Talk:1980 October Surprise theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Shows bias

Just the "even-handed" initial reference to Carter and Reagan in the first sentence of the article shows bias: "incumbent Jimmy Carter (D-Ga) and opponent Ronald Reagan (R-Ca)". Carter was the President of the United States, and as such had the right to conduct negotiations with foreign governments. The Reagan campaign had no right to conduct a private foreign policy - when Aaron Burr did it, they called it treason). The two were not equal, as implied by labeling one "incumbent","D" and the other "opponent","R". In the context of this article's introduction 'President' and, for Reagan, 'candidate' or 'challenger' would be accurate words to use. 75.90.22.219 (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Also, regarding Honegger vs Parry. If you are making a list of proponents of this story, Parry has much better credentials as a journalist and has pursued the matter in greater depth than anyone. His name belongs with Bani-Sadr's and Sick's, though I don't doubt that Honegger heard the comment which initially set her suspicions in motion while she was working in the Reagan White House, that "we f---ed Carter's October Surprise", because others in the WH heard similar comments made. 75.90.22.219 (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Who has the power to edit the intro paragraphs? To their credit they do not say "disproved" but only "insufficient" evidence, but a mention needs to be put that a full trial with jury not only formally found Brennekey innocent of purjury, but ended up touching upon the issue of whether a secret meeting as Brenneke describes took place, and the jury believed, based on the evidence, that the meeting did in fact take place. This needs to be put into the intro paragraph, even if briefly, to balance the official investigations by congress and other insitutions which have a don't-rock-the-boat bias or minimally, leaning.

To me, this whole article lacks objectivity. Why else would it seriously need both revision and documentation?Kulturvultur (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters...just for discussion, the opening paragraph is basically harmless. The "October Conspiracy" was a widely-recognized belief during a major political period of our country and as such it deserves its place in history. This does not mean that there is truth to the allegations. I am merely mentioning this because the opening paragraph is neutral in its reporting (i.e.) objective v. subjective in my opinion. From there, I guess you and I could move into the second paragraph (to see if it too passes muster) because no one else seems to pay much attention to this article. Hag2 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisions, anybody?

Concerning the Village Voice investigations: Frank Snepp concluded "that almost every single statement Sick made, and all the witnesses he had used turned out to be false or lying". Could the witnesses in question be named?

"Snepp alleged that Sick had only interviewed half of the sources used in his book, and supposedly relied on hearsay from unreliable sources for large amounts of critical material."

Could some quotes from the article be given? I'm ready to take into account media sources, not just Wikipedians interpretations of them...

"After going through presented by Richard Brenneke Snepp discovered that Brenneke’s credit card receipts showed him to be staying at a motel in Seattle, during the time he claimed to be in Paris observing the secret meeting." There's missing a word here... going through bank accounts? quotes, please!

"Specifically, Newsweek... was able to account for George Bush’s whereabouts when he was allegedly at the Paris meeting" : where was he? can the Newsweek article be quoted?

"and found little corroboration when Sick’s witness were interviewed separately" What is that supposed to mean?

The New Republic (at least there's some quotes here...) However: "They also pointed out that nearly every witness of Sick had either been indicted or were under investigation buy the Department of Justice." Names, again?

Thanks... I like the introduction, so general... Some precisions are welcome: the House & the Senate debunked the claims, Newsweek, New Republic & Village Voice also. That's better, no? It is quite funny having an entry so affirmative in denying this so-called conspiracy theory, while the hostages were released after Reagan's election. Weren't they? Tazmaniacs

And the (allegedly) promised flow of US arms and spares via Israel did commence, didn't it? Given that you have moved this article into the conspiracy theory category, it should at least now be alloweed to include the full tit-for-tat evidence of the "theory", huh? 75.90.22.219 (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

You apparently misunderstand Wikipedia guielines, which rely on reputable published sources, not Lyndon LaRouche and conspiracy theorists. I cut most of what you added, because it was unsubstantiated material. --Cberlet 14:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you apparently misunderstood the use of quoting. I'm interested both in knowing where the allegation comes from (Newsweek is not the same as the Lyndon La Rouche movement) and also what it precisely said. Writing: "Newsweek said it was a lie" is not precisely helpful. I'm sure you are wise enough to put your trust wherever you want to put it, and if something seems outlandish to you, I'm sure you are able to ignore it as long as it is some whacco who wrote it. Again, if you believe only the US State Dept, surely you could explain us why weapons of mass destruction still haven't been found in Iraq? Tazmaniacs 00:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Could we stick to the page issue here? It is appropriate to summarize information from published sources. These need not include quotes. If you suspect a text has been misrepresented, feel free to go read it yourself and then bring your criticisms here. Do some homework before demanding quotes.--Cberlet 14:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion

I reversed the deletion of the following passages :

"Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche continue to claim that the October Surprise conspiracy actually happened. Swedish prime minister Olof Palme's 1986 murder has been attributed by LaRouche and former CIA agent Richard Brenneke to the P2 Masonic Lodge, which was involved, along with Gladio, in Italy's strategy of tension. Olof Palme would have been murdered because he was against the deal between Iran and the Contras . . According to an interview of former CIA agent Gene "Chip" Tatum by the conservative magazine Free Republic, Olof Palme was assassinated because he refused an arms-trade . The arms trade would have been part of the agreement reached during the October Surprise. Former CIA agent Ibrahim Razin also told that DINA agent Michael Townley, who has been convicted for Chilean former minister Orlando Letelier's 1976 assassination in Washington D.C., was in Stockholm a week before Olof Palme's murder.

Reporter Danny Casolaro claimed that the Inslaw affair was somehow connected to the October Surprise (he died in 1991).

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 National French Assembly ."

As you may read, this is not limited to La Rouche. Danny Casoralo, Ernest Backes, Gene "Chip" Tatum are not Lyndon La Rouche. Concerning Richard Brenneke, there is a news reference about his being acquitted of all charges. Furthermore, whatever your POV on La Rouche (he really seems to be a crackpot or a danger seeing the reactions he provoque over there; personnaly, I don't care much about him, but what about he may say - even if it's a lie), the fact that he said certain stuff about this should be stated. It is a historical fact. It is quite funny seeing that all "conspiracy" aspects of this issue have first been excluded from the Iran-hostage page in order to be treated here in the "October surprise conspiracy", where they are once again excluded in a "continuing allegations" subsection, and even here, one user keeps on insisting on deleting it? Why do you care? What's up man? Tazmaniacs 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I certainly am a critic of LaRouche, but the detailed information being deleted by TDC provides useful details directly related to the topic of this entry. Please discuss. Please stop unexplained deletions. --Cberlet 15:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

How much space, exactly, should these crackpot theories get in the article? This is a gross over emphasis of idiotry. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The entry is titled "October surprise conspiracy" and the sentences refer to published material. It is POV to simply delete the material. I agree it is idiocy. I disagree with censorship based on POV.--Cberlet 15:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

First Section

Although some still argue its merits to this day, the charge has been widely discredited as baseless by a wide variety of sources.

Who? What sources? Attribute this view, otherwise it's just weasely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.19.181 (talk • contribs)

Intros are somewhat excepted from the weasel words rule, because they're supposedly summarizing the article. What they say should be backed up within the article, certainly, and if the wording sounds weaselly it's a problem regardless. My main problem with the wording is that "widely discredited as baseless" is a much too pat characterization of a variety of conclusions, few of which were really stating it thus. --Dhartung | Talk 23:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've revised the lead a bit, moving the "discredited" stuff to the third paragraph. However, I do think it's appropriate to refer to it as "discredited" based on the reliability of the sources and their investigations. Simishag 05:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The statement is correct, but vague generality makes it POV. "Wide variety of sources" must be specified, and it is not a problem to do so: parliamentary investigations, named news-report..., this would make it NPOV. "Wide variety of sources" just means "everybody knows that it's a crackpot theory". Yes, of course, but everybody do knows that because everybody rightly trust our deputies, our government, and our main newspapers. In other words, anonymous user is totally correct, I tried to brought this point a few months ago but some here are keen on just pointing out that only crazy people who don't trust their government believe in such conspiracy theories. Anyone reasonable however would know that since it's a crackpot theory, there is no need to be afraid of marginal disbelievers, and that precise statements will not hurt the truth but only enforces it. Please WP:Be bold. Tazmaniacs 14:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A precedent to the October Surprise

See Presidential Elections in 1968, Nixon against Johnson, see the context of negociations talks about peace in Vietnam (1968) And open your mind... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.119.10.224 (talk • contribs) .

See our article October surprise. --Dhartung | Talk 22:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes sorry, i just have finished to read the article ;)

But it is poor. And you quote Robert Parry in Further Reference pardon me but its bullshit, the author had not read Robert Parry because this reporter destroy all the facts, one after one... No reference to Hashemi Brothers (Iran), Ben Menashe (Israël), the explosive Soviet Report, on poor proof about Casey and Bush in House Task Force October Surprise. DeMarenches, head of french secrect services, acknowledge have organized a meeting in Paris for Republican in October 1980.

Who talks in first in public about an October Suprise ? Future VP Bush ! The article of Newsweek and New Republic is bullshit...

You quote that too http://www.sonic.net/~kerry/bohemian/casey.html

But the article reflect anything of this, its not neutral, its not fair. When u quote a source, u need to use it, it's not for the show...

Robert Parry never mention Larouche :) but he talks about files wich are in the Capitole, a true material, not bullshit.

