Talk:My Lai massacre/Archive 1

---

why so short?

Seems some people dont like to talk about these things. But there should be talked about, that such things never happen. The Peers Report stated that there was enough evidence to suggest that C Company committed the crimes of murder, rape, sodomy, maiming, assault on detainees, mistreatment and killing of detainees, killing livestock, destruction of crops, closing of wells, and burning of dwellings (pg. 12-2, Peers 4).

I wonder why the alleged rapes and other things aren't mentioned in this article either. Let's not whitewash, people. They're mentioned in William Calley's article so it should be here too:

"Calley was charged on September 5, 1969, with six specifications of premeditated murder for the death of 109 Vietnamese civilians near the village of My Lai, at a hamlet called Son My, more commonly called My Lai in the U.S. press. In this well documented incident, 500 villagers, mostly women, children, infants and elderly, were assembled and then shot by soldiers of Charlie Company, Americal Division. Some women who survived were gang raped by U.S. soldiers instead of being summarily executed."

preliminaries

I searched My Lai, MyLai, My lai, My lai massacre, and a couple others and got nada... Sorry for the confusion.

Other problems, people like to transform 'Americal' into 'American' - please prevent this from happening.

~ender 2003-04-13 2:26 MST

---

Removed the line "Also, My Lai was never the same, the people never felt safe ever." First, poor sentence structure - second, very biased.

~Jim

---

No problem, pasting the two articles together was easy. However, I didn't take the time to actually merge the content of the two together, perhaps you could handle that since you're already doing related work? I can't do anything about other people changing "Americal" into "American", perhaps you might add a note at some point in the article mentioning the difference and hope that future editors will see it. HTML comments are enabled, <!-- like this -->, so you could use those to place a warning for editors at every instance of "Americal." Bryan

Thanks, that's a great suggestion - I hadn't seen anything saying they were enabled, and hadn't bothered to try it. Probably not going to do the megethis morning, we'll see if I have time to get back to it. I'm sure there are many other willing hands out there... ~e

Oh, you mention not being able to find the "minor edit" checkbox - that's only available for logged-in users. I'd suggest creating an account for yourself and logging in, it's much more convenient that way (you can automatically sign talk comments with ~~~ that way, too). Bryan

Yeah, never had an account (and I hate having accounts), guess that became privleged use :) ~e

---

I find this article to be POV. Smack

---

The deleted language implies that there were other universally agreed upon U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, even though the Wikipdia article on war crimes only lists My Lai. Bombing and invading Cambodia are not universally seen as war crimes. Iwalters 03:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Colin Powell white-washed the letter, and questions continued to remain un-answered.

A little more detail please. -- stewacide 23:25, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Colin Powell 'whitewash'

In 1968 Tom Glen wrote to General Abrams expressing concern about American soldiers attitudes and behaviour towards Vietnamese Prisoners and civilians.

The letter did not mention any specific incident and in particular did not mention MY LAI.

Colin Powell apperently responded to this letter noting that the writer had not given any details that could be investigated and that while individual soldiers may be guilty of crimes against civilians, in general the relationship between US soldiers and Vietnamese civilians were good.

Whether or not Colin Powells assessment of the relationship between US soldiers and Vietnamese civilians was correct there is nothing to link Colin Powells response to the Glen letter with the attempted coverup of the My Lai massacre.

---

Hector changed "Viet Cong" to "National Liberation Front" here. Is this a change we are planning to make WP-wide? Will this be confusing to anyone? Let's talk. Jwrosenzweig 20:44, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This reminds me of Lancemurdoch, who kept insisting that labels such as "Khmer Rouge" and "Shining Path" were obfuscations cooked up by western media to deny the true revolutionary origins, character etc etc etc of these groups. It may be so that the these groups would prefer other labels, but unless there is a really convincing reason to do so, I think we should stick with that which what they are generally known. Hector?... Viajero 21:52, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

They're the same person, of course. -- VV 23:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Needs rewrite. -戴&#30505sv 01:09, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Definitely. The "background" section is a joke. -- VV 23:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yu are right. Hardly "scholarly" or background for this incident - Marshman 23:04, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

347 or 504 civilian deaths?

Someone changed the number of civilians killed from 347 to 504. 504 is correct...there is 504 names on the My Lai memorialQuadell 15:24, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Google gives plenty of results for both numbers. Hard to make anything out from there. Fredrik 20:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Hm, unless there's something truly authoritative out there, I guess we'll have to list both numbers. -- VV 21:07, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

347 is the number of Vietnamese killed determined by population analysis carried out as part of the U.S. military investigations of the massacre. 175 to 200 is the number of deaths which can be confirmed based on interviews of the U.S. soldiers who were there. The conclusion of the U.S. investigation into the masscacre is that the exact number is unknown(based on information obtained by U.S. investigators) but that it is at least 175, and may be more than 400. Lack of precision here is due in some part to early efforts to cover up the massacre by ordering troops not to return to count the number of dead. The Vietnamese say that the number is 504(note that this does not contradict the U.S. estimates), and this is the number that appears on the memorial at the site. I would think that 175, 400, and 504 should all all be listed along with their origins. Ultimately I would think it best to list 504 dead and mention the other numbers under a heading covering the U.S. investigation.

How the story broke

Independent investigative journalist Seymour Hersh broke the My Lai story on November 12, 1969 and on November 20 The Plain Dealer (Cleveland) published explicit photographs of dead villagers killed at My Lai. The carnage at My Lai would have gone unknown in history if not for another soldier who, independent of Glen, sent a letter to his Congressman.

I find this paragraph confusing because there is no explaination why the other soldier's letter wasn't ignored also. The last sentence seems out of place. The first sentence talks about journalist and the second sentence talks about the government. They have nothing to do with one another. -- Jaybuffington

cover-up

What is going on with the "cover-up" section? It seems very misleading to me. Right now it reads like Glen wrote a letter detailing the events that occurred at My Lai. Powell was assigned to investigate those events. Powell investigated, and decided to cover up the events. Then Seymour Hersh exposed the whole thing. I don't think any of that is accurate. Additionally nothing is said about the actual allegations of a cover-up which were put forth, who was implicated, who went to trial, and what the results of those trials were.

American or US and Vietcong or National Liberation Army

Since there are different opinions on these two names I suggest to discuss it here.

In my opinion it should be US since America refers to the continent, and regarding Viet Cong it should at least be mentioned that the National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam (NLF), if we choose that name, is more commonly known as Vietcong in the US. Since the articles on those terms indicate that Viet Cong was just used by westerners because they could not or were not willing to pronounce the whole name I think it should be NLF. It would not be encyclopedic style to use the term Nazis for the Wehrmacht either. Get-back-world-respect 15:59, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that U.S. and NLF should be used, for essentially the same reasons as yours. 172's revision is good to me. Fredrik 16:06, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Apparently this page was protected because of the edit war between 172 and VerilyVerily. There are two main differences between the versions.

1. VerilyVerily's version refers to "American troops". 172's version refers to "U.S. troops." I don't personally find this particularly significant, but it seems to me that "U.S. troops" is marginally better.
2. VerilyVerily's version refers to the "Viet Cong" or "VC" throughout. 172's version refers to the same group as the "National Liberation Front" or "NLF", although he says that VC is a better-known term in the U.S.

