Talk:October surprise/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Initial comment

This portion of the article shows bias and needs revision: "The Rathergate scandal is widely believed to have been orchestrated by Republican party agents — the false information was fed by a Republican agent who later appeared on a chat forum, claiming to be a independent individual, and pointing toward flaws in the typography of the document" It cannot be said that the above is Italic textwidelyItalic text believed. It is a theory that has been advanced mostly by Italic textDemocraticItalic text agents (Terry McAuliffe, for example), and to state categorically that the information Italic textwas fed by a Republican agentItalic text when no hard information to support that idea has surfaced is not appropriate (especially when most of the evidence relating the story to any political party points at Democrats). In any case, a Wikipedia article on politics intended to be neutral should not state as solid fact the self-serving accusations of either party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.173.33 (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2005 (UTC)

Agree. There is no basis for "widely beleived". I take my political news intervenously and frankly, that's the first I ever heard it. Needs to be removed. Nobs01 03:42, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rathergate still bad

The 'Rathergate' paragraph is still weak--the segment didn't run on '60 Minutes,' for one, and the claim that the story ended up hurting Kerry is transparently POV. I will try and clean this up somewhat tomorrow.

(Don't forget to sign edits to Talk pages.) I took a shot at this clean-up; what do you think? I wrote new text for a couple of points. --Dhartung | Talk 09:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Examples?

The term is now used in Political Science in almost the exact opposite way, describing a situation where a Presidential incumbent uses his office to do something very popular at the last minute before election day, to increase his chances of getting elected. This would be a clever propaganda maneuver if it were true. Any example of 'October Surprise' used to cloud the issue in this interesting fashion? Anything on the web? Wetman 13:36, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Missing diary pages

I removed the following:

This is further complicated by the idea that what would have transpired at the bohemian grove if he was there (which allegedly could be drunken revelery, prostitution, ritualistic behaviour), would have been embarassing in and of itself (so that pages being removed from that section for that reason would have nothing to do with preventing the October suprise).

No one has ever suggested that mere presence at the high-powered Bohemian Grove retreat would be motivation for removing diary pages. This is spurious fantasizing, raising bogus issues not raised by anyone, that obscure the fact that these diary pages have actually been removed and suppressed. Wetman 02:34, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why the hell WOULDN'T anyone sudgest that the pages might have been removed simply because of even the simple idea of bohemian grove, an idea very offensive to the idea of open democracy. Not to mention the known things that go on there that can easily be misinterpreted by the public, such as the burning of "cares", and not to mention the more allgeded but reasonable things that occour there like the drunkeness etc. I mean, George W Bush in his biography says "During my years at Yale I joined the Skull and Bones society, a society so secret that I cannot say anything more about it". Look at the recent ousting of Jack Ryan for going with his wife to a sex club, in a way small potatoes to Bo Grove style shit.

In the grown-up world, everyone who is lucky enough to be invited to Bohemian Grove, goes, and mingles with the fat cats, movers and shakers. (I wouldn't want to go, either, but nobody's invited us, have they?) Nobody tears pages out of their daybook. Inserted childish wish-fulfillment daydreams get short shrift at Wikipedia. Wetman 04:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't intend to so strongly suggest that the diary pages would be torn out for the simple idea of the grove, but fir what might possibly have gone on their, such as prostitution or cronyistic style discussions, even if not acted upon, which would look bad if revealed.

I wonder what Jimmy Carter would have to say about these charges. After all, he must've been getting close to a deal with the Iranians that unexpectedly slipped away when them CIA mobsters supposedly screwed him over.

