're not from US, then please refrain from pronouncements about North's legal status in US. The facts, not the politics, should be reported impartially and without favor. So Mel, stop the smell around here and leave the article as is. Your reverts are perverts. Ger6 17:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have just reverted all my edits, including many (most) unrelated to your attempt to turn the article into a hagiography. That's no longer editing in good faith, but getting close to vandalism. Throwing around silly threats of blocking won't wash, especially as I think that you're on the verge of breaking Wikipedia:Three revert rule, which brings an automatic edit block. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mel, your crudity knows no bounds. Enough. You are defiling this article and insulting all Americans with your imperious attitudes. You will be blocked inevitably for this outrage, both automatically and with extreme prejudice. The gay Soviet spy behaviors of Oxford dons know no place here in the United States where wikipedia is hosted and permitted to operate under American law. And it is under American law that Colonel North aside from being a combat decorated war hero, is also 100% innocent under law. We are all sinners, of course, but he is a patriot and hero. Something your country sorely lacked when we had to save your sorry ass in WWII. Ger6 17:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Cambridge, not Oxford; and they weren't dons, if anyone cares. SlimVirgin(talk) 19:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Now that I realise that you're the same person as Winston88 and Tnuctnurgemetib, the latter having been blocked, your childish attempts at insult are no longer puzzling. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now that I realize you as the same person as Burgess and Philby, the Soviet agents, your childish attempts at insult are no longer puzzling. Ger6 18:17, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mel's revisions are far more NPOV, something we should all strive for. I suggest, Ger, that you come out from under your Republican sunglasses that block out everything but what you want to see and pay attention to the real world. I don't think the dispute is particularly edifying on either side, particularly with the link to rotten.com, which I removed, though I did revert to Mel's last version otherwise. And, for the record, my intentions are encyclopedic, not socialist, communist, Marxist, liberal, democrat, evil, or anything else. Smoddy (tgeck) 18:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Feuding over this now very minor figure is rather boring if you ask me but let's not have the article ruined by liberals and conservatives and their bias. Agree with those concerned about the use of the word "technicality", very much in the eye of the beholder. Chucky45 19:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, 'technicality' isn't subjective. If someone gets off because of something central to the case (lack of evidence, evidence in their favour, etc.), that's not a technicality; if they get off because of something extraneous to the facts of the case, but bound up with the rules governing how cases are presented or heard, then that's a technicality. Using a dictionary definition, a technicality is: “a petty formal point arising from a strict interpretation of rules”. The pettiness relates to the meat of the case, rather than to the importance or otherwise of sticking precisely to the rules. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well said, Mel. PoV is exhausting, no? Smoddy (tgeck) 22:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're not wrong. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ger, your repeated edits are not in good faith. At least, it's hard to view them as such when you resort to petty name-calling. Additionally, I'd have to say I agree that "appeal" is more accurate than "technicality." Further, perhaps this page is a good nominee for at least temporary protection? --Holdek 00:08, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked Ger6 for 24 hours, and one of his sockpuppets has been blocked indefinitely. Let me know if it starts up again after the block. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:58, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. --Holdek 06:04, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, good call. I was wondering when he'd get blocked. grendel|khan 14:25, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresentation of North's legal status

The article Oliver North is so riddled with liberal bias that it could have been written by John Kerry.

The charges against North relating to his public service during the Reagan administration were clearly politically motivated. They were thrown out of court. Even in the discredited first trial, he was only convicted of three counts of sixteen. So let's record the fact that he was prosecuted, initially convicted on a few minor counts and even those convictions were vacated due to gross and serious procedural defects in the case brought against him. End result he is as innocent a man as you and I (and much more so than pardoned Democrat donor and corporate scum bag Marc Rich and perjurer Bill Clinton and WalMart board member the Hillary.

Hairamerica 23:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HairAmerica is blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
I've also protected the page to give you all a rest for a day or so, but let me know if, in fact, you'd prefer to keep editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting the page. Because "Hairamerica" can't deal with this topic honestly (and I'm not refering to the content of the article, but rather creating sockpuppets in order to violate rules and bans), I'm not going to argue the content of the article with him (or her). If anyone else has anything to add, subtract, or otherwise change this article, feel free to edit and use this talk page for discussions. But please do so in a good-faith manner. Thanks, and I look forward to it. --Holdek 00:59, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

A concurrence: the article on LtCol North is off the radar screen regarding neutrality. Not ONE single entry regarding his life prior to 1986 (other than medals earned NOT won) and nothing of his family. This article appears to have been written by the same author who wrote the puff piece on Ted Kennedy. Speaking of guilt. In addition, his retirement pension couldn't be revoked because of his post retirement legal problems (later resolved) which is why the less than honorable Pat Schroeder was unsuccessful in her efforts. Engineer1234 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ger6 has been blocked indefinitely because of Hairamerica, and if any more sockpuppets appear they'll all be blocked indefinitely. I can't guarantee that another admin won't unprotect, because some don't like to see pages protected at all, but I won't unprotect for a couple of days unless you ask me to. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:54, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet update

For the record, around 20 sockpuppets have been blocked indefinitely since March 11 in connection with this article, specifically in connection with the introduction. All others making the same pattern of edits, unless they're editors with regular contributions histories, will be blocked indefinitely from now on, with no further warnings, and without waiting for a 3RR violation. Hope that's clear. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't kept track, so I don't know who user:Borderguard is a sockpuppet of, but he clearly is of someone. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of whoever the person is that's been messing with this article, Laura Bush, Soviet Union, Sean Hannity, Democratic Party (United States), Republican Party (United States), Ted Kennedy, etc. Rhobite and I have both indicated our strong suspicions that this is a reincarnation of banned user Libertas/Ollieplatt/etc., but it's apparently unlikely that can ever be definitively proven from a technical point of view. RadicalSubversiv E 19:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
When I get a chance, I'm going to add in some more info about why some people support Oliver North. Altough it won't placate the true believers (nor is that the goal), I do think that the article could use some more info in that regard. --Holdek (talk) 23:18, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE: I've added a "Political legacy" section to the article. --Holdek (talk) 08:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, nice signature.  ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 08:51, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I came up with it myself. ;) --Holdek (talk) 18:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political Legacy section

All that was wrong with the article is neatly summarized by the disgraceful libel in the "political legacy" section which asserts, falsely, repeatedly, that Colonel North is a criminal. Get a grip. Or stop holding. Groucholenin 03:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To keep the 23 or so sockpuppets happy, I deleted the references to North having broken the law in the Political legacy section, as he wasn't actually convicted. If whoever is behind these accounts would come and make a positive contribution to this article, you'd be very welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Limeheadnyc, don't the sockpuppets have a point with this one? If North wasn't convicted, he has no criminal history. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
First, North was indeed convicted, only those convictions were overturned. He may not have a criminal record, but he does have a criminal history. His conviction was overturned on appeal because his congressional testimony, in which he admitted to breaking the law, influenced witnesses in his criminal proceedings. I find it amazing that people today assert that North never broke the law, something that he doesn't even profess. I understand that you are trying to hold back the sockpuppets, but do you really think they will stop unless North is described as "in the eyes of the law and the nation, not only a defender of freedom but also entirely innocent of any wrongdoing?" --Holdek (talk) 05:02, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
If a person admits under oath to committing crimes, and has been convicted of committing crimes, is it also necessary for them to have been sentenced to be called a "criminal"? He was never found innocent. -Willmcw 04:46, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I understand that his convictions were overturned on appeal. Perhaps I misunderstood. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:57, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Just for the record, North was convicted, North was sentenced, and all that was overturned on appeal. --Holdek (talk) 05:04, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
That means he wasn't convicted. The charges were dismissed so he has no criminal history. A person can't admit to having committed a crime. A person can only admit to having done X. It's then up to the court to decide whether X was a crime. One court decided it was. A higher court overturned that decision. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:07, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps "criminal history" is a poor choice of words because it implies "criminal record." I'll make an adjustment. But to be honest, I don't buy your argument that a person can't admit to having comitted a crime. First, a court doesn't decide what a crime is...the legislature does. A jury, or a judge, simply determines whether or not that person did the action that he is accused of. Basically there isn't much question whether or not North broke the law, since he admitted it. (posted by User:Holdek)
More generally, if North swore under oath that he had violated laws, isn't that sufficient proof for an encyclopedia that he has committed a crime? If not, then did he commit perjury? -Willmcw 05:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm un-indenting before we run out of page. It's just that the definition of a criminal is someone who has been convicted of a crime (where the conviction has not been overturned). Confessing to a crime doesn't make a person a criminal. As an encyclopedia, we can't redefine legal terms. What we can do is quote North's specific confession; e.g. if he said: "I admit that I knowingly violated Law X," we can quote that, but I doubt he ever said it that explicitly (though I don't know). I have no POV on this issue, by the way, just to make that clear, as I know this article's been under attack. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict, so I wrote the above before I read your most recent post. The court does not just decide whether a certain action was committed. It decides whether the act was committed with the necessary mens rea, and whether it fits the definition of the criminal-law violation. The legislature decides whether specific acts counts as violations, but it's a court that decides in each case whether a crime was committed, not the individual who has allegedly committed it. There'd be no point in having due process if individuals could simply confess and thereby be labeled criminals. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Sort of off-topic, but isn't that what a guilty plea does, though? If someone pleads guilty, they don't have a trial anyway. --Holdek (talk) 05:40, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Only if the court accepts the plea. It's the court that decides, not the defendant. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I've made a couple of adjustments. As the article is now, I think it presents the information as plainly as possible. I think that some of my previous edits may have had some implicit POV structure. --Holdek (talk) 05:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I think that the wording "criminal record" was inaccurate. But one does not have to be convicted in a court of law to be a criminal. The guy who stole my car some years back, though never caught, was a criminal by virtue of having committed a crime. [5] "Due process" governs how the courts operate and the courts overturned a conviction, but did not absolve North of having committed the crimes. In any case, this is really a semantic issue and a slight re-write should suffice to make it clear that a crime was committeed, that North admitted to have committed the crime, and that he could not be convicted and punished for that crime because of the limited grant of immunity he had received for his congressional testimony. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:43, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
No, Will. The guy who stole your car was someone you alleged stole it. A court would have to agree with you before he'd become a criminal. These are legal terms, and the law, and only the law, defines them. That indeed is part of due process. And the court, in overturning his convictions, did absolve him, insofar as courts ever absolve anyone. In practical terms, it means he has no criminal record. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit, User:Holdek, it looks good. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:45, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Willmcw, and indeed, I think "Essentially, North's convictions were overturned on appeal because he had been granted limited immunity for his Congressional testimony, and this testimony influenced witnesses at his trial. While the convictions were overturned, North did admit to breaking the law, under oath" explains everything accurately without hammering it, which I did probably out of frustration with attempts to whitewash North, and while my previous edits were perhaps not innacurate, they added an element of POV to the article. --Holdek (talk) 05:52, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