Reasons to prefer "Viet Cong":

• VC is more common: Google returns 95,300 hits for "Viet Cong", comparted to only 46,300 for "National Liberation Front".
• VC is unambiguous: Of the first ten Google hits for "National Liberation Front", only two are about the Vietnamese group. Other hits are about other revolutionary groups.
• VC is more general: According to the Glossary of Military Terms & Slang from the Vietnam War, "The political wing was known as the National Liberation Front, and the military was called the People's Liberation Armed Forces. Both the NLF and the PLAF were directed by the People's Revolutionary Party (PRP), the southern branch of the Vietnamese Communist Party" NLF : Sinn Féin :: PLAF : IRA :: VC : Irish separatist. Got that?

Reasons to prefer "National Liberation Front":

• VC is derogatory: According to the wikipedia entry on Viet Cong, The name was derived from a contraction for the Vietnamese phrase Vi?t Nam C?ng S?n, or "Vietnamese Communist." Many consider this term fairly derogatory, although its near-universal use since the Vietnam War has made the term far better known than the proper name of the NLF.
• The group never called themselves VC. In some ways, NLF : Sinn Féin :: VC : "those Irish scum".

Hm. So which is preferable for Wikipedia? Quadell (talk) 16:38, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

This is the english language wikipedia. We should use the most common english language terms. →Raul654 17:34, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

No, we should use the most neutral and accurate English language terms. Fredrik 17:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Vietcong is the most neutral term - it carries no negative connotations in the english language. National Liberation front, on the other hand, carries the freedom fighter connotation, which is distinctly POV. →Raul654 18:16, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

First off, Raul, since you protected this page, you are not supposed to be engaged in the debate. I shouldn't have to remind you that being a moderator comes with certain responsibilities. Second, Viet Cong does indeed carry negative connotations. It's an anglicization of an abreviated term for "Vietnamese Communist", and like most other anglicized abbreviations (Japs, Moonies, abos, Pakis, etc) it's mildly disrespectful. Thirdly, when groups define their own name, it's usually positive. We still refer to the "People's Republic of China", the "Democratic Party", "Hamas" (an Arabic abbreviation for Islamic Resistance Movement), and "Aum Shinrikyo" (meaning Supreme Truth), even though these aren't accurate, neutral descriptions.

This doesn't mean that I'm convinced NLF is a better term than VC. There are good reasons for both, as I mentioned above. But your claims, stated as fact, are off base. Quadell (talk) 19:34, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

First off, page protection has to be done by a neutral moderator. At the time I protected it, I was neutral - I didn't even know when the issue was until I read the comment here (and posted) 10 hours afterward, as you can see by checking timestamps. And, I protected the version that I dislike, at that. Protecting it *DOES NOT* prevent me from later becoming involved - you're seeing rules where none exist, and I don't appreciate you seeking to lecture me based on rules you are making up.

Second, let's see what American heritage dictionary has to say on the subject:

• Jap - Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a person of Japanese birth or descent.
• Paki - Chiefly British Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a person from Pakistan or neighboring countries or for the descendant of such a person
• Abo - Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for an Australian Aborigine
• Vietcong - A Vietnamese belonging to or supporting the National Liberation Front of the nation formerly named South Vietnam.

Notice, all of your examples are marked as offensive slang, while Vietcong is not.

• Merrian webster: Vietcong - a guerrilla member of the Vietnamese Communist movement.

It if were offensive, it would say "disparaging" or "usually disparaging"

• Dictionary.com - Of or relating to the Vietcong (it would say disparaging if they thought it was)

Now, I believe I have given several sources that support my claim that it is not offensive. Please show me a single reputable source that says Vietcong is disparraging.

As far as using the proper name, the proper name of Hamas is "Harakat al-Muqawamah al-Islamiyyah" and the literal translsation is 'Islamic Resistance Movement'. We have the article located at Hamas because that is what everyone calls them - it is NOT their proper name. →Raul654 21:53, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but Viet Cong says the term carries negative connotations for many. If that is erroneous, you should correct the article. I disagree that using NLF would somehow be distinctly POV. I'd object to the lowercase "national liberation front", but "NLF" clearly attributes the POV in the name to those who named themselves that. For comparison all (exceptions?) political parties mentioned in Wikipedia are referred to with the name they have chosen, even if the names reek of bias. The use "Viet Cong", at least to me personally, seems to imply some kind of editorial choice of POV. Fredrik 19:08, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

The difference is that Hamas will refer to themselves as Hamas where as the Vietnamese Communist forces never referred to themselves with that term. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.55.81.236 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I disagree that Viet Cong has to have negative connotations; these days, it's simply used in English to refer to the group, and any negativity associated with it is because of the group, not the name. The problems with NLF were well-stated above. (Incidentally, we have had this conversation before!) As for Raul participating in the discussion, protecting the page does not mean you should not be involved in it, it merely means you should not have been before protecting the page. It does mean Raul should probably not be the one to unprotect it, however. VV 21:24, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I do not think we should use terms just because they are more common in English, that would lead to a bias in every article where US, UK or Australian citizens are involved, since they have more internet users, especially english speaking ones, than others. If we use a term that US soldiers invented it would be like calling US soldiers "gringos" in spanish articles about wars and interventions in Latin America. And to me calling a Japanese a Jap is as disrespectful as calling a German a Kraut. I have the impression that Hamas is an abbreviation Palestinians use as well, whereas Viet Cong was used by the US for the enemy, but I really think we should try and find a Vietnamese native who could tell us. Get-back-world-respect 22:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the above as well as with the general trend in the discussion: United States is preferable over American, and NLF is preferable over VC. Slrubenstein

Our convention for this is to use the most common form used by English speakers. In addition to being generic, 'National Liberation Army' is also rarely used:

• "National Liberation Army" Vietnam gets 4,560 hits on Google
• "National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam" gets 370
• Vietcong Vietnam gets 237,000] hits and
• "Viet Cong" Vietnam gets 80,100.

The Americans in this conflict were called Americans and IIRC the translation for the name of this war in Vietnamese is the "American War." Thus using that word while sublinking to the United States seems most appropriate. --mav 01:39, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

The naming convention says "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things", and "we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading or commonly regarded as offensive to one or more groups of people." American for the US conflicts with other things such as the continent, that is why the article is a disambiguation article and not a link to the US. Furthermore, since as explained above Vietcong might be disparaging or americentrist it may be inappropriate and I repeat we should ask a Vietnamese native. Get-back-world-respect 11:11, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't explianed - it was dictated, and to date not one shred of proof that it is disapparraging has been produced. As was shown above (by actual evidence) Vietcong is the most common. For those of you arguing it should be national liberation front, the onus is on you to show (rather than say) that it is disappearaging. →Raul654 17:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

It was explained that it is a short form Americans invented, which seems americentrist to me. Get-back-world-respect 19:58, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Repeat after me, this is the *english* wikipedia. We use the terms most common to english speakers (regardless of who invented them), provided they are not "commonly regarded as offensive". Vietcong is, inarguably, the most common. As yet, no proof to show it is commonly regarded as offensive has been introduced. →Raul654 21:32, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

That it is an encyclopedia in english language does not mean we should use any common english term that is disparaging. If you find a vietnamese native who agrees that an abbreviation for "Vietnamese commie" is not disparaging for fighters I am ok with the term. Get-back-world-respect 22:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Did you know the word "Welsh" means "foreign" in Anglo-Saxon? Let's get real. Everyone knows what "Viet Cong" refers to. "NLF" might be a bank or oil company. Exile

Since when did any derogatory name assigned to any ethnicity as a result of racial bias or military dehumanization been taken with open arms? If we use Vietcong, I propose we learn the term the NLF used for us that was derogatory in order to provide an equitable balance between slurs. Or we can just take the sensible approach of using NLF. I really think it is only fair and objective that if we use vietcong that we accord equal treatment to the 'Vietcong'. I know some of you may think, who cares, but I think that Wikipedia should everyhting possible to provide an objective viewpoint. I agree, it is so much easier to use vietcong without being fair enough to find the derogatory term for us as if we dont care.

