Jump to content

Talk:1980 October Surprise theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post RFC Discussion

[edit]

Now that there is a consensus to move the page, we should discuss alternatives. Above, the following were presented:

  • October Surprise Allegations (with 1980 before or after)
  • October Surprise (1980)
  • 1980 October surprise theory
  • October Surprise plot

--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Editors involved above: @Rja13ww33, Aquillion, Robertus Pius, LokiTheLiar, Location, Random person no 362478479, XOR'easter, Rgr09, Fad Ariff, 3Kingdoms, Jack Upland, Alaexis, KarlFrei, Piotrus, DFlhb, and Darknipples:[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • 1980 October surprise theory. I adopt my reasoning above. 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 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 14:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When considering the titles the sources use, I draw the community's attention to WP:OUROWNWORDS.—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's some tension between applying WP:OUROWNWORDS to article titles and WP:COMMONNAME, but fair point! I would still say that 1980 October surprise theory doesn't have the defects that the other articles do--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support "theory" or "allegations", while there is not enough evidence to evidence the allegations I think there may be POV issues labeling it a conspiracy theory. "Plot" makes it sound definitely real which is its own issue (t · c) buidhe 17:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still prefer "allegations" out of all the options. I believe that the most relevant line in MOS:ALLEGED is alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined. That's exactly the situation here. Any other title is attempting to convey the same situation, but with less clear language. Loki (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a decent point! I usually associate alleged with the example provided—people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial, and I still think theory also captures the undetermined aspect, but I'm less opposed to allegations than I was.--Jerome Frank Disciple 11:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1980 October surprise allegations/theory are both good. No preference between them for now. DFlhb (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1980 October surprise theory. "1980 October surprise allegations" would also be fine. I am opposed to "October surprise" and "October surprise plot" because both imply that something actually happened. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1980 October surprise allegations; pr Loki, mostly; people are charged, but the jury is still out. 1980 October surprise could also be acceptable; that we don't have theory/allegations doesn't neccessarely imply that it did happen; just like the Extraterrestrial life-article doesn't neccessarely imply that there actually is any. Huldra (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. October Surprise Allegations is what I proposed above....and I'm sticking with it. Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • October Surprise (1980): That's what it's called, no need to embroider it.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 June 2023

[edit]
Withdrawn. No support (aside for that of the nominator) for move to "allegations"; one new participant said they would prefer theory, which the nominator would also prefer. No clear consensus on theory / allegations in the prior discussion--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

October Surprise conspiracy theory → 1980 October surprise allegations – A recent RFC yielded a consensus that this article should be moved. As the closer said, "there's consensus to change the title, but no consensus about what to change it to." In a post-rfc discussion, users were generally split between two options: 1980 October surprise allegations and 1980 October surprise theory. Most users supported both, but only one user opposed "allegations", and two users opposed "theory". Jerome Frank Disciple 19:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

