Ben Barnes

The New York Times reported new allegations that should be included in this article. Can someone more familiar with the history incorporate them? https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html 2600:4041:54C7:2600:A8D7:D030:ACBC:6787 (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i made a new section for what's detailed here - and am currently editing it - but if there are other editors that are more comfortable or feel my summary of the reporting is inadequate - please feel free to make any and all changes Aristogeiton96 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2600:4041:54C7:2600:A8D7:D030:ACBC:6787 does this need information merit a title change from "conspiracy theory" to "plot"? Jaydenwithay (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would posit that it absolutely does - the use of "conspiracy theory" after the title is far too heavy handed, and is out of step with other theorized historical events Aristogeiton96 (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards wait. Since the Times also says that all they have is Barnes' words and proof that that he was there for the meetings.3Kingdoms (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that “conspiracy theory” is wrong and page should be moved.
I like simple and non-pov titles. Maybe “October Surprise (1980)” to distinguish from more general usage of the term?
I am open to considering “plot” as suggested above but “conspiracy theory” needs to be out of the article name. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We include "conspiracy theory" in other unproven allegations (like 9/11, JFK, etc). This is still in that category.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second the suggestion to move the page title to "October Surprise (1980)". The lede paragraph will provide more context. (Sk5893 (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Wow. It's amazing the bandwidth that has been given to Ben Barnes in this article when Richard J. Brenneke is barely touched upon and Oswald LeWinter isn't even mentioned. Prime example of WP:RECENTISM. I suggest perusing the joint report of the October Surprise Task Force. The chapter regarding the evolution of the allegations is one good place to start, or the section regarding people who claimed to have knowledge of the Paris meetings is another. In this context, Barnes is a footnote - 30 years late to the party - of a long line of people who have made shit up. -Location (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW: Siva Vaidhyanathan tweeted his take on this hullabaloo HERE. -Location (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article like everything relating to Reagan is very likely biased by the Reagan Legacy pr Project. Please fix!!! 2601:646:4101:EC50:CFA:343:4448:A268 (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We await your suggestions with bated breath. -Location (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality concerns re: "conspiracy theory," misleading underemphasis on Iran-Contra

It's good to see the term "conspiracy theory" excised from this article's title, but the repeated and unqualified invocation of the term throughout the article text still seems incompatible with a neutral point of view. What's more, since the entire article until recently has presumably been written/edited to the same standards by which couching it as a "conspiracy theory" seemed like a good idea in the first place, it seems worth reassessing the article text and structure more broadly from a neutrality-minded perspective as well.

An example that jumps out at me right off the bat: the intro matter refers to the allegation that the Reagan administration "rewarded Iran for its participation in the plot by supplying Iran with weapons" and then cites Congressional findings that "credible evidence supporting the allegation was absent or insufficient." While the article does mention the Iran-Contra affair much further down, the intro matter comes across as a blanket denial of the claim that the Reagan administration supplied Iran with weapons, when of course these arms deals did happen, and the disputed part is to what extent it was a direct quid pro quo for Iran refusing to release the embassy hostages until the end of Carter's presidency. This is especially relevant since one of the figures most closely associated with promoting the October Surprise theory was the late investigative journalist Robert Parry, whose investigation of the theory (including as lead reporter for the Frontline series mentioned in the article) was a direct outgrowth of his prior work investigating the Iran-Contra story itself.

