Talk:My Lai massacre/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about My Lai massacre. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

American support

I removed the following from the article

Some Americans were almost proud of what there soldiers did. Most of them family members of killed soldiers wanting revenge on Vietcong.

since it seemed to use weasel words ("almost proud"), and may be giving undue weight to a minority (per WP:NPOV). Citations for this might be useful in gauging the magnitude and meaning of this claim. --TeaDrinker 02:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC0

Who was that kid who was saved in the Helicopter Intervention? CM7Y

It was a girl , it was on a documentary by PBS, it has personal testimony of an officer who took the child. At first he thought it was a boy. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/my_lai.html the link above is to the PBS page on the documentary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.208.232 (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Crime of obedience

I think this sentence is rather inappropriate: "Enraged because fellow platoon soldiers were killed on previous occasions, they gave little thought to the consequences of their actions that day."

This massacre has been used as an example of a “crime of obedience” (e.g in “Crimes of obedience”, Kelman and Hamilton, 1989), and there is an ongoing debate concerning why ordinary human beings (that is, not sadist or anything) commit such horrible acts. This is a large field within social psychology, and it is way too easy to say that these soldiers comittede these acts because they were enraged as a consequence of fellow platoon soldiers being killed on previous occasions.

Also I think it would be appropriate to write a section in this article concerning the massacre as a crime of obedience (e.g what makes people do this sort of thing). ..but this is only a suggestion.

--Galeandra 09:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your point about the sentence you've quoted. For one thing, it removes the institutional, systemic culpability that was one of the issues examined in the courts martial. I imagine your suggestion re; crimes of obedience could reasonably be integrated into the discussion of why the Massacre occurred. Pinkville 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. --Galeandra 10:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But does the fact that it could have been a crime of obdience remove the possibility that they also acted like they did, because they were enraged over the death of their fellow soldiers? Does one exclude the other?

Globalize/Northern

This article is tagged with "Globalize/Northern" because the following phrase is used within the article:

In the spring of 1972

The use of seasons as time references is deprecated because seasons in different parts of the world occur at different times of the year. To remove this ambiguity, this ambiguous seasonal reference should be replaced by a more precise and less ambiguous time reference, such as month names. --B.d.mills 04:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I sympathise with the motivation for this tag, I think the context of the line quoted above is quite clear: we're talking about Spring locally, i.e. in Vietnam, not in Tierra del Fuego, and not "worldwide". Pinkville 11:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Except that Vietnam's a tropical climate. There is no Spring as such. It's talking about the American Spring. Anyhow, Spring is a very imprecise term, and therefore B.d.mills is right

Furius 08:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

A moment of semi-protection please?

This page is getting vandalised repeatedly from various similar anon IPs at this time (17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)). I point the finger at a bunch of school kids messing around. A few hours of semi-protection would stop the little blighters. Bob f it 17:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

All is quiet now, they took the hint. Bob f it 17:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I did a lot, but now:

the "Massacre" section must be rewritten, expanded
the helicopter rescue in its own section (now its more than killings), and so the discovery (whistleblowing stories)
maybe also "Scandal" section, on the popular outrage and the effects
the responsiblity of the other platoons and the command (and beyond Medina) should be discussed, and also the fact the village was first hit by the artillery

Don't be afraid of the grizzly details. We already have pictures, so gruesome I standard-thumbnailed them. BBC wrote: "Soldiers went berserk, gunning down unarmed men, women, children and babies. Families which huddled together for safety in huts or bunkers were shown no mercy. Those who emerged with hands held high were murdered. (...) Women were gang raped; Vietnamese who had bowed to greet the Americans were beaten with fists and tortured, clubbed with rifle butts and stabbed with bayonets. Some victims were mutilated with the signature "C Company" carved into the chest."[1] The extreme brutality of the incident is quite important, I think. --HanzoHattori 13:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of your suggestions. Bleh999 17:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. But the problem with Wikipedia is it's always "do it yourself (and the others will destroy your work anyway)"... and the related problem is it's not my job, and I spend too much time anyway. --HanzoHattori 02:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix Program

The Phoenix Program article needs some fact-checking and source-checking. The article has been recently rewritten. Much was deleted. The new material seems questionable. Just like the old material.

Someone claimed also that some of the new material was copied verbatim from elsewhere without using quotes. So if it is true then that is probably a violation of WP:COPYVIO. Unless the material was in the public domain.

The new references need to be detailed with titles, authors, dates, etc.. It would be nice if some quotes from the referenced material was used. Sometimes I don't trust paraphrasing. Especially for controversial articles. And the editor who did much of the rewriting and paraphrasing has been accused of POV-pushing in other articles. --Timeshifter 15:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The other soldiers

Anyone has information on the other soldiers of the Charlie Company? --HanzoHattori 23:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got a list of key personas from the investigation:

'CID Statements, 1st Platoon, C Company'. File of photocopies of statements collected by US Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) from members of 1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Bn 20th Inf, US Army, who were witnesses to events at My Lai, 16 Mar 1968, when Vietnamese civilians were massacred by US forces. Includes statements from William Calvin Lloyd, Lenny Battallones Lagunuy (Aquilino), Sidney Kye, Dennis Irving Conti, Allen Joseph Boyce, Robert James Bergthold, Robert Martin Mauro, Robert E Maples, Robert James Lee, James Joseph Dursi, Isaiah Cowan, Bruce Umber Cox, Harry Stanley, Charles Wayne Hall, Elmer Glen Haywood, Roy Lee Augustus Wood, Herbert Louis Carter, David Mitchell, Paul David Meadlo, Charles Sledge, Gregory Thomas Olsen, Daniel Simone, and Ronald David Grezik.