!votes

[edit]
  • Support: First, as the last RFC noted, there is a consensus to move the page, largely because "conspiracy theory" is pejorative and it is not clear that all reliable sources treat the theory as a conspiracy theory. Second, "theory" is the better choice over "allegations". As @LokiTheLiar: noted, per MOS:ALLEGED, alleged is appropriate when "wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". Theory, on the other hand, is an umbrella term. And, rightly or wrongly, a few of the secondary sources we've previously gone over do treat the "allegations" as having been established/determined. Additionally, "alleged" is more often used in a criminal context (i.e. "prosecutors alleged"), which is inappropriate here. And I haven't heard any explanation as to why "theory" would be deficient. But I support allegations over the current name, and the discussion as to what the name should be has died down.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is literally a conspiracy theory, which is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. What am I missing? Srnec (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Recent articles in March from certain RS including the NYT came out, essentially adding weight to the "allegation" that Reagan's administration did prolong the crisis for political gain. As I understand it, the Carter admin was also trying to use this crisis to help in his reelection, which IMO is also a bit gross. This cite is from NYmag and isn't pay-walled, if you want to take a look. There are better sources I'm sure, but I'll let you decide if you want to go down the rabbit hole. DN (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to relitigate whether or not conspiracy theory should be in the title, feel free, but the closing statement in the RFC above covers everything you just said, so I would at least suggest reading it first.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could someone explain why we don't just refer to it as "October Surprise (1980)"? I feel like we should avoid adding anything to the title. Let the readers make up their own minds. That seems like the most neutral course of action.DN (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But it wasn't an October surprise, was it? It was the negation of a potential October surprise (if it's true). The 'event' took place on inauguration day. Srnec (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it's the origin of the term "October surprise", but I agree that since that term has taken on its own meaning and is no longer exclusively or even primarily associated with this event, we should add something to it here. Loki (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is based on WP:COMMONNAME, and which many sources have referred to it as a "conspiracy theory". I'm not confident adding "allegation" or removing the word "conspiracy" from "conspiracy theory" do much to rectify that, if that is the point of this. I feel that this new RS is essentially another claim, so "allegation" may be more accurate, it's just that my knee-jerk reaction is to avoid anything that may be perceived as editorializing by Wiki. However I am more interested in hearing what others have to say on this before I vote. DN (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "theory" alone doesn't have the neutrality problems that conspiracy theory has, as shown by other Wikipedia articles with theory in the title. I also agree with Loki that the fact that an October Surprise is (today) something, and this theory posits that an October Surprise was prevented (not that one occurred), October Surprise (1980) wouldn't be a great option.--Jerome Frank Disciple 01:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jerome Frank Disciple Is it just the placement or the parenthesis perhaps? I would also prefer "1980 October surprise" over adding words that suggest an interpretation that only certain RS hold over other RS. Either way, I am grateful to see all of these issues being addressed. DN (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure it's parentheses: If I say the 1969 moon landing, you think "a moon landing that occurred in 1969" And that'd be Apollo 11. But I wouldn't describe Apollo 13 as "the 1970 moon landing" or "moon landing (1970)" ... because no moon landing happened.
    Similarly, the point of this theory is that an October Surprise was prevented. It didn't occur. As such, I think the "1980 October Surprise" wouldn't work as a title.--Jerome Frank Disciple 03:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jerome Frank Disciple I would agree that using "theory" would, in theory, help avoid/mitigate the typical wiki lawyering from casual users, not that many are even that familiar with the Carter/Reagan years...Fu**imold... DN (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
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.

Requested move redux:

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to 1980 October Surprise theory. In appraising this discussion, I reviewed not just this RM itself, but also the sections Post RFC Discussion and Requested move 14 June 2023, which were effectively part of the same overall conversation. I read through the prior RfC as well, though discussion in that RfC largely pertained to the usage of the term "conspiracy theory" in this article's title, and thus it has less relevance to the specific questions under dispute here.

One of the main complicating factors in evaluating this discussion is that many of the participants expressed comparable levels of support for either title. However, some arguments were still made to support one proposed title above the other. It was noted that MOS:ALLEGED seems to prefer "allegations", but that "theory" is a broader term that captures the same idea; participants disputed whether adopting that broader term would be an improvement in neutrality, or a worsening of clarity. The question of WP:COMMONNAME was also somewhat fraught. In the original RfC, some sources were leveled to demonstrate usage of "theory"; meanwhile, it was claimed in this RM that "allegations" was more common in the academic literature, but no evidence was supplied to verify that claim. Honestly, I don't think there's a consensus for either specific title; however, the previous consensus to move away from "conspiracy theory" has showed no signs of changing, which leaves me in the position of needing to make a WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE close. Within this framework, I think "1980 October surprise theory" has the marginally stronger case, due to the sources provided in its support. However, if anyone has new arguments that they feel were not raised in this discussion, they may feel free to open a new RM at any time.

