This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ummm, The addition of fictional sleeper agents w/ sf examples is I trust well meant, but... The definition isn't different as implied and certainly isn't as suggested (post capture torture = sleeper agent). There are certainly sf sleeper agents which better fit the definition, and there are numerous ones in other fiction. Along the lines suggested the Manchurian Candidate is one, and there was a Donald Pleasance episode in the original Outer Limits which employed the device (multiple agents activated by phone calls after years...), the Romulan agent on the station in Trouble w/ Tribbles is probably a better example from Star Trek. And there are probably better examples from actual history than those here.
I would suggest that added category would be better served with other than the current examples. I suggest they be removed. Thoughts, comments, reactions? The alternative definition is certainly inapposite. ww 18:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A google search turned up the following reference regarding Otto Kuhn as a sleeper agent: http://www.trivia-library.com/a/pearl-harbor-and-the-japanese-spy-family-part-1.htm however, I am unsure how to cite this in the main article. -- TravisM 08:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
As has been established many times on here for a long time, articles need to resist just being pointless lists of instances in films. That's what TVTropes is for, not Wikipedia. The only really notable sleeper agent in my mind is the Manchurian Candidate, which practically launched the genre of the unwitting sleeper. Any other additions need to be seriously considered as to whether they were extremely influential or not. Listing every time a plot twist involves a double-agent is unencyclopedic. -- Mr.98 ( talk) 14:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The US swapped the prisoners with Russia. They were formally recognized as spies. Why is this section of the article so skeptically worded?
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ummm, The addition of fictional sleeper agents w/ sf examples is I trust well meant, but... The definition isn't different as implied and certainly isn't as suggested (post capture torture = sleeper agent). There are certainly sf sleeper agents which better fit the definition, and there are numerous ones in other fiction. Along the lines suggested the Manchurian Candidate is one, and there was a Donald Pleasance episode in the original Outer Limits which employed the device (multiple agents activated by phone calls after years...), the Romulan agent on the station in Trouble w/ Tribbles is probably a better example from Star Trek. And there are probably better examples from actual history than those here.
I would suggest that added category would be better served with other than the current examples. I suggest they be removed. Thoughts, comments, reactions? The alternative definition is certainly inapposite. ww 18:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A google search turned up the following reference regarding Otto Kuhn as a sleeper agent: http://www.trivia-library.com/a/pearl-harbor-and-the-japanese-spy-family-part-1.htm however, I am unsure how to cite this in the main article. -- TravisM 08:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
As has been established many times on here for a long time, articles need to resist just being pointless lists of instances in films. That's what TVTropes is for, not Wikipedia. The only really notable sleeper agent in my mind is the Manchurian Candidate, which practically launched the genre of the unwitting sleeper. Any other additions need to be seriously considered as to whether they were extremely influential or not. Listing every time a plot twist involves a double-agent is unencyclopedic. -- Mr.98 ( talk) 14:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The US swapped the prisoners with Russia. They were formally recognized as spies. Why is this section of the article so skeptically worded?