I propose renaming the article on the usa to 'Yanks'. Everyone knows what it refers to. "usa" might be a bank or courrier company. ;) yay for parody.

Hay guys why dont we just write Charlie or Gooks? I mean Viet Cong What the fuck? Seriously I don't think that an encyclopedic entry should use army slang when referring to a military group. And the google argument is just absurd - in my opinion its the correctness of a term that matters and not the page hits on google (but hay who am i to judge) 80.122.90.110 10:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

US vs American

I'd just like to point out that the preferred adjective for objects relating to the United States is "American" ([1]), not US. US, an abbreviation for a noun, is grammatically incorrect - a noun cannot modify another noun. →Raul654 18:32, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Raul, you're quoting a US govt publication for that: hardly a neutral source! Even if you don't count US/U.S. as an adjective (eminently debatable) it's not true that "a noun cannot modify another noun" -- consider "Nazi Germany", "Reagan administration", "free content encyclopedia", or "mickey mouse argument". –Hajor 19:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I just went digging through the manual of style, and sure enough "When referring to the United States, please use "U.S." so as to avoid ambiguity with "us." When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used. Those seeking a briefer term for the United States of American, sans periods, should enjoy themselves with USA.". So I guess I've been trumped. →Raul654 19:36, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Were it my decision, I'd walk a narrow line to somehow accommodate both "U.S. Army Lt." and "American public", but then I'm a lousy edit warrior. Cheers, –Hajor 20:34, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh wait. On more careful reading, it doesn't talk about the adjective (US vs American), just the noun (United States vs US). →Raul654 20:50, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Jiang,

I was using the replace all feature on MS Word to make those changes at My Lai. I did not see the external links and the inserted comments. Sorry. 172 00:18, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"citations please??"

Recently, an anonymous user (69.143.132.220) asked for citations for the number of civilians killed. The third external link gives 504. Googling My Lai 347 gives over 10,000 hits. My Lai 504 gives over 6,000. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 01:17, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

See also: Abu Gharib?

wow.... thats a little biased, don't you guys think?

“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” – Stephen Colbert JCCyC 16:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Italic textI think that's a reference to Seymour Hirsh, who broke both stories.

Capitalisation?

Is this officially known as the My Lai Massacre, as opposed to the My Lai massacre? I don't know either way, so I don't want to go recklessly moving things about, so I figured I'd drop in a note here. - Vague | Rant 08:41, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Consulting the Library of Congress Subject Authorities Anglo-American Subject Authority File, s.v. "My Lai Massacre", LC Control Number sh 93003756, cited 5 January 2006, the authorised name of this event is indeed the "My Lai Massacre". Pinkville 14:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath: plagarism?

I could be wrong, but I just read four hours in my lai and the aftermath section seems to be taken directly from the book.. if not the whole section, at least entire paragraphs are taken directly (if my memory does not fail me). If this is the case should be removed or rewritten. --Freshraisin 21:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm/deny this? I am sure that it is at least a close paraphrase, I remember reading very similar sentences, but I would like to have a response here before I remove the section. --Freshraisin 15:48, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

I see this is an old query, but thought I'd drop a comment in case it troubles anyone else. I wrote the first Aftermath section (see [2]), although it's been much edited and improved since. It was all my own prose, although some (especially the last paragraph) was essentially a paraphrase of (non-copyrightable) facts from the PBS site listed in the External links -- I believe it's sufficiently original to avoid copyright issues. Other details came from other listed links, and a college class on Vietnam. I knew it was a rudimentary sketch, and have always hoped someone might have more to add to it, but I thought the article was really lacking in any sense of historical perspective beforehand. — Catherine\^talk 19:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article bias?

I've just read this article for the first time and it's not something I know anything else about. I'm a little disturbed, however, by one or two lines - and even the odd paragraph - which read like something from a military manual! Whilst I'm sure these lines are not intended to justify the massacre, they certainly appear attempts to 'explain' the soldiers behaviour. Is there not a better place to go into the 'reasons' as to why soldiers may end up committing such atrocities and should this article not just concentrate on the facts of the massacre?

This is one of those lines:-

"Immediately prior to the offensive, Charlie Company had lost a well-liked sergeant to a VC booby trap. They were shaken, angry, and frustrated that they were unable to take revenge against an enemy they could never find".

Was this put forward in the soldiers defence? It sure reads like the kind of line one hears in court!

Well, anyway, I'm inclined to edit the aforementioned lines out. But, as I have already said, this is not an area I know anything about so I'm disinclined to touch... Any suggestions? Marcus22 13:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right. The line is appropriate to a work "exploratory", POV non-fiction not Wiki. In general though I think the article does a decent job with NPOV. I don't think any one could read it and think the soldiers have been let off the hook. Marskell 23:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I, too, just read it for the first time. Whilst I think the body of the article does a fairly good job, I was very surprised by the beginning, specifically be the "backgrond" section. That section really reads like a line of defense.

It seems quite inacceptable at that place. Maybe under a subsection that would deal with possible "explanations" for the massacre, but then again, once one spells out what it is -- "explanations" -- one is really led to wonder whether it has its place in that article.

I just read the article for the first time as well, I have a rather pronounced anti-US and anti-war bias, and I didn't really react to it. I feel some kind of psychological analysis is necessary to explain how the massacre came to occur. If all such language was removed, the impression the reader might be left with could easily be that US soldiers brutally murdered all those children and civilians just to get a higher body count, improving their statistics. Wouldn't that put the US troops in an even worst light, making the article more NPOV? On the other hand, it's a good point that such explanations could be better put in a seperate section. I'm not just sure what best to call it, though. MMad 05:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to edit this since it's I gather it's a controversial page, but the phrase "The carnage at My Lai might have gone unknown to history" disregards the Vietnamese side of things pretty drastically - Vietnam would have its own history of the war, one assumes.138.217.68.81 21:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I read the article yesterday, and I felt the last part of 'The massacre' was giving almost as much importance to the saving of a 11 civilians by a few US soldiers, than to the story of the massacre itself. I edited this, and made it shorter, though since I'm not a native speaker, it will probably need a retouch. The new text says: "The were a few US soldiers who did not support the actions and tried to save some civilians, like Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, Jr., a US Army pilot who helped saving 11 people from being killed.[2]"

The significance of Thompson and his crew's actions isn't only that they saved 11 people's lives, but that they opposed their fellow soldiers to do so - at considerable risk to their own lives and certainly careers. This aspect of the Massacre is widely considered to be of great importance... not a trivial matter. Pinkville 01:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

But it's not right that one third of the main part of the article goes to explain the saving of only 11 people, if we consider the magnitude of the massacre. I know that to save lives is important. The killing of innocent people is important as well. If you talk about something really bad, and then go and explain a tiny bright side of the story with such a detail, the final impression someone who read the article will have, will be different. In my humble opinion, it will be a wrong impression. Besides, that story is told in much detail in Hugh Thompson, Jr.'s article on Wikipedia.