Finally, I wish to devote a bit of space to alternate titles that came up during the overarching discussion. At various points, people suggested just paring down the title to October Surprise (1980) or similar formulations, but these proposals largely failed to pick up traction due to the fact that no such surprise actually occurred. Additionally, some recent participants in the discussion suggested descriptive titles such as 1980 Iran hostage deal allegations that omit the term "October surprise" entirely, arguing that the term "October surprise" is not sufficiently WP:RECOGNIZABLE. While this view has attracted a few supporters recently, the fact that it went unmentioned for most of the two months of active discussion suggests to me that it's not a sufficiently widespread view to have consensus at this point. Again, as this is a WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE close, supporters of a descriptive title may launch a new RM at any time if they feel that the topic needs more focused consideration. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC is meant to consider two move options: October Surprise conspiracy theory → 1980 October surprise theory or → 1980 October surprise allegations – A recent RFC yielded a consensus that this article should be moved. As the closer said, "there's consensus to change the title, but no consensus about what to change it to." In a post-rfc discussion, users were generally split between two options: 1980 October surprise allegations and 1980 October surprise theory. Because editors seem evenly split on preferring allegations/theory (most editors say they support either), I've started an RFC to get broader community input--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

!votes

[edit]
  • Support theory: First, as the last RFC noted, there is a consensus to move the page, largely because "conspiracy theory" is pejorative and it is not clear that all reliable sources treat the theory as a conspiracy theory. Second, "theory" is the better choice over "allegations": To start, "1980 October Surprise theory" is used by other sources (as I showed above), making it the more WP:COMMONNAME. That should be enough on its own. Still, to respond to the support for allegations: as @LokiTheLiar: noted, per MOS:ALLEGED, alleged is appropriate when "wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". But theory is an umbrella term that captures "allegation". And, rightly or wrongly, a few of the secondary sources we've previously gone over do treat the "allegations" as having been established/determined. Additionally, "alleged" is more often used in a criminal context (i.e. "prosecutors alleged"), which is inappropriate here. And I haven't heard any explanation as to why "theory" would be deficient. But I support allegations over the current name, and the discussion as to what the name should be has died down--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but support move to allegations Sorry for not !voting above, but like I've explained above I think 1980 October Surprise Allegations is a clearly superior title. Loki (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to allegations.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "theory" I think it's a fine neutral description. Also, I would say that in 1980 "allegations" would have been the obvious choice, but by now it's more a theory. However, I have no objections to "allegations". As a third option I propose flipping a coin lest we end up with yet another RFC. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I weekly support adding 1980 to the title. I have no strong feelins on "Conspiracy theory" vs "allegations", a quick query on GS suggests both terms are used in academic literature. The latter seems more common, but sounds weirder to me given wiki naming conventions so... abstain on that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support allegations but theory is also acceptable. KarlFrei (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between these, I support move to allegations. To my ear, "theory" makes it sound more like punditry about the concept of a late-campaign announcement, whereas "allegations" better gets across the idea that this is a specific accusation of wrongdoing. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support anything. Flip a coin if necessary. SilverLocust (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "theory" with 1980 (Summoned by bot) if no better title can be found, but it fails the 'recognisability' test to anyone not already very up-to-speed on US pundit terminology. As I lived through it, I was aware of the intense humiliation heaped onto Carter by the delays in the hostage release until minutes after his presidency had finished, but I would never have guessed that this article was connected to those occurences from the title. When 'botted' here, I thought 'October Surprise' might be some kind of chocolate treat. Some suggestions below are more recognisable. Pincrete (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Honestly, I'd like to request that you withdraw your withdrawal above. That !vote was not up for nearly enough time to come to any real conclusions. Loki (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's confusing me what the previous vote was even about. It seems like it might have also been to move to "theory"? But it was edited after the fact? Loki (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing now! I did an official withdrawal after the short-hand was just changed. There were only 3 votes after 6 days, but, also: there's no actual objective reason to preference theory or allegations: After DN's comments in the withdrawn RFC, the exact same number of users seem to have supported both (with the vast majority supporting either and small few supporting just allegations or just theory). I wish I could do an RM for both, but unfortunately that's not doable. I'm going to change the intro of this RFC to encourage people to say their selection.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get the vote either. But I guess I'll add mine.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

All but settled?

[edit]

What is the point of using the New Republic article in the Ben Barnes section? The piece is so irresponsible (arguably dishonest) with its facts and conclusions that it's basically worthless as a source of commentary. 2600:8801:710D:EA00:FCC5:B928:3B61:EF96 (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the entry for August 12, 1980 in the "Chronology" the pertinence of the statement that Cyrus Hashimi received a $7 million commission for arms deliveries is unclear as the statement does not say who paid or authorized the commission.