In other words, the intro matter oversimplifies what should be a more nuanced denial -- Iran-Contra happened, but it wasn't necessarily a direct reward to Iran for helping Reagan become president -- into a misleadingly broad-brush denial that makes both the October Surprise and Parry seem far less credible than they should. (Even when the article does get around to Iran-Contra, it's framed in the context of journalists who deny the October Surprise expressing irritation at the inconvenient truth of Iran-Contra for making the October Surprise seem more believable, a framing that seems questionably neutral in its own right.) And in the context of reconsidering the "conspiracy theory" framing more broadly, it's ironically telling that the opening paragraphs could easily mislead a naive reader into dismissing one of the most notoriously well-documented actual conspiracies in recent American history. 75.100.42.217 (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, “conspiracy theory” is back in the title. It desperately needs to be excised from this article. Labelling this as a conspiracy theory is incredibly misleading, I have no clue why someone re-added it. Busdurrr (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I restored it because I did not see a consensus for the change. An RFC seems needed for agreeing to a change.3Kingdoms (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles about allegations regarding historical events call them CTs as well. (I.e. [1] & [2].) So it is not without precedent. I can see arguments both pro & con. Perhaps a good middle ground is going with the name "October Surprise Allegations (1980)"?Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking precisely the same thing regarding the name. Clearly there’s some motivated editing here but the point is quite right that at this level of reporting the term “conspiracy theory” appears to be out of norm. More importantly, I’ve perused the new reporting and in light of it I think it is imperative that the article distinguish
a) the purposeful request or messaging of the Iranians, by Americans sympathetic to Reagan, to withhold cooperation with the US gov
and
b) the direction or foreknowledge of such requests/messages by the Reagan campaign or higher up figures within it
because without this distinction this discussion will keep going in circles ☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is important make the distinction between the two as you note. The only thing for me is that even then all we really have is Barnes's claim and the proof he was there. Is that enough to say definitively that Connolly did do that? Maybe, but I am not sure. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should go with what the source says. And even the NYTs story says "Confirming Mr. Barnes's account is problematic". So what we have is still just allegations. Incidentally, I've thought about adding a source or two on how the trip was covered at the time. Far from being some sort of clandestine meeting(s), it was noted in numerous sources. But before I added anything like that, I was waiting to see if anyone associated with Connally could shed some light on this. (I think his kids are still around but Nellie is gone.) This is pure speculation on my part but, if Connally wasn't doing what he has now been accused of....there is a very real chance he was mending fences in the Middle East (especially with Israel, and that was one of his stops). The year before he had given a speech endorsing a Palestinian state and calling on Israel to withdraw from areas taken in '67. Since he wanted to be Secretary of State under Reagan, maybe he was testing the waters to see what the reception would be from Israel (since Reagan didn't agree with that POV and needless to say Israel didn't either). It became a moot point as he was not offered the position. Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I agree with Rja13ww33 that this a conspiracy theory and should be labeled as such. Secondly, it is the reality of the Iran-Contra scandal that gave rise to the fantasy of the October Surprise conspiracy theory (and other things like the alleged CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking). The "Origins" section makes this clear, but I am opening to summarizing this in the intro if someone has a suggestion for adding/changing the text. -Location (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Backes

The article currently states:

Banker Ernest Backes from Clearstream (Luxembourg) claimed he was in charge of the transfer of $7 million from Chase Manhattan Bank and Citibank, January 16, 1980, to pay for the liberation of the hostages. He gave copies of the files to the French National Assembly.[1]

The article about Backes in the French Wikipedia states that a) Revelation$ is controversial and b) "le tribunal correctionnel devant lequel Ernest Backes devait comparaître a considéré qu'il avait propagé des allégations fausses sur Clearstream" (i.e. "the correctional court before which Ernest Backes was to appear considered that he had propagated false allegations about Clearstream"). We clearly need reliable secondary sources discussing Backes' claims, particularly when they are this contentious. Perhaps someone fluent in French can find these sources. I am removing this per WP:REDFLAG. -Location (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ See Denis Robert and Ernest Backes, Revelation$, Les Arènes publishing, 2001

Similar allegations regarding French hostages

For future reference, in 1987 there were reports - including statements by Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani - that claimed representatives of Jacques Chirac asked the Iranians to hold French hostages in Lebanon until after the March 1986 French legislative election. Chirac denied the allegation.[3] Rafsanjani and Ali Akbar Velayati later said that the French government agreed to pardon Anis al-Naqqash ("Naccache") in exchange for the remaining French hostages in Lebanon. François Mitterrand and Charles Pasqua denied the allegation. (Mitterrand did state in 1986 that he would pardon Naccache if all of the French hostages were released.)[4] Mitterrand asked for proof that Chirac promised such a deal.[5] -Location (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Honegger