Yes, good edits, Holdek, except I'd like to see a reference for "North did admit to breaking the law under oath." Then even the socks should have no reason to complain. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'm basing that off of the video testimony that I've seen, specifically in footage from The Perfect Candidate where the senator asks "You lied to Congress," and North emphatically replies "Yes, I did." --Holdek (talk) 06:52, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Holdek, if you're saying he admitted to breaking the law, you would need to quote him saying: "I broke the law," with a citation. If he admitted to lying to Congress, then that's what the article should say, again with a citation. It would be original research to analyse his statement. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it would not be POV to juxtapose an admission of lying to Congress (under oath) with a comment that doing so is a crime. -Willmcw 08:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Lying to Congress is against the law. He admited to lying to congress. Ergo, he admited to breaking the law. How do I cite video footage? --Holdek (talk) 08:37, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Will, it would have to be done carefully to avoid being original research i.e. putting facts together in such a way as to build a case. It would be better to attribute the position to, or quote, a reputable newspaper, and/or simply to state that he admitted lying to Congress, and that this was one of the reasons he was charged with X; or that his admission that he lied to Congress was later used as grounds to charge him with X (if it was). In other words, any putting together of the facts must have been done already by others (Washington Post, police, Congress etc). SlimVirgin (talk) 08:38, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Holdek, a newspaper is bound to have written about this, and you could quote them. You can also quote video footage, but note what I wrote above. See Wikipedia:No original research for the issue of putting cases together using established facts. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Apparently there is lots of material available on this aspect of North's life. The Independent Counsel's report should be online somewhere. I hope someone is more interested in pursuing this than I am. -Willmcw 09:17, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a stretch to call that original research. I'm basically going off of common knowledge. Also, from what I've read he has also admitted to this in his autobiography, if anyone is interested. --Holdek (talk) 09:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Then quote North himself admitting to it in his autobiography. And as Willmcw says, there's the independent counsel's report. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:49, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've reinserted the references to criminality, given that there's no dispute about them. The consensus might be that they should be removed again, in which case fine — but I'm a bit worried that the sockpuppets shouldn't have too much of an effect on the contents of the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a dispute about the references to criminality, Mel, which is why we're having this discussion. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as pendantic, but I can't go on blocking sockpuppets for the rest of my life, and while I agree they shouldn't be rewarded, nor should we ignore any reasonable points they might make. The question of whether it's legitimate to say North has a criminal history when in fact all his convictions were overturned (meaning he has no criminal record) is a good one. I'm wondering why the word "criminal" has to be in the article at all. It's a bit like insisting on "terrorist" or "white supremacist": maybe this is one of those cases where the facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. If we delete any edits that might be perceived to be POV, or at least attribute them to a reputable source, then the sockpuppets might stop plaguing the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:49, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
(after an edit conflict, so the first part omitted — that's why it starts a bit abruptly)
If, as Holdek says, North admitted to lying to Congress (and is there any dispute that he did admit that?), and if that's a crime, then what is the objection to saying so in the article? If references are needed, I assume that they'll be easy to find.
OK, I broke off there to look for some, and the first page of Google (Oliver North+admitted lying) came up with [6] (the page includes the earlier Wikipedia article, but also includes an independent reference to North admitting that he behaved illegally), [7] (“North's biographer, Ben Bradlee, Jr., begins his summing up of all the lies that were Oliver North's life: ‘Aside from North's admitted lying to Congress about the Contras, his admitted lying to the Iranians, his admitted falsifying of the Iran initiative chronology, his admitted shredding of documents and his admitted lying to various Administration officials as the Iran-Contra affair unraveled in November of 1986, there are stories, statements or claims that he has made to various people while at the NSC [National Security Council] that are either untrue strongly denied, or unconfirmable and thought to be untrue’”), and [8] (“Although North brazenly admitted lying before Congress, destroying evidence, operating US initiatives in violation of US law, and participating in a coverup, he said he did so in defense of America and added that President Reagan had called him a national hero.”).
The second page of Google would probably garner more... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And now I've read what you said properly, and wish that I'd done so before saving after the edit conflict. Harrumph. Fair enough, I'll shut up. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm confused because the article already makes it very clear that he lied to Congress and was charged because of that. He was convicted, but a higher court ruled he had not had a fair trial because of his televised testimony, and so the convictions were overturned. The Supreme Court could have heard the case, but chose not to, presumably because the lower court had not erred in law. This is very clear, so I don't see where the dispute lies. There's probably no need to add (but really he's a criminal!) after every sentence. ;-) Anyway, just to make it crystal clear, I did add "for which he was charged" after the lying to Congress bit, and I added a reference for the claim that the higher court ruled he may not have received a fair trial. Holdek, you probably don't want to go through the Independent Counsel's report as apparently it's 1900 feet in volume. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
You're right in that I won't be combing through the IC report myself. I'm going to refrain from editing the article until I read some of these sources that Mel has listed. --Holdek (talk) 19:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Totally Disputed and Why

This article is even worse than the biased piece on George Bush. There have been edit wars on this article by North supporters and defenders, can someone step up and write a new article that is accurate and fair.

Like the Bush article, this is shrill and misleading. It judges North guilty of criminal conduct when no court was willing to do so. I don't know much about Iran-Contra but I don't think those above know much either. "Really, he's a criminal" comment above by "SlimVirgin" (I'd like to meet such a female), is rather revealing of the bias and partisanship here.

Lagavulin 20:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hang on, Lagavulin. I was being ironic. I was saying that's the tone of the article (a little) and it ought not to be. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
After viewing the information, and the article again, I think the article is as balanced and factual as it can get, as is. The article does not judge North of criminal conduct. It simply states that he admitted to such conduct, was convicted of it, and that conviction was then overturned on appeal. That's what happened. As for SlimVirgin's statement, I'll let him answer that for himself, but I interpreted it as a criticism of my edits, not a support of them. What are your suggestions for making the article "more balanced and fair?" Please present them, or please remove the marker. --Holdek (talk) 20:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you are wrong. The article contains the word 'criminal' about ten times. That is not balanced or factual. It is a corruption of the concept of an encyclopedia article and warrants a very significant rewrite. I find North obnoxious and corny myself but that doesn't stop me seeing this page as a joke.
My constructive criticism:
  • Bring in a new and respected contributor with no liberal or conservative baggage.
  • Delete all references to North being a 'criminal' or committing 'crimes', just refer to what he did, why he did it, why some disagreed and what legally were the conclusions. As it stands, it paints North as a convicted criminal which he is clearly not.
  • A more substantial take on what he did after Iran-Contra, he seems to be on television and radio (conservative) everywhere and to be in several bookshops, so why not deal with that. A bit more on his interesting Senate push too, he very nearly won a tough race in circumstances I would have imagined were impossible. Instead of those things we have a comical number of assertions that he's a "criminal." This article needs major work and those responsible for it need some major help.
Lagavulin 20:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PS In the first three sentences, there are three references to North's "criminality." Are you serious? Lagavulin 20:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense because it was the Iran-Contra scandal, and the crimes surrounding it, that made North famous. -Willmcw 20:36, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
There are zero uses of the word "criminal," not "about ten." The word "crime" is used once, in the accurate and un-disputed statement that he was charged with 16 crimes. The fact that his convictions were overturned is clearly stated in the first paragraph.
North became famous due to his involvement in Iran Contra. That is why he is an important figure, and why he is even has notoriaty that he is able to capitalize on today. I would welcome any additions you may want to add about his life post or pre-Iran Contra, but that should not be the focus of the article. --Holdek (talk) 22:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article is Weak on Citations and Heavy on Accusations

This Article is Weak on Citations and Heavy on Accusations: This is irresponsible and the string of accusations with few supporting citations of any merit suggest a heavy bias and political agenda on the part of some of the writers.

