Talk:Oliver North

Rex 84?

There should be some mention of North's co-authorship (with John Brinkerhoff) of the notorious martial law plan "Rex84" which already has a wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.208.28 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of involvement with drug trafficking

This entire section seems based on primary sources, with no web links, and an IMDB link. My reading of BLP leads me to believe that not only are the sources inappropriate for such a large section of the article, but the predominance of this material seriously skews the article. ZHurlihee (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The book Cocaine Politics has much more info on this and would be a good citation -- and the Kerry Report itself is a primary source, sure, but it (unlike the North notebook) is an official document, and has been commented on very much by many other books such as Cocaine Politics, Dark Alliance, Whiteout, etc. I'd be happy to add citations from sources like that. Not to mention the declaration of Costa Rican President Arias following the Costa Rican investigation was definitive: he is *banned* from ever entering that country again for reasons of the drug-relating findings of that investigation. The section itself doesn't really "skew" the article because the section on its own is quite balanced: it includes his own defense of himself and his sustained claims of never having been involved. Though I will admit that, as far as primary sources go, the quotes from his (redacted) notebook shouldn't be made so front and center in the article, without including some commentary on the background of the notebook (the time it took to subpoena it, the arguments for why they didn't want it turned over, the redaction, what was found, what was not, what the official conclusions regarding the notebook were including those of the Hitz investigation which probably vindicated North to some extent). I'll try to find some more info along those lines to qualify the notebook info, and to reiterate that nothing found in the notebook led to any kind of drug charge/conviction for North (and that between the Kerry Committe and Hitz's interpretations of it, there was some degree of vindication). As far as what other people have said implicating him in narcotrafficking (especially Noriega's claims), the article could perhaps use a bit more balance by noting that their credibility has been called into question in the context of the Kerry Committee and other legal venues as they are mostly drug traffickers and therefore not entirely credible witnesses. In my mind, the section is important as just about all the Contra-related people who were found by investigations to have been involved in drugs (Noriega, Hull, the Cuban Exiles from Miami involved in the arms supply chain, ARDE contras, a few of the FDN contras), were North associates, and evidence has surfaced (again, more so in the Costa Rican investigation than in the US investigations) that North was well aware of their involvement in drugs and even noted that to himself in his notebook. So I think the section is very appropriate, and it's lengthiness is only appropriate for a subject that is so sensitive and that deserves the balance it has been given. 12.170.248.36 (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sources you cited meet the WP:FRINGE criteria and are not suitable for a biography. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No, they aren't fringe sources and it is absurd to claim they are. Dlabtot (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The book "Cocaine Politics" does not meet the defenition of a WP:FRINGE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZHurlihee (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

After looking more closely at the sources and the title of the section, I will remvoe the entire section and codense the contents of the Kerry Report down to a small paragraph under the Iran Contra section. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There's obviously no consensus for that. Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Its my understanding that consensus isnt needed when making a change like this on a biography given the issues I have presented. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong. Wikipedia operates by consensus. You've made assertions about sources that you have not backed up with any argument or citation to anything specific in policy. If you think there is an immediate BLP concern, perhaps you should post about it on the BLP noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You will have to pardon me for the lack of an indent, but this could get lengthy.

I dont think my understanding is wrong. From WP:BLP:

The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

The burden of evidence would appear to lie with you to argue that the material can stay, not on me that it should go. But, in the spirit of cooperation, I will make a sound case for striking the material

The first 4 sources in the section are all to original documents.

• FBI 302 report by agents Bruce A. Burroughs and Don A. Allen, May 5, 1992, file 245B-SF-96287.
• Deposits arranged by... Oliver North: Kerry Report, 47–48.
• DEA records concerning DIACSA are reprinted in the Kerry Report, 342-61
• CR Assy 2-Segundo Informe de la Comision sobre el Narcotrafico Asamblea Legislative, August 1989.

Since there are no hyperlinks to them, we cannot evaluate if the material in the article actually matches the documents, but even if we could WP:BLPPRIMARY states the following about the use of original documents like this:

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

Since I do not see any secondary sources providing any interpretation of these it would seem to be prohibited to use them.