Any quotes? Trey Stone 23:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"The allegations are quite specific"

Trey Stone, a viewer of South Park he tells us, keeps suppressing this utterly plain statement. Now, if the allegations were not quite specific, they would fall under the category of Conspiracy theory, wouldn't they, and could be dismissed out-of-hand. Let us see whether that turns out to be Trey Stone's agenda here. Trey Stone will soon discover that there is never an excuse at Wikipedia for suppressing information that is neither misleading nor inaccurate, and which represents a normal, balanced point-of-view. Wetman 08:43, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look Mr. Factual, just because something's true doesn't mean it always fits in the article. That part is an unnecessary detail, and is clearly there because of a bias in favor of the theory. People can tell how specific the allegations are when they read 'em. And yes, it is a conspiracy theory, because it never gained general acceptance amongst the American public and is regarded by many as false. Contrast that with the Iran-Contra scandal, which we all know happened. Trey Stone 21:54, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copyright

Contains unattributed verbatim quotes from a website claiming copyright. I'm not saying we should censor this info, of course; just that we should give proper credit according to fair use rules. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please add the attributions, wherever you may have noted them. --Wetman 16:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that the site is claiming copyright on Wikipedia's original article! If there's a violation, it's not on our part.... --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merge articles?

Noticed that there are 2 articles on the subject of October Surprise, with the only difference being the capitalisation... Would anyone like to merge either article into the other? --Andylkl 11:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A look at the text shows that the October surprise entry is generic, but that October Surpise is specifically this undercutting of a possible October surprise. --Wetman 22:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this page should be renamed "October Surprise (Book)" or "October Surprise (1980 Presidential Election)" to differentiate it from the generic entry. NCrane 16:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

debunkings?

Shouldn't there be at least some attention paid here to the (multiple, and not solely by left-wing sources) debunkings of Sick's work? At a minimum, there's the Village Voice's 1992 [October Surmise] article, which pretty completely demolished Sick's credibility along with many of his sources.

Perhaps a neutral report of the Voice character-demolishing should be added to the article by someone with the stomach for it. --Wetman 22:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to give that a shot; in the meantime it would seem at least appropriate to have a short paragraph mentioning that there are open questions about Mr. Sick's methods and sources. Should I make an attempt at adding that directly, or would we like to preview the wording here? --Dr memory 22:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Iran-Contra

With all the discusssion of Iran-Contra, did anyone ever question whether, instead of being a payment for release of hostages and a way of funding the Contras, the arms transfers to Iran was a payoff by the Regan administration for holding the hostages until after the 1980 elections? I don't recall ever seeing a discussion on this particular accusation, yet it seems a reasonable conspiracy suspicion. If there were such allegations, they would seem a reasonable addition to the October Surprise article. Such a deal would go a long way to explain why, despite great and continuing provocations over the years, our Republican administrations have kept hands off Iran, and in fact in two Bush administrations have take military action against Iran's greatest enemy - Iraq. Obviously, if a deal like that was made, the entire Republican Party would be at the absolute mercy of those in Iran with that knowledge.

Duh, I think that question can be answered by reading the Tower Commission Report, which has been plainly evident for 19 years now, that many people who discuss the so-called Iran-Contra Affair, have never even heard of. Perhaps President Carter's Secretary of State, Edmund P. Muskie (who attempted to negotiate with the 1979 hostage takers), was just a brainwashed dupe when he conspired to assist Tower & Scowcroft to cover up the Reagan Administrations mess by writing the Report. Nobs01 15:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Duh, the Tower Commission report doesn't answer this question. To begin with, it's inquiries never went back as far as 1980, being more concerned with the 1984-1985 arms transfers. Additionally, the commission requested testimony of several individuals, including Admiral Sowcroft, who refused to testify. The commission then asked Regan to require their testimony, and he refused. Therefore, although the commission did a good job on its limited goals, and in the limited time given to it (10 weeks, I believe), neither its investigations nor its findings considered the question I have raised.