Sean7phil (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why this article is basically trash

There are more than a dozen references implying or baldly asserting his alleged criminality. I counted them. If you want me to list I will list them all here but I am sure you are capable of reading the article. It really is trash, if you don't mind me saying. I haven't checked the Bill Clinton article but I certainly hope all the nuts who convinced themselves he was a cocaine smuggling, perjuring mastermind haven't had their way with that article as well. A certain level of detachment and common-sense is required to write about controversial subjects.
If you are one of those responsible for writing the article, I urge you to read the work of those who clearly write better than you and more neutrally. For example, the article on North's employer, President Reagan, seems perfectly encyclopedic, it doesn't omit his many failings it just deals with them dispassionately and in a manner consistent with an encyclopedia.
This article, without wanting to be too hurtful to those responsible, is trash. It has more than a dozen references implying/asserting North's criminality despite the fact that he was not convicted of anything. It details a sentence he never served because the trial was found to be unfair, the convictions vacated and the prosecution deciding not to proceed further. Why? Why detail the sentence? Answer: To make him look bad in the article. It's pathetic. I don't much like North either but it doesn't change the fact that in the eyes of the law you and I have the same number of Iran-Contra related convictions as North: ie, none. Zip.
I don't feel qualified to write in any detail on North. I am not an expert on him or that familiar with his writings and television work or whatever else he's up to. But I'm sure they are out there. Wikipedia has some great authors, it's just none of them have contributed to the trash that currently constitutes the North article. Sorry for the straight-talk, but the article really is trash. Lagavulin 23:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The sentence is detailed because it is information, it is history, and this is an encyclopedia. This information is found in every reference article on North in existance. The article makes perfectly clear that his convictions were vacated.
This is from Microsoft Encarta 97 Encylopedia:
the chief negotiator of these deals was Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, a military aide to the National Security Council. North reported his activities initially to National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, the council's head, and subsequently to his successor, Vice Admiral John M. Poindexter. The sale of arms to Iran was initiated at the suggestion of the Israeli government with the dual goal of bettering relations with Iran and of obtaining the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by pro-Iranian terrorists. North was instrumental in setting up a covert network for providing support to the Contras, with its own ship, airplanes, airfield, and secret bank accounts.
In November 1986 a Lebanese magazine disclosed that the United States government had negotiated an arms deal with Iran. Later that month Attorney General Edwin Meese verified that millions of dollars from these sales had been sent to the Contras in direct violation of the Boland Amendment, which Congress had passed in 1984 and which prohibited direct or indirect U.S. military aid to them. As new details of the widening scandal emerged, a series of congressional and legal investigations began. In February 1987 the Tower Commission, a special panel headed by former U.S. Senator John Tower of Texas, issued a report castigating President Reagan and his advisers for their lack of control over the National Security Council. The Congressional Joint Investigative Committee collected more than 300,000 documents, conducted more than 500 interviews and depositions, and listened to 28 witnesses in 40 days of public hearings. In November 1987 the committee reported that the president bore the ultimate responsibility for the implementation of his administration's policies but found no firm evidence that he had known of the diversion of funds to the Contras. In May 1989 North was tried and convicted of obstructing Congress and unlawfully destroying government documents, but his conviction was subsequently overturned.


"Iran-Contra Affair," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
--Holdek (talk) 23:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


And note there are NOT over a dozen references to criminality, indictments, convictions yada yada.

I have no issue with the Encarta characterization of events, it seemed perfectly fair. It has a lot of detail that this trash article doesn't have about what happened and why. What it doesn't do is specify a sentence he never served because - in legal terms - he was never convicted.

Why should a Bill Gates owned commercial article be at one standard and Wikipedia which I believe is a vastly superior product 99% of the time be at such a lower standard just because it's North. The answer is clear enough, those responsible have let their hatred of North shine through. I would have no problem with the above, it is considerably better than the current article which is factually wrong, riddled with bias and beneath the high standards I expect as a frequent Wikipedia user. Lagavulin 23:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Or another answer could be that Bill Gates doesn't waste his time fighting sockpuppet editors. Thanks to User:Holdek for the good edit - moving the indictment count out of the intro improves the balance. Should we mention his Senate campaign, which would be sufficient reason for notability alone? -Cheers, Willmcw 23:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know which editors wrote this but they are clearly not getting what people like me use wikipedia for. We love it because it has lots of detail you might not get elsewhere. We love it because it gives both sides of the story (usually). This article lacks accuracy, detail, inspiration and neutrality. I'm not much a writer myself so I don't mean to sound high and mighty about it.
I should say I've found an article that is even worse than this one, the one about Ariel Sharon, a truly controversial guy who is tagged a butcher and various other trash talk. So I guess this could be worse.
I agree the Senate campaign, and how this so-called "criminal" even came to be a candidate would be very, very interesting. I haven't seen much about that at all.
The article needs a new approach, by someone who just doesn't care about North one way or the other. Those tagging him a criminal more than a dozen times in one article should perhaps consider a new hobby, such as scrapbooking or sailing. Lagavulin 00:02, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes I agree the introduction is improved but the article is still a problem. Lagavulin 00:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the Totally Disputed tag

I don't know what the polite thing to do with my Totally Disputed tag, but as the person who initiated it, I am certainly not happy with the article as it currently stands, so until these issues are resolved I would appreciate it remaining. Is that OK? Lagavulin 00:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should be specific about what is innacurate or biased in this article in order to keep the marker. I've been working on this article for a while now trying to get it as accurate and balanced as I can. Please give specifics. It doesn't help your cause when you claim that the word "criminal" is used 10 times in the article when in fact it isn't used any times. --Holdek (talk) 00:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, that's not what I said. I said in a dozen places his criminality is implied or asserted, not the word criminal. So read what I say before passing judgement.

His "sentence" has no place in the article given his conviction was vacated. That's a start.

Lagavulin 00:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Further the treatment of his role at the National Security Council combating terrorism, and those who fund it, seems particularly partial. American marines I think were targeted at that Berlin nightclub and an American military response against Libya was not that "controversial" at all, as I recall. My understanding was that it reminded Gaddafi of the consequences of being involved in terrorism against American targets. I doubt any senior democrat opposed the action, so where is this controversy? Lagavulin 00:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


The entire section on Iran Contra is quite outrageous with emotive words like channeling profits and such. Can't we just have the facts without the constant editorial. It's just boring. To one way of thinking, the facts speak louder own their own. Lagavulin 00:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree the Later Life and Career section should be much more detailed, especially about his Senate campaign.

The political legacy part with its assertions of acting "above the law" outside the law and other assertions of criminality are just unfit to be in the article. It establishes a straw defense of North and then not surprisingly blows it down. Can someone press the delete button on this trash?

If I kept reading, no doubt I'd find more. It's just bad. Lagavulin 00:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, "for a start," you can try reconciling the following with the above statement: "I'm sorry but you are wrong. The article contains the word 'criminal' about ten times. That is not balanced or factual." Lagavulin 20:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC).
Secondly, it doesn't matter if his conviction was vacated. The fact that he was sentenced is historical record, and therefore belongs in an enclyclopedia. While his sentence may disappear from his personal record, the fact that he was sentenced doesn't disappear from history because his conviction was overturned. Also, I really hope I'm not wasting my time dealing with a sockpuppet here. How do I find that out, anyone?--Holdek (talk) 00:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
"It doesn't matter if his conviction was vacated." Really? I think it goes to the very heart of why this article is trash and why your contribution to this article is actually detracting from the excellence of Wikipedia. North was convicted in a trial found to have fundamentally breached his constitutional rights. I suspect I could get you convicted of a few things (and vice versa I assure you) if I granted you immunity, televised it all and then charged you with whatever you had talked about. I mean, you might not like North, but the whole reason we have a Bill of Rights etc is that they are for everyone, even the most odious and stupid. To ignore the fact that he was convicted of nothing and publish a sentence that he was never required to serve is actually so self-evidently outrageous that I wonder why you are bothering other than you have something personal against North.
You cited Encarta as the definitive reference (something I think that is rarely true) and what attention does it pay to his sentence? Answer: none. Common sense is needed, not your blatant partisanship. If I knew what a sockpuppet was I could tell you whether you are wasting your time. Lagavulin 00:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some broader issues

I am very puzzled and disturbed by the Wikipedia conviction of Oliver North. Holdek and presumably others have unilaterally decided he's a criminal, or that he's "above the law", "flouting the law", "breaking the law" or whichever formulation they want.