I'm adding this personal message from user Pinkville, since I believe this is the best place to discuss the matter. "Oh, so we're doing an edit war, are we? That's seems unnecessary. Besides removing much important content - as i describe above, you've also made it sound as though Warrant Officer Thomspon was one of the members of the ground unit assigned the task of attacking My Lai. He wasn't. His helicopter gunship arrived on the scene after the Massacre had started. I'm going to revert your reversions again, because you've given no reason why you reverted my replacements. Pinkville 03:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)" Well, I did say that I thought that amount of information about the good actions of a handful of soldiers was irrelevant. No matter how much good you may think they had done. As I said before, there's a lot more information on the subject in Thompson's article. And I didn't mean to imply anything, that was the whole point of my editing. I just wanted a more neutral article. If you have a horrible winter, you don't stop and explain for hours how beautiful was the only sunny day in it. That's all. Otherwise, more information about the killings itself should be added to compensate such a detailed description of one of the events in the story. As it seems that you know a lot more than me about this, I would encourage you to add such information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielx (talk • contribs) 01:47, 6 June 2006 (referring to comments left at User talk:80.98.36.148)

First of all, could people please sign their comments? I now have no idea if I'm responding to one, two or more editors. The only person who's signed in since 138.217.68.81 is me -and that's in a copy-and-paste! I agree that much more must be added regarding the killings themselves, but until that material is added I wouldn't remove the material on Thomson and his crew, nor would I cut it down. It sems to me that this material is in at least a near-complete form. Pinkville 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

post trauma

i like how the americans somehow turned the perps into the victims. "The troubled image of Vietnam veterans greatly increased the difficulties of soldiers struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse and homelessness." americans are so noble.

Now that you mention it, that paragraph could be seen as problematic, if not outright tasteless in this article, considering the subject. Here is the full paragraph:

Some of the public's anger was turned towards the soldiers themselves. With vivid media images of this and other atrocities fresh in the minds of Americans, soldiers returning from Vietnam did not always find the warm heroes' welcome that had greeted the returning veterans of other wars. The troubled image of Vietnam veterans greatly increased the difficulties of soldiers struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse and homelessness.

I'll go ahead and remove the second sentance (bolded), since it seems superflous and NPOV, implying that Vietnam veterans might have deserved a hero's welcome.MMad 05:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

revision possible inaccuracy?

According to University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor Doug Linder, GIs joked that "anything that's dead and isn't white is a VC" for body count purposes.

Who is Doug Linder and why do his accusations deserve to be in the article? I wouldnt have a problem with this remaining in the article if it was a fact that the soliders said that. But it appears that it is unsubstantiated therefore I feel that it shouldn't be in the article. Lets try to keep this non biased and as accurate as possible. Any thoughts?

JJstroker 09:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Doug Linder is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He maintains a web site of famous trials (from Sokrates and Jesus to O.J. Simpson and Bill Clinton). The quote is from his introduction to the My Lai trial. He is a reputable academic source, and I don't think this quote is even controversial. I've certainly heard it in some variants for the last 20 years (i.e. pre-WWW) and that is in Germany, where Vietnam is not a hot-button topic.--Stephan Schulz 10:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In support of this , reporters have quoted GIs stating this within newspaper articles.

M? Lai Massacre vs My Lai Massacre

I suggest we revert this move. I appreciate what Kaihsu was doing in providing correct diacriticals for the name of the village - but the article isn't about the village, it's about the Massacre (which for this Wikipedia, has an English name). I'd suggest parenthetically including the name with diacriticals as an alternate spelling in the first paragraph, though... Any thoughts? Pinkville 12:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Probably makes sense. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Assuming the diacritical is correct, I'm inclined to leave it as it's more 'correct' than the common name, without clashing. That is, anyone who types My Lai Massacre will still arrive here. Regards, Ben Aveling 16:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd say revert back. There's no absolute consensus here, but the Wiki follows English naming in its titles. Marskell 16:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Strictly, it follows common usage, which is almost the same thing. Here, we have an unusual case where the adding of a diacritical doesn't clash with english, in the sense that the spelling is the 'same'. I won't revert if you move it, I just don't feel any need to do so. What harm is there in having the diacriticial? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Well (he says after two weeks), the event is known as the "My Lai Massacre", regardless of the presence or absence of the diacritical. It just feels wrong. This is the English Wikipedia, after all. Rudolf Heß points to Rudolf Hess. München points to Munich. Hà N?i points to Hanoi. And so on. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The example of Hà N?i/Hanoi is particularly significant. Although the diacritical is a detail, it also points out an important issues with article names in general. The preference in Wikipedia is for articles to be titled by the most common form of the name of the subject, with the opening line or two adding variants that may sometimes even be more correct (though less frequently used). An example: Summer Palace, which in Chinese is Yiheyuan. "Summer Palace" is, in fact, a problematic name, because it was used interchangeably - and mistakenly - for several places in and near Peking/Beijing. But it is also the most-likely name that an English-speaking person will use in a search for this site (Yiheyuan). Having arrived at the article, though, the interested person will find the more-authoritative name(s) for the Palace ("Yiheyuan", "Yíhé Yuán" and ???/???). I think the same could apply here. The most common name is My Lai Massacre, for those who want to know how the village's name is spelled in Vietnamese, the version with the diacritical will be in the first sentence of the article. Pinkville 15:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
• I've moved it back. As far as putting the Vietnamese spelling in the first sentence, I'm not sure I agree - what's "massacre" in Vietnamese? The construct "My Lai Massacre" (and note we're using it as a proper name, for whatever reason, rather than "My Lai massacre") is a purely English construct. On the other hand, we have no article on My Lai -- it's just a link to this article, so I'm not really sure what to do. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆

Folks: I think I've arrived at a compromise: provide both Vietnamese and English terms for the "My Lai massacre. I've used the Vietnamese Wikipedia article as reference. Is everyone happy now? --Tphcm 05:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You've found, not a compromise, but the ideal! Hurray! Pinkville 10:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The horrific vandalisation

How could anyone do that. But anyway it needs to go, it cannot be accessed through the usual edit tool.

Inline citations

This article has 24 references, but I don't know how they're used in the article. Inline citations would really help clean up the apparent POV. Melchoir 04:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who knows English well enough

"...reduced public support for the war in the United States" sounds a little weird. Don't know how to put it the right way, so noting here. --Cyhatch 19:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Maybe it should be "..reduced support in the United States for the war.." so that the most naive reader would not think there was an actual war occurring within the 50 United States of America.Edison 15:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Edison. Yanksox 15:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Courts martial

This heading has repeatedly been "corrected" to "Court martials" - and I understand why, the correct plural is counterintuitive. Nevertheless, the correct plural is "courts martial", like "governors-general" or "gins and tonic" (a personal favourite). Cheers. Pinkville 02:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is considered authoritative here? I would like to see a linguist, rather than a language maven with time on his or her (their?) hands, give an opinion. I believe it depends on whether it has entered your lexicon as a "word" and is probably cultural. In which case why do we believe Pinkville ? What is the plural of: Mother in law (mother-in-law), Octopus, Man at arms, Work of art.

