![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The article originally had a conviction section which read:
Zinn is wrong. Thomas Clines was indicted on Iran-Contra related tax evasion charges and served 16 months in prison. The whole section on Breeden's arrest seems to have been added just for the sake of putting in Zinn's wise-crack; I don't really see that it has any other relation to the article. Rgr09 ( talk) 06:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
References
Anyone else see this as a problem? This line in particular: 'Reagan was deeply committed to securing the release of the hostages; it was this compassion that motivated his support for the arms initiatives" - maybe this is what he said, or what people said, but no one can pretend to know his thoughts.
That, coupled with the frequent mention of "moderate" Iranians seems to create a clear slant. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.13.25 ( talk) 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this article tends to take a more critical stance toward the shredding of documents, or withholding of documents, than is fair. Covert operations are covert for a reason, and the idea of protecting sources of sensitive information is not just a cover-up: at least one Iranian contact disappeared in Iran shortly after many of the documents were made public. According to the New York Times, August 9, 1987, "the disclosures have prompted the intelligence services of some friendly nations to share less information with the United States." The article is implying from the fact that the NSC and CIA did not empty their file cabinets before Congress and the press that they were trying to hide incriminating evidence. On the contrary, the executive branch did hand over any, many documents, declassifying perhaps more than they should have, given the sensitive nature of much of the information, and the effects such revelations often have on the sources. Also, on the question of "moderate Iranians", this is confusing because while in fact those conducting the sales wanted to strengthen pro-Western Iranians, and billed their actions as such, it was not possible to support a faction, only the actual government, the whole regime. So it is understandable that this is a grey area to readers. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.233.184 ( talk) 22:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This has been brought to my attention by a editor who referenced this to justify a change in another article. The passage in this article is this:
However, as documented by a congressional investigation, the first Reagan-sponsored secret arms sales to Iran began in 1981 before any of the American hostages had been taken in Lebanon. This fact ruled out the "arms for hostages" explanation by which the Reagan administration sought to excuse its behavior.[5]
This is a problem on numerous levels:
1. That last sentence is like a editorial and not NPOV. It is drawing a conclusion.
2. Because the sales to Iran began before hostages were taken.....that doesn't mean it didn't eventually become a attempt at a arms for hostages swap. This is something Reagan himself eventually copped to.
3. The reference itself [5] is unsure who authorized this and for what purpose.....a key passage:
One former high-level Central Intelligence Agency official who saw reports of the Israeli arms sales to Iran in the early 1980's estimated that the total approached $2 billion each year. But he added, "The degree to which it was sanctioned I don't know."
The article also features denials by several Reagan admin officials that they authorized Israel to make this sale (of spare parts and ammo).
So.....essentially what we have here is some early sales to Iran for reasons that are unclear.....that could have opened the door to the idea of the arms for hostages in the minds of the RR admin. Ergo I think the statement This fact ruled out the "arms for hostages" explanation by which the Reagan administration sought to excuse its behavior. should be removed. This is drawing a conclusion that should be left up to the reader. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 18:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that there was a problem with POV. However, by the standard applied, this sentence is also an editorial: "Because the sales to Iran began before hostages were taken.....that doesn't mean it didn't eventually become a attempt at a arms for hostages swap. This is something Reagan himself eventually copped to." There is no reason to consider Reagan's alleged confession as honest, especially since he and others in his administration were caught lying about what they were doing, and since "arms for hostages" made what they did look better. Suggesting that what was necessarily a lie in 1981 might perhaps have become the truth later on is a strange argument to explain what in fact was the same policy before and after 1982. It amounts, in my view, to special pleading and looks like an apology. What is neither special pleading, nor an editorial, nor an apology is the simple observation that, if arms shipments to Iran began in 1981, this contradicts the "arms for hostages" official narrative. It is a simple logical fact anchored in the basic nature of chronology and causality. To point this out does not present any POV problems. I therefore gave a little more context on the New York Times investigation, quoting the Times, and pointing out that the NYT was dumbfounded, given the 1981 date of the first arms transfers, as to what the reason could have been for them.