The article states the following regarding Baraba Honegger:

Since 1995, she's been Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School.[1][non-primary source needed] After the 1980 election, she headed the U.S. Attorney General's Gender Discrimination Agency Review under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, before resigning from her post in 1983.[2]

First of all, it is relevant to state Honegger's position(s) within the Reagan administration and what she was doing when she made the accusations; however, her position with Naval Postgraduate School appears to be puffery in order to give her more credibility than possible deserved. Should we also add the she is a 9/11 truther[6] or that she claimed to hold "the nation's first master's degree in parapsychology"[7]? Secondly, Honeggar was reported to have "misidentified herself as head of the attorney general's gender discrimination agency review". She was a "a special assistant in the Justice Department's civil rights division" and "one of a number of people working on the project."[8][9] There was no "separate entity" of "Gender Discrimination Agency Review" within the DOJ.[10] I have made changes to reflect this. -Location (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Barbara Honneger, M.S. (6 September 2006). "The Pentagon Attack Papers: Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie" (PDF). Intelligensians blockering. Retrieved 2014-09-21.
  2. ^ Gil Troy (2013). Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s. Princeton University Press. p. 261. ISBN 9781400849307.

Evidence of Bill Casey's Madrid meeting

The edit reversion from 15:54 6 April 2023 raises an interesting question: why does this article contain no mention whatsoever of the evidence purportedly uncovered by Robert Parry regarding Bill Casey's presence in Madrid in line with the alleged July 1980 meeting? (To wit, in 2011 Parry revealed a document he claimed to have found at the George HW Bush presidential library, allegedly an internal White House memo regarding the handover of October-Surprise-related documents to Congressional investigators, which refers in turn to "a cable from the Madrid embassy indicating that Bill Casey was in town, for purposes unknown"; if accurate, this would directly contradict the findings of the Congressional investigations referenced in the article, which hinged on a lack of evidence for Casey's presence in Madrid, as did the also-mentioned Newsweek investigation.) Clearly at least some WP editors hold Parry in low enough regard to filter any direct or even indirect citation of his work from this article, but even if this is bona fide editorial consensus, the rationale is still concerning for a number of reasons:

  1. In an article purporting to describe a contentious and disputed theory, surely there's at least some obligation to not blatantly misrepresent the theory by omission or otherwise, and a direct counterargument to the Congressional/Newsweek investigations is a significant aspect of the theory in its current form, the absence of which from this article (not even presented as an unverified claim) could reasonably be seen as a misrepresentation or even an outright strawman. Contrast this with the recent NYT article on Ben Barnes, which openly references Parry's discovery, at no point implies any reason to doubt the memo's authenticity, and even includes a pdf link to the document itself; insisting that this WP article should reference neither the memo nor Parry seems like a far more partisan stance by comparison.
  2. If Parry is really such a questionable source that anything traceable to him should be summarily purged, then not only should this mean scrapping any mention of the PBS Frontline series, but given the extent to which his fingerprints are all over the October Surprise theory writ large, one could make a strong case that this entire article should simply be deleted.
  3. One of the specifics of the reverted edit concerned the opening matter on individuals who don't entirely dismiss the theory: I added a brief description of recent (i.e. as of less than a decade ago) views expressed by Lee Hamilton, chairman of the House investigative task force on the October Surprise, who reportedly found Parry's evidence credible enough to walk back his own investigation's findings on the record to Parry himself, to other journalists like Jonathan Alter (who quoted him complaining that the Bush White House "made a monkey of me" by withholding evidence from his committee), and even in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, viewable in the supplemental attachments from a FOIA request for the relevant documents. Ruling Parry out of bounds is a far cry from adequately justifying why Hamilton's second thoughts should be too tainted by association with Parry to warrant so much as a mention, given the obvious relevance to the conclusiveness of the Congressional investigations.