[edit]

Cyrus Hashimi purchases a Greek ship and commences arms deliveries valued at $150 million from the Israeli port of Eilat to Bandar Abbas. According to CIA sources, Hashimi receives a $7 million commission. [30][32]: 205–6  Wumhenry1 (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Endorses Theory

[edit]

An editor recently tried to add this [7] to the article saying it was a endorsement by President Carter of this theory. It may be RS, but this is Gary Sick trying to speak for Carter (who is in hospice care)....and I don't think that is sufficient. Furthermore, despite Sick's claims....there is a real question if Carter endorses them. In Jimmy Carter's 'White House Diary' (on p.480), he says (in a annotation written in 2004) "Subsequently there were news reports and books written about the alleged efforts by Reagan supporters to induce the Iranians to hold the hostages until after the election. The most thorough analysis of this question was 'October Surprise', written by Gary Sick in 1991. Gary is a retired navy captain who served on the National Security Council staffs under President Ford, me, and Reagan. I prefer to let the reader decide how much credence to give his claims." Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Carter may have said something different at another point.....and if that is in RS, so be it, we should add it. But Sick's attributed statements don't qualify (IMO).Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/CSPAN2_20241002_053200_Kai_Bird_The_Outlier_-_The_Unfinished_Presidency_of_Jimmy_Carter From a recent CSPAN interview with a Carter biographer who's been vocally supportive of the theory (and, unrelatedly, whose biography of Oppenheimer was the primary source for the Nolan movie): "I asked him about the October Surprise and he very diplomatically deferred, saying that he had no opinion about it, but he was clearly aware of the allegations and curious about what I would find."
As much as it might seem like a reasonable bet that Carter privately believes in the theory, it also seems pretty clear that at least when speaking on the record, the position he's staked out would best be described as firmly agnostic. 137.104.115.74 (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the edit reversion --
  1. What exactly is your neutral editorial reason for finding the Intercept piece to be so unacceptable here? WP's list describes The Intercept as "generally reliable for news" and certainly doesn't preclude citing it on issues of fact, which is basically what the piece is, an aggregation of on-the-record statements and information. Obviously it's presented from an opinionated perspective sympathetic toward the theory, but this article already refers to plenty of other opinionated and non-consensus sources on both sides of the aisle (which seems pretty normal, especially for an article on contested/inconclusive subject matter!) so it's hard to see why there should be a problem with this one in particular.
  2. Carter probably shouldn't be described as endorsing the theory full stop, but since he's both a highly authoritative public figure as well as the primary target of the (alleged) conspiracy in question, his repeated refusal to take a public position either for *or against* the theory is itself noteworthy and should definitely be mentioned.
  3. Those other questions aside, it seems highly tendentious to cling to a wording for the front matter of this article where a description of the early 1990s investigations is followed by a mere list of people who dispute their conclusiveness. The emergence of new evidence and testimony supporting the theory is objectively significant, especially when some of the mainstream/authoritative sources cited in this article (e.g. the New York Times, lead Congressional investigator Lee Hamilton) have themselves directly cited these developments in reassessing the conclusiveness of their earlier rejections. Seeking to ensure no mention of this in the front matter (or even the entire article) seems like a biased and non-neutral editorial stance, very much in line with the partisan editorial viewpoints that were overruled in the earlier fracas re: the term "conspiracy theory".
135.134.110.164 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1: The Intercept is described (on our RS list) as "a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed". To use this as foundational source to say "significant developments and revelations have unearthed new evidence that those earlier investigations never had access to" is improper.
  2. 2: I don't have anything against mentioning the fact Carter hasn't taken a position publicly on this.
  3. 3: The people named in the article (and the Intercept article), are almost entirely people who made these allegations prior to 1992. How could anyone say there is some sort of new revelation here when these people were interviewed/had their stories examined by the Congressional committees investigating this? The most notable exception being Ben Barnes. To which the NY Times noted the fact that confirming his account was difficult. (Not to mention the fact John Connally's son denied it.) So in short: it is a dubious proposition (at best) to use what has been discussed as a basis to say there have been some big developments/revelations on this since the Congressional inquiry.
Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1980_October_Surprise_theory&oldid=1254690625"