'CID Statements, 2nd Platoon, C Company' File of photocopies of statements collected by US Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) from members of 2nd Platoon, C Company, 1st Bn 20th Inf, US Army, who were witnesses to events at My Lai, 16 Mar 1968, when Vietnamese civilians were massacred by US forces. Includes statements from Floyde Dale Wright, Richard Wayne Wyatt, Roy Fred Trevino, Fernando R Trevino, Varnado Simpson, Kenneth Schiel, Thomas Richard Partsch, Dean Fields Jr, James Michael McBreen Jr, Tommy Lee Moss, Tom Calvin Makey, John Richard Mower, Dennis Martin Bunning, Jay Allan Buchanon, Salvador LaMartina, Max Dean Hutson, Leonard Robert Gonzalez, George Arsenio Garza, Charles Edward Hutto, and Kenneth Larry Hodges.

'CID Statements, 3rd Platoon, C Company' File of photocopies of statements collected by US Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) from members of 3rd Platoon, C Company, 1st Bn /20th Inf, US Army, who were witnesses to events at My Lai, 16 Mar 1968, when Vietnamese civilians were massacred by US forces. Includes statements from Richard Wayne Pendleton, Stephen Tandall Glimpse, Charles Dean Gruver, Gary Michael Garfolo, Joe Grimes, Jeffrey Urban LaCross, Everette Lee Cayot, Fred William Dustin, Abel Flores Jr, Rickey C Neria, Gener Ralph Oliver Jr, Larry Owen Polston, Raymond McDonald, John Henry Smail, Robert William T'Souvas, and Charles Anthony West.

'CID Statements, Medina's Command Group and non-C Company personnel'. File of photocopies of statements collected by US Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID) from members of Capt Ernest L Medina's Command Group, 16 Mar 1968, relating to reports of a massacre of Vietnamese civilians at My Lai on that day. Includes statements from Nels August Parson Jr, Chief of Staff, American Division; Patrick M Trinkle, and William Clifton Riggs, variously Commanding Officers of A Company, 3rd Bn, 1st Inf; William Earl Watson Sr, member of Mortar Platoon, C Company, 1st Bn, 20th Inf; Michael Crouch Adcock, Hq Co, 3rd Inf, 1st Bn,11th Bde, Radio Telephone Operator to Col Henderson; James T Cooney, 174th Aviation Company, Col Henderson's helicopter pilot on 16 Mar 1968; Randolph Emil Sabre, James Allen Reutner, Jerry R Culverhouse, Henry Dalo Mott, Dan Richard Millians, Charles Hersley Mansell, Brian William Livingston, Jerry F Lesher, Daniel Eugene Hill, and Calvin Dale Hodde, pilots and crew of US Army helicopters; Cecil David Hall, Bde Communication Chief, 11th Light Inf Bde; John L Halliday, Commanding Officer, 123 Aviation Bn, Americal Division; Lenny Barrallones Lagunoy (Aquilino),Thomas John Kinch, Michael Arnold Bernhardt, Sgt Duong Minh, Sgt Nguyen Dinh Phu, Dennis Harvey Johnson, Nicholas Capezza, William R Kern, Roger Delano Murray, James Harold Flynn, John Hobart Paul, and Frederick Joseph Widmer, members of Capt Medina's command group within C Company, 1st Bn, 20th Inf, 11th Bde on 16 Mar 1968; Jerry LeMar Heming, and Calvin Louis Hakwins C Company, 26th Engineer Bn, demolition experts, Jay Alfred Roberts, Senior Correspondent, 31st Public Information Detachment, Louis Bernard Martin, Radio Telephone Operator, Roger Louis Alaux, Artillery Officer, all assigned to 1st Bn, 20th Inf, 11th Bde; Dale Manford Arcoren, Martin Edward Fagan, John Lewis Oliphent, Larry Edwin Waterstreet, Thomas John Kinch, David Benjamin Hein, Mortar Platoon, 1st Bn, 20th Inf, 11th Bde.

--HanzoHattori 01:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

One can google through their names for more if needed. --HanzoHattori 01:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Patriots

People who defend their homeland againnst invaders and aggressors are called patriots. Nobody should call them insurgents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.114.166.220 (talk) 16:59, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I found one instance of the word "insurgents" in the article. I changed it to "fighters". --Timeshifter 17:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically, South Vietnamese "patriots" would rather support their country against North Vietnam. --HanzoHattori 11:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

And those on both sides considered themselves "patriots" - those who supported the RVN against North Vietnam, and those who supported a united Vietnam and considered the RVN government a Quisling regime. The same is the case in every civil war in which a foreign military presence is involved. It's one of those POV-loaded words. --Davecampbell 22:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

--- Patriots, insurgents? From my understanding, they are simply people caught in the middle of a battle. You can't trust the US army to keep any promises, and they are caught in the allegiance between themselves, the USA, and the VC. You allign yourself with one in the day, and the other at night. One one week, and the other the next. How do you pay protection money to two gangs on the same block and form alliance with both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.219.108 (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Context?

