Talk:Oliver North/Archive 2

How to add this information Back without it begin removed?
Oliver North is now also implicated along with the CIA in the killing of Portuguese Prime Minister Sá Carneiro. On 8 April 2012, José Esteves received from Fernando Farinha Simões an 18 page confession which asserts that the CIA and Oliver North were behind the plot to place the bomb on the plane. Because Adelino Amaro da Costa was about to denounce the covert CIA drug and gun trade that was secretly passing through Portugal he was targeted and so was Sá Carneiro because he was anti-US. The covert operation lasted for years with Oliver North's involvement. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the above user has been banned indefinitely since February 2013 but I will respond here anyway. I just wanted to say that the link to the source of this allegation doesn't work. However, as I edit this section to add this reply, I see the URL of the source. Here is a link to the source for others. Also, here is an internal link to the article about Francisco de Sá Carneiro. --anon. 71.183.133.71 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Latest book as of May 2013
I found this PR release which states, "His latest [book], 'Heroes Proved' is a gripping tale of intrigue and duplicity at the highest levels of the U.S. government." Currently, the article states his latest book is American Heroes. --anon. 71.183.133.71 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oliver North is not dead.
This article indicates that Lt. Col. North died on 20 February. I've just seen him on the news with live commentary, Sunday, 23 February. I've looked for other indications of his demise and I see nothing. Gnerphk (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

American Dad Episode
Oliver North was a prominent reference in an American Dad episode where Stan Smith bought Oliver North's house and digs up his yard to find his gold. Can we get a blip about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.31.113.26 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Treason
How is the word treason not mentioned once on a page about a man who sold arms to our enemies and used the proceeds to fund terrorism? Especially after he had been directly ordered not to do this by congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.57.9.142 (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP - For starters, he was never charged for one thing.

Article should mention the nature of the Contras' modus operandi; also clarification on the drugs
As Oliver North was a chief authority in managing the Contras, the article should do more than just mention the Boland Amendment in passing. We need more background for such a multifaceted issue as Iran-Contra: for instance why was the Boland Amendment passed? Because of the nature of the Contras battle strategy -- specifically, terrorism and the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians (as nearly all human rights reports from the era confirm)... North was an avid supporter of these tactics, famously earning him the name "Blood and Guts." I'll look up some good, credible quotes from a reputable source such as Americas Watch, and include them. HR groups like that are reliable sources so I'll refrain from quoting the Sandinistas.

Also, the drug trafficking issue is interesting, but also tends to get sensationalized and people should be able to find some more specific info here for the sake of clarity. For instance, in all likelihood, North was more of an enabler for the drug traffickers, rather than a direct participant on drug trafficking. This is not immediately clear from the article. Perhaps we could mention the leak of North's notebooks which very much illuminate the issue -- such as the part in his notebooks where he says "Honduran DC-6 which is being used for runs out of New Orleans is probably being used for drug runs into U.S." This corroborates the general thesis of the Kerry report: specifically, that although North was clearly a crucial enabler for the traffickers, he was almost certainly not a participant in their trafficking activities and there is no evidence he derived any personal benefit from them. The declassified documents collected at the National Security Archive are good primary sources for this, as is the Kerry report. 100.37.244.200 (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Iran Contra
There's a whole article about that. Whoever decided to have the first paragraph dedicated to the Iran Contra scandal instead of, you know, the VERY INDIVIDUAL THIS PAGE IS ABOUT should be banned and have 100% of their input on this site removed. If I want to read about Contra, I can do so by checking the very page that its first mention is linked to. Ruining this article for political reasons is ignorant, annoying, and downright treasonous. Fix this now so I don't have to log in and do it for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.7.217.138 (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Oliver North. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140208043136/https://freedomconcerts.com/ to https://freedomconcerts.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Biased language
There seems to be a lot of pro-North bias in this article. For example, how relevant is that his opponent received "only" 46%? "Only" reveals a judgment that should be left to the reader. I've noticed several other parts with similarly slanted language, but am on my phone so can't fix / make a more comprehensive list. 209.6.219.106 (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of involvement with drug traffickers
Per WP:BLPREMOVE, I have removed the section titled "Allegations of involvement with drug traffickers" from the article and posted it here for further discussion:


 * Allegations were made, most notably by the Kerry subcommittee, that North and other senior officials created a privatized Contra network that attracted drug traffickers looking for cover for their operations. They allegedly then turned a blind eye to repeated reports of drug smuggling related to the Contras, and actively worked with known drug smugglers such as Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega to assist the Contras. Journalist Gary Webb asserted in his journalistic series and book Dark Alliance, that North developed the idea of using drug money to support the resistance movement.
 * Organizations and individuals involved in the supply chain under investigation for trafficking included the company SETCO (operated by large-scale trafficker Juan Matta-Ballesteros), the fruit company Frigorificos de Puntarenas, rancher John Hull, and several Cuban exiles; North and other U.S. government officials were criticized by the Kerry Report for their practice of "ticket punching" for these parties, whereby people under active investigation for drug trafficking were given cover and pay by joining in the Contra supply chain. Notably, cocaine trafficker and Contra Oscar Danilo Blandón was granted political asylum in the U.S. despite knowledge of his running a drug ring.

