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: no consensus to move. Listed for six weeks and no activity for the last two. Favonian (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Support. "Intelligence" is a euphemism which does not accurately portray the subject, which, in fact is "spying", or more politely, "espionage". No where does the article intelligence mention spying or espionage, and the see also article nations and intelligence is not about spy vs. spy, but about variations in IQ. Apteva (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Nom and Apteva could not be more uninformed than their positions convery. Intelligence and Human Intelligence are indeed different things, but Intelligence as a discipline (not a euphemism) as in How Intelligence Works is a much, much broader concept than espionage or spying. Espionage is merely a small aspect of just one part of the Intelligence Cycle-Collection and to characterize all intelligence activities as espionage is just plain silly and uniformed. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The only thing more of an oxymoron than "military intelligence" is "intelligence". Take this sentence "The process begins with identifying the issues in which policy makers are interested and defining the answers they need to make educated decisions regarding those issues." Policy makers are the President and the Congress, no one else. Both of which are interested in absolutely every issue that exists, and no they do not want to make educated decisions regarding those issues, they want to and do make political decisions about every issue. But enough about that. Intelligence has little to do with intelligence, and a whole lot to do with espionage. Do you have to be intelligent to be a good spy? Yes, but you also have to be intelligent to be a good janitor, and we do not use Portal:Intelligence for janitors either. Apteva (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose – It is true that "intelligence" is not a very clear name. But it is also true that "intelligence" (in the sense intended here) includes many activities other than "espionage". Espionage focuses on "obtaining information that is considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information" (quoting the opening sentence of the espionage article on Wikipedia). However, much of "intelligence" activity, e.g. as practiced by the CIA, involves simply studying, analyzing and organizing entirely public information. Changing to "espionage" would substantially narrow the implied scope to a degree that seems unacceptable. Renaming might be a good idea, but not with that particular suggested name. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "espionage" doesn't feel quite right, but the portal's own description does begin "...is the gathering of information via covert means - eavesdropping, monitoring, spying, intimidation, bribery, etc." That the CIA, for example, might have a (much larger) public side might be something else as regards this portal's focus..? CsDix (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
My instinct is that something named "Portal:Intelligence" would first, foremost and probably exclusively be about the mental capacity. The portal's page does appear to be about the covert ("eavesdropping, monitoring, spying, intimidation, bribery, etc") and, at present, I can't think of a (better) alternative to "Portal:Espionage"... Portal:Covert intelligence..? CsDix (talk) 19:21, 5 December 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.