I fully understand the nature of a guerilla war includes women and children as combatants, and that anyone who picks up a gun to join the fight makes themselves a threat. (A kid with a grenade or machine gun who is trying to kill an adult can change one's ethics quite quickly). (I agree with that notion! -Jack Battle 7:14 10/15/07)

The section on context seems inappropriate here because the soldiers and pictures clearly showed people who were unarmed. Rounding up and murdering anyone a unit comes across in a guerrilla war and citing that as a reason actually does a disservice to those forced to actually return fire at armed women and children who are shooting at them. Combatants all have one thing in common, military equipment like the round, drum magazine near the top left. If they did find guns and such in My Lai they did a crappy job pointing that out, because usually pictures like this would be taken documenting any weapons found. Anynobody 07:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually 3 (three) weapons were found (there would be probably more, but they were burning buildings and blowing up tunnels and not searching). But it's not the point, as according to all real evidence no shots were fired at the American soldiers in the village (VC all fled to the jungle and returned only when the Anericans left). --HanzoHattori 11:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"The GIs were in the belief that every person in that village were either Viet Cong or Viet Cong sympathizers," Latimer said.
Troops had been prepared for an unflinching enemy, Staff Sgt. L.G. Bacon testified, a Dec. 15, 1970, Globe-Times report said. "They told us that old women and children strapped grenades on them, poisoned Cokes, and put grenades down our gas tank." Capt. George C. White took the stand to describe the heavy fire his platoon had endured in February 1968, when casualties reduced his company from 172 to 50 men, the story said.
"My impression was that any one (sic) remaining in the village, regardless (of) whether they were men, women and children, were to be killed," Staff Sgt. Martin Fagan testified.
"(Medina) said we were going to where the 48th Viet Cong battalion was and we were to kill all Viet Cong, all Viet Cong suspects, all NVA (North Vietmase Army) and all NVA suspects, destroy all food sources, kill all animals and burn the village," Bacon said.
"To me that meant women and children and everything else. Viet Cong sympathizers can be any of these ... my impression was they were all to be killed," another solder, Elmer Haywood, said.[2]

If anything, what happened was partailly the effect of the stories they "were told". --HanzoHattori 12:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying those things didn't happen (kids with bombs, poisoned cokes, etc.) during the conflict. The VC were masters of guerilla war, but I am saying they weren't happening in that village on March 16, 1968. Even if the troops had reason to believe they might happen, after a little time it should have been obvious that the children weren't carrying grenades, and their Cokes were safe within a few minutes.

I'll use the US casualty figures and your data; 3 weapons were found, with possibly more, for a body count of 347. What kind of weapons were they Ak-47s or hunting rifles? Also I'd have to say the idea of simply burning explosives and weapons in huts is pretty unlikely unless the soldiers were stupid; does this look like a man concerned the weapons cache inside is about to explode? You do understand that these pictures were taken by the soldiers, not some anti war reporter ignoring a huge pile of weapons somewhere.

Calley and Meadlo were firing at the people. They were firing into the hole. I saw Meadlo firing into the hole.

Q: Well, tell me, what was so remarkable about Meadlo that made you remember him?

A: He was firing and crying.

Q: He was pointing his weapon away from you and then you saw tears in his eyes?

A: Yes.

This type of report is not typical of an actual battle. Anynobody 01:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Even the Army accepts what happened was a massacre, explained but not excused by the nature of war the VC were pursuing. (Those soldiers not only murdered innocent people, but they actually helped the VC cause by doing it by giving them a propaganda victory.) This wasn't the first time a massacre happened, nor the last, and most militaries are guilty of similar behavior. Anynobody 02:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I never suggested it was anything like "a battle" (there would be, but the real VC decided to not fight and flee). I'm just saying the stories (none of them interviewd there said they actually witnessed this) would explain (not excuse) the mindset of the soldiers and officers which led to the tragedy. Read again what I wrote first. --HanzoHattori 06:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand what you are saying, and if the situation was more like I described below (jumpy GI shoots a kid) it'd probably be exactly what made him so jumpy in the first place. My point is this thing went on for hours. Plus in an accidental situation, one generally doesn't keep shooting villagers once they notice no return fire. Rounding them up in a hole for easier execution also indicates a general lack of accidental nature here. Anynobody 06:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was accident. I'm saying what helped to turn the normal American kids into basically a bunch of Nazis. They took numerous casualties from mines and traps (VC there avoided any direct contact), and heard stories how they're "all VC". They went to kill the VC and "suspects". They didn't find the armed rebels, so they killed what they thought was "suspects" (everyone). --HanzoHattori 06:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

--

The point of adding context to this article, is that Vietnamese women and children were regularly used as combatants, and did not wear a uniform. The entire article fails to provide this highly relevant context. So what may appear to be an "innocent civilian," may actually be a combatant. My additions did not state the people were armed at the moment the madness began in the village. Also, providing a photo of a Vietnamese child combatant, which was also continually deleted, helps illustrate the usage of what people normally view as "civilians" in the role of combatant.

Also, regarding citations -- how can citations to Noam Chomsky fall within NPOV? Additionally, the hyperbolic quote featured at the top of the article (about shooting a baby and laughing), is cited with a reference to a 32 Volume document -- thousands and thousands of pages -- so no one can possible learn who said it, in what context it was said, and if they had an agenda in making it up (e.g., an anti-war activist soldier).

WilliamSpencer 21:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity I should point out that my concern is about the context paragraph. The baby shooting quote and the kid with the grenade launcher are not what I was talking about when I set up this thread. Noam Chomsky quotes can go too because I agree he is not exactly NPOV.

The context trying to be presented in the paragraph would be appropriate if we were talking about an incident where a jumpy GI blew away a kid he thought was carrying a grenade. In this case soldiers directed by their superiors engaged in the systematic killing of everyone they encountered over a period of hours.

Also, maybe I'm misunderstanding you but I took My additions did not state the people were armed at the moment the madness began in the village. to mean that because they weren't armed at the time they still must've been VC? Anynobody 01:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I'm against any Chomsky quotes anywhere near there. This man disqaulified himself on the Khmer Rouge issue enough to ignore him on anything related to the extended Vietnam war (I actually just ignore him whole). --HanzoHattori 01:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, this resolved already? --HanzoHattori 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as the context section in this archive isn't added again, I'm good. Anynobody 03:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Pathetic HanzoHattori, absolutely pathetic. Take your ignorant, moronic Pro-US massacre diatribe somewhere else. 124.182.40.151 (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

Photographs

Fixed the broken RFCxxx request - RFCxxx templates should be placed in the section on a discussion page that is identified by the section parameter in the template - I created the section heading to match the template. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky quoting

On a sidenote, I'm against any Chomsky quotes anywhere near there. This man disqaulified himself on the Khmer Rouge issue enough to ignore him on anything related to the extended Vietnam war (I actually just ignore him whole). --HanzoHattori 01:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky has expressed opinions on dozens of different subjects and written books packed with "information", only twice has he been proved wrong (I've forgotten the other one, it's significantly less memorable than this one).