• We don't "believe Pinkville". We believe, for example, the American Heritage dictionary. The alternate ("court martials") is consistently listed as second choice when it is listed at all. It's like, indeed, "mothers-in-law"; the primary term in a compound expression is the one pluralized in English. See English plural. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• And indeed, there's a rather famous novel by Evelyn Waugh titled, Men at Arms (1952), though I can't imagine an alternative anyway (Man at armses?). Not quite sure where the unnamed editor was going with "octopus" (it not being a compound noun), though I believe both octopi and octopuses are standard. Now, it's back to the gin. Pinkville 20:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Mainly because octopus comes from the greek and many people give it the Latinate ending octopi to appear clever because they know Latin borrowings like locus and radius are pluralised that way. Thanks for the link to the article on nouns, though I find the bit that says "It is common in informal speech to instead pluralize the last word in the manner typical of most English nouns, but in edited prose, the forms given above are preferred." interesting. So the way I suggested is "merely" the way people speak not the "correct" way. I dare say most publications have a similar desire for consistency and I will bow out of this discussion. Its just that I am reading A Student's Introduction to English Grammar by Pullum and Huddleston. I was trying to think of similar examples off the top of my head and think people would be more inclined to say "mother in laws" than "man at armses" and even more likely to say "court marshals" even though they all appear to be an example of the same compound noun rule. How frequently you say it depends on whether it enters your lexicon and becomes something you can apply the "add an s" rule for pluralisation to. Rant over. --Anon-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.245.43 (talk • contribs) 21:21, April 18, 2007
  • But we would rather list what is correct than what is ignorantly (although commonly) used. And it should be "octopodes", but I don't think that will get much traction. I do like the idea of "gins and tonic". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • And you have done, for your chosen versions of ignorant and correct. I would rather have a port than a G+T. Goodnight. --Anon--

question

I think this article is very good. I used this for an academic paper along with supporting evidence and mad an A. It was a 60 page paper with 80 sources. Thanks Wikipedia. I just want to make one little contribution to this article. In my paper, I stated the significance of My Lai massacre in relation to war crimes. I havent read your Medina standard article but maybe that's what you were talking about. Anyway, the importance of the Nuremburg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals was that it set a precedent in history, that no one may be excused from reprimand for war crimes because they were ordered to do so. My Lai unforunately went reverse in history in reference to this significant event. Secretary of the Army Howard H. Callaway was quoted in the New York Times for stating that Calley's sentence was reduced because Calley honestly believed that what he did was a part of his orders. This emphasizes that Calley got away with a lot given that we executed people for doing the same activities regardless of what the size or scale of those activities were. Good article, thanks.

Justice Robert H. Jackson at the Nuremburg trials once said, “If certain acts…are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others that we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”

“Learning From My Lai: A Proposal on War Crimes” New York Times By Burke Marshall and Joseph Goldstein Published Apr. 2, 1976 Pg. 26

“Calley Sentence Upheld By Nixon” New York Times By unknown author Published May 5, 1974 Pg. 13

“War Crime” Title of article- “The Nürnberg and Tokyo trials” Encyclopedia Britannica. 2005. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 6, Dec. 2005 http://search.eb.com/eb/article-224687

There is also a happy story from the My Lai Massacre. Larry Colburn and Hugh Thompson are heroes in my opinion for ignoring jingoism and neglecting chauvinism (blind devotion to country) and paying attention to the rules of humanity. Hugh THompson, although now dead, with Colburn used to visit Do Hoa in South Vietnam, one of the Vietnamese kids who they saved. Both were awarded medals for saving innocent lives. I know that there is an individual article on them, but I think people should know the good part of the My Lai Massacre and the heroic actions of the aforementioned gentlemen. My heart and praise go to these American heroes.Sorry so long, just wanted to help.

reasons

If I can help, I have many different perspectives of information pertaining to pyschological explanations and others to why My Lai happened. I even have the attempted justification of My Lai by Martin Gershke (might be mispelled) of how a massacre is like masturbation. He states that at first you feel guilty about it, but it is natural because it makes people feel good. Believe it or not, I have heard some academic enthusiasts use this angle which I personally shake my head in disgust. Some explanations pertain to the background of the soldiers from everything to socioeconomic status and the intelligence levels which I dont believe is really convincing but I could help in this article if that help is wanted. PLease respond if so. 66.32.117.147 {added by Pinkville 17:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)}

If you have pertinant information with authoritative sources that you can cite then you can certainly add it to the article. That 's what Wikipedia is all about. By the way, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~. Pinkville 01:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

contributions

Pinkvile originated from colors on a map that showed high population densities. “My Lai 4: A Report on the Massacre and its Aftermath” By Seymour M. Hersh Pgs. 53-84 Published in Harper’s Magazine May 1970 66.32.112.246 05:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)collective concious

original orders

Charlie company was ordered to burn houses, kill the livestock, destroy foodstuffs, and perhaps to close the wells. Report of the Department of the Army Review of the Preliminary Investigations of the My Lai Incident Volume I U.S. Army inquiry headed by General William R. Peers

The Son My Operation, 16-19 March 1968 Pg. 2-2

66.32.112.246 05:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC) colective concious

good image

Both Haeberle and Roberts saw GIs fondle a 15-year old Vietnamese girl’s breasts. An old woman with a child interrupted and fought with the GIs. Pfc. Roy Grzesik broke the fight up. The soldiers killed the woman, 15-year old, and baby. A photograph of the three villagers before they were shot was published in Life magazine.

“My Lai 4: A Report on the Massacre and its Aftermath” By Seymour M. Hersh Pgs. 53-84 Published in Harper’s Magazine May 1970

Brigade headquarters confident of a battle sent two men from the Army’s 31st Public Information Detachment to record the event. These two were a reporter named Jay Roberts from Arlington Virginia and a photographer named Ronald L. Haeberle from Cleveland Ohio

here is the picture of the aforementioned victims in first paragraph published in Life magazine. Third picture down on right of woman crying in red

Picture from the My Lai Massacre Photography and War http://www.pbs.org/ktca/americanphotography/features/war_essay1.html a collection of photographs from the Vietnam War

~~ collective concious

Peers report why incident occurred

The Peers Report listed some of the contributing factors, which influenced the My Lai Massacre. The Peers report found that the troops of the 11th Brigade, “were not adequately trained in the provisions of the Geneva Convention, nor were they aware of their responsibilities for the reporting of war crimes.” The Peers Report suggested the Army change its training standards “My Lai, And Its Omens New York Times By Seymour M. Hersh Pg. A25 Published Mar. 16, 1998

Some other problems mentioned by the Peers Report were that troops lacked experience, there were organizational problems and a lack of leadership. There was also a dangerously permissive attitude toward soldiers that mistreated noncombatants by the commanding officers. Some of this permissiveness included their own mishandling of noncombatants, which heavily influenced the soldiers under them. The Peers Report also acknowledged that the Vietcong didn’t abide by the same rules of war as the U.S. when it intermingled with civilian population “The My Lai Massacre and Its Cover-up” New York Times Published Aug. 1, 1976 By R.R. Baxter Pg. 174

). This made it more likely for American soldiers to become frustrated at a civilian population it perceived as the enemy in secret. Secretary of the Army Howard H. Calloway stated, “The release of this report concludes a dark chapter in the Army’s history. This is a story which is not a happy one.” “Lieut. Gen. William R. Peers, 69, Led Inquiry Into My Lai Massacre” New York Times By Wolfgang Saxon Published Apr. 9, 1984 Pg. D14

Many innocent victims and just few years for the crimes. Perhaps Lt. Calley may have showed his gift of foresight when he responded to the prosecutor during his trial by stating, “It wasn’t any big deal, sir.” “As the War Goes On” New York Times By David Wyatt Published Feb. 21, 1971 Pg. BRA5 ~~ collective concious

more explanations

Another explanation for the willingness of the soldiers to partake in the My Lai Massacre was a lack of education. Most soldiers scored low on military exams and few had education beyond college. Project 100,000 endorsed by Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara provided remedial education for those that weren’t able to pass the military intelligence tests. “The My Lai Courts-Martial, 1970” By Professor Doug Linder of the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School Website

An Account link: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_intro.html

“My Lai 4: A Report on the Massacre and its Aftermath” By Seymour M. Hersh Pgs. 53-84 Published in Harper’s Magazine May 1970