I still find it puzzling that last month's NYT bombshell somehow only seems to have prompted a doubling-down on this article's outdated and far less evenhanded editorial voice (even within the past week I see a citation of Barbara Honegger's book being replaced with an overtly sneering/hostile 1988 opinion essay about it) so if the specific neutrality concerns I'm raising here seem reasonable, maybe it should underscore the harm being done by October Surprise theory opponents to this article's neutrality more broadly. 75.100.42.217 (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I recently commented in Talk:Ronald Reagan about Robert Parry and the document he said he found in the George H.W. Bush library. WP:PRIMARY, likely the first thing we need to consider if we want to use it, notes that the document needs to be published in a reliable source (particularly claims that fall under WP:REDFLAG) and interpretation of it needs to come from reliable secondary sources. The document and its finding were reported by Parry in Parry's Consortium News, so WP:SPS and WP:REDFLAG are relevant. The reliability of Consortium News has been discussed a few different times in WP:RSN and it appears that most editors who have commented have stated that they do not believe it to be a reliable source. The use of Kai Bird's FOIA request and Hamilton's letter to Secretary of State John Kerry are also subject to WP:PRIMARY. It is possible that the edited transcript of the discussion between Bird and Jonathan Alter in Washington Monthly might have some limited use, however, their conversation about what the memo means and what might be in the cable is pure speculation. Alter states as fact "it turns out [Casey] was in Madrid" even though Bird pointed out that "no one has seen the cable to which the memo refers." Bird did state in an earlier Op-Ed "...I THINK [emphasis mine] it is now reasonable to conclude that Casey did something" so that might also have some limited use as to what he believes. Peter Baker's recent article about Ben Barnes states as fact that the "memo was not turned over to Hamilton’s task force", but this is also speculation. As I mentioned in Talk:Ronald Reagan, there is also no evidence that Parry attempted to interview the author of the memo (Paul Beach) or the recipient of it (Ed Williamson) even though both were and are still alive. Nor does it appears that Bird, Alter, or Baker have done so either.
I agree that Parry's Frontline report was a big deal in spreading the October Surprise allegations and there should be more about it in this article, however, his reports should be discussed in the context of what reliable sources have to say about them. Parry ignored all of the witness testimony and documentary evidence that showed William Casey was not in Madrid and chose to believe that a cable that he never saw is the "smoking gun". (Now Bird, Alter, and Baker appear to be doing the same.) More incredibly, Parry chose to believe made-up information that flowed to him from Abolhassan Banisadr and Ari Ben-Menashe to Richard Brenneke and Oswald LeWinter, then to Barbara Honeggar and Martin Killan, then to Gary Sick and Jamshid Hashemi, etc. If you take into account all of the BS there to be shoveled with those individuals, it's no wonder that conspiracists are putting so much stock into the Beach to Williamson memo. -Location (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the sources confirming the October Surprise are unreliable because they make false claims, and the claims are false because the sources making them are unreliable? Doesn't that seem like begging the question?
Taking a step back from a priori assumptions about "BS" being "shoveled" by "conspiracists" and so on, this article is about a contentious and disputed allegation, with some sources claiming to confirm it and others claiming to refute it, and the most up-to-date mainstream coverage we have at this point from reliable sources like the New York Times (along with the most up-to-date views of individuals like Lee Hamilton, whose House investigative report you keep citing even now as authoritative) has directly called for a reassessment of earlier conclusions that the allegation is baseless and should be presumed false. You seem to be arguing not only that reassessments incorporating the latest evidence should be superseded by prior assessments made without that evidence, but also that such reassessment shouldn't extend to the presumed unreliability of any of the sources that've made the allegation, even if the presumption was based in whole or in part on the allegation being deemed false in the first place.
How is that a remotely neutral point of view, and why should your idea of what constitutes neutrality or reliability on this issue supersede that of sources like Hamilton or the NYT? 75.100.42.217 (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall the NYT's article calling for a "reassessment", or saying the Barnes account really proved anything. Indeed it said that "Confirming Mr. Barnes's account is problematic"....and that is being polite since (as per the story) the only people who can corroborate his story all heard it from one source: Barnes himself. This is not to mention the fact John Connally III said he was with his dad when he briefed Reagan about the trip, and nothing like this came up. Furthermore, the article also notes that "None of that [i.e. Barnes's allegations] establishes whether Reagan knew about the trip, nor could Barnes say that Casey directed Connally to take the journey." This is one of the reasons wiki has rules about Recentism. So far, Barnes's account has largely been unexplored by other RS. (And really what has appeared in RS is simply repeating the NYTs article.) Not to say this shouldn't be part of the article....but this isn't quite the "bombshell" you are making it out to be.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the briefing. William Inboden's recent article also listed "six impossible things" that one would have to believe to trust Barnes' story, including that Connally and Barnes returned on August 11th, but didn't brief Casey on this trip of "utmost importance" until September 10th. -Location (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great article. (Don't think it is on our RS list though.) Makes several points I have made on this. Furthermore, it's just crazy to think Connally was spreading this all over the Middle East with the hope Iran would hear it when (by this theory) they already had made contact with Iran to set up Casey's meeting.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead NYT article explicitly describes Barnes as a credible witness with no obvious reason to make up the story, and also plainly describes the White House memo found by Parry (of which this WP article has been repeatedly edited to remove any mention) as a counterargument to the conclusiveness of the House investigative report. The NYT doesn't cite the fact that the lead House investigator himself reviewed Parry's evidence and agreed about its importance in calling the report's conclusions into question, which presumably is also relevant information for this WP article, yet the article has been edited to remove any mention of that too.
Maybe you can help me, but I'm struggling to imagine a comparable case where such a body information and sources would be treated with such credibility in a such a mainstream and respected outlet, and the WP editorial process would deem it appropriate to take an openly partisan stance in opposition by framing the issue in the heavily loaded terms of "conspiracy theory" as opposed to more evenhanded descriptive language like "theory," term the NYT itself uses. Doesn't the NPOV policy say to "describe disputes but not engage in them," "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts," "prefer nonjudgmental language," and so on? For that matter, here's a bit from WP's policy on article titles:

