Talk:1980 October Surprise theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

NPOV tag

• The term "conspiracy theory" in the article title is highly tendentious and should be presumed non-neutral absent a firm consensus in its favor among reliable and up-to-date sources, which by any reasonable standard, the recent set of New York Times articles reassessing the theory as plausible and corroborated by credible accounts should be more than enough to demonstrate is no longer the case. Arguments in favor of the term on this talk page have cited WP articles about conspiracy theories relating to 9/11 or the JFK assassination, neither of which have been treated with remotely comparable buy-in or plausibility by any equivalent bloc of credible mainstream sources or outlets -- for a slightly more comparable situation, one editor arguing in favor of the term cites WP's article about CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking, which doesn't appear to use the term “conspiracy theory” at all except in the quoted title of a single linked source in the references, let alone using it as an unqualified description in WP's ostensibly neutral editorial voice, let alone using it in the article title.
• The article's heavy and unqualified reliance on hostile sources from the late 1980s through early-mid 1990s (the brief period when the theory was being widely discussed and debated within DC) belies the subsequent trickle of more recent accounts in the years since, including from sources who have since reconsidered their own prior hostile assessments (such as the former lead House investigator Lee Hamilton, as cited in earlier talk sections) which seem self-evidently noteworthy and suggest the need for a broader reframing of this article's deliberate slant toward sources dismissive of the theory. Efforts to forestall such an editorial shift haven't challenged any of this directly, and largely seem to consist of either citing questionable procedural grounds as pretext to exclude mainstream sources and outlets that've taken the theory seriously, or else doing so without citing any grounds at all.
• Editors trying to hold the line on the article's current tendentious framing are speaking and editing in openly non-neutral ways -- e.g. a talk entry referring to "BS" being "shoveled" from sources and figures purporting to corroborate the theory; repeated edit reversions that restore (without explanation) a blatantly misleading passage in the introductory paragraphs that appears to deny the verified reality of the Reagan administration's illegal arms deals with Iran during the Iran-Contra affair; or another edit to remove a direct citation of a book by an alleged witness in favor of an openly hostile/contemptuous op-ed criticizing the book, under the headline "If it's October... then it's time for an Iranian conspiracy theory."

75.100.42.217 (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• If the article is going to be renamed, we should hold a WP:RM for that, since someone has objected. It would be useful, however, to collect a bunch of recent sources on the topic first - I'm in agreement that more recent sources generally take the basic outline of events here as disputed facts rather than treating it as a conspiracy theory, but we need to actually collect and use those sources, replacing older ones from before current information came out. The most important part of new information seems to be the recent NYT piece, so we should ideally only use sources after that. --Aquillion (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Recent sources:

• More infamous is the ‘October surprise’ theory. According to Gary Sick (Citation1991), the Reagan campaign struck a deal with Iranian officials, whereby Iran agreed to hand over the hostages under a Republican administration in exchange for a supply of arms and the promise of improved relations. While a congressional investigation found insufficient evidence to corroborate the claims, documents appearing to support elements of the allegations continue to surface (Eizenstat, Citation2020, pp. 828–829). Doesn't name it a conspiracy theory; notes that more evidence for the allegations have emerged over time.
• What happened next Mr. Barnes has largely kept secret for nearly 43 years. Mr. Connally, he said, took him to one Middle Eastern capital after another that summer, meeting with a host of regional leaders to deliver a blunt message to be passed to Iran: Don’t release the hostages before the election. Mr. Reagan will win and give you a better deal. Again, doesn't say it is proven but clearly treats it as more than a conspiracy theory.
• Which is why in July of 1980, Reagan ally and Texas political giant John Connally took a trip to the Middle East with a message for heads of state: Iran will get a better deal for the hostages with Reagan than with Carter, so it would be wise to wait until after the election to release them.
• Casey and Connally are no longer alive to comment on Barnes’s bombshell, but the Times confirmed Barnes accompanied Connally on a July 1980 trip to six countries in the Middle East, and spoke with four still-living people whom Barnes had previously shared the story with. The Times report stresses that there is no evidence Reagan was aware of the effort, or that Casey directed it, but Barnes’s admission nonetheless provides compelling evidence that Reagan operatives — or at the very least, Connally — did in fact conspire against Carter and U.S. foreign policy for political gain and may have prevented an earlier release for the hostages.

