Talk:United States documents leak of the War in Afghanistan

Suggested move

The War Logs → Afghan War Logs

Besides getting rid of the unnecessary 'The', it would make the title more descriptive. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• It may be still early to see how it plays out in the secondary sources. I saw some sources with Afghan War Logs but i saw also a lot that use Afghanistan war logs or simply The War Logs. We may need just a little bit more time to watch the sources and see how it plays out. IQinn (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• It looks like both the New York Times and The Guardian are calling the documents "The War Logs." We should wait a few days and see if this catches on as the common name. - SimonP (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Afghanistan war logs is the sensible title. The Guardian are calling them the "Afghanistan war logs", when they refer to it in a historical context. The Guardian and the New York Times are using titles like "Afghanistan: The War Logs" or just "The War Logs" for their websites, but this is a marketing term; it is not how they are being referred to from a historical context. It's fairly obvious that "The War Logs" will not ever ever be used to describe them in a historical context; it's not specific enough, certainly not for an encyclopaedia. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Telegraph uses the term "Afghanistan War Logs" and it now appears that the Telegraph is but one of many. At the time I initiated the article "War Logs" seemed to be the only terminology in use but that has since changed. I don't think the NY Times and the Guardian have necessarily reserved naming rights.Bdell555 (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Wait and see what title becomes the dominant one. no need to rush. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's make the change:

The War Logs → Afghanistan war logs 192.43.227.18 (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I see on the front page of the Guardian that it says "Afghanistan war logs: latest developments". There is also "Afghanistan war logs: live blog" on the site. In fact, all Guardian stories related to the topic appear to be prefaced with "Afghanistan war logs:". The very widely read HuffPo calls them "Afghanistan War Logs", although I admit that HuffPo also says "dubbed 'The War Logs'" . Before reverting back to "War Logs" alone reverters should provide some evidence or argument beyond "wait and see" because there is no reason why the burden of proof should be on one choice of terminology over another. A link to this Wiki article appears on news.google.com's front page such that Wikipedia need not just follow the others anyway but can name it as Wikipedians think it should be named and on that front "Afghanistan War Logs" is more informative. "War Logs" by itself does have elements of marketing such that the New York Times would like to see the leak as being on the same status as the Pentagon Papers i.e. something that one can more easily imagine having a "TM" superscript after it as opposed to something more generic. The NY Times apparently wanted "The War Logs" to stick but it now seems that most other sources are not just going to run with that, in that they will specify "Afghanistan War Logs" or, even more commonly, use entirely generic terminology that doesn't capitalize or even mention "war logs" at all.Bdell555 (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No need to rush the discussion usually runs for seven days and many people here have explicit ask for more time. You might be right but we are a community so please try to reach consensus and let other people also have their say. IQinn (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is consensus. Bdell555 was the creator of the article, and has now decided that Afghanistan war logs is a better name. No one has yet given any arguments against this. Can we please make the move? Gregcaletta (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The one who start an article get's the final right to choose the name? Actually Afghan War Logs has been also use quite a lot and The War Logs are big in the secondary sources. What's the pushing for? Can we at least have 48 hours? So we can watch and check the sources as many editors here have ask for. IQinn (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• No - This is the nomenclature preferred by major news organizations, no reason to prefer anything else. Shadowjams (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean that Bdell555 had special rights. I meant that up until that point he was the only person who had supported the name "The War Logs", and he changed his mind. But it now appears there others who object. The point is that "Afghanistan war logs" is the most common name, and "The War Logs" is used only as a marketing title, not as a descriptive or referential title. I have not yet seen anyone address this argument, so I feel there is rough consensus to move the page. If anyone want to give arguments as to why "The War Logs" is a better name than "Afghanistan War Logs", but there is no reason we necessarily have to wait for a particular period of time before making the move, in no one gives any counter arguments. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I didn't base my opinion on Bdell555's opinion though, I made my comments based on the very recent NYTimes publication of the same, so that's the form I'd prefer. The NYT blog, and probably the paper for tomorrow (unclear to me) uses the "war logs" name, so that's probably the best approach for now. Shadowjams (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Keep it here for now Folks will find the article either way, so I see little reason to move the article immediately. Also, if those does get moved again, may I suggest a move lock so that wherever it ends up it remains until such time as things cool off enough that this can reasonbly be expected to stay in one place. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Give us a break. No reason to threaten an edit war. That's your opinion and i as others here already said that this might not be the best choice and many said the best is to wait a little time to see how the sources play out and that the name is perfectly fine for them. As said i highly suggest you wait at least 48 hours to give the community time to react to your argument. Better would be to let an administrator close it. What's the pushing for? IQinn (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article reeks of bias. Shouldn't a tag be applied until these "logs" can be verified as truth or as fiction or even as embellishment?Splashallison (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)splashallison

agreed this article is too quick too say all 92,000 paint the war as a failure the, opinion or view point is more likely reflected differently in the different years. Readers should as of right now be the ones to determine that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidit1 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No one has claimed that the logs are false. THe military itself has at least tacitly acknowledged that they are genuine. Where does the article say "all 92,000 paint the war as a failure"? Gregcaletta (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have looked over the lead and found one statement that appeared biased and not included in the sourced material. If there any more specific statements that you find inaccurate, please point them out to us. If there are any significant POVs that are missing from the article, please feel free to provide the quotations with the source. Thanks. Gregcaletta (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)