Talk:Oliver North

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)

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?

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)

Author

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

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)

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 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 (_t^g_e^c_k) 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 (_t^g_e^c_k) 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)

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)

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)

You can block and block and suck my cock but nothing can stop freedom of speech. In the end, America wins. We always do. Ask Saddam. My sockpuppet army is on the march. Georgecox 02:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)