Talk:October surprise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the October surprise article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Carter-Reagan

I have researched the Carter-Reagan election campaign and have been able to accummulate substantial evidence to support my contribution... including a bibliography, and personal interviews with many of the participants. After I edited the article, TDC (yikes) redited the article including a statement declaring "that there was no one had found any basis to the claims". This statement is patently untrue.

There are many former Reagan and Carter whitehouse officials including Gary Sick, Barbara Hoeneger that have written extensively about these events. Their books site extensive evidence. There have been several court cases where the facts have actually emerged and been proven. Saying it did not happen is simply factually incorrect. Also extensive investigations by Robert Parry - interviews published in books he has published with other key players also lend credence to the claims. So please do not edit the article without stating any facts to support your writings.

Also, as side issue, please do not confuse support for Ronald Reagan and his legacy with denial of these events. Reagan's staff where correct about Carter's strategy to use the hostage crisis to his advantage, they simply outsmarted Carter. Of the two leaders, I think Carter was the 'slimier' and in fact the 'lesser principled'. Reagan, at least, stood for something. While he aided the rise of Islamic fanaticism, he did so to defeat the Soviet communists. Carter on the other hand simply wanted to undercut the Republican party in the US, by eliminating the Shah, who was a big financial supporter of the republican party. Carter was (and still is) more of an actor and politician. Reagan stood for something -- and what is more he actually executed on his convictions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AEMIS (talk • contribs).

[edit] More Reagan-Carter Comparisons

(Friendly reminder: please sign your contributions with the standard wiki four tildas "~" which adds a time/date stamp. Thanks.)

Now, about this last comment: Reagan slept through his presidency, mostly. But somehow he managed anyway to hurl the US economy into the worst recession since the 1930's, only to be topped by the Bush Administration of 2000 to present. Also, his funding of the Contras resulted in a stark increase of drugs, illegal weapons, and crime into the US. At least that's what I heard. Can anyone substantiate this for me? But Carter managed to bring peace between Egypt and Israel for the first time in millenia, which has lasted to this day. Also, after he left the White House, Carter began building houses for the poor. This is not to say that Reagan wasn't a nice guy. But I think there's a lot more to say for Carter here. If history records any screw-ups for Carter, they were probably master-minded by the CIA, just like the October Surprise was. Insaneman 13:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sections

I removed sections listing the bombing of Sudan in December of 1998 as an October surprise. They were completely asinine, and didn't fit in with the theme of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.154.205.82 (talk • contribs)

Whether the claims are asinine or not, the situation was discussed in terms of the October surprise idea, and is probably still thought of that way by many. I've restored the section with citations that it needed anyway (and it conflated Sudan and Iraq). When you see a section like that, the appropriate response is to try to remove the POV, add citations, or rebut via citations if that's appropriate. Outright deletion of content, however, is a pretty drastic approach and shouldn't be done lightly. --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've just come across this article. While I found the inclusion of actions in a non-presidential year, non-October, rather surprising, I gave it the benefit of the doubt, only adjusting the POV through the addition of some basic facts. However, after reading this discussion I have to agree that this section is complete asinine, and deserves a rare complete deletion. None of the sources which the section cites talks about either event as a possible October surprise. The Seymour Hersh article "Missiles of August" never mentions the phrase "October surprise." The Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid article "An October Surprise?" is referring to Trent Lott's fear of military action in Yugoslavia in October 1998 as an October surprise, not the action which actually materialized in Iraq in December. Unless some real documentation can be produced that the two events listed were referred to specifically as "October Surpise"s I am deleting them. 18.251.5.137 07:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
These are reasonable points, and it is probably true that the phrase "wag the dog" was used for these and other Clinton actions that year. Your language, however, seems unreasonable to me. Do you believe that you are observing civility policy when you use such wording? --Dhartung | Talk 08:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 October Surprise

Would the Foley fiasco fit into this catagory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.115.132.99 (talk • contribs) .

Up till today only bloggers had dubbed it so, now we have a wire story. I'll add that. --Dhartung | Talk 17:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the rumored Rove "October Surprise?" It's a rumor, and the source has all the reliability of a tabloid. Umlautbob 17:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but we're just saying that NewsMax is reporting that. The report was widely discussed, so I'll see what else I can add to it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 October Surprise

This is believed to have helped President Bush's campaign as it thrust the War on Terrorism back into the public eye. There is debate as to whether bin Laden was aware of the effect the video would have on the elections; the "Bush bounce" from the video did not surprise most outside observers of the 2004 election.

Though this qualifies IMO as an October surprise, there is no cite for polling that indicates that this event had any impact on the election, or by whom it is "believed to have helped Bush". Given that this only happened a couple days before the election (which was on the 2nd), it's unlikely that polls (which usually take 3 days) would have picked up on any swing caused by this, let alone pick it out from other events or polling noise. E.g. http://pollingreport2.com/2004track.htm shows no discernable swing.

Newspaper articles that reflected the opinion that it had an effect could be used as sources for the text. — goethean ॐ 14:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It is probably more accurate and NPOV for us to state that "so and so believed" instead of "this is". The CIA eventually concluded that bin Laden did want to affect the election. But claims of a bounce are interpretations. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
OT but I'd have to say I agree. Osama very likely did want to affect the election and knew very well he would succeed inhelping Bush get re-elected which not surprisingly he wanted to do Nil Einne 04:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph should be removed

The third paragraph on the Reagan-Carter October Surprise should be removed. It makes a statement of fact when that statement cannot be verified. There is no proof that any deal was struck between the Reagan campaign and the Iranians about the realease of hostages. Wikipedia's article dedicated to the hostage crisis makes quite clear that there is no proof of any deal. The paragraph relies exclusively on one source, Gary Sick, whose own book relies on dubious and anonymous sources for most of its material. This paragraph launches an ad hominem attack on Daniel Pipes. Finally, it advocates the point of view that Congress ought to investigate the alleged conspiracy more fully. 76.169.9.64 08:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

76.169.9.64, thanks for mentioning this on the Talk page. I was reverting vandalism yesterday and was too quick to roll back your removal. The paragraph was biased, and I removed it for that and redundancy, as the separate article October surprise conspiracy is intended to cover the episode in detail. (I haven't looked over there lately, I have no idea if the article meets WP:NPOV as I write.) Again, thanks for bringing it up here; I took a closer look because you did. -- Dhartung | Talk 16:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I do apologize for not following protocol more closely yesterday when I deleted the paragraph without stating a reason.76.169.9.64 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
True, that's the reason for edit summaries. Happy editing! -- Dhartung | Talk 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1968 Humphrey vs. Nixon - Usage of "sorties"

The term "sorties" seems a little too "inside baseball." Can anyone recommend a term that would be better suited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.158.234.13 (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)