Talk:Spy satellite

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 10:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This page should not have been moved as Wikipedia uses common names, not technical ones. Spy satellite is by far the more commonly used name.- SimonP 17:54, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

For whom is the term more common? In history or polisci classes, they use 'reconnaissance satellite' as well. I know, I have been there. And on TV documentaries, they use the same thing. "Spy satellite" is a negatively charged term that should not be used in an apolitical setting. It's not as if "reconnaissance satellite" is uncommon usage, either. -Joseph 18:13, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

The normal Wikipedia standard for determining common usage is Google hits, and "spy satellite" wins convincingly by this measure. At university I took a couple of History of Espionage classes and my professor would often refer to them as spy satellites. Even in academic texts spy satellite is often used, as a JSTOR search shows. - SimonP 18:53, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think we should put this to a vote. Articles are to remain NPOV, and 'spy satellite' is not an NPOV term. And if you're going to correct me, you'd better learn how to spell in the article text. -Joseph 19:42, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

Any poll would have to be one on revoking Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) as this is a perfect example of that rule. Also I would contest that "spy satellite" is a pejorative term. Rather I would view an American government euphemism as the more biased title. - SimonP 20:00, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Simon, where did you go to college, may I ask?:-) Meanwhile, a brief question someone more knowledgable than me might want to answer in the article...Did film-return sats carry multiple film canisters? It's never mentioned. --Penta 01:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose moving from spy satellite, which is much more common. Jonathunder 23:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose moving from spy satellite; I agree that "spy" has some negative connotations, but the terms do seem to be used interchangeably, with "reconnaissance" used more euphemistically than as a broader term; in the event that "reconnaissance" could be applied to "satelllite" in a broader sense than that used here (intelligence gathering) then I'd support creation of a separate, more general article and have the present article avaialble via a {{main}} link in context. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support (weakly) moving from spy satellite, but I have mixed feelings. Re "an American government euphemism...biased title" , keep in mind there are many types of reconnaissance satellites: U.S. military, non-U.S. military, and civillian, e.g, [1].

If this rename doesn't happen, does that mean we should change the commercial QuickBird high-res imaging satellite to be "commercial spy satellite?". Or what about the European SPOT satellite? Or the Indian Remote Sensing satellite? Are "earth observation satellite" and "remote sensing satellite" also biased titles? Or is it only a biased euphamistic title when applying to American military satellites? What about the Israeli EROS (satellite) commerical imaging satellite, which is based on their Ofeq military recon sat?

Wikipedia articles use the term "reconnaissance satellite" more than "spy satellite". Within articles there are already more hyperlink redirects from reconnaissance satellite to spy satellite than vice versa. It would seem changing this article title would improve internal consistency. OTOH I don't think "spy satellite" is a very perjorative term. Also "reconnaissance" is harder to say, spell and type than "spy". But a redirect page can handle that just as it does now.

Common usage is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. As mentioned above there are various issues that must be weighed when naming an article. Often there are entanglements to many other articles, as exists here.

BTW the latest generation of commercial imaging satellites have better resolution than military recon sats did not that long ago. Quickbird has 61 cm resolution. During the Gulf War, SPOT images were voluntarily witheld because of potential military value -- to prevent SPOT's use as a commercial "spy satellite". The issue is bigger than just military recon satellites, or a quick decision based only on common usage. The whole thing needs careful thought. Joema 02:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support it's more encyclopedic, so whether or not it's "more common" it is more proper, even though it's less cool. Like ninja stars (okay, bad example) —Fitch 00:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• If you couldn't already tell, support.

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