This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1980 October Surprise theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Now that there is a consensus to move the page, we should discuss alternatives. Above, the following were presented:
-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Editors involved above: @ Rja13ww33, Aquillion, Robertus Pius, LokiTheLiar, Location, Random person no 362478479, XOR'easter, Rgr09, Fad Ariff, 3Kingdoms, Jack Upland, Alaexis, KarlFrei, Piotrus, DFlhb, and Darknipples:
1980 October surprise theorydoesn't have the defects that the other articles do-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined. That's exactly the situation here. Any other title is attempting to convey the same situation, but with less clear language. Loki ( talk) 22:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial, and I still think theory also captures the undetermined aspect, but I'm less opposed to allegations than I was.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 11:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
October Surprise conspiracy theory →
1980 October surprise allegations – A
recent RFC yielded a consensus that this article should be moved. As the closer said, "there's consensus to change the title, but no consensus about what to change it to.
" In a
post-rfc discussion, users were generally split between two options: 1980 October surprise allegations and 1980 October surprise theory. Most users supported both, but only one user opposed "allegations", and two users opposed "theory".
Jerome Frank Disciple 19:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". Theory, on the other hand, is an umbrella term. And, rightly or wrongly, a few of the secondary sources we've previously gone over do treat the "allegations" as having been established/determined. Additionally, "alleged" is more often used in a criminal context (i.e. "prosecutors alleged"), which is inappropriate here. And I haven't heard any explanation as to why "theory" would be deficient. But I support allegations over the current name, and the discussion as to what the name should be has died down.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 19:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to 1980 October Surprise theory. In appraising this discussion, I reviewed not just this RM itself, but also the sections Post RFC Discussion and Requested move 14 June 2023, which were effectively part of the same overall conversation. I read through the prior RfC as well, though discussion in that RfC largely pertained to the usage of the term "conspiracy theory" in this article's title, and thus it has less relevance to the specific questions under dispute here.
One of the main complicating factors in evaluating this discussion is that many of the participants expressed comparable levels of support for either title. However, some arguments were still made to support one proposed title above the other. It was noted that MOS:ALLEGED seems to prefer "allegations", but that "theory" is a broader term that captures the same idea; participants disputed whether adopting that broader term would be an improvement in neutrality, or a worsening of clarity. The question of WP:COMMONNAME was also somewhat fraught. In the original RfC, some sources were leveled to demonstrate usage of "theory"; meanwhile, it was claimed in this RM that "allegations" was more common in the academic literature, but no evidence was supplied to verify that claim. Honestly, I don't think there's a consensus for either specific title; however, the previous consensus to move away from "conspiracy theory" has showed no signs of changing, which leaves me in the position of needing to make a WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE close. Within this framework, I think "1980 October surprise theory" has the marginally stronger case, due to the sources provided in its support. However, if anyone has new arguments that they feel were not raised in this discussion, they may feel free to open a new RM at any time.
Finally, I wish to devote a bit of space to alternate titles that came up during the overarching discussion. At various points, people suggested just paring down the title to October Surprise (1980) or similar formulations, but these proposals largely failed to pick up traction due to the fact that no such surprise actually occurred. Additionally, some recent participants in the discussion suggested descriptive titles such as 1980 Iran hostage deal allegations that omit the term "October surprise" entirely, arguing that the term "October surprise" is not sufficiently WP:RECOGNIZABLE. While this view has attracted a few supporters recently, the fact that it went unmentioned for most of the two months of active discussion suggests to me that it's not a sufficiently widespread view to have consensus at this point. Again, as this is a WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE close, supporters of a descriptive title may launch a new RM at any time if they feel that the topic needs more focused consideration. ( closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This RFC is meant to consider two move options:
October Surprise conspiracy theory →
1980 October surprise theory or →
1980 October surprise allegations – A
recent RFC yielded a consensus that this article should be moved. As the closer said, "there's consensus to change the title, but no consensus about what to change it to.
" In a
post-rfc discussion, users were generally split between two options: 1980 October surprise allegations and 1980 October surprise theory. Because editors seem evenly split on preferring allegations/theory (most editors say they support either), I've started an RFC to get broader community input--
Jerome Frank Disciple 17:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". But theory is an umbrella term that captures "allegation". And, rightly or wrongly, a few of the secondary sources we've previously gone over do treat the "allegations" as having been established/determined. Additionally, "alleged" is more often used in a criminal context (i.e. "prosecutors alleged"), which is inappropriate here. And I haven't heard any explanation as to why "theory" would be deficient. But I support allegations over the current name, and the discussion as to what the name should be has died down-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd like to request that you withdraw your withdrawal above. That !vote was not up for nearly enough time to come to any real conclusions. Loki ( talk) 17:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
What is the point of using the New Republic article in the Ben Barnes section? The piece is so irresponsible (arguably dishonest) with its facts and conclusions that it's basically worthless as a source of commentary. 2600:8801:710D:EA00:FCC5:B928:3B61:EF96 ( talk) 03:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Cyrus Hashimi purchases a Greek ship and commences arms deliveries valued at $150 million from the Israeli port of Eilat to Bandar Abbas. According to CIA sources, Hashimi receives a $7 million commission. [30][32]: 205–6 Wumhenry1 ( talk) 17:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1980 October Surprise theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 6 months |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Now that there is a consensus to move the page, we should discuss alternatives. Above, the following were presented:
-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Editors involved above: @ Rja13ww33, Aquillion, Robertus Pius, LokiTheLiar, Location, Random person no 362478479, XOR'easter, Rgr09, Fad Ariff, 3Kingdoms, Jack Upland, Alaexis, KarlFrei, Piotrus, DFlhb, and Darknipples:
1980 October surprise theorydoesn't have the defects that the other articles do-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined. That's exactly the situation here. Any other title is attempting to convey the same situation, but with less clear language. Loki ( talk) 22:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial, and I still think theory also captures the undetermined aspect, but I'm less opposed to allegations than I was.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 11:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
October Surprise conspiracy theory →
1980 October surprise allegations – A
recent RFC yielded a consensus that this article should be moved. As the closer said, "there's consensus to change the title, but no consensus about what to change it to.