Most of the sources calling it a conspiracy theory are older and out-of-date (on a topic where the sources specifically note new evidence has emerged over time!) And, in particular, most WP:RS coverage treats Connally's revelations as vital, which throws any sources from before then into doubt. Moreover, calling something a conspiracy theory is a strongly-worded claim - we would need overwhelming unanimity among the sources to do that, which we clearly don't have. Therefore, we should avoid that wording in the title and article, and instead treat it as something where the facts are not fully known but where more and more evidence has emerged over time suggesting that something may have happened. --Aquillion (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Even the NY Times took issue with some aspects of Barnes's story. I've said before that I really wouldn't complain if the article was changed to something like "October Surprise Allegations".....but lets not act like this "confession" really proves anything. So far, just about all RS treatment of this is repeating the NY Times story. That doesn't throw out the fact this is still far from proven.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but there's a huge gap between "far from proven" and "is a conspiracy theory." Modern sources largely treat it as something plausible but uncertain, not as a conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Whatever you want to call it, I suggest a compromise in the RFC below.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you really stating that only material published after Peter Baker (journalist)'s report (published on March 23, 2023 - barely over one month ago) should be consider in what we name this article? Well, Baker himself called it the "October Surprise conspiracy theory"[1] as did William Inboden less than three weeks ago in his lengthy article that pointed out all of the problems in Barnes' claims.[2]

A few other comments: The first source you noted refers to Gary Sick and Stuart E. Eizenstat who worked together in the Carter administration, and were both early believers in the conspiracy theory. The source for the October Surprise allegations in Eizenstat's book is Sick. Sick's reports were investigated thoroughly by the Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations House October Surprise Task Force and they fell flat. Now that is not meant to discount the possibility that new material might be relevant, but the threshold to discount those investigations is high. The other three sources are reporting on the claims the Barnes recently made without any evidence to back them up. Many people have claimed to have had involvement in the assassination of JFK well after the Warren Commission issued their report and various newspapers have given them credence, but we don't change the gist of Assassination of John F. Kennedy based on that.

I will post an RfC for additional feedback. -Location (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to explain to you that WarOntheRocks, a blog, is obviously not a WP:RS. In any case, the threshold to call something a "conspiracy theory" in the article voice is extremely high - it isn't sufficient to show that some people call it that, you have to show that it is essentially universally considered one, ie. no reliable sources at all consider it plausible, or so few that their position can be completely discounted. Personally disagreeing with the conclusions of some of the sources, or saying that your personal opinion is that the house committee conclusions are more convincing, is not sufficient; you need to demonstrate that the sources that do not treat it as a conspiracy theory are essentially WP:FRINGE. You clearly haven't met that threshold here. --Aquillion (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Inboden is a subject matter expert. He is the executive director and William Powers, Jr. Chair of the Clements Center for National Security at the University of Texas at Austin, and War on the Rocks is part of the University of Texas at Austin's Texas National Security Board.

Unless you want to define "modern coverage" as sources that have come out over the past month, there are all sort of sources that have had time to look at all of the events in context with the passage of time: Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories in American History (2019) calls it a conspiracy theory [3], Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories (2013) calls it a conspiracy theory [4], The Mammoth Book of Conspiracies (2012) calls it a conspiracy theory [5], Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia (2003) calls it a conspiracy theory [6], Policy (2022) calls it a conspiracy theory [7], Washington Monthly (2021) calls it a conspiracy theory [8], The Washington Post (2020) calls it a conspiracy theory [9], Smithsonian (2016) calls it a conspiracy theory [10].

