Jump to content

Talk:Psychological operations (United States)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

References

This is bound to meet some objections, therefore it might me prudent to insert references to the claims presented here.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference #7 is not pertinent. It is cited as justification for saying that the US military cannot conduct MISO operations against US civilians; however, the citation only justifies why active duty MISO personnel fall under USASOC. Both instances where this reference is cited (7a and 7b) need updated and corrected references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Flanuer (talk • contribs) 14:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

POV

I am concerned about the neutrality of this page, which includes multiple uncited "excuses," for lack of a better word, such as "While the program was an innocent attempt by the Army to provide its PSYOPers with the expertise developed by the private sector under its "Training with Industry" program," and "While the bodies had been left on the battlefield and were to be burned anyway because of hygiene concerns." I am not really a contributor to Wikipedia, more of a reader, but I hope an active member can work on neutralizing this article. 66.87.91.36 01:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing these "excuses" out. I have edited the sections which you have noted and added two sources. I hope you can further review the article. Moonburn 08:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The whole burning bodies section needs looked into by an impartial historian, with an eye to NPOV, and facts. There is an archived discussion with challenges to the factual presentation of the story as presented here. Also, the new section on Tal Afar seems self-sourced.
the entire article seems at least slightly biased. I wonder if parts of it were written by military PR folks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.106.19 (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I Killed this link: http://www.psyop.tv/main.php It's to a commercial company. Has nothing to do with the subject matter.

That company probably needs its own entry. It very obviously models itself on psyop doctrine. I presume the company is made up of some ex-PSYOP soldiers. - Atfyfe 22:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Christine McLaughlin if your freedom is in danger is so opps doing it and how do any one start. Law suit! !!! Venus26 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Christine McLaughlin if your freedom is in danger is so opps doing it and how do any one start. Law suit! !!! Venus26 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

TPD1720

Should the section regarding TPD1720 be deleted because it doesn't source anything.216.158.58.34 21:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Tal Afar section needs to go. Mainly because this entry is not going to have a section for every PSYOP detachment's deployments. While I am sure the detachment did I great job in Tal Afar, nothing seems to have occured worthy of encyclopedic note. Furthermore, the information would seem to belong on the entry for Operation Restoring Rights rather than on the entry for PSYOP. - Atfyfe 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed section:

PSYOP in Tall'afar, Northern Iraq "TPD1720"

More recently, PSYOP elements were used very effectively in Northern Iraq, more specifically in the city of Tall’afar. Tall’afar, a city about an hour west of Mosul, and with a population of approximately 250,000, had become a safe haven for insurgents and terrorists who were using the city as a base for terrorist operations and activity. Tactical Psychological Detachment 1720 (TPD 1720) of the 17th Psychological Operation Battalion, from Joliet Illinois, (comprised of two TPTs, 1721 and 1723) supported elements of the 3rd ACR from May 2005 till February 2006. The 3rd ACR was then replaced by elements of the 1st AD, with continued support by TPD 1720, until the latter’s replacements in early May of 2006.

TPD 1720 was called upon, on a daily basis, to work in rather austere and non-permissive environments, not only within the most inhospitable areas of Tall’afar, but in surrounding villages and cities as well. Some as far North as Al-Kasik, as far west as the border towns of Rabia and as far East as Aski-Mosul. Technically it could be said that TPD 1720 also worked as far south as Baghdad, as TPT 1722 (one of the three TPTs of 1720) was tasked to support elements within the Baghdad area for the 12-month deployment.

One of the biggest successes attributed to the PSYOP support, was evident in the operation to rid the insurgent and terrorist stricken district of Sarai, in the northwest region of Tall’afar. The operation, “Operation Restoring Rights”, was a classic textbook case of how a properly run PSYOP campaign works and realizes the commander’s intent. The PSYOP teams were instrumental in helping the civilians evacuate the district, help control mass movements, scripted and broadcast surrender appeals, movement information, harassment and deception messages, as well as support the local Iraqi forces in conducting their specific duties and responsibilities in the operation.

For their hard work, TPD 1720 were recognized and honored by the Commander of the 3rd ACR, Colonel McMaster, as well as by the 1st AD. The city was transformed from a ghost town to that of city alive with merchants, parks, schools and an ever-growing infrastructure.