North was charged with sixteen Iran-Contra offenses. He was acquitted of thirteen. And convicted of three on the basis of his own testimony for which he'd received immunity. Now John Gotti gets better treatment than that.

So a retrial was ordered. And then reviewing the evidence, the prosecution decided to withdraw all charges against him.

Now call me a stickler but that makes him no more a criminal than you and I (I'm making an assumption here of course!).

So can we stop throwing around the labels in their various formulations implying North's criminality. It's just mindless, partisan stuff that should go in blogs not in an encyclopedia article.

And until you can face up to your responsibilities Holdek, this article will remain tagged as the biased, factually wrong trash that it is. Lagavulin 00:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


It is very interesting indeed to compare this article with the more balanced treatment of OJ Simpson, a person we have all probably come to believe "did it." I always feel guilty for thinking that because in the best legal system invented so far, he was acquitted. But read the article, it does the whole OJ saga justice, without the invective, innuendo or inferences.Lagavulin 00:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure enough the article on Poindexter is equally disgraceful. What is it about Iran-Contra that gets everyone so irrational. Lagavulin 01:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey Lagavulin are you for real? This is absurd. North testified in Congress that he broke the law. That he lied to Congress, lied to the American people, about things that had been published in papers around the world. That he implemented policies that included selling weapons to known terrorists in order to violate federal law (which prevented funding the Contras). He even revealed that he was aware that much Contra funding came from illegal drugs. He did not confess these things under any kind of duress, but rather during televised hearings in front of the Congress and the American people. That his testimony had received immunity is irrelevant -- you compare him to Gotti but does anyone doubt that Gotti is a criminal? What do you think should be said about North; that he is just a talk radio blowhard, with nothing interesting of note about his (proud!) involvement in Iran/Contra? --csloat 09:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of tag

Based on the fact that you registered today, and have slapped the POV and Factual Innacuracy marker on many articles on conservative political figures, often with a notice on the talk page to the effect of "This article is trash" or "Totally disputed," I'm going to go ahead and remove the marker from this article until it can be established if you are a sockpuppet or not. I hope you understand that we've had a problem with this lately. --Holdek (talk) 01:23, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Having read what one is, I certainly am not a sockpuppet, so I welcome you establishing it at your convenience, I have been a Wikipedia regular user for over a year in fact and I reject your proposal of removing the tag. Please do not remove it again. I don't really care whether this article has been a battleground of knuckleheads of left and right, it is riddled with error and bias and will remain tagged that way until a serious discussion of the issues is held and experienced authors without ideological baggage get involved. The tag stays while the bias does. I hope you understand that.Lagavulin 01:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look, feel free to make edits to the article, but simply declaring "I think it's biased and a piece of trash so I'm going to put a factual dispute marker on it" is unacceptable. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. As was made clear to you on the George W. Bush page, you make changes by editing, not by pressuring others to make edits to your liking.--Holdek (talk) 03:05, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Tag whatever you like, I tag it shit. It is pure shit. The moment it is unprotected, I shall return to ensure this American hero is presented truthfully and not the liberal lies we are getting. BriteHumer 10:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BriteHumer is now blocked for image vandalism. Mgm|(talk) 10:30, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Politically Motivated Vandals

Just as the article is trash as it is, it is certainly not improved by North fanatics unilaterally imposing provocative and biased changes of their own. In the Sharon article, someone wisely suggested a Request for Comment process to remedy its worst excesses. Is that a way of moving forward with this? Either way, I am very discomfited by this article remaining untagged as if it represents the best and unbiased of Wikipedia. It is neither, it's poorly written, sketchy and very partisan. Lagavulin 21:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like we've said before, when the block is lifted, feel free to make an edit, or propose an edit here for discussion. But we can't leave the tag on it until you are satisfied. That's not how wikipedia works. It's a collaborative effort. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia. --Holdek 21:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I look forward to a marked improvement in the article. Lagavulin 21:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I encourage you to look at the Poindexter article which blames him for being the chief architect of Iran Contra. The North article blames him. This is evidence of a problem. Lagavulin 21:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm citing the Encarta article. If you want to correct the Poindexter article, feel free. In any event, again, from Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:
"Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it has a NPOV."
--Holdek 21:36, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Lagavulin, you're more than welcome to expand the article, bearing in mind that it must conform with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and should be written in a factual, disinterested tone. If you and the others can agree there will be reverting, I'll be happy to unprotect (though if the sockpuppets return, the protection may have to). SlimVirgin (talk) 08:13, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Slim, I'll do my best but my knowledge of North and Poindexter is very limited and I think others better able to write something neutral and factual. I believe the article should be changed substantially, removing the defamatory comments tagging North a criminal (or whichever artful formulation "above the law" "flout the law" etc) and probably then protected from the unfortunate vandalizing. I don't really understand the distinction between a sockpuppet, vandals and others (is Holdek one?) but I am optimistic that if attention is drawn to this article's many deficiencies then it will be improved by someone. Lagavulin 22:44, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If North's notable critics say that "he acted as if he was above the law" then that is an appropriate addiiton (though it should be sourced). And if notable fans say that he is a "hero and man of principle", then that should be added too, also with a source. Perhaps Reagain or Bush made some favorable comments that we can include to balance all the negativity? -Willmcw 23:15, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Or, "sometimes you have to go above the written law." -Henry Hyde (re: shredding by North and Hall) [9] -Willmcw 23:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the context of the quote I must say, my point is that Wikipedia is not the place where North can be found guilty twenty years on.

So any assertion that North's actions were in any respect illegal is really not appropriate. He was initially accused of sixteen charges and ultimately acquitted of all of them. Yes, he was convicted of three charges initially but that conviction was vacated. Whatever we think of North, he is not a criminal, not in our system anyway and I won't accept any inference that he is. It's not the place of an encyclopedia article to rewrite history the way we wish it would have been. If it was, I would immediately change the Jane Fonda article to include a three year stormy marriage with me around 1970. That would have been fun. Lagavulin 23:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And is it appropriate to say Person X says North was angelic and Person Y says North was satanic. I really don't know, but I don't see it adding much. Can't we just have the facts. Lagavulin 23:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like I wrote above, this is moronic. The idea of North breaking the law is not just someone's opinion or point of view; it is a demonstrable fact, that he himswelf would not deny. In fact, he admitted as much in open testimony that you are free to look at yourself. He said plainly that he had lied to Congress, lied to the American people, in order to break laws against Contra funding that Congress had imposed. He testified that he had covered up illegal activity, that he helped sell weapons to known terrorists to fund an illegal war in Central America, and he revealed that he was well aware of human rights violations and drug trafficking on the part of the people he was getting money to. These are not opinions, they are known facts, and North himself admitted them (quite proudly in fact) at the time. His testimony was granted immunity but that does not mean he did not commit those acts or that those acts were not against the law. If you don't want to use the word "criminal" that is fine (though dishonest) but to pretend he didn't break the law, or even worse that he was some kind of patriot/hero, is just embarrassing.--csloat 02:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can this page be unprotected so we can record accurately the glory of the liberation of Nicaragua from its commie yolk. LetfreedomringUSA 23:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hahahaha. I guess we know that it shouldn't be unprotected yet. TIMBO (T A L K) 23:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conviction date

May I suggest that the article include the date that North was actually convicted, and perhaps be more specific about when the trial was? It says now that he was tried in 1988 and sentenced July 5, 1989. But the conviction date (May 4, 1989) is missing. And I presume the trial was in 1988 and 1989, not just 1988, as the wording suggests. Kirchherr 03:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please do add this! Cheers, --Holdek (talk) 06:38, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

As a note, I have changed the last section from "opponents disaprove of his criminal acts," to "opponents disapprove of his alleged illegal activities." His conviction was overturned in a federal appeals court due to the immunity granted.

His acts were nonetheless criminal. I believe this page has been through this discussion before. I will revert. --csloat 06:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe I'm missing something

NOTE - Please dont flame me because I just registered, I use Wiki and never felt the need to add anything until reading the discussion here...

First, Oliver North is NOT guilty.

From the article: "he was convicted of three: accepting an illegal gratuity, aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents."

Being too young to remember Iran-Contra I came here to find out more and read that sentence and was genuinely surprised, a convicted felon was now a notable war correspondent for the major cable news network, how did this happen? Then I read the "However..." several lines after reading this sentence, having already convicted him in my mind, I was then confused as to why a criminal sentence was detailed even though he never was required to serve it. This is a serious editorial bias in the article and should be changed. What is the argument against changing it?