In a WP:BLP it is crucial that all material, particularly WP:REDFLAG claims like the above, are addressed appropriately. The first citation is a cherry-picked section from an appendix in the Kerry Committee report. It does not support either of the first two sentences that precede it. (WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:CHERRY are relevant, although the second is less so since the citation doesn't even support the statement.) The second citation is to a claim in Gary Webb's Dark Alliance whose major claims were rejected by DoJ and House investigations. Primary source claims of this nature are insufficient per WP:REDFLAG. The third citation is primary source material from the aforementioned DoJ report; it doesn't mention North. Furthermore, the absence of the DoJ's conclusion at the bottom of the document (i.e. "The OIG has found no evidence whatsoever that the government's efforts to ensure a lower sentence for Blandon were based on anything other than its assessment of his cooperation. There is no evidence of any intervention by the CIA or any intelligence agency. Nor is there any evidence that Blandon received special consideration because of any affiliation with the Contras.") is why we don't allow cherry-picking.

I do not object to the mention of these allegations towards North, however, whatever is written needs to start with whatever coverage appears in multiple reliable secondary sources. -Location (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Much in this passage is OR, with significant distortions from the sources. For example, the claim that "North and other U.S. government officials were criticized by the Kerry Report for their practice of "ticket punching" for these parties, whereby people under active investigation for drug trafficking were given cover and pay by joining in the Contra supply chain" significantly distorts what the Report said: "The private efforts on behalf of the Contras attracted a number of drug traffickers who understood full well the high priority the U.S. government gave to the war against Nicaragua. Testimony before the Subcommittee revealed narcotics traffickers were particularly astute in offering to assist the Contras in an effort to not only protect their operations but also to avoid prosecution for their activities as well. This technique is known as "ticket punching." Thus the practice of ticket punching was a technique of drug traffickers, not the US government. Yet the clear implication of the statement in the article is that this was a technique of the US government to RECRUIT the traffickers. This is not what the Report said. The claim that Oscar Blandon received 'political asylum' is more distortion. Blandon did not receive political asylum; political asylum in the US is a well-defined process, which Blandon never underwent. The link to the DOJ report describes how Blandon improperly received a green card; as Location notes above, this had nothing to do with North. To attach this false statement regarding the conclusions of the DOJ report next to the false claim about the conclusions of the Kerry Report makes yet another claim that the two sources do NOT make; this is a form of OR. Rgr09 (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I should correct what I wrote above. Blandon did receive political asylum, in 1985, according to the DOJ-OIG report, Chapter II Section A. However, the DEA did not open a case against Blandon until August 1986 (soon after this the FBI and LASD also opened cases). Thus the article still errs in claiming that Blandon received political asylum despite knowledge of his running a drug ring. Rgr09 (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Lt. Col. North's convictions were vacated
Why does the very top of the article refer to North as a convicted felon first and foremost, but later on it states that, "However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),[28] North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony...Consequently, North's convictions were reversed. After further hearings on the immunity issue, Judge Gesell dismissed all charges against North on September 16, 1991."

If his convictions are vacated and reversed, and all charges dismissed, then he isn't a convicted felon. I'm not a huge North fan, but this wiki entry is for a living person who happens to be a decorated veteran and it should be accurate. I updated it for the sake of accuracy. Tpkatsa (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. -Location (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oliver North. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://freedomconcerts.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050721073859/http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/Oliver_North.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/Oliver_North.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oliver North. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213120401/http://craigcrawford.com/2011/10/30/one-avenues-2-faces-white-house-crack-house/ to http://craigcrawford.com/2011/10/30/one-avenues-2-faces-white-house-crack-house/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20070814000103/http://www.showmenews.com/2007/Apr/20070413News013.asp to http://www.showmenews.com/2007/Apr/20070413News013.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oliver North. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070806185617/http://www.bpcbakbusconf.com/2002-north.htm to http://www.bpcbakbusconf.com/2002-north.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109010123/http://bookrevue.com/OliverNorthFall2013.html to http://bookrevue.com/OliverNorthFall2013.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Libyan assassination plot
Some enlightening additional sources on the “assassination plot” North mentioned in his exclusive Cigar Aficionado interview:

First, on July 22 of 1988, in the Post:


 * ... State Department officials expressed skepticism about the alleged plot to kill North, who helped organize the U.S. bombing of Libya in April 1986. ... Several State Department officials, cautioning that they had not seen the prosecutor's evidence, said similar allegations went back several years and that no charges had been brought at that time, seeming to indicate that the evidence was not sufficient.

A week later the AP reports that eight men, including the aforementioned alleged plotter, were indicted for financial crimes, but it prominently states “''The 40-count indictment did not make any mention of previous accusations that one of the defendants, Mousa Hawamda, took part in a plot to assassinate a senior U.S. official. The target of the alleged plot has been identified as Oliver North, who helped plan the 1986 aerial bombing of Libya.''”.