Need Change

I'am the same person ;)

After 12 years of news reports looking into the alleged conspiracy, both houses of the US Congress held separate inquiries into the issue, and journalists from sources such as Newsweek and The New Republic looked into the charges. Both Congressional inquires, as well as the majority of investigative reports, found the evidence to be insufficient. Nevertheless, several fringe individuals, most notably Lyndon LaRouche continue to claim otherwise.

This part for example is so funny, who wrote that ? Who cares about LaRouche ? Where is the profil of the investigators of the October Surprise Task Force and their true argument ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.119.17.15 (talk • contribs) .

You are right, that part is funy because LaRouche and everone sucked into it are so God damn stupid. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

One could add Iran-Contra Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh to the list of your "stupid" people who suspected something in regard to Reagan's early deals with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Walsh said in his book "Firewall" that one of his major frustrations and handicaps was that he was forbidden from investigating arms transfers to Iran prior to 198475.90.22.131 (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this article need Update so much...

No ?

An another thing wich are so funny, its people who trust in George H.W. Bush, Reagan, Casey, Gates, Don Gregg, an other important player in this affair. Nobody here (i talk about the authors of this article) verify the allegations and the alibis, they jugded before investigate !

Its pure fantaisy... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.119.17.15 (talk • contribs) .

Hello, 80.119.17.15. Please sign your posts on talk pages. If you are to make additions to the article, please cite sources that are reliable, and maintain neutral point of view no matter what you think of one side or the other. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just here to say that this article is bullshit and when u quote an author u need to use it LIKE ROBERT PARRY. Because u quote many links and authors in this article but u have not read their WORK ! u have no respect.

.The Same men. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.119.4.68 (talk • contribs) .

Please remain civil and assume that other editors are acting in good faith. You should also realize that this article has been written by over 100 editors over the course of several years and most of them will never see your words. I myself have only worked on a small portion of this article. We are always interested in improving our articles, and it would be more helpful if you could point to specific errors in citation, if you know the works in question. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok Peace. :)

I have not the time but everybody can checked updated files on consortium news without read robert parry books, here it is a joke (sorry) .TSM.

Incomplete: Jury's Findings at Brenneke's Trial

This is confusing. The article does not tell what Brennecke was accused; instead, it reads: On September 23, 1988, Brenneke, a Portland, Oregon, property manager and arms dealer, voluntarily testified at the sentencing hearing of his "close friend," Heinrich Rupp. So it was Rupp's trial? At the end, it reads: the jury found Brenneke "not guilty" on all five counts. So Rupp was on trial, but Brenneke was aquitted. It doesn't make sense. --Tilman 17:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added an "incomplete" tag. I've looked at one source [1] and it seems that what the wikipedia segment doesn't mention, is that Brennecke was indicted because of his testimony at Rupp's trial: Eight months after his sworn statement in Denver, the US Justice Department charged Brenneke with five counts of making "false declarations" to a federal judge. The indictment alleged that Brenneke had knowingly lied when he said that both he and Rupp had worked for the CIA. The government also charged that Brenneke had concocted the entire story about Bush, Casey, Gregg and the "October Surprise" deal. Someone else (with better grasp of the english language than me) should add it, and without copy & pasting from that source. The current version reeks of being a copyright violation. --Tilman 14:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks 66.58.168.14 for the change. --Tilman 18:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Russian surprise

• Russian surprise document PDF
• Text of Russian 'October Surprise' Report

This document -- a "confidential" cable from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow -- is a translation of a report sent on Jan. 11, 1993, from the national security committee of the Russian legislature to a U.S. House task force that was then investigating the so-called "October Surprise" controversy.

The House task force chairman, Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind requested the information on Oct. 21, 1992. The Russian report asserted that the allegations of secret Republican negotiations with Iran were true. But the Russian report was never released by the task force, whose public findings reached the opposite conclusion.

Reporter Robert Parry found the Russian report among files belonging to the House task force in December 1994 and made these copies on a copier in a Capitol Hill storage room.

Signed: Travb (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That's just the usual Ari Ben-Menashe stuff. --Tilman 10:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you want to debate with people who answer that : That's just the usual Ari Ben-Menashe stuff., it's really funny too like this article.

So George H.W. Bush stuff is better (ahahahahahahah) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.170.33.72 (talk • contribs) .