And three of the four articles you cited even refer to this as theory in the context of a conspiracy: Fawcett and Payne mention "the 'October surprise' theory", Baker who got the most hullabaloo started states "the original October surprise conspiracy theory", and Danner refers to "the most prominent theories"... where the header for the article even states "Conspiracy Theories"! -Location (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

So, first, I find some of your sourcing misleading, at best—I think you're too often conflating op-ed writers with sources. Most egregiously, "Washington Monthly" didn't call it a conspiracy theory. In an interview with two presidential biographers, one of them, Kai Bird, called it a conspiracy theory. (It's also worth pointing out that Bird appears to be calling it a conspiracy theory because it, inherently, involves a conspiracy, not because he think the theory is without merit—see that op-ed, in which he calls it a conspiracy theory but also concludes it happened.)

As to Baker, that quotation doesn't fit your argument. This article is not limited to just the "original" theories—hence, Baker's piece getting a section. (I'm also totally baffled by how Fawcett and Payne calling it a "theory" supports your contention that it's a conspiracy theory?

Meanwhile, plenty of sources—particularly the most recent ones—do not call it a conspiracy theory, or, if they do, refer to it formerly being considered a conspiracy theory. These aren't fringe sources—several are greenlit at WP:RSP. To be sure, there's continuing debate about the merits of the theory, but the proper place to explain that is in the article text, not by picking a side and including "conspiracy" in the article title. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

1) The Washington Monthly article states: "[Editor’s note: The October Surprise theory holds that Reagan campaign staffers conspired with Iran to delay the release of the American embassy hostages in order to damage Carter’s reelection chances.]" The editors of Washington Monthly are referring to a theory that involves a conspiracy (i.e. a conspiracy theory). Shortly before that, Kai Bird was quoted as saying: "I devoted a whole chapter to the October Surprise. A little cautiously, with some trepidation, because it’s a conspiracy theory and it’s complicated, but I was fascinated by the story, and you decided to give two or three paragraphs to it." Bird may have some questions about the merit, but even he flatly called it a conspiracy theory.

2) Baker was quoted in Texas Standard: "And we don’t know if there’s any kind of deal-making, you know, the original October surprise conspiracy theory, which has been investigated and to some extent debunked." Again, Baker may have some questions about the merit, but even he flatly called it a conspiracy theory.

3) Fawcett and Payne wrote: "More infamous is the ‘October surprise’ theory." The obvious context for this theory is that officials of the Reagan administration conspired with Iranian officials to delay the release of the hostages, so I don't understand why that would have you baffled.

4) There were two major bipartisan Congressional investigations of the October Surprise allegations that interviewed hundreds of people, and reviewed over 100,000 State Department files, over 5,000 CIA documents, and a few thousand pages of signals intelligence from the NSA. They came up empty. The nine or ten other sources I provided took all of that into account and decided to call the whole thing a conspiracy theory, however, you have a few sources that hang their suspicions of a "conspiracy fact" on one memo or the word of one former diplomat. No one is saying that Bird or Baker have gone bonkers, but to discount the weight of one in favor of the other sounds fringy to me. Our job as Wikipedians is to evaluate and weigh all of this, so I acknowledge that YMMV. -Location (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay let's just get this out of the way in one sentence: a theory that involves conspiring is not automatically referred to as a conspiracy theory because the term "conspiracy theory" carries, as we say in our article, Conspiracy theory, "a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence".--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The snippet you provided, which omits a lot of text in front of it, is cited to Jovan Byford, but it should be noted that even he does reject the use of the term. In Chapter 2, Byford write: "Although any explanation that suggests collusion between individuals is, in a literal sense, a 'conspiracy theory', in everyday language the term is used to signify a much narrower class of phenomena." Then: "The epithet 'conspiracy theory' tends to be reserved for conspiracy-based explanations which deal with large scale, dramatic social and political events...; for explanations that do not just describe or explain an alleged conspiracy, but also uncover it and in doing so expose some remarkable and hitherto unknown 'truth' about the world...; and for accounts that allege the existence of a plot with nefarious and threatening aims..." [The ellipses indicated snipped examples.] -Location (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