And then in Time (paywalled, but this part is before the jump):


 * Last week U.S. Attorney Henry Hudson tried to convince a Virginia judge to deny bail to an Arab-American businessman who had been involved "in a potential plot to assassinate a high Government official of the U.S." Administration sources later identified the official as North, who allegedly was targeted for his role in planning the April 1986 U.S. bombing of Libya.


 * But like many of the retired Marine lieutenant colonel's tales, the allegations made by Hudson seemed inflated.

Would try to work this in myself, but the article is protected at the moment.

OrderOfNineNagles (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be ashamed
Footnote 17 links to an article that DOES NOT in any way relate to the sentence it follows.

In multiple places this article incorrectly implies that the charges against North were found to be incorrect. The only time any of these claims actually have a source is footnote 17, which links to an article that never says this. If you want people to trust Wikipedia you cannot allow propaganda like this page.

It makes Wikipedia look like a joke. I am appalled. NateDyer (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't access the NYT article without paying.....but the fact Mr. North's convictions were reversed or dismissed is a matter of public record. From the LA Times: A federal judge on Monday dropped all criminal charges against Oliver L. North, the central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal, ending a saga that the former White House aide characterized as “five years of fire.” U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell dismissed the case at the request of independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh, who said that testimony provided last week by North’s former boss, Robert C. McFarlane, made it unlikely that North’s previous convictions could be reinstated. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-09-17-mn-2756-story.html
 * A year or two before, one of the charges had already been reversed. So legal semantics aside, the article is essentially correct.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are correct that reference 17 to the NYT article was in the wrong place because that arti le was about his resignation from the Marine Corps. I moved it to the proper location and added a reference to the Washington Post that verifies that the charges were dropped. There is no reason to talk about being appalled or Wikipedia feeling ashamed. You could have fixed the problem yourself. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead should identify the specific Iranian regime
Whether North was aiding the Khomeini regime or the Pahlavi regime is pertinent information, and helpful to readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone can look at the dates and figure that one. Even in the introductory portion of the Iran-Contra article, they are referred to as "Iran" (only). I don't think we ever had a embargo against the Shah in any case.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why should readers be put in a position of having to look up dates (the lead doesn't even make clear when the weapons were funneled, only that it became a controversy in the mid-80s) and then having to look up which government was in place when? It makes no sense at all. The intent seems as far as I can tell to simply obscure the fact that this was the Khomeini regime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If somebody doesn't know who ran Iran in the mid-80's.....they need to keep reading. If your intent here is to make clear that North was trading with a Islamic fundamentalist regime that supports terror.....the point is largely irrelevant because these were not terrorist weapons. I cannot think of a single instance where they were used in a terrorist attack. They were conventional weapons used in their war with Iraq.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What? "If your intent here is to make clear that North was trading with a Islamic fundamentalist regime that supports terror.....the point is largely irrelevant because these were not terrorist weapons." So THAT is the reason why you reverted the mention of the regime? Because you personally associate the regime with bad things and you don't want readers to associate North with those bad things? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's almost universally agreed that Iran-Contra was a "bad thing". The point here is Iran-Contra broke the law. Why it broke the law is noted in the article. Other than that....you tell me: why must it be noted that it was Khomeini's regime?Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it is precise, and it is helpful to readers to distinguish whether this is the Pahlavi regime or the Khomeini regime, which are two drastically different regimes (it's like saying Korea instead of specifying whether it's North or South Korea). Readers might leave with the impression that it's the former, because it's a pro-Western regime that the US supported. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So if you want precision.....why not call them by the nation's official name? Iran's name during this time was NOT "Khomeni's regime"Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ? I mentioned both Iran and the Khomeini regime. Try again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit (that I reverted) called them the "Ayatollah Khomeini regime in Iran". That's not the proper name. Either "Iran" or the "Islamic Republic of Iran". Take your pick.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Split discussion, eh? Again, I think Ayatollah Khomeini government in Iran or the Islamic Republic of Iran both work. I think the sticking point might just be the somewhat derogatory term regime . El_C 19:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd vote for the Islamic Republic of Iran. (Considering all the middle men on the Iranian side.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The other user does not seem opposed to the term "regime". He just wants to hide from the readers that this is the Khomeini regime. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to call it what it was/is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, in fairness, it was both those things. El_C 20:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

BLP issues
Recent edit labels North 'former drug smuggler', looks like straightforward BLP violation, deleted. Please discuss here before reinstating. Rgr09 (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

locked page
I assume the fact that the page is locked is somehow related to the lack of mention in the first paragraph of the main thing the subject of the article is known for, ie his involvement in the Iran-Contra Affair? 2A00:23C5:1203:CE01:5538:E689:294C:D34E (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Email dated August 23, 1986
I am not saying this is wrong but I don't think this would be an email as we generally understand it in 2021. The internet and emails as we know them came out around 1991. Does this need clarification in the main script? 188.221.24.17 (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't that unusual in the Pentagon/defense establishment by that point. One of the sources indeed mentions emails by the NSC at that time.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Book the giant awakes
I have ordered and received two copies of this book and both have been misprinted. Please advise. 23.119.184.26 (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)