Ari Ben-Menashe is a classic example of a dubious source. I noticed this long before I read the Wikipedia definition about him (which confirms that he's dubious). --Tilman 21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It would, of course, be a classic ratfuck to leak (launder) information you want discredited via Ben-Menashe. The anon can console himself with this. --Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Pipes Criticism Removed

I removed the criticism Pipe made from the Gary Sick section. The subsequent sections contain more concrete criticisms. Pipes is neither a primary researcher of "October Surprise" nor of the Gary Sick allegations, so his criticims do not merit inclusion in the body of the article. However, the reference to the Pipes article [2] remains. In that reference Pipes gives a good summary (albeit with his usual bias) of the current state of the "October Surprise" Theory.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon r white (talk • contribs)

Did Pipes not write 'Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From'? Intangible 16:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess he did. What's your point? The criticism in the Gary Sick section contain two criticisms by Pipes. One that Sick did not reveal the amount of money he received in a movie deal with Oliver Stone and another that Sick was hypocritical for claiming a conspiracy when previously he had criticized the allegations as conspiracy theory. Those are minor allegations compared to other allegations that Sick's facts were just plain incorrect. In fact, if you read Sick's article "The October Surprise Theory" you will find that Pipes mentioned much more concrete allegations. We cannot justify including spurious allegations of hypocracy (not a crime) and non-disclosure (does it surprise anyone that an author like Sick would get a movie deal? Is that news?), when there is more concrete evidence that Sick's allegations were untrue. See for example the much more damning Frank Snepp investigations. For those reasons we cannot justify including those specific Pipes allegations in the body of the article. If you want to include some results from Pipes article, put in some of the other more concrete points he made. I suspect Pipes, himself, would be embarrassed that the only points gathered from his article was the allusion to the money Sick made on his movie deal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannonrnwhite (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I see Intangible removed my edit again without justifying it. I'm going to to my edit again. This discussion area is for discussion. Please use it next time. This shouldn't be an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannonrnwhite (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Original October Surprise theory

Jack Anderson originated the October Surprise theory in relation to the November 1980 Carter v. Reagan Presidential campaign in the early fall of 1980, when he alleged that Carter would try another massive rescue attempt to get elected. The phrase only later became tied to Reagan when unproven allegations began surfacing that he tried to prevent the hostages' release. Why is this article only presenting the latter, and not the former, allegations?Old Crow (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was Vice Presidential candidate George H W Bush who first used the phrase "October Surprise" in this context on October 2 1980, when he told a reporter who had asked him how Carter's efforts to free the hostages might affect the election that he didn't want Carter to pull some kind of "October Surprise". 75.90.22.131 (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)75.90.22.131 (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Page move

I object to the page move. Also, a page move involved fixing redirects, so deserves prior discussion. As mentioned above, there is more than 1 theory about October conspiracies. The "delayed release" is perhaps the most famous one. To me the addition "theory" is confusing; the article is clear enough that nothing is proven, we do not need to emphasize that in the title. It is not commonly sited with the word "theory" attached. (Compare: 911 conspiracy theory, where it is commonly attached.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article must accurately reflect its contents; adding "theory" works towards this end. The reason for the move is because simply labeling it "conspiracy" implies that delayed release was confirmed to have truly happened when, as you noted, it was actually never proven. "Theory" is an appropriate label here because it makes this distinction. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I find it hard to read past the first seven or eight paragraphs of this article because little or nothing has been referenced. I think an article which makes controversial claims ought to back those claims with some sort of verifiable referencing. Without credible citations "The October Surprise conspiracy" reads as if it is highfalutin muckraking. Hag2 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hag2, ThsQ and Merry Yellow have all been blocked as sockpuppets of Anne Teedham, this is one of several severely damaged pages. This editor has made allegations of involvement in homicides against one of the subjects of editing, a known witness who's documents have been featured in recently breaking news stories regarding arrest of an organized crime suspect in a triple homicide. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_re_us/us_tribal_murders Note the Cabazon Arms document at the end of this news story is from the files of Michael Riconosciuto, last document on this page. The Riconosciuto page has also been severely vandalized by these and other sockpuppets. http://www.michaelriconosciuto.com/jpn/ Winksatfriend (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)winksatfriend

A new one

Here's a new one: www.infowars.com/october-surprise-terror-hysteria-recycled-in-election-ploy/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.173.37.122 (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Readers Beware: This article is worthless in present form

Due to repeated erasures by individuals who would suppress this story it has become worthless gobbledy-gook. Even some paragraphs supporting the debunkers were so imperfectly read or understood that they bear no resemblance to the original. Anyone wishing to understand the "theory" should examine the October Surprise archive at Consortium News' website. 75.117.22.34 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

release timing

On the day of his inauguration—in fact, twenty minutes after he concluded his inaugural address—the Islamic Republic of Iran announced the release of the hostages.

• January 20, 1981: Hostages are formally released into United States custody after spending 444 days in captivity. The release takes place just minutes after Ronald Reagan is officially sworn in as president.

The way I remember it, the hostages were transferred to neutral Algeria the night before (although it was after midnight in Algeria, it was well before the afternoon inauguration which would have been sometime around 1900 GMT). After the inaugural address, it was announced that they had reached friendly West Germany. I don't know when Iran announced the deal.