Noriega mission

I was under the impression that the music was played to interfere with the media's snooping mics, not to drive Noriega out.Moonburn 06:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was told the same thing in PSYOP school, but I was never sure if that was just one of those stories soldiers tell or a true account of what happened. - Atfyfe 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It was an effort to interfere with the mic's. pictures of the scene show the speakers pointed away from the Noriega compound at the media outside. Jocosetad 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You have 2 different accounts of the Noriega music, only one can be right. One is the press the other is bored soldiers. This needs to be resolved, which is correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.165.29.26 (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
As far as plausibility goes, the bored soldiers story is much much more likely. Since when did CNN have building penetrating microphones anyway? - Atfyfe 07:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
They told us it was for counter-media purposes when I was at USAJFKSWCS. The Army line is good enough for me. Moonburn 09:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Need New insignia

I added some fact tags and removed some dead links to unit insignia in the first table. We could use new ones! --Patrick Berry 18:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Burning Bodies

This section should be DELETED..... this is an incident which involved Soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade. Through the Freedom of Information Act we know that in Gumbad, Afghanistan, the Platoon Leader burned the bodies for hygienic reasons despite the Islamic culture that forbids cremation. An official investigation into the incident found evidence of poor decision making, poor judgement, poor reporting, a lack of knowledge and respect for local Afghan custom and tradition. The Infantry Officer received a General Officer letter of reprimand. The two PSYOP specialist were not a part of the element which burned the bodies. They heard about the incident and used the information to incite Taliban fighters but the messages were "not approved". This incident does not warrant a section on the history of Psychological Operations. If every incident of misconduct was cited for every other military capability the pages would go on forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.233.194 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


While I agree with all that is said here, it's gonna need to be altered to be more NPOV:

"The bodies were burned, for sanitary reasons, by Soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade. Whether the decision was made by a Platoon Leader or the Battalion Commander remains questionable, it certainly was not a decision made by PSYOP personnel. The PSYOP Soldiers were used as scapegoats to avoid embarassing a proud Active Duty unit, who coincidently, were formerly commanded by the General who decided to reprimand the Soldiers. The PSYOP personnel were well within their boundries to harass the enemy in an attempt to encourage them to rejoin the fight."

- Atfyfe 16:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There are more problems than POV.
See the text starting "During the War on Terror, U.S. PSYOP teams often broadcast abrasive messages over loudspeakers..." First, are these actually direct quotes? If so, I might suggest that they would have been more effective had they been in Dari, Pashtun, or some other regional language other than English. Whether they are direct quotes or not, they need to be sourced. The first citation does include

The footage also shows two soldiers with American accents, identified by SBS as being part of a US Army psychological operations team, reading messages in English that they had allegedly earlier read out to inhabitants of Gonbaz in the local dialect.

Since it is unlikely that the average inhabitant of Gonbaz speaks English, this has the flavor of a media event arranged by SBS Television. Is there more
I expanded the first external link. The second link, to the Army Times, is dead, as is the third link to Japan Today.
At this point, I think the entire section should be removed, unless there is reliable sourcing of the messages actually delivered, in an appropriate language, to the Taliban suspects. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not see any reason to remove this section. Whatever happened, it was a widely publicized event attributed to PSYOP whatever PSYOP's actual involvment was. This was a major news event when it occured, invovled PSYOP in some way (e.g. "PSYOP Soldiers received administrative punishment"), was an event that hurt US PSYOP's public reputation, etc. etc. So it should be included on those grounds alone. Now, perhaps PSYOP was not involved or PSYOP was involved but the reports at the time were inaccurate about what actually occured, but either way that is part of the reason this section is needed and exactly what a section like this one should clear up. Perhaps what is in this section currently needs to be mostly deleted or corrected, but at least a placeholder for a more accurate telling of this event should remain (e.g. an empty section with an "expand" tag).
Just to give another example, that PSYOP/General/Rolling Stone controversy is a good example of another "scandal" widely reported to involve PSYOP, but one that actually didn't involve PSYOP in anyway. But the event should still be described in this entry, if only to clear up the misreporting about whether PSYOP was involved with the event. Which is exactly what the sub-section on this event currently does: "Subsequently Holmes conceded that he was not a Psychological Operations officer nor was he in charge of a Psychological Operations unit and acknowledged that Caldwell's orders were 'fairly innocuous'". People who think that PSYOP was involved with that nonsense can visit this entry and have their misconception corrected. - Atfyfe (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Would this constitude a WW-II psy-ops operation?

