Humanities desk
< September 11	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 12

Asquith and the War Office's three sets of statistics

Asquith is often quoted as saying that the War Office kept three sets of statistics - "One to mislead the public, another to mislead the Cabinet, and the third to mislead itself". The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations sources this to Alistair Horne's Price of Glory, published in 1962 (34 years after Asquith's death). Do we have an earlier source for the quotation, or did Horne say where he got it from? DuncanHill (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be in Beaverbrook's Politicians and the War (1928), and since he knew everyone we can doubtless consider that a primary source, whether or not it was Horne's. --Antiquary (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Psychological Operations" a proper noun when talking about the US military?

I've been skimming through the article Psychological Operations (United States), and the term "Psychological Operations" seems to be capitalized a lot throughout the article, but there are also areas where it's not capitalized. And while I don't really know a lot about the topic, 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). Can someone clarify? Thanks. --Jpcase (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a CIA thing. They were going to send exploding cigars to Fidel Castro. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Psychological Operations (United States) lists the the CIA, Army, Navy, and Air Force as all being involved with psychological operations. But if you were to simply state something along the lines of, "The United States Army has units that carry out psychological operations", then you wouldn't capitalize "psychological operations", would you? In order for the word to be considered a proper noun, I feel like it would have to be the name of a specific entity, rather than the description of an activity. --Jpcase (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also The Army's psychological operations community is getting its name back (November 2017), which says that it's the new name for what was previously called Military Information Support Operations Command. Alansplodge (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go: United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command. Alansplodge (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: Thanks for both of those links! I'm not sure that either of them quite clear up the matter though. The Army Times article never capitalizes "psychological operations", but it does capitalize "PSYOP". So...how should we understand that? PSYOP is a proper noun, but psychological operations isn't? PSYOP is just an abbreviation of psychological operations right? So it seems like they ought to use the same rules of capitalization.

With regards to United States Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, that does count as a proper noun, but USACAPOC only makes up 71% of the PSYOP forces. So PSYOP isn't just another way of referring to USACAPOC. --Jpcase (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware that I wasn't fully answering the question, just picking out some of the bones. I think you're right, it isn't a proper noun. Alansplodge (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what follows. There are a number of units which are labeled using the term. The first occurrence of term in the Army paragraph has it capitalized contrarily to the first occurence coming in the Navy paragraph. At first sight, it's curious. They are however not considering the same kind of object in both cases. --Askedonty (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: It's still confusing though, haha. Because the name that PSYOP briefly rebranded to (Military Information Support Operations - as noted in the Army Times article) very clearly is a proper noun. So why would the rebranded name be a proper noun, if the original name isn't?

@Askedonty: What are you referring to, when you say "the Army paragraph" and "the Navy paragraph"? Are these paragraphs in a military manual? Again, I don't really know much about the topic.

P.S. I just realized that I've occasionally been writing "pronoun" instead of "proper noun", which was a dumb mistake. I've gone back and corrected this. --Jpcase (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Military is Well-Known for Inappropriate Overcapitalization. - Nunh-huh 04:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And for calling a spade a Manual Excavation Equipment (Portable) ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]