... Why do you think that what you just said supports your argument and not mine? And again, this is pretty standard Wikipedia practice, as I've shown by listing the types of articles that do include conspiracy theory in the titles and descriptions—every one I could find is treated as false by virtually every mainstream news organization. That's no longer the case here. That's all there is to it. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't understand your last comment, esp. "treated as false..." My point was that you seemed to be arguing against using the term "conspiracy theory" not only here but in general because the term carries "a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence". My point was that even if it does it is still OK to use the term. I think the weight of all that has been written on this topic is sufficient to describe this as a conspiracy theory, but I can accept that you disagree. -Location (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so you acknowledge that "conspiracy theory" carries a negative connotation.

And you acknowledge that a non-insignificant amount of reliable sources have recently stopped referring to this theory as a conspiracy theory, and several have explicitly stated the theory is true. But, considering "the weight of all that's been written", you think the term should still be used throughout the article.

Can you point to a single Wikipedia article that follows that logic? Because "Oh well most sources have described it as a conspiracy theory, and I agree with their evaluations, so therefore we'll adopt their term wholesale" strikes me as a pretty obvious NPOV issue.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

1) I acknowledge what Byford wrote... "conspiracy theory" is an epithet that "tends to be reserved for conspiracy-based explanations that deal with large scale, dramatic social and political events". Whether or not the term carries a negative connotation - or offends those who espouse those theories - is inconsequential for our purposes.

2) Re: "a non-insignificant amount of reliable sources have recently stopped referring to this theory as a conspiracy theory". I disagree with your premise. First, we do have various recent works that give in-depth coverage to conspiracy theories that call this topic a conspiracy theory. Secondly, reliable sources reporting what one person has claimed have not yet been evaluated in historical context (i.e. this is WP:RECENTISM). As I have pointed out on two other occasions here, even the person who "broke" the story about Ben Barnes' claims - Peter Baker - called it the "October Surprise conspiracy theory".[11]

3) It appears you are looking for an example of a topic described as a conspiracy theory that has reliable sources who do not consider it to be a conspiracy theory. Well, the first thing that comes to mind are the reports by and about Jefferson Morley in connection with the granddaddy of them all... the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Morley, a former editor and writer for The Washington Post, has suggested that the CIA withheld evidence about Oswald. I don't really want to clog up this talk page any further, but you can see that our article on George Joannides is built on a few of Morley's reports. Here is an example in Newsweek that nicely mirrors the tone of Baker's reports about Barnes. -Location (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Re: one—Whether or not the term carries a negative connotation ... is inconsequential for our purposes.. Nope, absolutely incorrect. WP:OR, WP:NPOV. Also: your comparison in number 3 is pretty weak ... you're taking comments from one "former editor and writer" of WaPo ... but, as people have shown, it's several mainstream organizations that have now changed their language w.r.t. the theory.

If you're struggling to understand why almost everyone in the below discussion is for taking conspiracy out of the title, that's as best as I can explain it to you. Sorry, mate.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, we have plenty of precedent for including "conspiracy theory" in titles when appropriate. Here are the first 25 that I found: 9/11 conspiracy theories, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, Chemtrail conspiracy theory, Climate change conspiracy theory, Clinton body count conspiracy theory (which was recently changed from simply Clinton Body Count), Conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal, Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, FEMA camps conspiracy theory, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, International Jewish conspiracy, List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, New World Order (conspiracy theory), Martin Luther King Jr. assassination conspiracy theories, Melania Trump replacement conspiracy theory, Moon landing conspiracy theories, Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories, Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories, Robert F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories, Spygate (conspiracy theory), Titanic conspiracy theories, UFO conspiracy theories, White genocide conspiracy theory. There is also precedent for not using "conspiracy theory" in the title even when the subject is about a conspiracy theory, so I am totally OK with changing the title even if it is not my preference. We could simply add cited text in the lede with something like: "The allegations/belief/theory that officials of the Reagan administration conspired with Iranian officials to delay the release of the hostages is consider by various sources/writers/historians to be a conspiracy theory." (Regarding Morley, you appeared to ask for a single example of a conspiracy theory that has "reliable sources" that do not specifically discuss the topic as a conspiracy theory. I'm willing to compile a list of reliable sources that discuss Morley's JFK-related claims without specifically stating "conspiracy theory", but then we should then continue this discussion on your talk page or mine.) -Location (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Addressed in my !vote below, thanks. I don't really have any interest in continuing this conversation—I think it's pretty clear the consensus is against you on this point, and I've said all I need to say. Thanks, --Jerome Frank Disciple 19:52, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Cheers! -Location (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

