Talk:Canadian Caper

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)

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)

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)

Lord of Light

According to the Guardian [1] , the cover-up plan involved using film sets from a real production of an adaptation of Roger Zelazny's novel Lord of Light. Is this verifiable? --Mattmm (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As per pre-Wikipedia sources cited in the article on Lord of Light itself, yes. And the sets were designed by Jack Kirby. Is this worth mentioning in the article? DS (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Should the article "A Classic Case of Deception..." be copied to wikisource?

I'm not fluent on public domain laws conserning the CIA. I would think that the article could be copied since it was written by a government employee who wrote it during the course of everyday duties.

Thoughts? sohmc (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Now we rewrite the history

- huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.48.235 (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

New information on subject

see video file http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/argo-iran-hostage-crisis-film-fiddles-with-the-facts-1.1167994 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.168.249 (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

President Carter states it was 90% a Canadian operation

Well, the main new piece of information, is that president Jimmy Carter, the president when this event took place, says that the operation was about 90 percent Canadian, and that the CIA played a minor role in organizing the escape. Mendez, and the film based on his books, Argo, overstate how important the CIA's ruse was for getting the six Americans out of Iran. See Carter's interview on CNN's Piers Morgan where he states ""The other thing that I would say was that 90 percent of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian," notes the 88-year-old. "The movie gives almost full credit to the American CIA. And with that exception, the movie's very good."*

• Morgan, Piers (February 22, 2013). "Jimmy Carter on Argo: "It's a great drama, and I hope it gets the Academy Award for best film". Piers Morgan Tonight. New York: CNN. Archived from the original on 2013-02-24. Retrieved 2013-02-25. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

--Abebenjoe (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's more important that the film article get this information in full. This Canadian Caper article can briefly list what is different between the film and reality rather than go into great detail about what this or that person said about Argo. I would be on the lookout for commentators observing 1) that in reality there was no scary bazaar scene with the diplomats going out for a look around, 2) that there was no last minute change to the airline tickets with a tense scene at the ticket counter, 3) that there was no questioning or gunfire or car chase at the airport (the plan went very smoothly), 4) that Mendez brought a partner known as "Julio" who was just as important in the caper, 5) that the diplomats lived in several places in Tehran, not just one, 6) that the diplomats could go outdoors because at least one house had an enclosed garden, 7) that the Hollywood scenes in the film include some composite characters, one wholly fabricated character, and significant changes to reality, 8) that Mendez was not having trouble with his marriage, 9) that Mendez was not poorly regarded at the CIA, and 10) that other embassies than Canada were helpful, for instance the Swedes. Binksternet (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll start editing the Argo article when the fuss dies down; but until then, I just want to make sure that the fiction it portrays doesn't end up in the article that is attempting to portray the facts in a historically accurate methodology, consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. In other words, if editors, who's only information about this rescue comes from the film, take the time to read the talk page, they will then know that even the president of the United States at the time thinks that the film was great melodrama, but played fast and loose with the actual facts. As the article is written, I think that is apparent, and I don't feel the need to add the Carter quotes unless there is a rash of edits trying to promote the Afflack POV.--Abebenjoe (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Cater's quote has limited value because he doesn't describe in more detail what he meant by that. Does "90% of the ideas" mean that the plan to fabricate a film was a Canadian idea? If not Mendez (and the mysterious CIA agent Julio) then who from Canada went to Hollywood, set up the fake movie Argo, then traveled to Iran under that cover story, and took the 6 Americans out? The main contribution to the rescue from Canada was that the Canadian government made the decision to send the 6 out on fake Canadian passports, and they supplied those passports to Mendez, so far as I can see. Presumably that's what Carter was referring to, but since he didn't go into more detail then we don't know.Walterego (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2013

Canadian Caper: 6 Americans escape from Iran with the help from the Canadian Embassy (This video was made in 1980 to describe the sequence of events, by directly interviewing 6 American Embassy Employees in Canadian Caper) Pekon (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

What exactly do you want changed in the article? Edit requests must be in the form of "change X to Y." - Camyoung54 talk 18:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

[Pekon]: Just want to add link of above video to the page. I'm a novice on Wiki:talk so do not know how to submit request for new additions. Request you to please help me out | proceed with current edit request by adding the link as a thumbnail to the main-page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekon (talk • contribs) 04:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

More information 17 March 2013

There is an article in today's NZ Herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10871725 which is an interview with a New Zealand embassy staff member. Not 100% sure as of yet how best integrate it. But it states that the reason some managed to "escape" was that they weren't actually at the US Embassy at the time, as they were coming back from a tramping trip with some of the New Zealanders and they got in late so they were just sleeping on the floor at one of the NZ staff member's houses. So they weren't at the US embassy at the time of it being invaded. Then they were moved to the strong room at the NZ Embassy before several days later being moved to Taylor's residence. Karit (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived time magazine source (note 5) on Internet Archive's wayback machine only has the first out of 4 pages

The other pages archived unfortunately display the times paywall notice. Just thought I'd let someone know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.24.165 (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"best known for ET"

Since that movie wouldn't come out for another two years, shouldn't the credentials be for an earlier movie that had been produced, with the mention of ET coming later? MMetro (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I might have answered your valid concern by changing "best known" to "later known". Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Seven or eight boarded the plane ?

In the rescue section: Mendez, "Julio", and the six American diplomats go to airport but it say that only seven boarded the plane. Should it be "the group of eight boarded" ? If not who didn't boarded ? 2A02:120B:2C40:8F40:88A9:FF9:EFF3:26FD (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Iranian reaction

Something missing from this article is how the leaders of Iran at the time reacted. I have seen a brief piece of TV footage where an Iranian is saying that "Canada will pay for their actions" etc etc. Did this rescue impact the rest of the hostages? Did Iran actually do anything as a direct result of this rescue operation? MrAureliusR_Talk! 21:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)