Efforts instill a sense of "collective guilt"

"In 1945 there was an Allied consensus—which no longer exists—on the doctrine of collective guilt, that all Germans shared the blame not only for the war but for Nazi atrocities as well."[1]

The Brittish and The Americans considered the Germans to be guilty, using the terms "collective guilt", and "collective responsibility"[2]

The Brittish instructed their officers in control of German media to instill a sense of collective guilt in the population[3]

In the early months of the occupation the Psychological Warfare Division of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) undertook a psychological propaganda campaign for the purpose of developing a German sense of collective responsibility.[4] Using the German press (which were all under Allied control) and posters and pamphlets a program acquainting ordinary Germans with what had take place in the concentration camps was conducted.

"During the summer of 1945 pictures of Bergen-Belsen were hung as posters all over Germany with 'You Are Guilty' on them."[5]

Later the U.S. army came to draw a distinction between those legally guilty and the rest of the population which was then merely considered morally guilty.[6]

A number of films showing the concentration camps were made and screened to the German public. For example "Die Todesmuhlen", released in the U.S. zone in January 1946, "Welt im Film" No. 5 (June, 1945). A film that was never finished due partly to delays and the existence of the other films was "Memory of the Camps". "...the object [of the film] was to shake and humiliate the Germans and prove to them beyond any possible challenge that these German crimes against humanity were committed and that the German people -- and not just the Nazis and SS -- bore responsibility."[7]

Immediately upon the liberation of the concentration-camps many German civilians were forced to see the conditions in the camps, bury rotting corpses and exhume mass-graves.[8] On threat of death or withdrawal of food civilians were forced to provide their belongings to former concentration camp inmates[9] --Stor stark7 Talk 00:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Psyoppatches.JPG

Image:Psyoppatches.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Grammar??

Is this PsyOps? I mean in the article itself or just a mistake? First Paragraph: Strategic psychological operations are done by other than the military, except possibly in major wars and at the level of theaters of operations.

The basic US doctrine is that the strategic level of psychological operations is directed by the State Department, although various declassified documents increase the responsibility of the Joint Chiefs in wartime. Covert psychological operations usually are done by the CIA. Overt strategic psyops come from the U.S. Information Agency. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am simply saying that the way it is written is not proper English. John Doe or Jane Doe (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the changes are tuned. Still, rather than just saying it is wrong, especially in the less than perfectly clear objections in the first paragraph, why not suggest an alternative wording rather than simply say what you dislike? After all, multiple quetion marks, "is this psyops" with no antecedent, etc., are not necessarily straight out of Strunk & White's The Elements of Style. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that often military entries on wikipedia include information about their subjects directly from military manuals/websites/etc. Not that it is "PsyOps", but often when editors need to describe what something like US PSYOP is, they look to how the US Army itself describes US PSYOP in manuals/websites/etc.
However, I do think this should be avoided. First off, the way the Army describes something is usually in obscure military-speak that isn't very informative. Also, even when it is grammatical, the military's description of anything usually involves run-on/hard-to-follow sentences. Second, it does give the article a POV feel to it when the information it provides on a topic about the a US military topic is simply taken from something the US military published on the topic (e.g. a sentence like this: "PSYOP involves the careful creation and dissemination of a product message."). Certainly US Army/PSYOP manuals/websites/etc. are an important source of information on this topic, but a wikipedia entry shouldn't be or even appear to be simply a re-posting of military publications on a topic. For example, even if the US Army classifies PSYOP in terms of white/gray/black, I am not sure that is any reason for this article to do so (e.g. I find sentences like this problematic: "There are three types of propaganda that are used to create these messages."). Perhaps the entry should say that white/gray/black is how US PSYOP classifies their own work, but this entry shouldn't assert this as a fact about their work itself.
Anyway, what I am saying is that editors should approach an entry like this like an outside anthropologist studying a certain group/sub-culture. Just as an entry on some company shouldn't just be the company's own description of itself lifted directly from its own website, an entry on a military topic shouldn't just be the military's own description of the topic. I have this same sort of battle over entries concerning the unofficial or semi-official aspects of the US Army's uniform (e.g. the CAV hat, the Ram's Head Device). Even while they may not be a part of the military's own manual/description of its uniforms, wikipedia is not a military manual. These entries should be about the military, which should include the official military description of its elements (like PSYOP) and its uniforms, but should both include and be written from the perspective of an outsider describing the the military in general to include its official, semi-official, and unoffical aspects. - Atfyfe (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PSYOPsuperman.jpg

