Talk:Canadian caper
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] POV
Removed this:
- John Sheardown, despite undertaking an arguably greater risk due to his lower position, lesser security, and protection of four of the six endangered diplomats, was largely forgotten by the American media and subsequently Congress.
Seems like a pointless POV conclusion. Was Sheardown a source for the book or what? --Dhartung | Talk 02:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, the section I broke out as "analysis" is definitely in need of citations for its various POV conclusions. For instance, the CIA had to have been throwing all its resources at Iran by mid-November or so, and they were undoubtedly working on various angles at both influencing the regime and securing the hostages' release, so their presence could not have been solely to support the Canadian operation. If they knew of it, and I bet they got wind of it at least, they might have been part of a Plan B. But conclusory opinion of that ilk should always have a citation. --Dhartung | Talk 02:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- On further consideration I just removed practically the whole section, as it simply reeked of Canadian defensiveness and made the Canadian diplomats, and Canada generally, look as if they did the whole thing to make the U.S. love them and were, oh my, scorned again. Maybe that's the way Canadians always see US-CAN relations but it really isn't appropriate here. The speculation about the danger was not very germane as Canada spent the months between the Revolution and the hostage crisis getting its own citizens out of Iran, and the Americans having 50-odd diplomats held hostage, something you have to go almost back to the Boxer Rebellion to see, could be forgiven for seeing things differently. But I bet that Taylor et al. saw things very much from their colleagues' point of view. --Dhartung | Talk 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It's always nice to see non-historians editing history pieces. Think I'll swing by a biology entry and edit the crap out of it. I can always use the fact that I read a magazine article on the subject as justification that I know what I'm talking about. 198.164.251.37 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] CIA involvement
While many Canadians did in fact assist with the rescue of the Americans, it has come to light in the past several years that the CIA was more heavily involved than originally publicized. See: http://cicentre.com/intelligencespeakers/ISB_L-Z/SP_MENDEZ_Tony.htm Portions of Antonio Mendez' first book "Master of Disguise" recount his efforts in leading the rescue. This has since been publicly acknowleged in the media - see the bottom of http://www.farsinet.com/news/mar98wk1.html for an example. I think there should be mention of this in the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.144.80.51 (talk • contribs)
- Already working on it! It's really an incredible, dramatic story and not enough of that was in the article. Thanks for mentioning it regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 06:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wired Article
Facinating article at Wired about this http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.05/feat_cia.html Not sure how to best incorporate. Aexia 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)