References

RfC about the article title

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

A few hours after the result of the 1980 US elections was announced, Iran released 66 US hostages. Many, many people found this timing rather suspicious, and it's alleged that the Reagan campaign somehow colluded with Iran to delay the announcement. These allegations aren't supported by a lot of evidence, but that's unsurprising given the nature of international diplomacy. At the moment, our article on these allegations is called the October Surprise conspiracy theory. That title might seem to make sense, because it is a theory about an alleged conspiracy. But Wikipedia uses the phrase "conspiracy theory" to mean implausible views, held by loons and cranks, that are widely dismissed by experts and academics. The allegations here are not in the same category. They are plausible and credible, if not evidenced, and subject matter experts take them seriously.

The community isn't of one mind about this, and various alternative titles are proposed. None of them attract enough support for me to say there's a consensus for any specific change of title, but the number of editors supporting the current title is surprisingly small. (To be fair to them, these editors do argue their case well.) So I find that there's consensus to change the title, but no consensus about what to change it to. This leaves me with nothing actionable.

I think that the way forward is for those advocate change to workshop a new title they can coalesce around, and then once they have a consensus alternative, they should begin the formal process to change the title using WP:RM.—S Marshall T/C 09:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Should this article be called "October Surprise conspiracy theory", "October Surprise (1980)", or something else? -Location (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• October Surprise Allegations, would be a good compromise.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• Prefer October Surprise (1980), but October Surprise Allegations would be acceptable. Oppose any wording with the term "conspiracy theory" in it in strongest possible terms - it is a clear violation of WP:POVTITLE; and modern coverage is not sufficiently one-sided to overcome that by passing WP:COMMONNAME. Most recent sourcing treats it as unproven but plausible allegations, not as a conspiracy theory. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• I prefer October Surprise Allegations.