I didn't know the outcome of Iran-Contra until I came here, figuring (wrongly?) that Wikipedia would be unbiased, and I believe that the article should state prominently that he is NOT guilty, why is this so abhorrent to holdek et al? He IS not guilty why can't that be stated explicitly. I wouldn't feel right rewriting it in myself as I have no experience editing here but I know that this article surprised me by convicting him and then saying, oh just kidding, he actually never went to jail. This is a HUGE, glaring error in the article and I don't know why an experienced contributor won't change it.

Second, well more of the first really, references implying he broke the law.

All from this article as of 5-30-05

1. "North was a figure of great controversy, with supporters enjoying his impassioned defense of his actions, and opponents disapproving of his breaking the law."

2. "North's critics argue that in a democracy and a nation of laws, one man cannot act above the law regardless of how righteous he believes his goals to be."

I read the entire discussion but can't figure out why people want to leave these references in. Someone state explicitly what the arguments are for each. If there was a trial for the criminal offenses stated here and the end result (appeals courts are there for a reason) was that he was not guilty, why are these references still in the article? Also, the reference to OJ being guilty even though he was found not guilty is a bad example as he was found liable in the civil case. As far as I know Ollie North was never convicted of anything. Am I wrong?

(Yes he was initially convicted of three counts, but the counts didn't have anything to do with selling weapons or funding contras. So him stating he did those things when in fact those were not found to be criminal acts even in the overturned first trial should exonerate him and prevent detractors from labeling him as being above the law, breaking the law or any variant thereof.)

Thirdly, why only qualified support for North?

"Some conservatives disapprove of North's actions, and the icon-status given to him by some. It should be noted that Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia endorsed Marshall Coleman, a Republican who ran as an independent, instead of North in the 1994 Virginia Senate race."

John Warner is not conservative but the article implies that Warner is a conservative who disapproves of North because he supported a different candidate. I don't know anything about Virginia politics but him supporting a different candidate can hardly be used as evidence that conservatives disapprove of North.

If you read the article linked to on this page for Warner it states at the bottom "Warner was one of fourteen moderate senators to forge a compromise". How can these two statements both be true?

Conclusion

I'd appreciate someone letting me know where I'm going wrong here or what I'm missing. From what I've seen and read everywhere else, I've always thought Ollie North was a standup ex-marine who continues to do a lot for the guys serving in the military. Being dragged through a congressional hearing for some black-op he was in charge of as an NSC guy hardly makes him 'above the law' precisely because he stood trial and was exonerated. Innocent until proven guilty is troublesome for a lot of people because they just KNOW (insert hated partisan nemesis here) is guilty of (lying, obstruction of justice, war crimes, being spawn of satan, etc). The courts have a responsibility to enforce the Constitution ALL of the time. An encyclopedia should reflect history not the partisan editorializing of the authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsquared (talk • contribs) 04:46, 31 May 2005

Thank you for your comments, and thank you for re-registering to present them yet again. We've gone over all this several times. Please read the talk page. To boil it down simply, what is presented in this article is par-for-the-course as far as encylopedic content on Oliver North (see the Encarta material). What is presented is accurate and balanced as I see it, and is a pretty standard run-of-the-mill presentation of what happened to Oliver North during Iran-Contra, from trial, to conviction, to sentancing, to appeal, to vacation of that conviction. If you have a specific edit you'd like to make, please state it. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. --Holdek (talk) 10:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Re-registering?? I just registered. Sorry, I'm new to the whole editing process, but I made three pretty big points that I believe would give this article a more balanced view. The references to being above the law etc need to be removed. Also, John Warner's support of a different candidate as evidence of 'conservatives' not approving is factually incorrect as John Warner is referred to as a moderate in Wikipedia's own article on him.

Oh, I just re-read your comment, and I realized what you were talking about re-registering, just because I disagree with what you believe to be an NPOV article you think I must be the same person as whoever else was disagreeing with you however long ago that was. I assure you I'm not. In fact it doesn't matter, I just want to have an honest discussion about errors in the article that I believe just as strongly are wrong as you believe they are right.

Here's my attempt at signing, sorry for not doing it in the first post. --DSquared Noon, PST 05-31-05

While North's conviction was overturned, he did break the law. He admits so in his testiomony, and later in his autobiography. More from the Encarta article:
Iran-Contra Affair, American political scandal of 1985 and 1986, in which high-ranking members in the administration of President Ronald Reagan arranged for the secret sales of arms to Iran in direct violation of existing United States laws. Profits from the $30 million in arms sales were channeled to the Nicaraguan right-wing "Contra" guerrillas to supply arms for use against the leftist Sandinista government. This, too, was in direct violation of U.S. policy. The chief negotiator of these deals was Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, a military aide to the National Security Council. North reported his activities initially to National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, the council's head, and subsequently to his successor, Vice Admiral John M. Poindexter. The sale of arms to Iran was initiated at the suggestion of the Israeli government with the dual goal of bettering relations with Iran and of obtaining the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by pro-Iranian terrorists. North was instrumental in setting up a covert network for providing support to the Contras, with its own ship, airplanes, airfield, and secret bank accounts.
"Iran-Contra Affair," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
That makes it pretty clear that what he did was illegal.
As for John Warner, he comes from the right side of the political spectrum. The information calling him a "moderate" is referencing the filibuster compromise, but generally he supports a conservative agenda. --Holdek (talk) 19:13, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, like I said, I knew zero about Iran-contra 2 days ago, so I'm a little fuzzy about which of these were crimes. Encarta (which I have a very dim view of to begin with) says these are violations of the policy of the US. Policy violations aren't in and of themselves crimes are they? And anyways it was my understanding the policy violations were policies set by congress and not by the Reagan administration. So would it be a crime for two branches of government to pursue different policies??? (It'd be easier if I could IM you or something.)

Also, on Warner, he's most definitely not a conservative. Sure he's a republican but there is a broad spectrum of political beliefs that fall under republican these days and Warner's drifting off the reservation to side with McCain and the 12 others to block some of Bush's nominees would put him squarely outside the conservative camp. I'll be honest with you, I'm not familiar with anything else of note that John Warner has done but this compromise is a huge decision and clearly shows he is not a good model for a normal or generic conservative.

Why couldn't a different conservative leader be quoted here as it's all too easy to point to this latest compromise as evidence of Warner's more centrist leanings. Which I guess begs the question, who else doesn't like North from the Right? (I don't know how to do a timestamp, when I hit the button it just puts a bunch of atildes in and I already set my time/date preferences.) --DSquared 19:54 5-31-05

Well, the article says "high-ranking members in the administration of President Ronald Reagan arranged for the secret sales of arms to Iran in direct violation of existing United States laws" and that "The chief negotiator of these deals was Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North." So, I think that's pretty clear as to the illegality of North's actions.
The reason Warner is mentioned is that he specifically endorsed someone who wasn't the Republican nominee. Until the filibuster Warner has been known as a conservative. Looking at his website and his positions it pretty much looks like that is accurate. I don't think the description should be changed because of one vote. Warner's endorsement of someone over North is notable and important. --Holdek (talk) 20:46, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, clearly this is not a clear-cut issue, I just read Yahoo's article on Iran-Contra ("http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=23706")and it does state:

"Despite the strong opposition of the Reagan administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress enacted legislation, known as the Boland amendments, that prohibited the Defense Dept., the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or any other government agency from providing military aid to the contras from Dec., 1983, to Sept., 1985. The Reagan administration circumvented these limitations by using the National Security Council (NSC), which was not explicitly covered by the law, to supervise covert military aid to the contras. Under Robert McFarlane (1983�85) and John Poindexter (1985�86) the NSC raised private and foreign funds for the contras. This operation was directed by NSC staffer Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North. McFarlane and North were also the central figures in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo."

And Concludes with: "The Iran-contra affair raised serious questions about the nature and scope of congressional oversight of foreign affairs and the limits of the executive branch."

The facts look to me like: 1: Administration wants to help anti-communist forces in Nicaragua. 2: Opposition in Democratic Congress passes law to prevent administration from sending aid to said forces. 3: Administration uses loophole to circumvent said law (NSC not explicitly covered). 4: Congress finds out -> gets pissed off the administration didn't follow their policy and drags some administration officials into congress to testify about what they did. 5: 5th amendment rights violated so North/Poindexter charges are dropped, Bush 41 pardons everyone else.

please please please tell me which of these facts I have wrong.

Also, I looked up John Warner's conservative rating on the first Conservative Rating Yahoo Result (www.acuratings.org) and found:

Senator Zell MILLER (D) Georgia 2004 Score - 96 Previous Year's Score - 75 Lifetime Score - 73

Senator John WARNER (R) Virginia 2004 Score - 72 Previous Year's Score - 80 Lifetime Score - 81

 Senator John McCAIN (R)

Arizona 2004 Score - 72 Previous Year's Score - 75 Lifetime Score - 83

Senator Bill FRIST (R) Tennessee 2004 Score - 92 Previous Year's Score - 90 Lifetime Score - 89

 Representative Tom DeLAY (R)

Texas, District 22 2004 Score - 100 Previous Year's Score - 92 Lifetime Score - 96

I picked Zell Miller to show the most conservative Democrat and then Warner and McCain which parallel each other and used Frist and DeLay as baseline conservatives. Nobody refers to McCain as a conservative and Warner has nearly the same rating, so I think it is wrong to label him a conservative. By the way I was genuinely surprised by these results. You can check other rating services but this was linked to from www.conservative.org so it's hard to dismiss offhand.