Chomsky seems to have carried on defending Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge for about 2 years after it should have been clear what was happening in the Killing Fields. However, the US carried on recognising Pol Pot as the leader of Kampuchea for 12 years, so it's hardly a big fault on his part. (Did people realise it was the newly victorious Vietnamese who overthrew the Khmer Rouge, and it's the only really successful "regime change" in history?). PR^talk 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, HanzoHattori, your opinion of Chomsky is quite apparent. At first, I was perhaps thinking you might have a point, but since you found it important to let us know that you chose to ignore Chomsky altogether, it is apparent you have something against the man, so why should his views be taken any less seriously than yours? Also, read what PalestineRemembered wrote above about the Rouge. Chomsky has proven himself to be a well-informed intellectual, but all I get from you is that you don't like what he says. Any comments?153.26.176.34 01:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any "Chomsky quotes" in this article. In the Further Reading section, links are provided to one work by Chomsky that specifically relates to this event, and the other to a co-authored work on related issues. There is no basis for an objection to the inclusion of these two items. As for Chomsky and Cambodia... those who claim that he ever supported the Khmer Rouge or was "wrong" about Cambodia should actually read what he (and Edward Herman) wrote on the subject*. He has always been an opponent of the Khmer Rouge (unlike the US administration of Ronald Reagan, for instance) and the point that he (and Herman) made back in the 1970s (and subsequently) was that mainstream accounts of Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge attributed all deaths to the Khmer Rouge without ever mentioning US responsibility for Cambodian deaths due to their earlier massive bombardment of the country (which contributed greatly to the rise of the Khmer Rouge in the first place) nor US support for the murderous Lon Nol regime that preceded the Khmer Rouge. Furthermore, Chomsky (and Herman) were contrasting the massive mainstream reporting of the Killing Fields with the (literally) total absence of mainstream reporting on the contemporaneous Indonesian invasion of East Timor that resulted in 200,000-300,000 deaths. While the US had virtually no influence on the Khmer Rouge (while they were in power) to stop the killings in Cambodia, the US had great influence on Indonesia to stop the invasion and near genocidal massacre, but did nothing (except to increase military aide to the invader). With no media coverage of the latter events, no pressure was brought to bear on the US government to change policy. [And, in fact, when news reports finally started hitting the mainstream media (nearly 20 years later) following the Dili Massacre, the US government did withdraw its support for the invasion and occupation, forcing Indonesia to abandon its military campaign in East Timor… 20 years too late.] That was what Chomsky and Herman had to say about Cambodia, etc. Pinkville 12:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My side note to HanzoHattori: If you wish to refute Chomsky (or anyone else) you're going to have to read him, otherwise your objections are without foundation and dismissable.

And to PR, you refer to two occasions on which Chomsky has been "proved wrong"; if you are referring to his writings on Cambodia and, presumably, to the Faurisson affair, you are mistaken. The substantive points that he and Herman made in their comparison of the mainstream media's treatment of Cambodia versus East Timor have rarely been addressed by their critics, let alone proved wrong. Instead, critics have merely flung terms like "Khmer Rouge-supporter" and other snarl words without substantiation or have misrepresented his arguments. Again, Chomsky and Herman were not evaluating the Khmer Rouge, nor themselves making estimates of how many Cambodians were killed by the Khmer Rouge or any other group (they did provide all such figures compiled by other sources), but rather, were comparing media coverage of deaths in Khmer Rouge Cambodia with deaths in East Timor caused by the US-backed Indonesian invaders. And your comment, Chomsky seems to have carried on defending Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge... refers to something that never happened. It's maybe worth noting that Chomsky is an anarchist, and the type of authoritarian regime that Pol Pot ran couldn't be more at odds with his politics. As for the Faurisson affair, Chomsky's involvement with Faurisson consisted entirely and exclusively in defending the Holocaust-denier's right to free speech; Chomsky's views are diametrically opposed to those of Faurisson.

* Read Chomsky's recent comment on this issue. And for a deeper understanding of the historical issues involved, The Political Economy of Human Rights and Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media are the best places to start. Pinkville 14:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Capezza

At the moment under "other soldiers" the article says "Nicholas Capezza - chief medic in Charlie Company, insisted he saw nothing unusual."

Then just under where it says that, it's got a photo of him burning down someone's dwelling!

Should we add that to his bit under "other soldiers"? Or was burning down dwellings a totally legitimate thing? (I'm not trying to be a smartass, I really don't know much about Vietnam)

Great article by the way, can't believe it isn't featured! Ryan4314 (talk) 12:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you so much for this great article. (Lhenslee (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

New Public Directive 525-3 information

Someone needs to follow up to integrate information from the now public Directive 525-3, which controdicts information given by the Peers investigation. See http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12531. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.4.13.72 (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Should be linked to earlier massacres

There should be a link between U.S. troops behavior in Vietnam with earlier activities. This was no a random incident. It represents a pattern that has been hushed up instead of being dealt with and corrected. The exxernal links sections should at least link to