Well, I'm sorry but you just plain lost me there with Admiral Sowcroft who yields one (1) google hit (and I think that is mistaken). Perhaps you meant General Scowcroft, but it would seem odd to require him to testify seeing the Tower Commisssion members were John Tower, Brent Scowcroft and Ed Muskie. That leaves another question, do you mean Regan or Reagan, which, anyone familiar with Iran-Contra & the Tower Commission Report would understand both their roles. So that leaves the question, why did Edmund Muskie, the victim of Republican dirty tricks that destroyed his & the Democrats hopes to unseat Nixon in 1972, why did Ed Muskie take a seat on the Commission and participate in the coverup, knowing the Commission was rigged since Admiral Scowcroft, or General Scowcroft, or whatever his name is, had a conflict of interest in being both one of the invetigators and investigatees? Does that sum up the question? Nobs01 00:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

My error - it's what you get when you are typing in a hurry. I meant to say that John Poindexter refusesd to testify, not "Admiral Sowcroft" (sic). in any event, while researching this question, I find that the net includes an article from 1991 that is a real eyeopener on this subject. See "www.Washington-report.org/backissues/0591/9105011.htm" a May 1991 Washington Report article, which goes rather extensively into the subject. While no one involved has admitted to a Regan campaign pre-election agreement to keep the hostages unreleased (not too surprising, as it would be, litereally, treason, what that report cites is highly suspicious actions by both Iran officials and Regan people.

Is that Don Regan, Reagan Chief of Staff at the time, or Ronald Reagan, 40th President? nobs 00:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The SR-71

The most ludicrous part of Sick’s story is that somehow Bush Sr managed to use an SR-71 to fly to Paris, set up a KC135 to refuel it on both legs of the trip. Why no mention of this? TDC 18:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think we should remove the paragraph about oil prices. There are no solid references suggesting that the Saudis didn't do it to stabilize the economy. Their claims that the Saudis did it to help Bush are unsubstantiated. Furthermore, an announcement in April that gradually takes effect over the course of an election year, I don't believe qualifies as an "October Surprise". October 15, 2008.

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)

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)

Recent headlines, 2008 election

Do you think the recent release of the Troopergate verdict by the Alaskan Legislative Council would qualify as an October surprise?

Or perhaps the continual crash of the markets? Excantiaris (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also reports that the US has attacked a target within Syria: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/26/syria.iraq/index.html Andareed (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008 revisions

The lead needed extensive change. Kissinger was not yet the Secretary of State in 1972. There were several deliberately vague descriptions (like "several days before" instead of the exact date). Enforcing tense agreement in a direct quote was dumb (that "peace [was] at hand"). No references were cited. But by far the worst act on the part of previous editors is the misrepresentation of the truth -- a big POV violation. The truth is that the term "October surprise" arose because of Kissinger's "peace is at hand" declaration of October 26, 1972 -- Kissinger was a Republican serving a Republican president. One or more previous editors have concocted the lying implication that the term dates back to an act in 1968 by the previous president, a Democrat. There are two truths: acts that undermine one's political adversary can be done at any time of the year, and the history such acts does not begin in the United States and does not begin in the 1970s. But with regard to "October surprise", these truths are irrelevant. The term "October surprise" in American political jargon arose from what Kissinger did on October 26, 1972. Hurmata (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nixon in 1968

I recently heard on NPR a tape recording of President Johnson talking about candidate Richard Nixon's secret talks with the North Vietnamese. Johnson said that Nixon was secretly interfering with peace talks in an effort to improve his chances getting elected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.179.142 (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ari ben-Menashe on Carter-Reagan

T[he most damning evidence that George H W Bush had negotiated with the Iranian revolutionary guards, while Director of the CIA under Carter, has come from Ari Ben-Menashe in his 1991 book Profits of War. Ben-Menashe personally saw George H W in the Paris Hotel. George H W's alibi that he was addessing a meeting of the ZOA that day has been shown to be fake as the ZOA had no meeting scheduled for that day.