This is an interesting learnign experience for me by the way. I was born on the day Reagan fired all the Air Traffic controllers so I never experienced any of this politicking although I do remember maps in elementary school with East/West Germany (maybe my kids will remember maps of north/south korea??). Thanks for having patience (how do you put in a timestamp!@%^).

--DSquared 20:12 5-31-05

Interesting what you turned up... I hadn't seen this before, and it clears up some information for me on Iran-Contra. But I don't think it changes anything for this Oliver North article, because the illegality of North's activities seem to center around the selling of arms to the Iranians, not the funding of the Contras (the difference between violating law and policy that you mentioned earlier). The Yahoo! article says "McFarlane and North were also the central figures in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo." And Encarta says "high-ranking members in the administration of President Ronald Reagan arranged for the secret sales of arms to Iran in direct violation of existing United States laws." I don't see any discrepancy there.
So, I think it breaks down as
1. North sells arms to Iran (illegal)
2. Uses profits to fund contras (normally illegal, but not in this case due to NSC loophole).
As for Warner being a conservative, you may have a point there. What would you suggest for a change? I still think it's important that he be mentioned, because rarely does a Senator endorse someone other than their own party's candidate in a race for the other seat.
For a timestamp, I just push the button. I think four tildas (~) in a row will do as well. Hope this helps! --Holdek (talk) 21:52, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the selling of arms to Iran, is that it was done by the Israelis who came up with the whole scheme to begin with. The Israelis sent the weapons with the understanding that the US would send Israel replacements. We routinely give Israel weapons and although we may have known they would end up in Iranian hands I think that technically it did not violate the embargo. This is also similar to the Cuba trade embargo. Are Americans who travel to Cuba breaking the law, yes, are they criminals, no as they haven't been successfully prosecuted. It is a fine line precisely because the people who do believe that the law is unjust (I personally agree with the embargo) and choose to violate it as it is a POLICY they don't agree with. We will never see the left calling for prosecution of all the Hollywood Celebs who adore Castro and travel there because they don't agree with the policy. Are these people also "above the law"? I believe this is the crux of the argument against using that language when referring to North and his acknowledged dealing surrounding Iran-Contra. It also may be important to note that his actions and the Contras' resulted in an election removing the communists from power. This 'big-picure' result is often lost in the intricacies/technicalities/politicking surrounding Iran-Contra, also American hostages were released although the militants responded by taking more hostages and so they stopped that aspect and focused more on the Contras.

I doubt we can ever know completely what happened as the NSC is a super secretive part of the executive branch and it's unclear whether congress has the authority to dictate foreign policy to the administration. The Supreme Court refusing to hear the case is most probably because they viewed it as a separation of powers argument between the other two branches of government and did not want to get involved (rightly so, I believe).

As for Warner, it is appropriate to mention him supporting a different candidate when mentioning North's Senate run but should be separated from the section talking about Conservative support or lack thereof. We also don't know enough about the politics there, perhaps the opponent was a buddy of Warner's and Warner thought North was an outsider, the point is we don't know. I personally don't know any conservatives who don't like him but I don't know everyone, I live in Bakersfield, California which is Conservative leaning though the city has nearly 300K people we do have a sizeable liberal population mostly imported from nearby (90 miles) Los Angeles. Judging from Blog and Talk Radio sources he appears to be highly respected as a no nonsense soldier's soldier.

He also founded a charity called the Freedom Alliance (http://www.freedomalliance.org) and works with conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity who is a huge supporter of his and frequently sits in for Hannity. Alan Colmes who is the left half of Hannity and Colmes appears to like North as well. When he does get to take sides of an issue it is often at odds with the administration or the right and his viewpoint is basically a pro-military pro-democracy one with little right wing influence at all. He does refer to his faith but he clearly is no bible-thumper.

An interesting piece of trivia is that North was the President in an episode of Sliders where he seized power or something I don't remember it's been awhile. I will try to find out which one.

--Dsquared 22:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Sliders:

Landing in 1960s Earth, Rembrandt and Wade are mistaken for gods; Arturo and Quinn, for opponents of President Oliver North. The peace movement of the 1960s lives on here--right down to the communes and war protesters in San Francisco. These protestors however, are protesting a protracted war against Soviet controlled North Australia. Ollie North is President.

http://www.brillig.com/sliders/episodes/06.html

This is an interesting aside as Sliders is somewhat of a cult classic and they chose Oliver North to be the poster boy for a protracted WWIII.

--Dsquared 22:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting points (and aside). However, for the purposes of an encyclopedia article I think it's pretty clear that he violated the law, as supported by both sources (one which says "in direct violation of existing United States laws" and the other which says "secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo." Violating an embargo is illegal, even if done through intermediaries. As you say, the people who are traveling to Cuba are breaking the law. Whether or not this is right or justified or whatever is debatable, but not encyclopedic.
I'll make an adjustment regarding Warner. --Holdek (talk) 22:47, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the problem referring to law breaking from wikipedia's iran-contra article:

The Iran-Contra Affair is significant because it brought many questions into public view:

Does the president have unconditional authority to conduct foreign policy? (Can the president approve selling arms to a foreign nation without congressional approval?) What information does the president have to provide to Congress and when should that information be supplied? (Does the president have to tell Congress about foreign policy initiatives?) What authority, if any, does Congress have to oversee functions of the executive branch? (Does funding for foreign policy initiatives have to be approved by Congress? Who defines the entire spending budget and who regulates it? Is the provision of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act that creates the position of independent counsel answering to the Attorney General, constitutional?) What role does the Supreme Court have in deciding conflicts between the legislative branch and executive branch? How much support is America entitled to provide to armed opposition forces seeking to replace governments with ones more sympathetic to the United States? Most, if not all, of the constitutional and ethical questions are still unresolved. On one view, it appears that if the legislative and executive branches do not wish to work together, there are no legal remedies. These are transient issues in that the executive and legislative branches change every few years.

The laws that you say were broken were laws created by a separate branch of government. The executive branch of government had a different policy and found ways to circumvent the laws created by congress in an attempt to dictate foreign policy. That is the key here. Article II gives the President the power to make foreign policy not Congress. All the above questions are admittedly unresolved. That is the question: can North be guilty of committing a crime when he is following a different policy directive than the law was trying to dictate to the administration? There is clearly a question as to whether Congress had the power to make what North did a crime and so implying he acted above the law is false unless the article also mentions that Congress may have acted outside the bounds of the Constitution when instituting said law. I care little whether Encarta says laws were broken, I've always found it to be half-baked on most issues. Yahoo only states the embargo was violated, I'm not saying the embargo wasn't violated as arms clearly ended up in Iran, but I, and others, are raising the argument that the Administration, not Congress is granted the power to make foreign policy so the embargo itself was unconstitutional as the administration supported this effort.

The article should reference this constituional conflict in some way, as it is written it assumes this conflict has been resolved against the administration which is not true according to the referenced wikipedia article. That is an important distinction to make and clearly the way it is written you are assuming that the conflict has been resolved which is factually incorrect.

--Dsquared 23:20, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

These are all interesting questions, but again, this is an encylopedia article, not a text on contstitutional theory. The administration cannot make law. Congress does. If Congress passes a law, the President cannot violate it. To my knowledge there has been no Court fight regarding the constitutionality of the embargo and the trial of North to the effect of him violating it (the immunized testimony is a different issue entirely). These are all great discussions to have where we can share our opinions in another forum, however. --Holdek (talk) 23:33, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

--Dsquared 21:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)== Controversial use of "Controversial" ==

"He also helped plan the controversial 1986 air raids on Libyan military bases in Tripoli and Benghazi in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin nightclub."

The wikipedia article on Libya discusses the raids but doesn't call them controversial and from a quick check of who actually thought they were controversial turns up only Libyan nationals and far-left outfits. It's a minor point but clearly the word is not warranted here. The UN even sanctioned Libya several years later which shows international confirmation of Libya's known terrorist related activities. Using the word controversial is editorializing on the justification for the raids and I think I'll just go ahead and change it. If you revert it, please give some justification for why wikipedia should take a stand on whether these raids were controversial.

