138 Troops?

aneye4detail · **Posted:** Tue Aug 26, 2003 9:49 pm

On the front page of the Sacramento Bee, they say (twice) that 138 TROOPs have died, equaling 276 dead.
Shouldn't it say 138 people or servicemen and women?

nstockdale · **Posted:** Tue Aug 26, 2003 11:10 pm

That's our style at The Wichita Eagle: a troop is a group of people.

JonScribe · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2003 1:06 am

AP Styleguide: "A troop is a group of people. Troops means several such groups, particularly groups of soldiers."[ August 27, 2003: Message edited by: JonScribe ][ August 27, 2003: Message edited by: blanp ]

aneye4detail · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2003 2:21 am

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. How can they say 138 troops have died? One troop could contain 10, another, 21, right? So how does 138 troops x 2 equal 276 dead people?
Am I missing something?[ August 27, 2003: Message edited by: aneye4detail ]

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2003 4:32 am

A visual aid is in order. Here's what aneye4detail is talking about. And it's wrong, in more ways than one.

tommangan · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2003 8:44 am

Yeah, but don't we always say "There are 100,000 U.S. troops in the region" or some such? Wouldn't that mean there are a hundred thousand groups of soldiers?

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2003 10:47 am

AP is needlessly nitpicky on the use of troops. The dictionary allows the use of "58 troops died in battle yesterday" interchangeably with "58 soldiers died in battle ..."that's one good reason papers have their own stylebooks.the complication in that headline is combat deaths vs. noncombat deaths VS. "war" deaths and "postwar" deaths.it was a good idea on the Sac Bee's part ...

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2003 4:29 pm

The soldiers' deaths today raise the toll to 142 from all causes among members of the American armed forces in Iraq since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations there on May 1. A total of 280 have died since the start of the war on March 19. [NYT]*Just a day later, and we're already expected to do our own math.*

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2003 4:47 pm

Today, the toll of American casualties since May 1, when Mr. Bush proclaimed the end of major combat operations, rose above the number who died during the war. But he made no specific mention of sending more troops. [NYT]*It must have been weeks ago that the toll of "casualties" exceeded the number of soldiers killed during the war.*

aneye4detail · **Posted:** Wed Aug 27, 2003 10:30 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:

A visual aid is in order. Here's what aneye4detail is talking about. And it's wrong, in more ways than one.<hr></blockquote>blanp, you seem to be the only one who understands what I'm pointing out. So thanks for confirming my belief that it's wrong.
However, please expand on what you mean by "it's wrong, in more ways than one."

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:53 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by aneye4detail:
blanp, you seem to be the only one who understands what I'm pointing out. So thanks for confirming my belief that it's wrong.
However, please expand on what you mean by "it's wrong, in more ways than one."<hr></blockquote>

I'm not blanp, or even a reasonable facsimile, but will take a guess at this:1. We see disagreement on this board on equating a "troop" and a "soldier." Few readers would; I change it, but without passion. (I save that for AP's 23-year-old rule on "people," which shows how persnickety I can be.)2. Many people would object to equating "casualties" and "deaths," as this example seems to. "Casualties" can include the wounded. 3. The pre-May 1 deaths didn't raise the death toll to 276, as this says; the post-May 1 deaths did that -- Monday's in particular.4. Many of the deaths did not occur in combat, as this seems to suggest.blanp was probably thinking of 10 things more obvious and egregious that I've missed.Just thought of two more possibilities (though probably not any that blanp would consider):5. Beavis and Butthead would giggle at the verb "mount."6. If soldiers' continuing to be killed by bullets and grenades and bombs while occupying a recently conquered nation isn't a war, then what has been going on since May 1? We're at war. And that's true even if we don't consider this part of the White House's wars on terrorism or on drugs.[ August 28, 2003: Message edited by: Wayne Countryman ][ August 28, 2003: Message edited by: Wayne Countryman ]

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Thu Aug 28, 2003 8:29 am

That pretty much sums it up. Also: All that headline takes up an awful lot of space.

aneye4detail · **Posted:** Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:25 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Wayne Countryman:

5. Beavis and Butthead would giggle at the verb "mount."<hr></blockquote>Bill Walsh, copy editor at The Washington Post and author of "Lapsing Into A Comma," says, in essence, a copy editor must have the mind of someone like Beavis or Butthead so that certain phrases that are really bad don't go out to print. So, good eye!

Testy Copy Editors

138 Troops?

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links