In some cases a descriptive phrase (such as Restoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words; for example, allegation or alleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim "made with little or no proof" and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".)

Wouldn't this seem to present a pretty straightforward case for changing the article title and subsequent descriptive language to "October Surprise allegations (1980)" or similar, even for editors who disagree with the allegations as firmly as the two of you seem to? Or is there some other reason it's so important to maintain this article's current state of flagrant non-neutrality, even when it flies in the face of WP's own stated policies? 75.100.42.217 (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times also explicitly said "Confirming Mr. Barnes's account is problematic"....among a lot of other reasons to question his account. (Including the fact Connally's son was there and he didn't hear a word of this.) That's the part you keep missing. One of the reasons wiki has a policy on RECENTISM is so we don't treat breaking news reports as history. It remains to be seen how RS will treat this in the long-haul. As I've said before: I wouldn't have a problem with a compromise article title like "October Surprise Allegations"....but all this breathless talk about how Barnes's statements tilt the scales, reflects (to me) a issue with how things are done here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I mentioned are unreliable not because of circular logic or some pronouncement of "unreliable" pulled from the ether. They are unreliable because either they made claims that made were demonstrably false or without proof, or they gave lots of credence to those who made claims that were either demonstrably false or without proof. And if you've bothered to read what the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations or the October Surprise Task Force wrote about all of this, then you will know that isn't just my edict. As far as Ben Barnes, his allegation is similarly without proof yet we have devoted a couple of paragraphs to him. What exactly do you think is missing from the article? We do have WP:RSN, WP:NPOV, and WP:FTN to solicit outside opinions on this. -Location (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the conclusion of the House report isn't your edict -- your edict is that the House report's conclusion should be regarded as definitive even after the chairman of the task force that produced it has called its definitiveness into question on the basis of new evidence, and you're seeking to omit mention of that evidence from this WP article by presuming it unreliable/non-noteworthy on the basis of its having contradicted the report, despite the report's lead author directly disagreeing with you. In other words, you seem to regard yourself as a better qualified interpreter of Hamilton's report than Hamilton himself!
By the way, you might note if you read the report that it doesn't actually conclude that the allegation about Casey's Madrid meeting was disproven as such, merely that his presence in Madrid was insufficiently corroborated by reliable evidence. Presumably this is why aside from finding Parry's evidence sufficient grounds to doubt the report's conclusion, Hamilton seems to have reacted particularly strongly (the comment about having been made a monkey out of) to the White House notes themselves, which are noteworthy above and beyond the allusion to the State Department cable: not only does the memo corroborate the cable's existence and contents, but the memo and surrounding notes also substantiate that the GHWB administration knowingly conspired to subvert Hamilton's investigation, including by withholding relevant evidence in direct violation of his committee's subpoena authority. (Another eyebrow-raising passage is the expression of alarm in another of Parry's GHWB library memos that without strict limits on the duration and scope of the task force mandate, "this could drag on like Walsh!" -- referring to the Iran-Contra special prosecutor whose years-long investigation resulted in indictments/convictions of high-level Reagan administration officials, which would seem like an odd comparison unless they had reason to be worried that Hamilton's investigation might uncover conviction-worthy evidence the way Walsh's did.)
I'd certainly be interested to see the Casey/Madrid/Hamilton issues revisited at greater length in major publications like the NYT, but it also seems understandable why a prominent political figure like Hamilton with a larger reputation to protect (he was also vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, for instance) might be hesitant to start shouting from the proverbial rooftops about having been duped into unknowingly putting his reputation on the line for a high-level criminal coverup. That said, Hamilton's letter to Kerry contained in that FOIA filing seems like perfectly fair game to use as a WP primary source (using the case files republished by the FOIA Project as a freely viewable alternative to the official case filing published behind a paywall in PACER) and the Alter interview quoting his conversation with Hamilton also seems like a reasonable secondary source... so again, setting aside any non-neutral partisan interest one might hypothetically have for wanting to present the October Surprise theory in as negative a light as possible, what's the legitimate justification for excluding such relevant information from this WP article? 75.100.42.217 (talk) 11:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