--Dsquared 23:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

There was a great deal of controversy, both regarding the carrying out of the raids in the first place, and regarding the way in which they were carried out. There was also an outcry in this country when our bases were used for the raids, and other European countries refused to allow their airspace to be used by the aircraft involved. If, of course, you consider anybody who disagrees with your view on this to be "far-left", then your comments make sense, but in the real world, they're false. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure you read the article? It talks about opposition by other countries, and even notes the opposition of the Queen of England, interestingly enough. Part of what was controversial about it was the civilian casualties and the fact that Qadhafi's daughter was killed. --Holdek (talk) 15:56, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hold on,

Any action that someone somewhere disagrees with is now controversial? So they opposed the raids, was there an "outcry" when the terrorists blew up innocent people? Was it controversial to fight in WWII? I'm pretty sure the German's didn't like the fact that we were bombing them. That the people on the receiving end of the military action and those who sympathize with them disagree doesn't in and of itself make it a controversial action.

Here is a revealing question: Do you two personally believe Libya was involved in terrorist activities? And if so, why is a military response from the American government controversial? Except in the eyes of those who believe any contemporary use of American military power is controversial. The Democratically controlled congress wasn't objecting to it because Americans got killed.

Controversiality is POV dependent. Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Labeling it controversial implies a certain POV, and I was under the impression we want POV neutral articles.

--Dsquared 21:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been waiting for Ollieplatt's Dsquared's facade to slip, and there it goes. The controversiality of the bombing raids has nothing to do with responses to terrorism, and nothing to do with WWII. To label those who objected to the bombing of Libya as "those who sympathize with" Libya is a politicians's cheap rhetorical trick, not a rational argument.
Similarly, the question of what I or anyone else thinks of Libya's involvement with terrorism is irrelevant to the fact of the controversy surrounding the bombing raids. Controversiality is not "PoV dependent" in a case like this, when we're reporting the controversy rather than creating it. Of course, as you've repeated – indeed, laboured – you're very unfamiliar with Wikipedia, never having edited here before, so perhaps you haven't grasped what "PoV" means, or what "neutrality" consists in. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who is Trey Stone? Aren't they the South Park guys? ...looking up... Matt Stone and Trey Parker, weird I have little to no idea what youre talking about. My facade? I thought I was being honest. I laboured? oh youre british, now that I understand what your point of view is it's more clear what you are saying.

As you had to change my comment [10] in order to justify this little bit of silliness. I'll ignore it — but don't edit other Users comments on Talk pages, especially not so that you can make childish responses. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This sounds an awful lot like a personal attack, so I guess I don't understand the anger here. You say "Controversiality is not "PoV dependent" in a case like this, when we're reporting the controversy rather than creating it." and I must point out that I personally don't think they were controversial and you do because we have differing pov's.... I edited the article to attribute the controversy to people outside the US, that satisfies reporting it without making the the raids controversial by nature. I've been pretty honest from the beginning about my own POV, and I've been genuinely trying to work with holdek, you just throw accusations around....

Controversiality IS POV dependent, that controversy exists is not, but then the fact that controversy exists surrounding any military action over the last fifty years isn't in the least bit remarkable....

--Dsquared 22:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How you get a personal attack out of what I said I have no idea, and your characterisation of my comments is bizarre. It's not a question of whether you or I think that something was controversial, but whether there was controversy. There was controversy (both within and outside the U.S.). Your point seems to be that there wasn't controversy because anyone who disagreed with the raids was a left-wing terrorist-sympathiser, so didn't count; that's where your point of view blinds you to the nature of neutrality. I suppose that if I were as you think I am, then I'd also deny that there was controversy, on the grounds that anyone who agreed with the raids was a fascist, capitalist running-dog, etc., so didn't count. However the simple fact is that there was controversy, and your attempt to deny or to qualify that isn't acceptable. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:16, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea I was editing your comments from but because youve been nothing but an asshole to me I'm quitting Wikipedia, if youre the sort of person that is an admin and supposed to be adherent to all the rules then the community is in a pretty sad state and I'd rather not be a part of it.

--Dsquared 05:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, let me see, I do believe that I got the idea from here. Unfortunately, I'm sure that you'll be back, under one name or another. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question on overthrow.

  • Some point out that his activities substantially contributed to the overthrow of a sovereign, democratically elected government, and to terrorism.

Is this referencing Nicaragua? From what I've read they lost an election. I don't think losing an election can constitute an overthrow of a democratically elected government otherwise the US gets overthrow every 4 or 8 years....

My point is it's not accurate to categorize it as an overthrow when it was done through a democratic process.

--Dsquared 23:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I'll make an adjustment. --Holdek (talk) 03:57, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

THE FREEDOM ALLIANCE

The quote I inserted is straight from The Freedom Alliance website "Mission Statement." Sean Hannity talks about college scholarships when he's trying to raise money for the Freedom Alliance, but that is a very small part of what they do. Their "Annual Report" on the scholarship effort contains no dollar figure$. In the last year for which they have published financials, they spent several times more on fundraising and other consultants than they did on scholarships.

- Newzhound 2/7/2006

[edit] First Paragraph Innacuracies

I believe my version for the first paragraph is correct. Arms were not "smuggled through Iran to the Contras," rather, they were sold to Iran with the profits of those sales being diverted to the Contras. Also, it's going to far out to say "Reagan's clandestine smuggling" because as far as I know it's never been proven that Reagan was involved. --Holdek (talk) 15:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

But you didn't correct the material, you merely deleted it all (in the process reverting my correction of the Wikilink to "conservative"). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Holdek made the same edit again, without responding here first. I've reverted him. Could other editers join in and give their opinions? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I modifed the text so as to read:

The extra words are intended to address the concerns that Holdek raised about accuracy. Is that a fair comtrpomise? -Willmcw 18:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, I reverted while retaining your Wikilink correction, which was your complaint. Kindly review the edit history.
Basically, my version is correct, the previous version is inccorect, factually. Is there a need for a compromise on this? Do we really need to explain Iran-Contra in the first paragraph of his biography? It goes into it further into the article. --Holdek (talk) 19:01, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
My worry wan't only the reversion of the link (what made you think that?). Willmcw's version is a huge improvement.
The Iran-Contra affair is what he's known for, certainly outside the U.S. — so yes, it should be in the summary, which is where we normally establish the subject's significance. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
To Whom It May Concern,Please consider my thoughts on The Oliver North Wikipedia article. I have a concern about the wording in the First Paragraph. In the first paragraph, the article states: "North became famous due to his participation in the Iran-Contra Affair, in which he was the chief coordinator of the sale of weapons via intermediaries to Iran, with the profits being channeled to the Contras in Nicaragua."

I agree that it has been proven that 1)North coordinated weapons sales to Iran, and then 2)attempted to give the profits of those sales to the Contras. However, I have yet to see proof that any funds from the arms sales ever got to the Contras. I believe that North attempted to give the profits of those sales to the Contras, but this attempt and all other Iran-Contra dealings done by North were stopped before he could get those funds to the Contras. The documents that I am looking at while considering if [Iranian arms sales funds ever went to the Contras is in:

The Final Report Of The Independent Council For Iran/Contra Matters, Volume I,Investigations and Prosecutions, Lawrence Walsh, Independent Council,August 4, 1993.

The part of this report that I am taking my information from is: Part I, The Underlying Facts 1. [Part I, The Underlying Facts 1 can be found on www.fas.org on:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/part_i.htm

I ask that the statement in the First Paragraph be changed. I think that it would be a more clear paragraph if the statement, "with the profits being channeled to the Contras in Nicaragua" be changed to some statement like,"North then tried to give [the profits from arms sales with Iran] to the Contras. 
I do not mean to criticise the article on Oliver North. But I have not seen any documents or reports that have proven that any money from the Iranian arms sales ever went to the Contras. I merely think that the wording of the First Paragraph should be reworded so that the paragraph states that Oliver North attempted to funnel the aforementioned funds to the Contras. From the news reports and documents I have read, I believe that Oliver North intended to give the Iranian arms sales funds to the Contras, but it has yet to be proven that he ever succeeded in getting such funds to the Contras.

Thank You, S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.131.126.94 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Marriage versus graduation date

The article states Lt. Col. North graduated from the Naval Academy in 1968, yet it also states he was married in 1967.

Either he was married in 1967, against Naval regulations for a midshipman at the Academy, or (more likely), he married in 1968. My guess is that he was married in '68, shortly after graduation. Anyone have confirmation?

Dan myers 12:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


Hey Dan, can you find the exact regulation that says midshipman can't get married. It's a very common practice during war time for students at all of the Service Academies to do so. The reason being is that they usually will get deployed shortly after receiving their commission. If they are married, they get paid for dependants, plus if they deploy to certain regions or for a certain amount of time, they may qualify for seperation or hardship pay if married. Also, according to his books, he's been married since '67.

[edit] 1986 E-mail

In one of the sections it says that some dude sent an email to some other dude in 1986. That is highly unlikely.

