Talk:Spook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spook also means a lot of different things (defination). Shouldn't there be a disambiguation page??? 59.93.131.67 09:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spook and CIA

I restored the mentioned of CIA members as spooks. This was reverted with the explanation that it is redundant and too specific. However,in many circumstances, "spook" is used as a synonym for CIA member, and not a synonym for spy. In fact, CIA employees are generally not not spies; rather, analysts and "handlers" (the people who recruit and manage spies) are often called spooks.--ragesoss (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert this for a day or two, but color me skeptical. Do you have any reference for that? I just checked three dictionary references, and none support that claim.

• Wictionary says "A spy." http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/spook
• Merriam-Webster says "an undercover agent : spy." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spook
• dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spook, which sources from multiple dictionaries, has two definitions in this area: "an espionage agent; spy" (Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)) and "a secret agent; a spy" (American Heritage Dictionary) (it also has 6 other sources that don't mention the espionage sense at all)

I also googled on "define: spook," but to my surprise, it had few hits, none dealing with the espionage sense

I see nothing documenting the use of the word for non-undercover employees of the CIA. TJRC (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be primarily used to refer to undercover agents, but undercover is not equivalent to spy. More typically, undercover CIA employees are spy handlers, while the actual spies are foreign nationals. Some examples from signficant media: Milt Bearden referred to as a spook (he directed covert operations, but was not a technically a spy, and maybe not even undercover); George Tenet referred to as a spook (never undercover, so far as I can tell). Browsing other Google hits shows that this usage is not uncommon.--ragesoss (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)