" In a
post-rfc discussion, users were generally split between two options: 1980 October surprise allegations and 1980 October surprise theory. Most users supported both, but only one user opposed "allegations", and two users opposed "theory".
Jerome Frank Disciple 19:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". Theory, on the other hand, is an umbrella term. And, rightly or wrongly, a few of the secondary sources we've previously gone over do treat the "allegations" as having been established/determined. Additionally, "alleged" is more often used in a criminal context (i.e. "prosecutors alleged"), which is inappropriate here. And I haven't heard any explanation as to why "theory" would be deficient. But I support allegations over the current name, and the discussion as to what the name should be has died down.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 19:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to 1980 October Surprise theory. In appraising this discussion, I reviewed not just this RM itself, but also the sections Post RFC Discussion and Requested move 14 June 2023, which were effectively part of the same overall conversation. I read through the prior RfC as well, though discussion in that RfC largely pertained to the usage of the term "conspiracy theory" in this article's title, and thus it has less relevance to the specific questions under dispute here.
One of the main complicating factors in evaluating this discussion is that many of the participants expressed comparable levels of support for either title. However, some arguments were still made to support one proposed title above the other. It was noted that MOS:ALLEGED seems to prefer "allegations", but that "theory" is a broader term that captures the same idea; participants disputed whether adopting that broader term would be an improvement in neutrality, or a worsening of clarity. The question of WP:COMMONNAME was also somewhat fraught. In the original RfC, some sources were leveled to demonstrate usage of "theory"; meanwhile, it was claimed in this RM that "allegations" was more common in the academic literature, but no evidence was supplied to verify that claim. Honestly, I don't think there's a consensus for either specific title; however, the previous consensus to move away from "conspiracy theory" has showed no signs of changing, which leaves me in the position of needing to make a WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE close. Within this framework, I think "1980 October surprise theory" has the marginally stronger case, due to the sources provided in its support. However, if anyone has new arguments that they feel were not raised in this discussion, they may feel free to open a new RM at any time.
Finally, I wish to devote a bit of space to alternate titles that came up during the overarching discussion. At various points, people suggested just paring down the title to October Surprise (1980) or similar formulations, but these proposals largely failed to pick up traction due to the fact that no such surprise actually occurred. Additionally, some recent participants in the discussion suggested descriptive titles such as 1980 Iran hostage deal allegations that omit the term "October surprise" entirely, arguing that the term "October surprise" is not sufficiently WP:RECOGNIZABLE. While this view has attracted a few supporters recently, the fact that it went unmentioned for most of the two months of active discussion suggests to me that it's not a sufficiently widespread view to have consensus at this point. Again, as this is a WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE close, supporters of a descriptive title may launch a new RM at any time if they feel that the topic needs more focused consideration. ( closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This RFC is meant to consider two move options:
October Surprise conspiracy theory →
1980 October surprise theory or →
1980 October surprise allegations – A
recent RFC yielded a consensus that this article should be moved. As the closer said, "there's consensus to change the title, but no consensus about what to change it to.
" In a
post-rfc discussion, users were generally split between two options: 1980 October surprise allegations and 1980 October surprise theory. Because editors seem evenly split on preferring allegations/theory (most editors say they support either), I've started an RFC to get broader community input--
Jerome Frank Disciple 17:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined". But theory is an umbrella term that captures "allegation". And, rightly or wrongly, a few of the secondary sources we've previously gone over do treat the "allegations" as having been established/determined. Additionally, "alleged" is more often used in a criminal context (i.e. "prosecutors alleged"), which is inappropriate here. And I haven't heard any explanation as to why "theory" would be deficient. But I support allegations over the current name, and the discussion as to what the name should be has died down-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd like to request that you withdraw your withdrawal above. That !vote was not up for nearly enough time to come to any real conclusions. Loki ( talk) 17:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
What is the point of using the New Republic article in the Ben Barnes section? The piece is so irresponsible (arguably dishonest) with its facts and conclusions that it's basically worthless as a source of commentary. 2600:8801:710D:EA00:FCC5:B928:3B61:EF96 ( talk) 03:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Cyrus Hashimi purchases a Greek ship and commences arms deliveries valued at $150 million from the Israeli port of Eilat to Bandar Abbas. According to CIA sources, Hashimi receives a $7 million commission. [30][32]: 205–6 Wumhenry1 ( talk) 17:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)