No doubt some of the Vietnamese from My Lai ended up as gruesome souvenirs, perhaps someone can write an article on that. I see a link between the poor Japanese conscript who ended up on display as picture of the week in Life magazine May 1944 [3] and the poor Vietnamese [4], [5]. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Good links, I think the article on mutilation of Japanese war dead is relevant to this article because mutilation of the dead during this massacre is widely documented in interviews with soldiers and the investigation into the massacre, I'm not so sure about the links you posted about vietnamese skulls confiscated from U.S soldiers, unless it has a direct relevance to this incident. Should be included in the Vietnam War casualties page. Thisglad (talk) 03:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the Hue Massacre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.187.194 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hue massacre took place by the NVA during the NVA occupation of Hue, which was discovered after the fighting to retake the city by Americans. Also, in regaurd to the actions in the pacific, what happened there was a hatred so deep, and so powerful caused by the horrors of war suffered by the soldiers in the theater. The Pacific war was a brutal campaign. The death rates for Amaericans at the hands of the japanese after they surrender was far higher. You must also take into consideration that few japanese surrendered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.71.237 (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Soldiers involved

The entire article cites that it was men of Charlie company, but this article says Baker company was also involved:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7298533.stm

I'm not sure how much other evidence of this there is, but thought you guys might know. Ambulnick (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Add stuff if you want. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Significance of the Robert Maple quote

Hi, I'm not sure if this is an appropriate medium in which to pose this question. I do not understand the significance about the quote "he was crying and shooting" and then the cross-examining. I don't understand it's relation, whether it was saying the witnesses were liars or he was an emotional fella. Can anyone clarify this?--Rypoll (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The transcript shows how emotional the soldiers were during the massacre and that they were aware what they were doing was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.171.22 (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving quotes to Wikiquote?

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

CIA ordered liquidation of My Lai. Will Hollywood's "Pinkville" show that?

The Hollywood movie, "Pinkville", is going to be made after all, with a release date set for New Year's Eve 2010.

"Pinkville" is about the massacre of Vietnamese civilians in the hamlet of My Lai in South Vietnam in 1968.

In short, the movie, "Pinkville", will show common American foot soldiers slaughtering defenseless old Vietnamese men, women and children. Then, two years later, an elderly CIA agent, WW2 veteran with the OSS, heads an investigation into the massacre. Several army officers appear to have been responsible and several others appear to have covered it up. Eventually, several soldiers are tried. In the end, only one soldier, a platoon lieutenant, is judged guilty and sentenced to prison before he is pardoned by the president.

That was the story of My Lai in a nutshell - and it is probably the Hollywood story-line as well.

But there was more to My Lai than that.

The massacre at My Lai was one of several massacres of Vietnamese peasants by American troops. (The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army committed even bigger massacres, with much more killing.)

CIA agents ordered the liquidation of My Lai. Will the movie show that? The order was given to top army officers and the task was handed to company commanders and platoon leaders. Then, in the course of several hours, each platoon, one after the other, passed through My Lai and killed many Vietnamese civilians.

Only one massacre, My Lai, ever became a political issue. In the years that American troops were in Vietnam, newspaper reporters like Seymour Hersch heard about numerous massacres of Vietnamese civilians. They said nothing about them. My Lai occurred in early 1968, when Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, was president. Almost two years later, when there was a new president, a Republican, Richard Nixon, Hersch went public over the massacre at My Lai. My Lai became a big media sensation.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, in the aftermath of WW2 or Korea, My Lai would never have become a political issue. But America, by the late 1960s, had changed. Most significantly, its leadership had lost confidence in itself. Traitors - like Joan Baez, Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden - went scot free and men who performed their duty were damned. For My Lai, one soldier, an unpopular commissioned officer, was made the goat.

That is the real story of My Lai.

To protect the administration in Washington, a CIA agent was told to cover up the CIA’s involvement at My Lai. That is the real story of the CIA agent - the main character in the movie "Pinkville" - who headed the investigation of the massacre.

Will the movie show that?

An honest film-maker would show what My Lai really meant: it was used to embarrass a president. But it did not succeed.

There might yet be another story to My Lai: Hollywood’s cover-up of the CIA true involvement.

Donald Davison, Boston —Preceding unsigned comment added by General Halftrack (talk • contribs) 02:34, 29 June 2008

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what Oliver Stone's film has to say... Pinkville (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The film's production was halted because of the writers strike. Everyone involved moved into the other films. It was also to be too violent(?) for the studios. The film "imploded and probably won't happen. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you accuse army general of being a CIA covert agent then better provide some kind of proof of these allegations. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

--- --- --- --- ---

It's not exactly Oliver Stone's film. There are many people involved. Essentially, Stone is the director. He'll get top billing, along with the star, Bruce Willis, but there's more to the making of the film than that.

The army general who headed the investigation into My Lai was with the OSS during WWII. The OSS was the forerunner of the CIA. After the war he joined the CIA and stayed with it until his retirement. There was never any secret about that. What one must consider, rather, is that his report on My Lai did not mention that three or four CIA agents got together two or three nights beforehand and decided that the hamlet had to be wiped out.

Wally Hellerman

My comment:

CIA agents were everywhere in Indo-China during the Vietnam War. They were involved in the day-to-day affairs of the armed forces.Some worked in offices. Some worked in the field. Some gave good advice. Some were ass holes.

CIA agents in the area ordered My Lai wiped out. The army did it.

When the press in the U. S. cried about My Lai, General William Westmoreland, in command of American forces in South Vietnam, ordered General William Peers, who was working for the CIA in Vietnam, to report on it.

Peers gave Westmoreland a report. But the report did not mention the involvement of the CIA.

How could Peers omit mention of the CIA? Who were the CIA agents who ordered My Lai wiped out? They are known. Why did army commanders listen to them? Could they ignore the order?

How will Bruce Willis, the star of this Hollywood production, "Pinkville," and the director, Oliver Stone, portray Peers, the main character in the film?