Another issue that was suggested was the training the military instilled on its soldiers. An article written by Christopher Lehmann-Haupt dated Sep. 7, 1971 mentioned some of Calley’s comments in a book by John Sack titled, “His Own Story”, in which Calley states that his training at OCS taught him about blind obedience without attention to context in which to judge orders. As Calley states, “I’m one little finger of a Frankenstein monster.” “The Calley Case Not Resolved” New York Times By Christoher Lehmann-Haupt Published Sep. 7, 1971 Pg. 37 Uses as sources excerpts from “Lieutenant Calley. His Own Story” By John Sack “The Court-Martial of Lt. Calley” By Richard Hammer

An article written by Robert Rivkin mentioned the discipline installed in soldiers. Rivkin stated that the whole training process, rituals like marching, saluting, techniques of dehumanization, and abuse created an unthinkable killer. What the military wanted was a soldier that didn’t think. The military breeds out common sense “Is Discipline Bad for the Army?” New York Times By Robert Rivkin Published Dec. 21, 1970 Pg. 35

Another explanation is one that seems to displace guilt rather than explain cause and effect. An article written by Ward Just in the New York Times dated July 11, 1971 looked at three books about the My Lai Massacre. One of them was “Destroy or Die” by Martin Gershen. The book asserted that the soldiers of C Company were really frightened young men that had to fight the wily Orientals whom were cowardly by hiding behind their women instead of coming out to fight like a man. His explanation or justification of the actions for committing a massacre is that killing is as natural as masturbation. You feel guilty at first but it is natural “Calley: Soldier or Killer?” New York Times By Ward Just Published July. 11, 1971 Pg. BR4 Uses excerpts from: “Calley: Soldier or Killer?” By Tom Tiede

“Calley” By Arthur Everett, Kathryn Johnson, and Harry F. Rosenthal

“Destroy or Die” By Martin Gershen

Some have attempted to explain events like the My Lai Massacre through psychology. In an article by Daniel Goleman, Dr. Stanley Milgram, professor of psychology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, conducted an experiment that found most people would inflict an electrical shock to a perceived helpless victim if told to by an authoritative figure. This may suggest that people are really more capable of committing My Lai Massacres if under the same circumstances than we tend to think. “Dr. Stanley Milgram, 51, Is Dead; Studied Obedience to Authority” New York Times By Daniel Goleman Published Dec. 22, 1984 Pg. 29

Robert T’Souvas, one of the soldiers in the My Lai Massacre died as a homeless man when he was shot by his female companion over a bottle of vodka

“Arrest in Killing of Veteran” New York Times By unknown author Published Sep. 22, 2988 Pg. A22

66.32.112.246 05:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC) collective concious

Sorry contribution long

Why is the Peers report not mentioned within this article? It is very long, I know, I read it all for my paper on the My Lai massacre but what is in it is very good stuff. Some of the things spoken about was that several officers refused to cooperate with the investigation and also evidence pointed to actions of cover-up on many levels of the military. Also what I like about the Peers report is that it mentions the things that should have been noticed by commanding officers but werent.

A report was released under the investigation led by Lt. Gen. William R. Peers. Peers employed numerous men and resources to investigate the My Lai Massacre. The Peers report gave several indicators during the My Lai 4 operation, which should have hinted that an unusual event occurred that warranted suspicion. Some of the examples of these unusual indicators that stood out were: 1) A high report of enemy kills. C Company reported 90 VC KIA (killed in action) within 70 minutes. This performance by C Company was very exceptional according to the norm during the Vietnam War. Minimum command reaction to this report should have been to make an inquiry into the location and size of enemy, unit identification, and the possibility of exploitation. None of these were done. 2) There was a high body count attributed to artillery prep. TF (Task Force) Barker personnel recorded in their operations journal that C Company had “counted 69 VC KIA” at a location which is near the center of My Lai 4. However, the brigade journal indicates that location of the kills is 600 meters northwest of the original site. Not only did the reports of the location of dead not coincide but also this was a high number of deaths attributed to artillery fire, which was higher than the norm. Yet no inquiry was made into this figure or the exact location of deaths. 3) There was a low ratio of weapons retrieved to VC KIA. The rate in the My Lai 4 operation was 1 to 40. In other words, for every 40 VC killed, one weapon was retrieved. This Ratio did not indicate enemy contact. 4) There were no reports of enemy contact and no requests for fire support. Usually during combat operations, when a company comes into contact with the enemy, an enemy contact is reported. Also during combat with a large number of the enemy, fire support in the forms of artillery, helicopter gun ships, or aircraft are called. 5) The objective for My Lai 4 was to fight the 48th Battalion of the VC. Yet there was an early report that 30-40 VC left before operation began in My Lai 4. Where did they go and who were the VC that C Company fought? 6) C Company enacted large enemy casualties in a short amount of time but hardly had any casualties themselves. C Company reported a ratio of 10 to 1 as a casualty listing. Which meant that for every 10 of VC, 1 U.S. soldier became a casualty. This could be attributed to a highly successful operation but given the high rate of enemy kills mentioned before; this casualty rate was unusual (pgs. 10-22 to 10-30, Peers 2). These are only a few of the many listed by the report. Along with the indicators of an unusual event, which were not picked up by the commanding officers, the Peers report stated that there was sufficient evidence to suggest a cover-up at all levels within the Americal Division, including outside the division as well (pg. 2-9, Peers 3). Documents were missing or destroyed. Testimonies were withheld or there was evidence of false testimonies given (testimonies seemed to either conflict or there were various versions of testimony from the same individual) (pg. 11-1, Peers 4). The Peers Report found sufficient evidence to conclude that some people failed to follow directives dealing with war crimes and the handling of noncombatants. The Peers Report stated that there was enough evidence to suggest that C Company committed the crimes of murder, rape, sodomy, maiming, assault on detainees, mistreatment and killing of detainees, killing livestock, destruction of crops, closing of wells, and burning of dwellings (pg. 12-2, Peers 4). The Peers Report also mentioned that there was evidence to indicate that there was another massacre within the vicinity at the village of My Hoi sub hamlet of Co Luy hamlet, known to U.S. military as My Khe 4. About 22 men of TF Barker, B company were reported to have participated or witnessed this event. Of these 22, 2 were later killed in action, 8 refused to testify, and several others could not recollect the events. However, there were witnesses and circumstantial evidence to suggest this massacre did in fact occur (pgs. 7-1 to 7-9, Peers 5). The Peers Report recommended that investigations and charges be brought on certain individuals. As a result of the Peers Report, charges were brought against officers and enlisted men. Unfortunately, charges against 13 of the 14 officers were dropped due to insufficient evidence “Lieut. Gen. William R. Peers, 69, Led Inquiry Into My Lai Massacre” New York Times By Wolfgang Saxon Published Apr. 9, 1984 Pg. D14

Report of the Department of the Army Review of the Preliminary Investigations of the My Lai Incident Volume I U.S. Army inquiry headed by General William R. Peers

The Son My Operation, 16-19 March 1968 Cited as (Peers 1) Reports, Investigations, and Reviews pgs 19-68 Cited as (Peers 2)

Front Matter; 1. Introduction; 2. Summary Report Cited as (Peers 3)

10. Reports, Investigations, and Reviews; 11. Suppression and Withholding of Information; 12. Findings and Recommendations (pgs. 1-27) Cited as (Peers 4)

Company B, 4th Battalion, 3d Infantry: Actions on March 16-19 March 1968; Significant Factors which Contributed to the Son My Tragedy Cited as (Peers 5) 66.32.112.246 06:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC) collective concious