Image:PSYOPsuperman.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

B class failure

I'm going through the article and finding a few things that are themselves questionable, or not referenced. Nevertheless, it would be very helpful if "citation needed/fact" tags were placed on any text where it is believed a citation is needed.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Three Kings

Earlier someone had stated that the soldiers portrayed in the Three Kings movie constituted a tactical PSYOP team. Is there any source someone has that might back-up this claim? From the movie it is left unclear whether they are civil affairs or PSYOP soldiers (given that CA and PSYOP share the same USACAPOC patch, the movie leaves it undetermined). Perhaps the movie script might offer some evidence one way or the other? Given the make-up and size of the team my guess would be that they in fact are meant to constitute a PSYOP team, but guesses aren't enough to call them a PSYOP team in this article. - Atfyfe (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd assumed it was a CA team; no PSYOP specific equipment and an SF NCO. That isn't necessarily mean they weren't--there's always been a few SF tabbed officers--but it does point to CA. Virgil61 (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

PSYOP against USSR

Able Archer 83#PSYOP I find this info important but it can't be found anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.137.251 (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Too nation specific

Why, exactly, does Psychological Operations redirect to Psychological Operations (United States)? The USA is far from the only country with a PSYOPS capability. There should be a general PSYOPS article (as I assume, from the existence of a redirect, there used to be) then a USA-specific one if anybody's interested. FergusM1970 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the Psychological operations redirect so it points to Psychological warfare instead. That seems to be the article in which the old Psychological operations article was merged. – McDutchie (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe that is what happened McDutchie. Thanks for posting the problem FergusM1970 and thanks McDutchie for fixing it! - Atfyfe (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Spelling Fixes

I've run the article through spellcheck, fixing a few miatakes. More importantly, I've changed the British spellings in the beginning of the article to their Americanized versions. After all, this article deals with an American topic. Dpenn89 (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Information about the images in the sidebar

I think it would be quite useful to many visitors if some information was provided on the images featured in the sidebar at the top of the page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.125.71.121 (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I like your idea, but where? As a caption to the picture? I'll mess around with seeing what I can do. Let me know if you have some specific idea for how to implement your suggestion. - Atfyfe (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"(Necessary comments...)" from User:76.240.174.71

I'm moving this down from the top of the talk page to its own sub-section. It was posted a while back by an anon. IP address:

There is no better an example of a PSYOPS venue than that of Wikipedia. From my experiences, especially in the area of military equipment capability, the content of certain subjects in Wikipedia are closely monitored and filtered by active or ex-military types posing as citizens or experts. One individual in particular is someone who goes by REM01. There are some areas of Wikipedia that are more objective than others. I suspect that even this topic of PSYOPS is a mini-battleground for PSYOPS influencers.
The point here is that people are aware of what is going on.
Thanks.
(Unsigned comment by User:76.240.174.71 10:58, 11 April 2011)

While both User:76.240.174.71's comments as well as a response to his/her comments are completely unnecessary, I'll go ahead and offer a response:

  • It's PSYOP, not PSYOPS. At least for US PSYOP. You'll notice that fact is in the article once you read it.
  • As for "closely monitored and filtered by active or ex-military types posing as citizens or experts"; well, first off, active and ex-military types aren't posing as citizens, they are citizens, imagine that. They're people in fact! Active and ex-military types even have outside interests like other people, interests like editing wikipedia for example. Furthermore, they are experts on military subjects given the job they currently or formerly had. So they aren't posing as citizens or as experts, they're actually both! Not to mention the fact that active and ex-military types are probably interested in editing military entries at a higher percent than the general populace given their career. So there is probably a lot of active or ex-military types on military entries (just like there are probably current former pilots on airplane/airline entries, former/current Boeing employees on Boeing related entries, former/current union members on union related entries, etc.). Which is to say: people who are or were in the military are people interested in the military and, consequently, are likely to edit wikipedia entries about the military. This is a good thing. Obviously any POV that they (or anyone) might bring to an entry must be fixed by other editors, but... so? That's true generally about every editor and entry.
  • So you claim that the user REM01 is active or ex-military? So what. I'm ex-military. That's why I'm the sort of person interested in editing military wikipedia entries. It's something I know a bit about and something I'm interested in. Heck, I even went through the trouble of creating the photo that is currently at the top of this entry. Had a lot of fun learning how to use paint.net while I did it too! However, I am certainly not open to the charge that my edits to military entries are POV in either pro or con. I think you'll find my edits on military matters quite NPOV. So while I don't know anything about REM01's edits in particular, you are flat wrong simply to cite the fact that he might be active or ex-military (assuming you're correct) to prove that his edits are POV. Do you have specific examples about REM01's work? What about specific problems with this entry on PSYOP?
  • So to recap: Are there active and ex-military types editing this entry? Certainly. Do some of them make POV edits favoring the U.S. Army's interests? Probably. I've know a few people from my time in the military who would probably do that in their freetime; not because it was their job and not because they're intentionally spreading misinformation, but rather just because they really are the sort of person who has an extremely positive POV towards the Army so even when they make good faith edits on wikipedia they end up being POV. But there certainly can and are active or ex-military types who are just knowledgeable and interested in military topics that make NPOV edits.