Carter had offered to release Iranian assets in return, which is why Iran made sure the hostage release happened while Carter was still in office. Reagan had said he would not honor any deal made by Carter.

Can anybody find a RS which states the times of the flights? The current chronology is unreferenced and wrong. 128.29.43.2 (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

How can this theory not be true? How would they be released conveniently at that time? 24.94.249.157 (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ari Ben-Menashe

I think Ari Ben-Menashe has a first hand account of the October Surprise event, alleging that he saw George H W Bush in the Paris Hotel in his book 'Profits of War'. If I ever find my copy of this book I will give a reference. The other thing is the Newsnight report made by Allan Francovich in the 90's which I have not seen yet--Wool Bridge (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this article needs some work. By the way, does anybody know of sources (besides the government itself) that argue against this "conspiracy theory"? Or has it basically moved into the realm of "conspiracy fact"? groupuscule (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone called Alexei Galkin claiming to be a former Russian secret agent wrote this to Conspiracy Planet: CP

"My name is Alexei Galkin. I am a retired Lieutenant General, formerly head 
of a directorate of the KGB. General LeWinter was a man both much feared and 
admired by knowledgeable intelligence officers throughout the Soviet bloc for his 
skills in disinformation and media manipulation. His work in Chile in the early 
1970s, where he totally neutralized the El Mercurio newspaper, is considered 
a classic and was taught in numerous services in the bloc. His work on the 'October 
Surprise' case was so well conceived that even today the truth remains discredited. 
Many of us consider LeWinter the most brilliant CIA officer of his era. Since his 
forced retirement, his life appears to have been chaotic and he is living in what 
is reported to be a state of poverty and serious illness in Portugal. He has 
published two excellent books in the language of his adopted country. It is 
deeply saddening that a man of such qualities, after long years of loyal service 
to his country, should be reduced to living like this." 

He is implying that LeWinter's efforts (in manipulating Alan Francovich's films) completely destroyed the credibility of the October Surprise Theory.--Wool Bridge (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

From memory not only did Ben-Menashe report that he had seen GHW Bush in Paris and that Robert Gates had carried the money he also impied that Olaf Palme, Robert Maxwell, Senator John Towers and Amiram Nir had all been killed because they had threatened to reveal secrets on Iran-Contra and October Surprise. --Wool Bridge (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

Parry wrote, "Andelman... had testified... that deMarenches had discussed the Paris meetings.... After Andelman's testimony, the task force called de Marenches. But when the imperious French spymaster failed to return the call, the task force concluded, paradoxically, that Andelman's testimony was "credible" but lacked "probative value."[3]

Parry neglects to say that Andelman, based on his experience with De Marenches, had concluded that he might not have been honest, or that the task force had asked De Marenches about the meeting before questioning Andelman, and he had denied it.[4] Hence their conclusion made sense.

I think that the issue of whether Parry's site is rs is a red herring. It is factually correct, but the issue is neutrality. Parry presents one view, which is in the minority. We should not base the article on his writings, which present one view.

Now that WeldNeck has provided a link to the complete task force report, I suggest we use that as the main source for the article, and use subsequent writings for what has been learned or what comments have been made since the report was published.

Also, while this article is correct that Congress "concluded that the allegations lacked supporting documentation" they actually went further and said unequivocably, "There was no October surprise agreement ever reached." (p. 53) The current implies that they considered the allegations, while unproven, to be possibly true.

TFD (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Parry neglects to say that Andelman, based on his experience with De Marenches, had concluded that he might not have been honest, - you don't know what Andelman actually concluded. All you know is what the HOSTF writes as a summary of his testimony, which if you look at the detail sounds very much like a series of questions from interrogators designed to raise doubts Andelman couldn't explicitly dispel, rewritten to make it sound like the doubts all came from Andelman. I don't know for a fact that this was the case (an actual transcript might be revealing either way), but I do know that Pierre Salinger wrote in his memoirs that (without pressure of House investigators trying to prove nothing happened) Andelman reported back to him that de Marenches had admitted organising the meeting for Casey. Salinger gives no indication of Andelman having doubts about this, but does link this confession to a report he'd had in the mid-1980s from a senior French intelligence official saying the same thing. Anyway, what is your ultimate point? The entire article is a mess that needs rewriting from the ground up. Podiaebba (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Added Andelman's report of a de Marenches' motivation for denial which is based on de Marenches' statements to Andelman and not speculation interpolated by House investigators: he didn't want to hurt Bush's re-election chances or hurt Casey's legacy. I somehow suspect that this was in Andelman's testimony too... but anyway, it's important, yet not in the HOSTF report. Podiaebba (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Claude Angeli's evidence (p167) needs including too. Angeli's sources saying "no files found" is explained by Salinger's source saying there was a report in the French records but it was removed. Podiaebba (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In terms of neutrality, why not have the title be "theory" and not "conspiracy theory"? The centre of the theory here is that advantageous political delay was sought by Reagan supporters, the alleged conspiracy is merely the "how" and not the "what". Polymath Professor (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on October Surprise conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131110011626/http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Casey%20William%20J/Item%2016.pdf to http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Casey%20William%20J/Item%2016.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060916184013/http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/october-surprise.html to http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/october-surprise.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Chronology

There is no single chronology for the October Surprise conspiracy theory since multiple people have added their claims to it. It's probably best to use in-text attribution to indicate who made the various claims about people and dates.