Missing from the article was any mention of what was documented in 2016: that the Carter administration was already heavily involved in making Ayatollah Khomeini a success in Iran. This is quite important, and certainly to a section that has for title "background," as it could matter to an evaluation of Reagan's motives in Iran-Contra. Trying harder now to keep away from introducing POV, I did not speculate about that, but simply provided the context for readers to consider. Factual record straight ( talk) 17:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The statement I quoted does not appear in the article, true. But it appears here as part of your argument that pointing out that a discrepancy between the chronological facts and the official explanation amounts to POV. It doesn't. Therefore, the article should point it out. It is entirely relevant to an article on Iran-Contra whether evidence surfaced contradicting the official explanations. The article is indeed about the Reagan administration scandal, and it begins with a section titled "background". The term "background" usually includes stuff that is relevant to understand the context and which immediately precedes the thing you are talking about. Jimmy Carter is the preceding president, and his pro-Khomeini policies occurred right before Reagan came to power. Since those policies are perfectly consistent with Reagan's policies, they are obviously part of the background to be considered. Particularly when it was shown that Reagan had reasons other than freeing hostages to send weapons to Iran (whatever they were). If anything is relevant in the background section to the Iran-Contra scandal, it is this continuity with Carter policy. 189.213.109.33 ( talk) 17:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Sorry. I meant to sign. Factual record straight ( talk) 17:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
My recollection was that while Carter was president the republicans had told the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election and then they would sell them arms. If true, that is worse than the contra sales, worse than anything Trump may have done. And if not true it should be refuted or discussed as it is a commonly held belief. 203.63.191.70 ( talk) 23:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)I've removed this line (He now appears on Fox News.) as it is in my opinion vague, does not warrant a mention on the lead, and uses a questionable sourcing style. If anyone wish to ever this to be reverted please discuss on this talk page. Many thanks- VickKiang ( talk) 08:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
In 2014, Malcolm Byrne published an article in Unredacted, the blog of the National Security Archive, that linked to a previously classified article published in Studies in Intelligence in 1989. In that article, the author (whose name is redacted) provides an account based upon information from a source (whose name is also redacted) that Syria - attempting to deflect attention from various scandals in the fall of 1986 - leaked information about the Iran initiative to Ash-Shiraa/Al-Shiraa. WP:BLOG applies to the Unredacted article (although Byrne appears to be an expert on this subject matter. [1]) and WP:PRIMARY likely applies to the Studies in Intelligence article. I don't see any other secondary coverage of this theory, so I'm posting it all this here for future reference. - Location ( talk) 17:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The article currently states:
The report in The New York Times article cited is based on information that was incomplete at the time. The inscribed bible was actually given by North to "the Relative" during the October 1986 trip to Frankfurt. [3] The report in the Los Angeles Times confirms that Reagan wrote October 3, 1986 in that Bible, and the depositions/testimony of various I-C figures confirm that it was the Frankfurt trip and not the Tehran trip. FWIW: Modern sources still get these details wrong (e.g. see May 2022 obituaries for McFarlane). - Location ( talk) 03:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
References
If i'm from another planet, which one are you from 'in your brain'? 2601:406:8402:15D0:35F5:F2F7:642E:EFBA ( talk) 03:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The article originally had a conviction section which read:
Zinn is wrong. Thomas Clines was indicted on Iran-Contra related tax evasion charges and served 16 months in prison. The whole section on Breeden's arrest seems to have been added just for the sake of putting in Zinn's wise-crack; I don't really see that it has any other relation to the article. Rgr09 ( talk) 06:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
References
Anyone else see this as a problem? This line in particular: 'Reagan was deeply committed to securing the release of the hostages; it was this compassion that motivated his support for the arms initiatives" - maybe this is what he said, or what people said, but no one can pretend to know his thoughts.
That, coupled with the frequent mention of "moderate" Iranians seems to create a clear slant. âPreceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.13.25 ( talk) 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this article tends to take a more critical stance toward the shredding of documents, or withholding of documents, than is fair. Covert operations are covert for a reason, and the idea of protecting sources of sensitive information is not just a cover-up: at least one Iranian contact disappeared in Iran shortly after many of the documents were made public. According to the New York Times, August 9, 1987, "the disclosures have prompted the intelligence services of some friendly nations to share less information with the United States." The article is implying from the fact that the NSC and CIA did not empty their file cabinets before Congress and the press that they were trying to hide incriminating evidence. On the contrary, the executive branch did hand over any, many documents, declassifying perhaps more than they should have, given the sensitive nature of much of the information, and the effects such revelations often have on the sources. Also, on the question of "moderate Iranians", this is confusing because while in fact those conducting the sales wanted to strengthen pro-Western Iranians, and billed their actions as such, it was not possible to support a faction, only the actual government, the whole regime. So it is understandable that this is a grey area to readers. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.233.184 ( talk) 22:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This has been brought to my attention by a editor who referenced this to justify a change in another article. The passage in this article is this:
However, as documented by a congressional investigation, the first Reagan-sponsored secret arms sales to Iran began in 1981 before any of the American hostages had been taken in Lebanon. This fact ruled out the "arms for hostages" explanation by which the Reagan administration sought to excuse its behavior.[5]
This is a problem on numerous levels:
1. That last sentence is like a editorial and not NPOV. It is drawing a conclusion.
2. Because the sales to Iran began before hostages were taken.....that doesn't mean it didn't eventually become a attempt at a arms for hostages swap. This is something Reagan himself eventually copped to.
3. The reference itself [5] is unsure who authorized this and for what purpose.....a key passage:
One former high-level Central Intelligence Agency official who saw reports of the Israeli arms sales to Iran in the early 1980's estimated that the total approached $2 billion each year. But he added, "The degree to which it was sanctioned I don't know."