--✠ Robertus Pius ✠ (Talk • Contribs) 21:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• 1980 October surprise theory That term (minus the year) was used in the semi-recent New York Times article and has been used by other reliable sources. Also has the bonus of allowing for a relatively easy transition—just take out "conspiracy". I do think the date should probably be included, as October Surprise theory sounds like it just as easily be an article on the theory of October Surprises.
  Our demonstrated practice reveals that there is an extremely high bar a subject must clear before the use of "conspiracy theory" in the article title will be used. I haven't conducted an exhaustive review, but it seems to me that, in terms of titles, the term is reserved for theories that are extremely fringe. See, for example: Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death, World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories, Clinton body count conspiracy theory. I genuinely can't think of any reliable sources take seriously the idea that the World Trade Center was destroyed by explosives. And, perhaps at one point, the same could be said regarding a potential agreement delaying the hostages' release. But, given the recent reporting, there's been an obvious shift. And it's not hard at all to find reliable sources that no longer consider this theory so fringe as to constitute a conspiracy theory. (See stories/sources in NYT, PBS, TheIntercept_, The Nation, Jacobin, just to list a few.)
  Final note: I would oppose "October Surprise (1980)" and, to a lesser degree, "October Surprise allegations". The problem with the former is that an October surprise is a thing. It's a news event that may influence the outcome of the election. Here, the article isn't about there being an October surprise, it's about an alleged effort to prevent an October surprise—i.e. the release of hostages (which may have bumped Carter's numbers). The problem with the latter is that, as MOS:ALLEGED acknowledges, we should be careful about using variations of the terms "alleged". "Theory" is a neutral term that simultaneously emphasizes that some reliable sources take the concept seriously and some do not accept it.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• While we're here I think we should probably clarify the context a little. There have been lots of October surprises in American politics and most of them have nothing to do with Reagan, Carter, or the Iranian government. I'd prefer 1980 October Surprise allegations or 1980 October Surprise theory or Iranian October Surprise [something]. Loki (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
• October Surprise conspiracy theory is supported by modern sources, but I would be equally comfortable with October Surprise conspiracy allegations or (to a lesser extent) October Surprise allegations. The Senate and House reports thoroughly debunked this persistent myth in the early 1990s and the only developments since then are a few other people who claimed knowledge of something without having any evidence to back it up. -Location (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• October Surprise (1980) October Surprise plot - It's a neutral title one would expect in an encyclopedia and doesn't perjudice the reader as would conspiracy theory allegations and variations thereof.
  Edit: As Jerrme Frank Disciple correctly pointed out, I wasn't aware of an ordinary US october surprise. To avoid the negative connotations of allegations and theory we could instead use the neutral term plot with the added benefit that something doesn't have to be true to be called that. It simply represents a sequence of events, aka a narrative, without implying it to be either fictional or true as would theory or allegations. 89.206.112.12 (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
• 1980 October surprise theory, alternatively 1980 October surprise allegations - "Conspiracy theory" has a very strong negative connotation and and while it doesn't imply that the theory is wrong it certainly implies it. (Is there a term for a rational and properly supported theory that a conspiracy exists where the conspiracy actually exists?) "October Surprise (1980)" or "1980 October surprise" implies that the October surprise actually happened. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• 1980 October surprise theory seems the best fit. We do generally want to meet a very high standard before calling anything a conspiracy theory in big bold letters up top. If there's dissension, we shouldn't put our thumb on the scale. Including the year for specificity would be a helpful move. XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• Keep original title - It was, and remains, a theory that there was a conspiracy to keep the U.S. hostages locked up until after the election. Conspiracy is central to the theory. To call it something else is simply inaccurate. Rgr09 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  But that's not really how we treat "conspiracy theory" in titles or in prose. For example, conspiracy is very (very) common criminal charge. But, in describing such a charge on Wikipedia, we would never say "The prosecution's charge against John Smith was based on a conspiracy theory connecting him to ...."--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with "conspiracy theory" is that it implies an irrational, non-evidence based belief. I don't think there is a term for a rational theory that a conspiracy exists or even for a proven theory that a conspiracy exists. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

• Either October Surprise allegations (1980) or 1980 October Surprise allegations seems like the best fit for several reasons: (1) the generic term "October surprise" describes the Carter administration's attempted pre-election hostage deal rather than the Reagan campaign's alleged plot to prevent it, and it's not unheard of to see the generic term in reference to 1980 specifically, so a reasonable distinction might be to regard "October Surprise" as a WP:COMMONNAME for the alleged plot, the use it as a proper adjective modifying a common noun like "theory" or "allegations"; (2) there are allegations about October-surprise-related plots in presidential elections other than 1980 (notably in this context, when Richard Nixon sabotaged LBJ's Vietnam peace negotiations to kneecap Humphrey in 1968) so including the election year seems consistent with WP:QUALIFIER; (3) as mentioned earlier, "allegations" fits neatly with the already-existing wording of WP:NDESC, which seems like a reasonable tiebreaker when there's already more than enough controversy as is. 75.100.42.217 (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
• 1980 Surprise allegations - good compromise of basic components. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
• Keep current wording The only new evidence warranting the change is Barnes allegation. While the trip did occur there are still questionable aspects. Historian Siva Vaidhyanathan who from what I can tell is not an ardent conservative/Republican expressed his doubts here [12]. October Surprise Allegations might work since some focus on alleging that either Casey or Reagan himself ordered this, while more recently some claim it was Connolly. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  I once sat in a lecture taught by Vaidhyanathan—really cool guy. That said, I do want to clarify: It's not the new evidence that warrants the title change. It's the change in treatment by reliable sources (not to say that change is universal, but there is an obvious split).--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