By the way, it's nice to see that Roger Stone copied the chronology for The Bush Crime Family (i.e. [5]). And that's another reason why nearly anything put out by Skyhorse Publishing is unreliable. -Location (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at WP:RSN regarding the reliability of one of the major sources used in this article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The above refers to the following discussion: "Consortium News" at October Surprise conspiracy theory. - Location (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: This weed is everywhere. See the sourcing for John Shaheen. -Location (talk) 04:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Title: October Surprise conspiracy theory

The title seems POV to me. Taken literally, yes, it is a theory about a conspiracy, but "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation, implying that the events are definitely factually untrue. Based only on the article itself (I have no further knowledge on the topic than what is contained here and in Iran-Contra Affair), there doesn't seem to be anywhere near a scholarly consensus; indeed, the only scholarly historian cited in the article is Robert Dallek, and only that he "did not confirm" Bill Casey's presence at the London conference. I see two possible resolutions.

1. Provide quality, verifiable sources to show that it is considered a conspiracy theory by the scholarly community, or that it is called the "October Surprise conspiracy theory" in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources.
2. Rename the article to October Surprise conspiracy allegations or similar

Opinions? Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest "October Surprise Theory." I read this article precisely because I wanted to find out what was the scholarly consensus. The title telegraphed a consensus that the theory was false. The body of the article does not support the existence of a scholarly consensus. This article has done me a disservice. The title needs to change. Burressd (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Barbara Honegger

Jim1138 Why have you restored the removal of content about Barbara Honegger which is based on writings of Honegger herself? We must use independent, neutral ans reliable sources here. At the most, Honegger's books can be used for claims made by her. Honegger is not a reliable and expert source. However her claims are being presented as a definite fact. What's more, there is no independent source used here for her occupation in the Raegan administration. We cannot rely on her for what jobs she held. What's more one of the sources used here is a page of her book on sale on Amazon. That is not how we cite sources. We have to cite the details of the book as well as the page number of it where the info was copied from. We must follow the rules on using sources. If you don't have sufficient independent, neutral and reliable sources, then I suggest that you undo your revert. 59.96.132.80 (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The only reliable source about Honegger working in the Raegan administration is this one (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZHs-J4MD0K0C&pg=PA50&dq=barbara+honegger&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi034zB_JzRAhVFRI8KHYNHBqk4ChDoAQg6MAY#v=onepage&q=barbara%20honegger&f=false). However, it does not fully detail what her job was. All other books I've found seem to be mostly peddling comspiracy theories and aren't of reputed reliable authors and scholars. 59.96.132.80 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I've found another one "New Statesman Society, Volume 1, Issues 13-21" as well as this one: (https://books.google.com/books?id=VTkDAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA281&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTzuqKgZ3RAhUHRo8KHUj9BTgQ6AEIGTAA#v=onepage&f=false). I've used these independent sources for her job descriptions wherever they can be used for instead of Barbara Honegger's own works. 59.96.132.80 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: I've sourced some of the info about Barbara Honegger with independent, neutral and reliable sources. However some of the information still needs better sources. An Amzaon page of book sale and writing of Honegger herself aren't neutral or reliabie or independent. 59.96.132.80 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Honegger also made and promotes her documentary about how the 9/11 terror attacks were not Al-Qaeda but actually plotted from within the highest levels of the US government. Since she wants people to watch documentary, she should be identified in this article as that filmmaker; that way, readers can decide how much of their credibility "it's all conspiracies" deserves. Here is what she wants you to watch and believe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXBk8JqwFlw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jqHV9KS35E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sALa-E56Zms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.13.244.125 (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Latest Parry reporting