Are you sure? Now I'm not saying that they got porn from it, but high government officials probably had some way of sending messages over a large network that was something of an "Internet". --Psycho78m 05:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
If you look at email, it says the first email was in 1965, and "By 1979, US Air Force users were logging onto central computers and leaving messages for government contractors and other US Air Force users to read in special file areas where their replies were often received back within hours. By the end of 1983 US Air Force users were using user names like alclark@vax1.mil to send e-mail between a nationwide linkup of VAX computers. By 1984 these same users were using personal computers for same."--Prosfilaes 22:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's very important to understand the difference between the internet and the web. The internet has been around since the 60's. E-mail is part of the internet that dates back to it's early days. The web is much newer, though has pretty much taken over the internet.

[edit] What was his job?

I can not find what his job was during Iran-Contra. A "a key Reagan administration official"? What kind of job is that? He must have had a job title and a job description. Who was his boss, who were his subordinates? What else did hid do? Did he directly report to Reagan? 213.39.190.133 12:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know the circumstances under which he left the U.S. military? Was he discharged* prior to his service to the Regan administration? Did he leave the military as a result of the Iran-Contra affair? If so, was his departure voluntary or forced? Does he receive a military pension? (* I'm not sure if the term "discharge" applies to commissioned officers, so I use it loosely here)

  • North was assigned to the National Security Council (the White House security advisory group) in the early days of the first Reagan administration. My understanding is that CIA dir. Wm. Casey pressed for North's appointment: North alluded to confiding with Casey during the affair, when he testified before the Iran-Contra investigating committee; however, I've never understood just how North became acquainted with Casey (a former O.S.S. operative & Reagan's campaign mgr.). Anyone?
  • At any rate, North was a military officer serving in a civilian capacity (GS-13, I believe): what his precise job title was, I cannot discern, although I suspect he was brought aboard with some kind of M.E. expertise. As North testified during the Iran-Contra hearings, his office was in the basement of the Old Executive Office Bldg. (OEB), just west of the White House. Although he was in the Marine Corps, his immediate superior was Poindexter, NSC chair and Navy RAdm. However, as I've suggested, he worked closely with CIA dir. Casey (who, as old-timers here may recall, died suddenly of a brain cancer on the eve of the Iran-Contra investigation) and had no reason not to believe, at least at first, that Casey was carrying out the wishes of the President.
  • North definitely receives his mil. pension: he retired. Whether he was forced to retire, only North & his superiors know; however, once he was canned from the NSC staff, he likely was placed in the Pentagon or the HQMC to ride out his remaining days. With the publicity surrounding his Iran-Contra work, his superiors probably asked him to retire. BubbleDine (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] His Job and Retirement

LtCol North retired from the US Marine Corps after twenty years service. This is true because the former Congressional rep Pat Schroeder tried (unsuccessfully) to have his retirement pension revoked. He was an operations officer on the National Security Council. He was also a 1968 graduate of the US Naval Academy and was classmates of General Hagee (Commandant of the Marine Corps) as well as James Webb, Senator elect from Virginia. LtCol North was eligible to retire with twenty years service in June 1988. An active duty Marine/soldier/sailor/airman with twenty years qualifying service is entitled to one half base pay as lifetime pension at date of retirement. BTW, I am a career Army officer (LtCol, retirement pending) and have some working knowledge of military matters and military history Engineer1234 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North: Political Figure now and then

20CenturyFox keeps reverting is to was. Here is the quote: North was a figure of great controversy, with supporters enjoying his impassioned defense of his actions, and opponents disapproving of his breaking the law.

Oliver North is still a figure of controversy, the fact he has a page on on wikipedia attributes his historical legacy as a political figure in the 80s and continues to generate controversy on the Left. He is a conservative commentator on Fox channel, which makes him a target of the Left. He IS a figure of controversy. Does anyone see this way? The previously edit should be reverted. ForrestLane42 23:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

[edit] Potential sources

Primary sources on North and for Iran Contra can be found at the National Security Archive:

Kellen T 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illustrating Iran Contra congressional hearings

I believe that the prior photo is inaccurate to the public history. I replaced that photo that is better remembered, and accurate description of what history shows of the congressional hearings on Iran Contra. If you search the historical record , you would find this to be the most common photo available. This photo was downloaded from the national archives and is in the public domain. BayspatriotBayspatriot (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As was correctly pointed out to me, can I guarantee fair use rationale per Wikipedia guidelines? Since I faced a 48 hr deadline for deletion, I have replaced it with another accurate image of the Iran-Contra hearings. That 2nd image is properly documented. I believe the 2nd image also is a far more accurate view of the Iran-Contra hearings like the 1st image. That 2nd image is from a public website. PBS.org That is a publicly funded. Do I have permission to use that image? Since I am a taxpayer, and this is in the public domain, the answer is Yes! Bayspatriot (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC) website in the United States of America.

I left a message on your talk page, but PBS' terms of use are noncommercial use only, I'm afraid. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
V.O. is right, I'm afraid. The only copyright holder in the United States whose copyrights are automatically in the public domain is the federal government. Even state governments protect their copyrights, not to mention cities and non-profit charities, even those partially funded by the federal government. The good news is that image is so iconic that you can make a strong case for fair use. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm the one who had put the original image (mugshot) there. While your statement "the prior photo is inaccurate to the public history," is incorrect, I do agree with you that the photo of North swearing the oath at the hearings is a much better picture for the article. We should do what we can to make sure that picture, in some form, stays in, particularly because it is iconic. Holdek (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Holdek, thank you for your kind words.

I have been looking for more justification. When I do a google search, I found 1400 different instances where pbs is identified as source material. using google advanced search "pbs.org" site:en.wikipedia.org Results 1 - 100 of about 1,400 from en.wikipedia.org for "pbs org". (0.21 seconds)

Actually, would think 1,400 would be low number, but let's go with the google number.

In fact, in the wikipedia article for pbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pbs) there is an image from pbs that is used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pbsclassiclogo.jpg) That image in fact was only a screen capture and is accepted.

Sources from other government sources. For example, war on terror photo source FBI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kenya_bombing_1.jpg)

another example, Apollo 11 moon landing, photo source NASA, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Apollo_11_insignia.png)

While it is true that PBS is technically a 503(C)3 corporation, It source, founding, and mission would really make it a government agency and would seem that information from them would be in the public domain. Comments? Bayspatriot (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

While I won't say that the funding and purpose of PBS makes it a government agency, I will agree that those things are sufficient to establish fair use for the photograph. Holdek (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: It seems that the image has been deleted. Bayspatriot, can you see about getting your image reinstated? Holdek (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been re-uploaded, but Bayspatriot is again insisting that PBS is an agent or department of the U.S. Government, despite the total lack of evidence for that assertion. This is getting annoying. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


Request of assistance on fair use rationale!Any interested parties please advise! This should have been a 5 min edit. This photo is a more accurate representation of that historical event. It is such an iconic photo, that it is well recognized historic NPOV photo. I have noted that PBS has been repeated referenced in other wikipedia edits. Even PBS own logo appears on the wikipedia page(noted earlier)

Even that would not be the most important point. Is there a similar historic photo from another usable source?Bayspatriot (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Northpbs1997.gif

Image:Northpbs1997.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Washing my hands from this article

I am completely washing my hands from working on this article. This article is not even part of my main interest. This was just peripheral interest. I happen to notice that this article did not have the most famous , iconic, image that is assoc- iated with this subject. As I said earlier, I hoped this would be a 5 minute edit!! I was then met with overwhelming hostility! -It was First said that an image from PBS could not be used in a Wikipedia article. I then looked up all the articles where there are references to PBS, including the iconic symbol of PBS itself!!! -It was Second said that PBS is not part of the federal government???!!!??? WTF!!!! And since it is not part of the federal government, any images could not be used!!! As a taxpayer, that is quite news to me!!! Is NASA part of the federal government? is FBI part of the federal government? Is HUD part of the federal government? Is SSDI part of the federal government? Why is it that PBS is suddenly declared by an administrator to not be part of the federal government? -It was Third said that Quote why this article is basically trash Endquote. There were several other contributors who were included in that diatribe. However, I was included also and am apprioately upset about the characterization of my contribution.

FINE! If this is trash, then the trash has been disposed of! Of course, after taking out the trash, it is of course correct to wash your hands.

I tried to join Wikipedia with the intent to contribute in certain areas where I have knowledge (please see my home page)

But, I am completely washing my hands of this article, and will not returnBayspatriot (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Time to remove the Triva?

This page continues to grow with trivia any and every time a pop culture reference sneezes in a way that sounds like Ollie North or Colonel North.

There are already guidelines regarding trivia, though the sheer number of references is entertaining.

Question is, do they add any valuable information about this individual anymore than if said musician and/or TV show mentions Albert Einstein or Lyndon Johnson? Meaning, if such trivia isn't part of the standard for other types of biographical information sets here, then perhaps the entire section needs to be done away with?

I've begun picking off 1-ups and moving them to the pages of the various artists who own the lyric, or TV show and/or movie that has a passing reference - provided it can be referenced. But ugh ...

... what an unnecessary chore for useless data. Thoughts anyone? Meandean (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the whole section should be nuked...I really don't see anything in there worth keeping. Kelly hi! 19:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)