Talk:Intelligence failure

:The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

----

Failure in the intelligence cycle → {{no redirect|Intelligence failure}} –

Requesting move to Intelligence failure, as it is shorter, more direct, and more likely to be in common usage. This terminology already mentioned in article. 70.247.162.84 (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Intelligence failure" and "failure in the intelligence cycle" are not synonymous. The advantage of the current title is that it has encouraged editors to look at all parts of the intelligence cycle. The text in its current form is a bit wooly; there is an outline description of different parts of the cycle and bland statements that X can fail, etc. If the article is left with its current title, then I would expect people to populate these sections with examples of problems and failures in different parts of the cycle, as has been partly done already. If, on the other hand, the article title is changed to "intelligence failure", this would probably develop into a collection of examples of alleged intelligence failures. I suspect that the present title will end up producing a better article.

:"Intelligence failure" is a fairly nebulous term. It can cover high-level failure such as 11 September 2001 or 22 June 1941. It can also cover low-level failure such as particular intelligence sources being compromised. The approach of wanting to look at the whole cycle and relegating low-level intelligence failures to small sections should one day produce a better more rounded article.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.