Talk:Intelligence failure

On 22 August 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Failure in the intelligence cycle to Intelligence failure. The result of the discussion was moved.

Move Request[edit]

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)[reply]

Failure in the intelligence cycle → 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Failure in the intelligence cycle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511170641/http://www.wmd.gov/report/wmd_report.pdf to http://www.wmd.gov/report/wmd_report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DPROD[edit]

This page was proposed for deletion by GraemeLeggett (talk · contribs) in the past with the comment:
reads like a personal essay with a lot of jargon but has little real content beyond a few statements. Seems to be abandoned.
It was contested by Kvng (talk · contribs) on 2017-08-27 with the comment:
These are not valid and uncontroversial delete reasons. Numerous incoming wikilinks indicate potential notability otherwise consider merge to Intelligence cycle.

Requested move 22 August 2023[edit]

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 17:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Failure in the intelligence cycle → Intelligence failure – This is the common term. "Failure in the intelligence cycle" refers to a step in a very specific model of intelligence. Retaining this name hinders effective editing on "intelligence failures" because the page name is devoted to an obscure, specific model of intelligence that contributors may be unfamiliar with. Thenightaway (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Seems sensible. Neutrality^talk 00:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Smahwk (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Smahwk: And what is your reason for opposing? SilverLocust 💬 16:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smahwk has now explained elsewhere that, in their view, "The article is about faults which can take place at any step of the Intelligence cycle , while intelligence failure is a general term.Both of them should be different articles." This RM was reopened at Smahwk's request to see if anyone else had input on that. SilverLocust 💬 01:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Espionage has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:CONCISE seems to apply, I do not see the difference between the two terms. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I don't see a need for two separate articles here. The proposed title is a bit more general but includes the current subject. SilverLocust 💬 20:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.