There is simply no doubt that Parry has done the most research and the best reporting on this matter. It is "vandalism" to repeatedly remove the Parry material from the article. It takes hours to find and arrange references and compose paragraphs, but only seconds to erase them. This kind of agenda-driven crap makes it pointless to address controversial subjects on Wkpd.75.117.22.34 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the Consortiumnews material from this article under the apparent excuse that his reporting is not verifiable. That is a ridiculous excuse. Parry's journalistic credentials and standards are equal to or better than any other researcher referenced on this page. Deletion of his material is cowardly sabotage.71.31.237.51 (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The article has never discussed the allegations that Bush himself sneaked away from the campaign trail for a meeting in Paris on 10/19/1980. I suppose whenever it does (it's getting be one of those things that no one really cares about anymore, but are still sort of interesting), this latest report of Parry's on Bush's alibi (he claimed to have been in Washington during that time period, but the only witnesses who would confirm his presence the night before that alleged meeting are long dead), would be of interest and use as a source: http://www.readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/7623-focus-taking-a-bush-secret-to-the-grave Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't Robert Parry be included in the introductory paragraph alongside Bani-Sadr and Gary Sick, and instead of Barbara Honegger, as major figures who have affirmed this story. Since several other White House consultants and staffers claim to have overheard similar statements, I don't doubt that Honegger did overhear Donald Gregg tell Richard Allen that they had f---ed Carter's October Surprise, launching her investigation, but her investigative methods and journalistic creditials are not even close to Parry's. I don't think that anyone who examines all of RP's information can still harbor any doubt about whether the Reagan campaign's deal went down.75.90.22.131 (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)75.90.22.131 (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Bush’s presence in Paris was reported during and after the negotiation period (though I have no sources), with the assumption that his status as the former head of the CIA(?) gave him contacts and leverage to negotiate. It is a theory of a conspiracy, but not all conspiracies are false because many are. October Surprise or no, Carter deserved much credit for his efforts, and ultimately for the release of the hostages, and if Reagan refused to honor Carter’s negotiation quid pro quo, arms for hostages makes even more sense as part of the puzzle. Ragity (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Archives?

I want to know where the links are to the archives. If this page is “automatically archived by “Lowercase Sigmabot III,” shouldn’t there be links for access? I thought maybe nothing had been archived yet, so I tried a keyword search, and up it popped. Ragity (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Until this problem is corrected, Archive 1 can be browsed by typing same into “search archives “ field, above. Ragity (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The archived page was still at Talk:October surprise conspiracy theory/Archive 1 (different capitalization). I've moved it back, so the archive link is now showing as it should. --BDD (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

New reporting

I propose that we include the new reporting from the New York Times on mainly the Carter administration, but also includes notes on the Reagan campaign's efforts. Including link, and link to an analysis. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/29/world/middleeast/shah-iran-chase-papers.html https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a30363291/jimmy-carter-shah-iran-hostage-crisis-ronald-reagan/ MarvelAge91 (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC) – Yeah--am I crazy or is this confirmation from an RS? 161.11.160.44 (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The points of the articles seem to be this: "Now, a newly disclosed secret history from the offices of Mr. Rockefeller shows in vivid detail how Chase Manhattan Bank and its well-connected chairman worked behind the scenes to persuade the Carter administration to admit the shah, one of the bank’s most profitable clients......Although Mr. Carter complained publicly at the time about the pressure campaign, the full, behind-the-scenes story — laid out in the recently disclosed documents — has never been told.....Mr. Rockefeller’s team called the campaign Project Eagle, after the code name used for the shah. Exploiting clubby networks of power stretching deep into the White House, Mr. Rockefeller mobilized a phalanx of elder statesmen.The hostage crisis doomed Mr. Carter’s presidency. And the team around Mr. Rockefeller, a lifelong Republican with a dim view of Mr. Carter’s dovish foreign policy, collaborated closely with the Reagan campaign in its efforts to pre-empt and discourage what it derisively labeled an “October surprise” — a pre-election release of the American hostages, the papers show. The Chase team helped the Reagan campaign gather and spread rumors about possible payoffs to win the release, a propaganda effort that Carter administration officials have said impeded talks to free the captives."

I'm not sure how noteworthy that is because of the simple fact that (#1) it was known about at the time (as the article notes: Carter complained about it) and (#2) it doesn't corroborate what the October Surprise conspiracy theory actually was: direct contact between the Reagan campaign and the hostage takers. Perhaps it deserves a mention in the Ernest Backes section?Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Added this new info in a re-titled section revolving around the actions of people associated with Chase Bank.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems very newsworthy to me, to the point where this page's title should be retitled. The NYTimes article reads to me as a direct confirmation of CIA/Reagan intervention, not a "conspiracy".

[T]he team around Mr. Rockefeller, a lifelong Republican with a dim view of Mr. Carter’s dovish foreign policy, collaborated closely with the Reagan campaign in its efforts to pre-empt and discourage what it derisively labeled an “October surprise” — a pre-election release of the American hostages, the papers show.

The Chase team helped the Reagan campaign gather and spread rumors about possible payoffs to win the release, a propaganda effort that Carter administration officials have said impeded talks to free the captives.