I would certainly encourage additional opinions on this, but for the time being the material needs to be removed. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason I brought up Cocaine Politics is because it is precisely that sort of secondary source that provides the commentary and insight in order to make the primary sources (North notebook, Kerry report, etc) meaningful for the article and fulfill the "burden of proof" you ask for (and btw, someone above has concurred that it's absurd for you to label that a "Fringe" source, as it is the most comprehensive and thoroughly researched book by *academics* on the drug component of the Iran-Contra scandal, being frequently cited by others and acclaimed among other academics; if you have a better source to suggest on the topic, feel free to suggest one -- as you seem to be itching for a more right-wing take on it, see the later book "Politics of Cocaine" with a similar title). But evidently that constructive approach doesn't sit well with you as you are obviously intent on torpedoing the section, which is of course characteristic of someone who is so intent on labeling anything "fringe" that they disagree with (and furthermore, using the "fringe" label in such a knee-jerk manner that you don't even offer an explanation for why it's so "fringe"). As others have noted above, your behavior and stubborn insistence on taking out an entire section when few people (let alone a consensus of people) agree with you, and when several other editors in fact disagree with you, is blatantly malicious and belligerent editing behavior. Attempts to outright remove the material in this manner without building a consensus will be met with reverts and also reports of this behavior. Needless to say, if the phrasing of the section is problematic, or if certain parts of it aren't faithful to the available sources, then we are all willing to talk this over with you in order to build a consensus as to what the primary and secondary sources really mean. But that doesn't seem to be the kind of discussion you're looking for. 12.170.248.36 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Both the phrasing and the sourcing are currently problematic and, unless my understanding of WP:BLP is wrong, material like this is to be removed immediately. Given the nature of the material you should propose a alternate sourced text here on talk and have it agreed upon before it goes back into the article. But I should warn you, I don’t think it should be much more than is already in the version I have recently edited. It would seriously slant the article if nearly 1/3rd of it was about this subject. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine, have it your way. Your understanding of BLP is certainly incorrect, as you are the only person who believes the burden of proof hasn't been met. If only one person comes in and says "well, *I* am not convinced, other editors might consider it proof but I don't!" that doesn't give that editor the right to remove the citation per BLP. The fact that you acted without building any consensus and are clearly intent on torpeoing the section, is antagonistic and irresponsible editing behavior, so let's try this: I'll add secondary-source citations such as Cocaine Politics and re-introduce the section as such, seeing as how you *still* haven't offered an explanation for why you think this academic work is "Fringe" -- and since an above user concurs with me that it is not fringe. That should solve the problem of primary versus secondary sources, as the primary sources will at that point have a secondary source (a widely-cited academic source at that) to interpret the primary sources for an encyclopedic context. If at that point, you still persist in your belligerence and knee-jerk labeling of academic sources as "Fringe" just because you don't like what they have to say (and without offering any objective reasoning), then we'll have to bring in a dispute moderator, and your unwillingness to work with others on this section or even listen to majority opinion should make it clear who is trying to be constructive and who isn't.12.170.248.36 (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A mention of the allegation still exists in the article in a trimmed form. Cocaine Politics is not a WP:RS so please do not use it. ZHurlihee (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of the "trimmed form" -- it is deliberately trimmed to such a short length that the article now extremely under-represents one of the most notable events of Oliver North's career. Anyways, more importantly: Explain why Dale-Scott's "Cocaine Politics" is not RS. First you said it's fringe, and two people (me and another editor) strongly disagreed (the other guy said "they aren't fringe sources and it is absurd to claim they are") and you wouldn't even offer an explanation. Still you persist with this kneejerk rejection of the source without explaining. It is A: academic (Dale-Scott has a phd), B: widely cited by other academics and journalists, C: acclaimed by other academics and notable attorneys (such as one of the investigating lawyers from the Kerry Committee). Since you haven't offered *any* explanation for your rejection of the source, we can only assume that you simply have an ideological beef with accepting the picture of history that the source offers (and offers very thorough research to substantiare). You should be aware that it's nothing new on wikipedia for highly ideological editors on the left/right to lash out at sources that they perceive as being on the other side of the political spectrum from them, in a kneejerk manner, without any explanation other than just crying "fringe" and "not RS". Those labels aren't taken seriously without substantiation. Substantiation, for instance, would be a review of or critical statement about the book by another academic who deems it to be "Fringe" or deems its research to be "unreliable" (contrary to the numerous academics, attorneys, and researchers who have offered praise and seen its research as very strong and reliable). Your own opinion of its "Fringe" or non-"RS" status is not sufficient without that sort of substantiation. I mean, you haven't even offered an explanation. Furthermore, it is quite possibly the most well-researched secondary source on the topic, so your move to disqualify it (again, without explanation) is very detrimental to the article and our ability to illuminate primary sources with a thoroughly-researched secondary source. 12.170.248.36 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Iran Contra section of the article is hardly underrepresented, it is roughly half the article. The authors of "Cocaine Politics", Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall are conspiracy mongers, as evident by their embrace of the 9/11 Truth ideas. If you want to make your case, links to the sources you mention would help. Short answer, if you think this deserves more mention there are two forums for you: WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. Make your case there if you choose to. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"deep personal committment" not substantiated

The sentence containing the phrase "deep personal committment" needs attribution, without which the article fails to maintan a neutral point of view. David F (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)