The producers of "Pinkville" will have to show that Peers was closely involved in the CIA's pacification program in South Vietnam, that the CIA ordered My Lai and that Peers omitted mention of this crucial fact in his report.

Was Peers shielding the CIA agents? Were they working for him in the CIA's pacification program? Would Peers' description of the CIA's involvement at My Lai have led to a big public scandal like the later Iran-Contra affair?

Will the producers show, too, that My Lai was used for political purposes in the U. S.?

Otherwise, the film, "Pinkville," is a lie. And the public will want to know why. A lie in this case will only embarrass the filmmakers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.6.235 (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We'll simply have to wait and see what the film is like. Let's hope that - whatever the quality of the film - that it doesn't "take over" this article, which is about the far more important subject of the massacre itself (and rated issues). Pinkville (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the movie “Pinkville” will show hot-headed American soldiers massacring Vietnamese villagers and an army general investigating the incident later and uncovering a cover-up.

That is simply left-wing, pro-Hanoi propaganda. And you can stuff it up Tom Hayden’s ass where it belongs.

If your grandchildren want to know about Vietnam, they will not learn a thing from Hollywood.

Hollywood often misleads the public.

An army general with the CIA, ordered by his superior to report on an army massacre of villagers, did not report the CIA involvement's in the incident. How will Hollywood romanticize that? Frankly, that should be easy. But it looks as if Hollywood will skip the CIA matter altogether. So, who paid for the film? The mafia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl G. Martin (talk • contribs) 04:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to the public, and to General Peers as well, a movie about My Lai should point out that Peers worked for many years with the CIA, that he was in South Vietnam with the CIA, and that he chose not to mention in his report on My Lai the three or four CIA agents who ordered the area cleared.

The movie should show that Peers knew that to mention CIA involvement in My Lai could lead to bigger problems and to a far greater scandal. If there is a story about Peers and My Lai, that is it.

The CIA agents who ordered My Lai should be included in the movie. Their reasons for ordering My Lai wiped out should be explained. Who they were and who they worked with should also be made clear.

J. Pension, Mobile, Alabama —Preceding unsigned comment added by K. Pennigh (talk • contribs) 06:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum on the movie that probably will never be. Go with this to IMDb. Btw, despite JFK Stone is not a conspiracy ~~nut~~ theorist who various people would like to see him as for a different reasons (see World Trade Center). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an internal contradiction here: In the opening paragraph, it mentions that the massacre occured in N. Vietnam. However, in the box on the right, it states that the massacre occurred in the South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hppboston (talk • contribs) 06:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I live in Chiang Mai. More than a year ago, I visited a Palaung village in a Royal Project not far from here and saw the movie set for Pinkville. Recently, friends told me that scenes from the movie had already been filmed on the set.

I remember the My Lai controversy very well. The general public viewed the matter as political and Peers' involvement as largely self-serving. He was a CIA man sent to cover up CIA involvement in the matter. The CIA ordered the liqidation of My Lai. Peers did not mention that in his report. But the press did.

How will Willis, the star, portray Peers?

I suspect Jane Fonda behind the scenes here.

David Merriman, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Hollywood "Pinkville" was just a front

Oliver Stone never intended to make a movie about My Lai. He was just embezzling money from United Artists. Or it was his fee for trafficking Thai women. Either that, or he gave the money to his Israeli friends in Bangkok.

In a Bangkok Post interview last February, Stone claimed that the Pinkville movie set in Thailand cost US$6 million (see comment below, "Oliver Stone unfit to direct film about My Lai"). It didn't cost $600! There are six small bamboo shacks for transient farm workers in a small grove near a rural village south of the town of Chiang Dao in Chiang Mai Province. (The set is not near a Palaung village, as one commenter above mentioned. It is not near a royal project, as another said.) There is absolutely nothing Vietnamese about the shacks. Villagers call the tiny cluster of shacks in the grove "Pinkville". They say the shacks were erected for a Hollywood movie about Vietnam three years ago but the movie was never made. There is not enough space there to film anything.

McDonald Redstone, Chiang Mai, September 24, 2010

—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Woodpecker (talk • contribs) 07:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Stone unfit to direct film about My Lai

The subject of an article about the Hollywood director Oliver Stone by Joe Cummings in the Bangkok Post’s bi-monthly The Magazine on February 25, 2010, "The Life of Oliver Stone", was Stone's production of a movie about the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War.

The film, called "Pinkville", was begun three years ago in Chiang Mai but shelved during the screen writers guild strike in 2007 and 2008 and finally abandoned, Cummings quotes Stone as saying, when the film’s producers, United Artists, went bankrupt.

The article quotes Stone as saying that the studio spent six million dollars on building a film set, a replica of My Lai, in Chiang Mai. (It is in a hill tribe village near the town of Chiang Dao.) Stone claims a lien was put on the set and an investor is needed to remove the lien before filming can resume.

Heretofore, the actor Bruce Willis was billed as the star of the movie and cast as army general William Peers, the CIA field operative who investigated My Lai and covered up the CIA’s order to wipe it out.

But in the article, Stone claims that Willis was to play William Calley, an army platoon lieutenant who was ordered to wipe out My Lai and later made the sole scapegoat for it.

The article also quoted Stone as saying that he wanted to rewrite the script. Rather than describe the massacre, he said, the movie should be about the army’s investigation of it.

That sounds more interesting. Indeed, expose the CIA. Expose the Peers cover-up.

The Peers Commission Report, prepared by General Peers, was a methodical and seemingly factual report but far from complete. Everyone saw Peers omit mention of the CIA’s decision to destroy My Lai. Peers worked for the CIA’s pacification program in Vietnam. He was covering for colleagues who were responsible for My Lai.

At this late date, no one is denying the CIA’s decisive involvement in My Lai. If there is a movie to make about My Lai it is about the CIA’s orders to wipe it out and the scapegoating of Calley.

