Jump to content

Talk:Oliver North

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 80.0.101.127 (talk) at 08:05, 13 August 2009 (→‎Author). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vandalism

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

Author

North has written eleven books- all of them being New York Times bestsellers. His latest book is titled American Heroes.It is based on his extensive coverage of U.S. military units engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Philippines. This book was released in May 2008 and is yet another New York Times Best-Selling Book.

The text shouldn't read 'offers a first-hand account of his extensive coverage of', it should either be 'is a first-hand account of' or 'gives extensive coverage of'. 80.0.101.127 (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hagiography

This article on O. North is rather a hagiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.247.187 (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith

Minor pet peeve in "Early Life." While it is common for commited Christians use the phrase "finding Christ" to decribe the their "deep personal commitment to the Christian faith," the term is not particularly neutral. The use of "finding Christ" also causes many wags to immediately remark "wow, I did not know he was lost," which is not always well recieved. Other than this minor edit, I know zip about Col. North's faith/faithfulness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.108.165 (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Running section

The final paragraph about drug running states "North has consistently denied any involvement with drug trafficking, stating on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes, “…nobody in the U.S. government, going all the way back to the earliest days of this under Jimmy Carter, ever had anything to do with running drugs.”[1]

The quote used is incomplete. The giving quote in the source cited is, "The fact is nobody in the government of the United States, going all the way back to the earliest days of this under Jimmy Carter, ever had anything to do with running drugs to support the Nicaraguan resistance. Nobody in the government of the United States. I will stand on that to my grave."

Leaving out "...to support the Nicaraguan resistance." Seems to alter the meaning of the quote, does anyone else agree? Kumlekar (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. One claims that they never ever ran drugs, peroid. The other claims they never ever ran drugs to support the nic. resistance. The diffrence might escape some, but it is in fact a huge diffrence.
In one example they never ran drugs, at all. In the other they could have been the biggest drugpeddlers on the planet, just not supporting the nic. resistance.
The quote should be taken in it's entirety or not at all.
213.141.89.53 (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant and hagiographical

"Although raised a Roman Catholic, he has long attended Protestant evangelical services with his family." Irrelevant details.

I consider the evaluating paragraphs, starting with "North remains .... etc" as too hagiographical. This is not balanced analysis. Why not delete?

The article also has too many categories. AdeleivdVelden (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USA convicted of State Sponsored Terrorism

I find it interesting that no mention is made of the fact that the USA was convicted by the world court of state sponsored terrorism in its support of the Contra's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

This makes the entire paragraph justifying Oliver North's actions in supporting the terror campaign nothing more that a politically motivated diatribe divorced from the facts. It should be removed.

The facts are - according the World Court and United Nations - that the USA was running a terror campaign that totally destroyed the Nicaraguan economy. and that Oliver North was de facto the leading terrorist fund raiser for that terror campaign.

Oliver North's clear, convictable, role as an international terrorist and war criminal (while being a national hero in the US media) is often used to show the dichotomy between US media analysis and that of the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.138.1.245 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oliver_North&oldid=307707232"