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

  • 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).[1] 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.[2] 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.[3]
  • 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.[4]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Whatever you want to call it, I suggest a compromise in the RFC below.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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"[11] as did William Inboden less than three weeks ago in his lengthy article that pointed out all of the problems in Barnes' claims.[12]
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.[5][6] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [13], Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories (2013) calls it a conspiracy theory [14], The Mammoth Book of Conspiracies (2012) calls it a conspiracy theory [15], Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia (2003) calls it a conspiracy theory [16], Policy (2022) calls it a conspiracy theory [17], Washington Monthly (2021) calls it a conspiracy theory [18], The Washington Post (2020) calls it a conspiracy theory [19], Smithsonian (2016) calls it a conspiracy theory [20].
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
... 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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".[21]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Cheers! -Location (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Fawcett, Louise; Payne, Andrew (1 January 2023). "Stuck on a hostile path? US policy towards Iran since the revolution". Contemporary Politics. 29 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1080/13569775.2022.2029239. ISSN 1356-9775.
  2. ^ Baker, Peter (18 March 2023). "A Four-Decade Secret: One Man's Story of Sabotaging Carter's Re-election". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-04-27 – via NYTimes.com.
  3. ^ "More than 40 years later, a Texan reveals a secret that may have swayed an election". Retrieved 2023-04-27.
  4. ^ Danner, Chas (19 March 2023). "Lawmaker Reveals 'October Surprise' Plot to Sabotage Jimmy Carter's Reelection". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2023-04-27.
  5. ^ Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate (November 19, 1992). The "October Surprise" allegations and the circumstances surrounding the release of the American hostages held in Iran. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. ISBN 0160397952. OCLC 28306929. S. Rpt. No. 102-125.((cite book)): CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)
  6. ^ Task Force to Investigate Certain Allegations Concerning the Holding of American Hostages by Iran in 1980 (January 3, 1993). Joint report of the Task Force to Investigate Certain Allegations Concerning the Holding of American Hostages by Iran in 1980 ("October Surprise Task Force"). Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. hdl:2027/mdp.39015060776773. OCLC 27492534. H. Rept. No. 102-1102.((cite book)): CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

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)[reply]

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

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

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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.
Categories