If there is a movie to make about the army’s investigation of My Lai it is Peers’ cover-up of CIA involvement. And Stone, who was not reluctant to point out CIA complicity in the assassination of an American president, should not hesitate to describe CIA involvement in My Lai.

But then, lo! - Stone is quoted as saying “It’s a story that should be told, as it was only because of one general and his staff that the story came out. That general lost his career as a result.”

This is nonsense. What is Stone talking about? Has he ever read anything about My Lai?

It is not because of any one general or his staff that My Lai became a public issue. And not one general lost his career over My Lai.

Peers was considered a hero for leading Kachin guerrillas against the Japanese in WW2. But he looked like a cheap hack for his cover-up of the CIA at My Lai a quarter century later. Peers did not lose his career for reporting on the army’s sweep through My Lai. But Peers did lose his good reputation for covering up the CIA’s role.

Publicly revealing the CIA’s role at the time would have led to fairer treatment of the soldiers who were taken to task for following orders.

Why fictionalize and romanticize Peers? Why fictionalize the investigation of My Lai? Stone is off on the wrong track. He sounds like a village idiot. Since Stone is not interested in the truth of the matter, someone else should write the script and someone else should direct the movie.

Abner Olsen, Chiang Mai

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsofthematter2 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

PBS-TV show about My Lai meaningless

I saw a PBS-TV show about My Lai on April 23, 2010. It was billed as a documentary with the title of “My Lai” and shown as an installment of the PBS series, “American Experience”.

The show was disappointing. It was a sluff job.

There were several apparent contradictions in the presentation that the producers seem to have ignored.

First, the photos of the dead at My Lai included young men in black pajamas.

Second, it appears that there was an understanding between Col. Henderson and “investigators” to let him off if he did not implicate his superiors and CIA advisors.

Third, the army was ordered to stop its sweep through My Lai at the fence of an old Korean army camp because it was probably mined. Calley, evidently determined to conduct a full and thorough sweep of the area, felt it essential to search the camp nonetheless and led his men into it.

None of these matters were elaborated upon or explained.

The show ignored - or evaded - a most significant point about My Lai. It did not explain the real purpose of the army investigation and courts-martial. Rather than focus on those who ordered the destruction of My Lai the show dwelt on the foot soldiers that were ordered to do it.

The investigation and courts-martial were manipulated by the American president to derive some personal political gain from it. It was within his power to influence the court to acquit Calley, who had only followed orders and was just a scapegoat. That would have been the appropriate thing to do. But he allowed Calley to be thrown to the lions. He preferred to have Calley convicted so he could pardon him later.

This same president had it within his power to jail the traitors Hayden and Fonda. Instead, he did nothing to prevent them from going to Hanoi where they harangued downed American pilots (before movie cameras) and goaded the Vietnamese into torturing them. This president had lost confidence in himself and he came to typify a generation of American leaders who, as a result, were soon turned upside down and thrown out.

The show featured a Cockney researcher who could not have been more than a child at the time and talked about My Lai if he knew it all. Clearly, the show was a vehicle for him. He was out of place there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasottnawtsuji (talk • contribs) 06:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ralph MacDuff, Omaha, 060110 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yasottnawtsuji (talk • contribs) 06:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

author

hey, just a little annoyance, and this isnt the only place, the listing of photographers name in the image description on the article. if its in the image page that good enough. (my signatures fucked up right now)

In the debate over whether the Army Photographer's images shot by his peronal camera were his own copyrighted work (for which he should receive payment), I'm surprised that the issue of "work product" didn't arise.

I was a crime scene photographer in a major city for years. Just like our Army photographer, I used a government owned Nikon FM2 for the official work, and a personally owned Nikon F3 for my "personal" images.

Once, I got a photographer's dream shot... a suicide on a public sidewalk by a pro-life protestor who doused himself with gasoline. I got the official shot, and a number of excellent frames with my personally owned camera. The issue of ownership popped up, and the decision was that the government owned the photographs from BOTH cameras a "work product". So long as I was doing what I was paid to do, the product of my work was the property of my employer... the ownership of the instrument I used to do the work meant nothing.

Also, by placing ownership of the prints and negatives with the government, they automatically became public domain items under the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.125.125 (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thuan Yen

I read that My Lai is also known as Thuan Yen. I read this in the Cambridge Wizard Student Guide - In The Lake of the Woods. This is a student guide based in Australia for school students studying In the Lake of the Woods. It says (on Page 18):

"The incident is explicitly referred to in Chapter 13 of the novel, though My Lai is referred to by its other name Thuan Yen."

Could someone insert this for me? I'm not sure where I should put it, but it should be mentioned.
Thanks!
Cybersteel8 (talk) 08:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

We will need more RS citations than just one for an insertion like that. Taprobanus (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Google it for me, I did and it seems like common knowledge. I just googled "thuan yen my lai massacre" and a large handful of websites regarding the event stated they went under the same name. Since I'm still new to Wikipedia, does someone want to do the honours? Cybersteel8 (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I created a redirect for Thuan yen my lai massacre, anyone searching for that will come to My Lai massacre.Taprobanus (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Media

The BBC broadcast an interesting program 'The My Lai Tapes'.

Do you think it might be informative to add links to the English and Vietnamese versions under your 'Media' Section?

With apologies for the amateurish nature of it, but here is a suggested possible entry (not sure if there can be hot links on "The My Lai Tapes", "BBC World Service" and "Vietnamese Service" linking directly to the program pages themselves):

March 15 2008 the British Broadcasting Corporation broadcast [The My Lai Tapes]http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/1968/mylai.shtml on Radio 4, and subsequently on the [BBC World Service]http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2008/04/080327_mylai_partone.shtml and [Vietnamese Service]http://www.bbc.co.uk/vietnamese/vietnam/story/2008/05/080502_mylaitapes.shtml, which used never before heard audio recordings of testimony taken during the Peers Inquiry.