Tags

I just noticed that POV and Citation tags have been added to this article. Before anything resembling an edit war begins, I'd like to suggest that the tags be removed, but that in-line citations be added if/as appropriate. Any thoughts? Pinkville 15:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Of the references listed in the References section, only three are actually cited in the article. The intro includes no citations, nor does the entire Background section. The Massacre section, comprising nine paragraphs, has only two references cited. Of the Cover-up section's five paragraphs, only one sentence, a quote, is cited. The remaining two sections, Courts martial and Aftermath have no citations. Throughout the article, there are many things claimed as fact, such as the "body count" mission evaluations, with absolutely no references to back up these claims. This systematic bias, unsourced as well, is flagrant in this article. In-line citations would be required at the end of nearly every sentence in the article. For these and other reasons I have disputed the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article, as well as cited lack of sources for the individual sections. —Aiden 15:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, the references do not need to cited in the article, unless there's a quotation, or a dispute over facts, etc. The style adopted throughout the article has been to include the source of information in the text itself, e.g. "...in testimony by Martin Teitel at the hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Problems Connected with Refugees and Escapees in May, 1972...", looking in the references at the bottom of the page one easily finds "Teitel, Martin. Again, the Suffering of Mylai, article preview, New York Times, 7 June 1972, pg. 45.". As for the claim that the article is POV, I think you need to be more specific. No one disputes that the event took place, or that large numbers of unarmed civilians were killed. The number killed is disputed, and the article covers that dispute comprehensively. As to justifications for the massacre and criticisms of it - both are treated in the article, though, of course, even the US military and government eventually condemned the action and assigned blame. So if you could give a better indication as to why you think the article is "systematically biased, providing only one POV" [3], that would be very helpful. Pinkville 16:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You should also read the other comments on this talk page. The "body count" issue, for instance, is discussed above. Pinkville 16:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As an example, the Background section only includes one reference at the very end of the second paragraph, after it is already asserted as fact (and without citation) that the US engaged in indiscrimate killings. —Aiden 16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't see a mention or suggestion of indiscriminate killing, in fact, this paragraph talks about US orders to exaggerate the numbers killed. I don't mind adding in-line citations. I still don't see any evidence of the article being "systematically biased, providing only one POV". Pinkville 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed both {{TotallyDisputed}} and {{OriginalResearch|article}} [sic]. It is quite clear that the concern with this article is the lack of cited sources (which is very common among WP articles). Having {{unsourced}} at the top of every section seems more than enough to convey that thought. {{TotallyDisputed}} is appropriate if you have reason (and sources) to believe an article is substantially wrong. And {{OriginalResearch}} is used when you at least suspect that there are no primary sources to back up the article. Neither is the case. Also, back when most of this article was written, we didn't even have the technical means to provide the extensive footnoting that featured and disputed articles tend to have these days. Rl 09:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Song My

How does the name Song My relate to the My Lai Massacre? Song My redirects here, and in the introduction of the article it is mentioned that "The massacre is also known as the Song My Massacre" (though no redirect from Song My Massacre exists), but no further explanation of the name Song My is given.

A google of "Song My" "My Lai" name gives the information that My Lai is a hamlet of the village Song My. Maybe this should be mentioned as an explanation of the term Song My Massacre?

I think redirects from Song My Massacre and Song My massacre should be created, but I need to register a username first in order to do that. --83.253.36.57 18:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The redirects have been created. Pinkville 13:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Song My is (essentially) the name of the district within which the several hamlets called My Lai are/were located. An explanation in the article would be good. I'll create the redirects if you like. Pinkville 21:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do. And don't count on me for writing the explanation either. I'm busy trying to think of a cool username. --83.253.36.57 00:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I notice there is already "the Son My village" in the article, with the My Lai hamlets mentioned — I didn't see it when I searched the text for Song. So what should it be, Song or Son? ("Song My massacre" gives slightly more Google hits than "Son My massacre".) And by the way, should it be Song My massacre (or Son My) with a small m in massacre, in contrast to the capital M in My Lai Massacre? --83.253.36.57 02:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed "Son My" to "Song My" (as the more common version) and the "M" should remain uppercase. Pinkville 02:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who put Song My reference in there, after having been redirected from "Song My" to here. I dislike the current explanation as 1) no quote is given and 2) the quote is likely found through Google (I too did a search) but I could find no reliable sources and some of them contradicted each other (i.e. one stated that My Lai actually was a part of Song My, etc). Somebody with a book on it, or anybody who can read Vietnamese (see their entry which is called "Song My massacre"), should be able to find more reliable information on this.Mackan 11:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A reference has been added, establishing the name "Song My" and its relation to My Lai. Pinkville 13:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pinkville - sorry, but I changed the names back to "Son My". It's actually more accurate, although to be 100% percent accurate, it should be Son M?. One of the problems with English-language sources on the subject is how they often mangle Vietnamese names. The Americal people probably heard Song My, so they wrote it down. They were soldiers, not linguists. As reference, I cited the Vietnamese Wikipedia article on the subject. (I do read a little Vietnamese, in case you are wondering.)

I also gave the Vietnamese translations for the massacres. I hope this doesn't start another edit war.

--Tphcm 05:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced?

Somebody seems to have a problem with this article! In every part is a sign: "This article has no references!". Haven't you seen the last large part called REFERENCES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.21.145 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 June 2006

I suppose what the editor in question was looking for are references (e.g. using footnotes) for claims made. Check out recent featured articles and you will find plenty of examples. The reasoning is that other editors should be able to verify claims, rather than having to search through a dozen references for the source. Rl 16:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

Is there a reason all the paragraphs in this article are separated by lines? Other Wikipedia articles don't look like that. Pulsemeat 05:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently they were recently added by 220.225.194.5. They since been removed. Pinkville 11:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This Page Needs a LOT of work

I would like to ask anybody with any level of credentials, even a high school history teacher, to please update this page and make it decent, because of the more recent tragedies in Iraq. Students are going to look at this site and see what is not only incorrect, but lacking sources. In my college history textbook, their one paragraph on My Lai is FAR different than Wikipedia. I know, go figure. But it's a shame that one paragraph is accurate, but an entire page sounds like no credible source I've looked into. I referenced this page for an assignment and my teacher asked me what the hell I was talking about. So in short, CLEAN THIS THING UP! It is incorrect, non-fact checked, and it very badly written to the point of making no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.19.69 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 June 2006

Which University are you attending? A Christian one or something? The university where I am at recognizes these assertions in this article as fact. There are no problems with this article. I would like to initiate this argument with you. Please attack the premises, each, individually, so that I may at least be given the opportunity to refute what you state about this article. I have credentials and if you are willing to exchange yours than so will I. Perhaps you may like to take a trip to my University and explain to our history students here within a classroom what you find false about this article? Are you an undergrad or something? Which textbook are you talking about. Please , list your sources. Which teacher are you talking about, please give me the number of that professor or teacher so that I may contact him or her to clear this matter up. It sounds like your teacher doesn't know anything but the textbook. Try grad school out. This is where you learn the stuff that they don't include in undergrad textbooks. That is where you are going to learn how to think for yourself rather than being force-fed how to think. The facts in this article I have personally passed through the hands of my peers at my university and they are fine. Unfortunately, I have an assumption or fear that there are people raised on timid and untrue beliefs that have attacked Wikipedia as a whole not because Wikipedia is wrong, but because Wikipedia displays the objective truth including the unpopular themes. I reiterate, list the problems with this article and let's go from there. Otherwise your personal feelings are involved as mine have become in this reply. The author of this article is doing a great job ! Leave the author alone OR list facts and sources and we will go from there. If at any chance you provide more significant and credible evidence to refute the article's claims than I assure you that this will compell me and most likely the author to change our opinions and make those corrections. Argue the article's facts, dont state something about a college textbook out of the many from other institutions of higher learning and not including ones on the shelves for sale. Without facts and sources, scholars may be correctly acccused of speaking loud but not saying anything. 05:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)~collective concious

P.S. Please respond, I am earnestly concerned over the quality of your education. Perhaps I may entice you to receive a better one at my instituiton.