The article also features denials by several Reagan admin officials that they authorized Israel to make this sale (of spare parts and ammo).
So.....essentially what we have here is some early sales to Iran for reasons that are unclear.....that could have opened the door to the idea of the arms for hostages in the minds of the RR admin. Ergo I think the statement This fact ruled out the "arms for hostages" explanation by which the Reagan administration sought to excuse its behavior. should be removed. This is drawing a conclusion that should be left up to the reader. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 18:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that there was a problem with POV. However, by the standard applied, this sentence is also an editorial: "Because the sales to Iran began before hostages were taken.....that doesn't mean it didn't eventually become a attempt at a arms for hostages swap. This is something Reagan himself eventually copped to." There is no reason to consider Reagan's alleged confession as honest, especially since he and others in his administration were caught lying about what they were doing, and since "arms for hostages" made what they did look better. Suggesting that what was necessarily a lie in 1981 might perhaps have become the truth later on is a strange argument to explain what in fact was the same policy before and after 1982. It amounts, in my view, to special pleading and looks like an apology. What is neither special pleading, nor an editorial, nor an apology is the simple observation that, if arms shipments to Iran began in 1981, this contradicts the "arms for hostages" official narrative. It is a simple logical fact anchored in the basic nature of chronology and causality. To point this out does not present any POV problems. I therefore gave a little more context on the New York Times investigation, quoting the Times, and pointing out that the NYT was dumbfounded, given the 1981 date of the first arms transfers, as to what the reason could have been for them.
Missing from the article was any mention of what was documented in 2016: that the Carter administration was already heavily involved in making Ayatollah Khomeini a success in Iran. This is quite important, and certainly to a section that has for title "background," as it could matter to an evaluation of Reagan's motives in Iran-Contra. Trying harder now to keep away from introducing POV, I did not speculate about that, but simply provided the context for readers to consider. Factual record straight ( talk) 17:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
The statement I quoted does not appear in the article, true. But it appears here as part of your argument that pointing out that a discrepancy between the chronological facts and the official explanation amounts to POV. It doesn't. Therefore, the article should point it out. It is entirely relevant to an article on Iran-Contra whether evidence surfaced contradicting the official explanations. The article is indeed about the Reagan administration scandal, and it begins with a section titled "background". The term "background" usually includes stuff that is relevant to understand the context and which immediately precedes the thing you are talking about. Jimmy Carter is the preceding president, and his pro-Khomeini policies occurred right before Reagan came to power. Since those policies are perfectly consistent with Reagan's policies, they are obviously part of the background to be considered. Particularly when it was shown that Reagan had reasons other than freeing hostages to send weapons to Iran (whatever they were). If anything is relevant in the background section to the Iran-Contra scandal, it is this continuity with Carter policy. 189.213.109.33 ( talk) 17:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Sorry. I meant to sign. Factual record straight ( talk) 17:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
My recollection was that while Carter was president the republicans had told the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election and then they would sell them arms. If true, that is worse than the contra sales, worse than anything Trump may have done. And if not true it should be refuted or discussed as it is a commonly held belief. 203.63.191.70 ( talk) 23:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)I've removed this line (He now appears on Fox News.) as it is in my opinion vague, does not warrant a mention on the lead, and uses a questionable sourcing style. If anyone wish to ever this to be reverted please discuss on this talk page. Many thanks- VickKiang ( talk) 08:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
In 2014, Malcolm Byrne published an article in Unredacted, the blog of the National Security Archive, that linked to a previously classified article published in Studies in Intelligence in 1989. In that article, the author (whose name is redacted) provides an account based upon information from a source (whose name is also redacted) that Syria - attempting to deflect attention from various scandals in the fall of 1986 - leaked information about the Iran initiative to Ash-Shiraa/Al-Shiraa. WP:BLOG applies to the Unredacted article (although Byrne appears to be an expert on this subject matter. [1]) and WP:PRIMARY likely applies to the Studies in Intelligence article. I don't see any other secondary coverage of this theory, so I'm posting it all this here for future reference. - Location ( talk) 17:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The article currently states:
The report in The New York Times article cited is based on information that was incomplete at the time. The inscribed bible was actually given by North to "the Relative" during the October 1986 trip to Frankfurt. [3] The report in the Los Angeles Times confirms that Reagan wrote October 3, 1986 in that Bible, and the depositions/testimony of various I-C figures confirm that it was the Frankfurt trip and not the Tehran trip. FWIW: Modern sources still get these details wrong (e.g. see May 2022 obituaries for McFarlane). - Location ( talk) 03:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
References
If i'm from another planet, which one are you from 'in your brain'? 2601:406:8402:15D0:35F5:F2F7:642E:EFBA ( talk) 03:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)