Anyway, I could edit down my rambling response above, but it really isn't worth it to me. I doubt User:76.240.174.71 will ever visit this entry again anyway. - Atfyfe (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect definitions of PsyOp

The description for PsyOp according to the DoD official public doctrine is as follows:

Psychological Operations: Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives. Also called PSYOP. (JP 1-02. SOURCE: JP 3-13.2)

(You can read the source PDF at: http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3-13-2.pdf on page 121)

The description of white, black, and gray are more in keeping with propaganda rather than PsyOp and as they are separate things should probably be eliminated and this definition replace it. Please let me know what you all in the Wiki community think. SignoreMachia (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Women in TPTs?

"Women are not allowed to serve on TPTs in a war zone due to a PSYOP team's high chance of contact with the enemy."

Isn't that just for AD?207.38.210.117 (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

U.S. PSYOP forces are forbidden to target (i.e., attempt to change the opinions of)

Who actually believes this idea- U.S. PSYOP forces are forbidden to target (i.e., attempt to change the opinions of) U.S. citizens at any time, in any location globally, or under any circumstances? other than the ones running the psyops. If an American had a dime each time they were exposed to a psyop, they'd all be millionaires. The entire internet looks like one giant psyop. Is it any wonder that DARPA invented the internet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3432432 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Weasel Words

The section "Toppling of Saddam Hussein statue" is full of weasel words: Arguably ... Allegations ... It is claimed... Allegations surfaced ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.147.8 (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"Propaganda" replaced with "product"

I would like to know what other editors think of [10], [11], and [12]. I am inclined to revert all three to avoid the use of euphemism. EllenCT (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Talib wrong, no such thing as woman or coward or man or dog about it. run can be perfect, except the military, do any can be perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesnowil (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Psychological Operations (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Law suit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Psychological Operations (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Difference between Psyops and Interrogation

I believe the entry concerning "Music in Psyops" should be deleted or moved to a different entry. Psyops and interrogation are entirely different and unrelated. The fact that music might be used to psychologically pressure a person under interrogation does not make it "psyops" per se. Psyops deals with information dissemination and persuasion. Use of music in a marketing campaign is psyops. The section in this article deals entirely with the use of music to inflict discomfort in order to make a prisoner more compliant during interrogation. Also, from a purely military perspective: psyops units and interrogation units are entirely separate, as is the training for practitioners of each, and the doctrine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alltheuseridsiwantedweretaken (talk • contribs) 23:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,The 8th PSYOP Battalion was based at Nha Trang, but its B Company, which was its field teams, was based out of Pleiku nearly 100 kilometers away.

I have just modified 6 external links on Psychological Operations (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Error in text

Text states without citation: "The 8th PSYOP Battalion was based at Nha Trang, but its B Company, which was its field teams, was based out of Pleiku nearly 100 kilometers away." That leaves the impression that Company B consisted only of field teams and that Company A had no field teams. Both are incorrect, although I don't have citations. I led a field team for Company A in the period 1969-70, under the operational control of the 173rd Airborne Bde. The company had several other field teams. Company B was headquartered in Pleiku but had both field teams and operations at its headquarters, e.g., running the Group's 50,000-watt propaganda radio station. Marbux (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggested Rewrite