I have no interest in either side of this argument--in fact, from the above exchange, can't tell who's arguing what. But "collective concious" is plainly overwrought, which is no way to conduct an academic debate. Condescending remarks are self-defeating, as are demands and call-outs. Okay, you're superior in intellect and education. Happy? P.S. yourself, it's "conscious."65.185.109.130 14:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments so as to not allow impunity with your contributions. Good grammar correction, but please respond in the spirit of historical research, this is not a spelling contest or an academic paper. It's a forum for discussion in case you forgot. 04:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Collective CONSCIOUS. Happy? P.S. An academic debate involves an argument about facts. In the above pargaraph, your only contribution was a impertinent correction in grammar that no one cares about but you, and it seems that your concentration of approach rather than facts displays where your area of expertise is. Good day :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.20.206 (talk • contribs) 19 June 2006

Wha?

I did not blank a page. Fucking liars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.19.93.2 (talk • contribs) 16:54, June 12, 2006

• Yes, you did, though perhaps inadvertantly: see [4]. Please be civil here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not. Someone else did. And civil is for teh gay people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.19.93.2 (talk • contribs) .

Since you're using an shared IP, someone else could have blanked it, and you got the warning. You can avoid such problems by registering a user name. Regardless, civility is for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. --TeaDrinker 17:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Those involved

The answers.com retrieval of this page has a list of individuals involved in carrying out the killings - but here there is only a list of those who tried to stop the killing. Why was the list of the instigators removed?

• Thanks for pointing this out. It was deleted without comment by an anonymous editor on April 12th, but ensuing vandalism led us to not notice it when cleaning up, I guess. I've fixed it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ignored the letters source

The carnage at My Lai might have gone unknown to history if not for another soldier, Ron Ridenhour, who, independent of Glen, sent a letter to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress. The copies of this letter were sent in March, 1969, a full year after the event. Most recipients of Ridenhour's letter ignored it, with the notable exception of Representative Morris Udall. Ridenhour learned about the events at My Lai secondhand, by talking to members of Charlie Company while he was still enlisted.

Can I get a source? Not that I doubt it, but I'd like a source that Nixon ignored the letter. Best wishes. --A Sunshade Lust 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

provocation

Not really provocation (and due to the PC climate, im not endorsing calley and the massacare etc.) But after reading 'Vietnam. A War Lost And Won' by Nigel Cawthorne, I found an account of Calley and his unit sitting in the dark listening to the screams from 7km away of one of thier men being mutilated by the vietcong. It must be worth a mention since Calley cited this incident in particular as evidence of vietcong atrocities in his defense. No one here can honestly say we wouldnt have done what calley did had we been in his circumstances, no matter how strong our ethics are, so I think prehaps this should have a mention somewhere?

--SGGH 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Warrant Officer Thompson and his helicopter crew didn't do what the members of Calley's unit did - in fact, Thompson's crew took great risk to try to end the massacre. Furthermore, a careful reading of the circumstances leading up to the massacre suggests that there was at least tacit approval from the military heirarchy to conduct such atrocities - if not actual planning for such acts. Calley and/or others may well invoke such notions of reprisal as you mention but they likely don't say much about what really took place or why. Pinkville 20:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, prehaps somewhere in the article we should mention Calley's specific account, merely prehaps as an indication of why he thought he did it, along with his "... I wasn't in My Lai to destroy intelligent men. i was there to destroy an intangible idea." .... "i didn't kill any vietnamese that day, I mean personally I represented the United States of America. My country."

Incidentally, In my first comment, i wasn't implying that the idea that we may have done the same thing in his shoes should be mentioned in the article, i was implying that Calleys account of VC atrocities as a kind of defense should prehaps be in the article. I merely worded my first post poorly and gave the wrong impression.

--SGGH 20:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a valid defense, and that has nothing to do with any "PC climate". Killing C for something that A did to B because C has some similarity with A has never been acceptable. We might mention this as an excuse if we get a good source.--Stephan Schulz 22:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm still trying to get to grips with SGGH's implication that if it weren't for the "PC climate" then he would endorse the massacre.TheBoondockTwenty 22:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Officers involved in Slaughter

I am not an expert on this event. I simply noticed the following:

In this My Lai article, I believe it states that "Eventually, Lt Calley was charged with several counts of premeditated murder in September 1969, and 25 other officers and enlisted men were later charged with related crimes."

The Wikipedia article on Lt. Calley, and several other internet sources, state that Calley was the only one of the total 26 officers initially charged to actually get convicted. I thought it might be worth mentioning after the above comment. Maybe something like this with citations:

"Eventually, Lt Calley was charged with several counts of premeditated murder in September 1969, and 25 other officers and enlisted men were later charged with related crimes. Of the 26 officers initially charged, Calley was the only one convicted. Calley was seen by some as a scapegoat used by the U.S. Army."

This is just a suggestion for people who know more about this event.

-Chadism

Suggested move

I suggest this page is moved to My Lai Incident which is far more npov. There is serious academic discussion on wether this is rightly classified as a "massacre" or not. Morningmusic 21:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The event is overwhelming known by the appropriate and NPOV name My Lai Massacre. I challenge you to provide a source for this alleged serious academic discussion on w[h]ether this is rightly classified as a "massacre" or not. Pinkville 23:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Several highly credible researchers working for such renowned institutions as the Pentagon, the CIA and the NSA have personally told me of these controversies. Morningmusic 20:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In other words, no serious sources - you can name nothing that is independendantly verifiable. Right? Pinkville 01:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well information from such sources - if named, verifiable and independently accessible* - can certainly be added to the article, but since the Pentagon, CIA and NSA are directly or indirectly implicated in the events they can hardly be cited as impartial references to support changing the name of this article (or implicitly, the name of the event itself). And such organisations are not academic sources.

*Information from personal conversations cannot be cited in encyclopedia articles because they are not independently verifiable. Pinkville 01:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If there were reliable sources for both versions, we could discuss. But even then, '"My Lay Massacre" -wikipedia' wins 20:1 on Google (and of the 4 hits on ('"My Lay Incident" -wikipedia' I checked, half call it a massacre in the first two paragraphs). --Stephan Schulz

Whatever way you look at it - a whole village was wiped out by American Troops. This WAS a massacre. You can't decrease its seriousness by changing its name. It was a Massacre - how much more NPOV do you want it?

Worst Article in Wikipedia History

The bias is so blatant, the factual data so distorted, I wouldn't even know where to start editing. This is the shame of Wikipedia. How about a neutral, encylopedic reporting of the facts?

Agree with the above, considering that I was at Ft. Leavenworth Ks when he was released from prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.28.119 (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no bias when we talk about an unjustified war where soldiers of both sides were sent to bring hell to each other side and, among them, some individuals do attrocities towards innocent people no matter what's they side.

Of course killing babies and women are not the orientation of the U.S. Army, so we must treat the murders as common criminals and bias, in this case, was the unconscious reason they used to treat Vietnam people as "non-humans" and equal claims used by the Vietnamese army as well.

Not only because the killers here holds U.S. citizenship you have to free them from the burden of genocidal guilty because, if you do that, Nazi genocidals will have the necessary reason to claim you have bias against them also... clearly a fool idea when you think about Auschwitz or Treblinka! --Officer Boscorelli (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the few factual articles I could find on My Lai anywhere. It looks like many of the opinionated statements have been edited out. And uninformed person can read this article and have a good understanding of the facts, regardless of one's political orientation. Good job! Bob Webster (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)