Also see Robert Parry's 'Trick or Treason' [1] which does not seem to be mentioned.]--Rolec Dubbing (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Leading POV tag

Don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers, but it seemed a reasonable maintenance fix to remove the leading POV tag from 2007, which said, "This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (December 2007)". There is no such discussion here: was it deleted or archived after being resolved? In any case, people here seem to have come to terms with each other re opposing POVs, so I thought the tag was no longer needed. Feel free to revert and discuss if you disagree. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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).

General POV

98.201.113.141 (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Note to Wiki Editors: please follow your standards of citations. this article is filled with bias against conservatives. the tone clearly defines my point. I implore you to follow your own standards. There are numerous allegations that have no citations at all! 98.201.113.141 (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whitman controversy

Should the current "Meg Whitman" controversy for the governor's race in California be considered an October Surprise as well? -- Kschang77 (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it does not appear to be gaining nearly the traction of the Schwarzenegger scandal, I would say not. Items listed here should probably carry significance on a national scale, as opposed to listing every state or local scandal that occurred in the month of October. --70.181.171.159 (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Early Voting and 2008

For those more interested/knowledgable on this subject. Has there been any talk/discussion related to the effects of early voting on the "October Surprise?" I've considered the subprime mortgage crisis from mid-late September 2008 which resulted in TARP was an early October Surprise? Prior to that news story, McCain's campaign looked like it was on the way towards winning the election, after the story the entire 2008 election theme changed. With early voting, the "October Surprise" can't wait until the final week, but has to occur earlier. (Kind of like how October Fest now begins in September)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Perot

Why doesn't this mention Perot and his run for President? PumpkinSky talk 21:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Trick or Treason

Needs to include Trick or Treason by Robert Parry and the frontline PBS TV documentary.

http://www.amazon.com/Trick-Treason-October-Surprise-Mystery/dp/187982308X --Wool Bridge (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Was there really an October Surprise in 2008?

I think listing one implies that there has to be an "October Surprise" in every election. There was no surprise in 2008, Obama led McCain the entire campaign. --Surachit (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on October surprise. 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:

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} 07:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggest that Senate confirmation hearings on Brett Kavanaugh were deliberately delayed into October 2018 to create an October Surprise

WeWentWest (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

1964 Goldwater vs. Johnson

This section is totally unsourced, and I can't find any evidence these surprises influenced the election or "saved" Johnson. The article on the 1964 United States presidential election doesn't mention Walter Jenkins or any of the October Surprises mentioned here. Goldwater was never a particularly popular candidate, and as the 1964 election article notes "Johnson led in all opinion polls by huge margins throughout the entire campaign" - the polls barely shifted by a couple of a percent in September, October and the election itself. Smurrayinchester 11:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

No 1968?

The term October surprise very commonly used in reference to Johnson's fake Vietnam peace breakthrough of 1968. Yet nothing about 1968 is mentioned in the article. Slithytoad (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

2014

Ebola, to spook people from staying away from the polls — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4AF:48B9:E9AD:1D89:E72A:92A6 (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Can RGB's death already be considered an October surprise, or would it be too early to say? --Gavinjgrotegut (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Good question, Gavinjgrotegut. My instinct: determining whether RBG’s death qualifies as an “October Surprise” is a function of whether notable sources have defined it as such. And considering at least two already have (see below), I’d say it’s okay to include it, perhaps with a qualifier like, “Hours after her death, outlets x, y and z categorized the event an October Surprise.”

1. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/death-of-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-affects-everything-in-last-stretch-of-campaign-11600481798

2. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-dying-wish.html

3. https://www.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2020/09/a-long-list-of-gop-senators-who-promised-not-to-confirm-a-supreme-court-nominee-during-an-election-year/

Stussll (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I’m going to go ahead and add it. Although, if you think the determination I’ve made above is off in some way, please revert the edit and let me know what you think I didn’t consider. Stussll (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence:

In American political jargon, an October surprise is a news event deliberately created or timed or sometimes occurring spontaneously to influence the outcome of an election...

That makes no sense. An event which is spontaneously can't be designed to influence the election. I will reword it.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)