I suggest rewrite of the following text in the second paragraph of the "product" section: "In order for PSYOP to be successful they must be based in reality. All messages must be consistent and must not contradict each other. Any gap between the product and reality will be quickly noticed. A credible "truth" must be presented which is consistent to all audiences." I suggest instead: "In order for PSYOP to be successful, the message must be credible. This requires that departures from reality must not be readily apparent and differing messages must not clash with each other. Credibility rather than truth is the touchstone, as indicated by the name of the 4th PSYOP Group newsletter in Vietnam, Credibilis. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57f0048eff7c50d391d0f7a7/t/58b21c08c534a56dc3718809/1488067594702/The+Leaflet+Drop+Mar+17.pdf". (I was a field team leader of that group's 8th Battalion in Vietnam for 27 months. Truth was secondary to credibility.) Marbux (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS: (NATO)

“Planned psychological activities *in peace and war* directed to *enemy, friendly, and neutral* audiences in order to influence attitudes and behavior affecting the achievement of political and military objectives. They include strategic psychological activities, consolidation psychological operations and battlefield psychological activities.

AJP 3.7 “NATO PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS DOCTRINE”

From the March 2002 edition that seems not to be available ; newer editions don't define it that way.

oldest ed. found (so far) 2003 ed. https://info.publicintelligence.net/NATO-PSYOPS-Policy-2003.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.159.99 (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Is "Psychological Operations" (PSYOP) a proper noun?

Is Psychological Operations a proper noun? It seems to be capitalized a lot throughout the article, but there are also areas where it's not capitalized. I could be mistaken, but after skimming through portions of this article, I've gained the impression that "Psychological Operations" isn't a specific subdivision of the US military (in contrast to something like the United States Army Special Forces or the United States Navy SEALS, which *are* both specific subdivisions of the US military). --Jpcase (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI - I've opened a discussion here about whether this article should be moved to Psychological operations (United States). --Jpcase (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 September 2018

The following is a closed 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: moved, per consensus. Whether to split the article, is out of the scope of this discussion. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


Psychological Operations (United States) → Psychological operations (United States) – This article seems to be about a type of military operation (which would not be considered a proper noun), as opposed to a specific subdivision of the US Military (which would be considered a proper noun). As far as I can tell, there is a branch of the US Army called "Psychological Operations", and if this article was about that branch, then capitalization would be warranted. But this article seems to be about all psychological operations conducted by the US Military - not only those conducted by the Army, but also those conducted by the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. The article even discusses PSYOP activity of the CIA. As such, "operations" probably shouldn't be capitalized. I'm not an expert on the US Military though, so if anyone has relevant information to add, please weigh in.

Two discussions have already been held about this - one at the Humanities Reference Desk, which you can read here, and one at WT:MILHIST, which you can read here. To my knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't currently have an article that specifically focuses on the Psychological Operations branch of the US Army - it might be worth spinning one off from the existing article, but doing so would exceed my own capabilities. Jpcase (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support move. Repeating what I said at MILHIST: PSYOP appears to be treated here as a type of operations, like defensive or offensive operations, counterinsurgency operations etc. This is military jargon drawn from doctrine (often the title of a training pamphlet on the subject), and we don't have any articles with those titles. My sense is that the military globally tends to capitalise things unnecessarily, and acronyms and initialisations compound the issue. I don't think it is a proper noun, so decapping Operations is warranted. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per my comments at milhist. There are several units with this specific title in their names, including an Army Command. I believe it's a proper name. I agree with PM67 that military does over-capaitalize at times, but this latest trend here at WP to de-capitalize everything is just getting waaay out of hand. Sometimes it may be called for, but I don't believe this is one them. - wolf 07:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
FWIW - If there's a specific grammar rule or military convention suggesting that the term should be considered as a proper noun, then I would agree with you that the article shouldn't be moved. But just because there are units that use the term in their names, doesn't mean that the term on its own should be considered a proper noun. As a comparison, the Infantry Branch of the United States is a proper noun, and various units that use the term "Infantry" in their names (like the 1st Infantry Regiment, the 2nd Infantry Regiment, the 3rd Infantry Regiment, etc.) are all proper nouns - but the term "infantry" isn't a proper noun in its own right. Likewise, the Psychological Operations Branch of the United States Army is a proper noun (but this article isn't about that specific branch), and the various units that use the term "Psychological Operations" in their names (like the 2nd Psychological Operations Group, the 4th Psychological Operations Group, the 7th Psychological Operations Group, etc.) are all proper nouns, but the term "psychological operations" doesn't seem to be a proper noun in its own right. --Jpcase (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psychological_operations_(United_States)/Archive_1&oldid=1162850596"