Talk:1980 October Surprise theory

message: 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)
thread_title:  Post RFC Discussion 

message: * 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: :October Surprise conspiracy theory →  – A recent RFC yielded a consensus that this article should be moved. As the closer said, "" 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 June 2023 

message: * 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  noted, per MOS:ALLEGED, alleged is appropriate when "". 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)
thread_title: !votes

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I didn't get the vote either. But I guess I'll add mine.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move redux:

message: * 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  noted, per MOS:ALLEGED, alleged is appropriate when "". 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)
thread_title: !votes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I didn't get the vote either. But I guess I'll add mine.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
thread_title:  All but settled? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  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.