  That’s pretty cool! Thanks for clarifying your position. My hesitation to change is I would prefer to see if the change occurs over time as opposed to it being done in the immediate aftermath of the Barnes article. Also Jacobin, The Nation, and the Intercept are all pretty strongly left-wing and would be more inclined to declare the allegations true when it is still up in the air at best. Cheers! 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• Just October Surprise (1980) - that's how it's known.Jack Upland (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
• 1980 October surprise theory or October Surprise (1980) or October Surprise Allegations, per Random Person and Xoreaster. The words conspiracy theory no longer simply mean a theory about a conspiracy, so it's better to not take sides and use a blander name. Alaexis_¿question? 12:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• 1980 October surprise theory seems best to me, particularly because in the end, there definitely was no October surprise in 1980 (so the title October Surprise (1980) seems less suitable to me). KarlFrei (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• October Surprise conspiracy theory (current name) seems pretty good, as it tells the readers what this is (a conspiracy theory). Could consider adding 1980 somewhere there as well. I strongly oppose removing the word 'conspiracy' as then this becomes a meaningless title. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose move. Agree with Piotrus. It is, quite literally, an unproven theory that alleges a conspiracy, so the title is fully justified under WP:FRINGE regardless of what reliable sources name it. But the sourcing happens to be solid too! See:

• Fee & Webb (2019)'s Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories in American History (pp. 470-474), written by historians, which calls it "The 1980 October surprise conspiracy theory", and describes it as "[maybe] the most infamous" in "American conspiratorial circles". That chapter also says the NYT "vaulted [it] into the American mainstream with an op-ed piece", where previously it had been on the LaRouche fringe. So we have reason to treat the new NYT article with a grain of salt.
• Listed in Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From, written by a historian
• Writing for GWU's HNN, a historian describes it as "successfully discredited", with proponents (including Sick) being caught in copious lies
• Same points as the previous source are echoed by a conspiracy theory expert in the academically-published Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1.
• The Smithsonian also calls it "The October Surprise Conspiracy Theory".
• Another academically-published book mentions it in passing, in scare quotes: Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture (p. 186)

When academic sources describe it as a conspiracy theory, and when it's listed in encyclopedias of conspiracy theories, WP:FRINGE requires us to describe it the same way. DFlhb (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a Times op-ed from ... how many years ago? ... means that we should treat a 2023 Times news article as suspect. Unless you're suggesting a conspiracy theory? ;)

I want to reiterate that the term "conspiracy theory" is pejorative—it's not just a "theory involving a conspiracy". The question, then, is not whether some reliable sources use the term conspiracy theory. Rather, the question is whether the opinion that it was not a conspiracy theory is so fringe that Wikipedia wouldn't be taking a side by using the term "conspiracy theory" in its own voice.

To be clear, I don't doubt that it was, previously, correct to use the term conspiracy theory—there was an overwhelming consensus among reliable sources that it was a conspiracy theory. But this entire discussion was prompted by a March 2023 article in the New York Times, which led several mainstream sources to not use the term "conspiracy theory". The question is whether, in light of the fact that multiple reliable sources are taking the theory seriously and not using the term conspiracy theory, does the use of a pejorative term yield an NPOV issue. I don't see how sources that predate the NYT article can speak to that. And yet your sources are from, in order, 2019, 1997, 2004, 2003, 2016, and 1999.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Seems like new RS is making certain words......antiquated? DN (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Plan

I'm going to request this discussion is closed at WP:CR. It was never thoroughly popular, and the last contribution was 4 days ago (before that, 8 days ago).--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I was going to seek a close at CR, but I noticed that this was never posted to a noticeboard. As such, I'm posting it to WP:NPOVN, and I figure, with luck, we might get a few contributions before the 30-day period is up.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.