`  ==Request move proposal (renewed and continued due to holiday break interfering)== :After consulting previous discussion (scroll up and see archived discussions): :[Please place your brief comment in only one section: either ``Support`` or ``Oppose`` below, and please use a number sign (#) (followed by Support or Oppose) prior to your comment.  (Please see the ``move log`` of this article for its history.) Thank you.(If the name were changed, one would revise the first sentence accordingly.)    ] ::[In the archived (in green above) ``survey``, there appear to be more votes in ``support`` of the move than ``oppose`` it; but there is also contradictory information from non-archived (non-green) discussions.  Please see earlier comments posted by other editors.  I added a comment to the ``support`` (non-archived) section above the archived (green) section.   ] ::Please also see the talk pages of related and frequently-also-renamed articles; e.g., Talk:CIA leak grand jury investigation#Periodic renaming of this and related articles, which contain many cross-references to CIA leak scandal, which are currently being redirected to Plame affair but it used to be the other way around (that ``Plame affair`` was redirected to ``CIA leak scandal``).     ;Support # Support: I support the name change from ``Plame affair`` to ``CIA leak scandal`` due to the name changes of related articles, particularly CIA leak scandal timeline; it leads to both greater neutrality for this highly-controversial article and greater consistency with respect to related articles in Wikipedia.    # Support: I strongly support the name change.  I advocated this very strongly a few months ago and accepted that there wasn't sufficient support for it then.  I was heartened by the wise observation by an editor that sometimes the passage of time affects the perspective on such matters.  The consistency among other related articles is one good reason.  A second reason is that it would be more consistent with other similar political scandals in history.  A third reason is that the focus of the article title should be on WHAT happened (a leak pertaining to the CIA) rather than on the name of the person (Plame) who happened to be the passive victim of the occurrence. Fourth reason is that - with Scooter Libby having elected to not contest his conviction - there is now no doubt that criminality took place involving a high-ranking administration official.  And such criminality affecting an administration is invariably described as a scandal. That is not POV.  It is a fact.  This issue is most definitely more than just an ``affair`` - a word that connotes a ``caper``.      ;Oppose # Oppose: 34,000 versus 121,000 google hits, and 9 to 25 in google news.  ``Plame affair`` is clearly the most common name per WP:NC.    # Oppose: ``Plame affair`` uniquely identifies this incident. This was not a leak from the CIA. There have been leaks from the CIA in the past and there no doubt will be in the future. We should pick a name that will last and ``CIA leak scandal`` isn't it.   # Oppose: Per Reinhold; someone looking at an article title should have some notion what the article covers.    # Oppose.  I think NYScholar proposes a good reason to change the name of the CIA leak timeline article, not this one.    # Oppose - The scandal is far more pertinent to Valarie Plame, the agent who was outed, than to the CIA as a whole, which didn't have a lot to do with it other than asking for an investigation and accepting Plame's resignation.  If the google hits were different, I might be neutral, but even if you add ``-wikipedia`` to the searches, it's still 99,000 to 32,000.     ===Discussion=== ====Support==== *Reply to Salix alba's comment of January 2 (and action earlier): :This article is categorized by American political scandals; ``