“I had given my all” to thwarting any effort by the Carter officials “to pull off the long-suspected ‘October surprise,’” Mr. Reed wrote in a letter to his family after the election, apparently referring to the Chase effort to track and discourage a hostage release deal. He was later named Mr. Reagan’s ambassador to Morocco.

That reads as a pretty direct admission of creating an October Surprise. 216.158.142.42 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Again I will make the point that this is not what the October Surprise CT actually is. To quote from the lead, it is [that] "...representatives of Reagan's presidential campaign had conspired with Iran to delay the release until after the election...". That still is unproven. Joseph Reed had no official role in the Reagan '80 campaign (at least that I am aware of). He certainly had contact with them and was a supporter. But there is no proof here that his actions were at the behest of the Reagan campaign....nor do they constitute what the October Surprise theory actually is (i.e. direct contact with the Iranians on this subject).Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I have already burned through my free monthly views of The New York Times, but I noticed that the Esquire article by Charles Pierce states: "Two congressional investigations ended inconclusively and, with the arrival of the Clinton Administration, the establishment’s taste for pursuing Reagan-era crimes, which never was very great, dissipated entirely." To anyone who has read those reports, or at least the conclusions, this is more than a bit disingenuous in that both investigations found that credible evidence for the allegations was absent or lacking. I mean, the list of fabricators tied to this just goes on and on and on (e.g. Ari Ben-Menashe, Jamshid Hashemi, Richard Brenneke, William Northrop, Oswald LeWinter). - Location (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I suggest "October Surprise Strategy, 1980"

The reason is Obama officially disclosed exactly what happened in April 2016 in his interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic. It was the 25th anniversary, meaning it was up for mandatory disclosure review. The same month, Newsweek published an interview with Dewey Clarridge exactly 25 years to the minute Tehran time as the anniversary of Operation Eagle Claw. In the article, Clarridge states a 2013 Novel called "October 1980" is "exactly what happened. That's the real story. That's what really happened" The novel was self-published on Amazon and had sold something like 5 copies at the time. The novel's narrative matches exactly what Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg and Obama's statements regarding "new forms of communication." I imagine this a good way to disclose the truth: plausibly credible without revealing sources. I also made a Public Records request to the state of massachussets for e-mails of Evan Dobelle, who was the treasurer of the DNC in 1978 and serving as President of a university in Massachussets in 2014. Dobelle e-mailed a draft the Newsweek article to himself in 2014: two years before Newsweek actually published the article.

The gist of the story is Manucher Ghorbanifar had occasional business with a major GOP donor and Ghorbanifar also knew a long-time import-export businessman who was very close to the Ayatollah. The GOP businessman learned the official negotiations were not with the true power in Iran, that Carter's advisors were ill-informed, and that there was no clear direction from the Ayatollah given the instability post revolution and the need to balance a functional government with the more radical elements. That businessman informed Casey and the two discussed how the GOP should adapt and change its campaign strategy, who hooked the businessman up with a retired CIA agent and asked him to learn as much as he could and try to establish a dialogue to gain intelligence.

Ghorbanifar played both sides, appearing to the Ayatollah as if setting up a back channel and offering a deal, and to the GOP businessman . Ghorbanifar put millions of dollars of bets on a Reagan outcome, so pushed the GOP businessman and Casey to believe in a lengthy hostage negotiation. British intelligence managed to penetrate Ghorbanifar via his mistress, but did not have the whole picture.

Both Casey and British intelligence (and eventually Carter through MI-5) learned that the Ayatollah was just stubborn in his hatred and detested Carter so much he decided to drag out the hostage scenario as soon as he was informed that it would hurt Carter's chances and would never negotiate with Carter for anything. The GOP did not influence any policy, but used its knowledge to improve its campaign strategy.

yes, this is not a "conspiracy theory". This is fact. New documents prove that Reagan's team in fact committed a treasonable offense in order to win the election. This prevented Carter's negotiations from succeeding and left the hostages longer than otherwise would happen. I tried to correct the information and put in the link to the new information, only to have my edit deleted. So frustrating! 67.1.182.15 (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Other articles about allegations regarding historical events call them CTs as well. (I.e. [6] & [7].) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

References

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.[8] 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.)[9] Mitterrand asked for proof that Chirac promised such a deal.[10] -Location (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Barbara Honegger

The article states the following regarding Baraba Honegger:

Since 1995, she's been Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School. 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.

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[11] or that she claimed to hold "the nation's first master's degree in parapsychology"[12]? 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."[13][14] There was no "separate entity" of "Gender Discrimination Agency Review" within the DOJ.[15] I have made changes to reflect this. -Location (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

FWIW: Siva Vaidhyanathan tweeted his take on this hullabaloo HERE. -Location (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

We await your suggestions with bated breath. -Location (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)