Chapter101 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Have cleaned this up and posted it. I do hope that is okay with you. Chapter101 (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Effects and Analysis section

I have asked for additional citations in this section; might whoever provided that content work on providing evidence for its assertions, or should this content be edited? Seijihyouronka (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinked terms?

The first sentence, describing the victims as "unarmed citizens ... all of whom were civilians and majority of whom were women, children, and elderly people", wikilinks "civilians" and "women" but not "children" or "elderly people". I can understand why it's pertinent to link "civilian", but I would expect either all of the other three terms to be linked, or none. I'd generally be bold and link all of them myself, but I would imagine this page has probably attracted more than its share of edit warring in the past so I thought I'd discuss it here first. Thoughts, anybody? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Who reported it first?

I'm amazed that nowhere is it properly emphazised who reported the massacre first? Who did? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.43.102 (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

found the source buried in a paragraph in the cover up section: "The carnage at My Lai might have gone unknown to history if not for another soldier, Ron Ridenhour, a former member of Charlie Company, who, independently of Glen, sent a letter detailing the events at My Lai to President Richard M. Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress.[28] 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 Congressman Morris Udall[29] (D-Arizona). Ridenhour learned about the events at My Lai secondhand, by talking to members of Charlie Company while he was still enlisted."

I have some questions here. Was Seymore Hersh realy the first reporter to write about this? that's the account that follows this paragraph, or words that somewhat indicate that, although the wording is to hazy to grasp what actually happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.43.102 (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Mistake

sorry i dont really know how to edit wiki or use source code so i hope im doing everything right. if not somebody please fix it because i think my point is important. somewhere in the article it say one US soldier was killed. this is wrong, one US soldier was injured (shot in the foot) and there is some speculation to if he shot himself anyways. not only did the woman shortly talk about it but I also saw a picture of the guy being carried by two fellow soldiers. My source- the original First Tuesday:Four Hours in My Lai episode. This episode is currently no longer reproduced and taken off the BBC website, as well as removed from the BBCs personal archive of footage. AKA it has been almost completely removed from history. however a connection of mine has one of supposedly 4 copies remaining, which had to be format converted into VHS by some sketchy guy in cambodia.

sorry for the short story, i just think its really interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.171.244 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Broken links

North Shoreman, you broke several links by reverting but made no mention of it in your edit summary. Do you believe these links should remain broken? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to fix them. My concern was your violation of the MOS. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

All for the sake of two periods. Why don't you put them in every acronym? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} (either accidentally or intentionally)

This needs to be removed from picture caption as anyone who shoots themself does so either accidentally or intentionally. (either accidentally or intentionally). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.87.131 (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2010

The wording makes it clear we do not know if he shot himself on purpose. Rklawton (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have investigated this matter.

The US Congress source of the picture [6] does not give any information on this in the caption - just PFC Carter (Wounded). The books that mention the specific incident just say "Pfc. Carter, who shot himself in the foot."[7]. Later in the document, it elaborates that "The soldier, PFC (Now Mr.) Carter, shot himself through the foot while trying to clear his .45 caliber pistol."[8].

Rklawton, I fully understand what you wrote; it's true that saying "Bob shot himself" infers suicide, whereas "Bob shot himself (either accidentally or intentionally)" casts a shadow of doubt. However, if we cast such a doubt, without a specific reference to back it up, we are guilty of WP:POV/WP:OR. Therefore, I will remove the text.

If anyone is able to find a reference to support this proposition, please add it back - or, if you feel that my rationale is incorrect, please elaborate below. For now, this is 'done', removed.

Done Chzz ► 15:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Nice job on the research. Rklawton (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese Perspective

I don't know enough about this incident to add anything, but perhaps someone else would - this otherwise excellent article says nothing about how My Lai was viewed / is viewed in Vietnam. The Aftermath sections and in fact everything else refers only to the impact of My Lai in the US. It would be good if a section can be added re the impact in Vietnam. Did My Lai become an iconic moment there too (the way, for instance, Jallianwala Bagh did in India)? Is there a memorial to it? Did the NLF / Vietnamese communists take up the issue specifically at any point? Would be good to know. Shankargopal (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

An appropriate request. Of course, while the My Lai Massacre is seen in North America, etc. as a singular event, in Vietnam it is known to be only one among many similar incidents that did not receive media coverage. Still, anything representing a Vietnamese perspective would be welcome. Pinkville (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Folie a deuax?

Distressing tho the incident at My Lai was it is crucial to understand that you are looking the actions of normal human beings with all the flaws and failings of every other human being. In Psychology there is a condition known as 'Folie a deuax'. In the case of groups of people such a Company of soldiers in Vietnam it would be 'Folie a plusieurs'. This is a condition where a group of people (usually under stress) develop irrational delusions about people or places around them. To what degree 'Folie a plusieurs' played a part (if any) in My Lai can be seen from reading statements given by the people involved.Johnwrd (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Missing aspects

There are some aspects that feel like they are missing even though they are relevant, and I'd like the opinion of the regular editors to this article on that. Bernier has done re-evaluative work published in 2009, partly based on documents declassified in 1994 and revelations exposed in 2003. See the links provided at the end. The article should IMO be expanded to include:

How this was not an aberration, but rather commonplace, indeed apparently part of policy at certain levels.
How this was known by the senior command, and indeed that the responsibility for the war-crimes extends far up into the higher U.S. echelons.
How the massacres were rationalized by apologists, the "Victory Culture," or myth of American exceptionalism and how a "stab in the back legend developed in the U.S. following the war. (partly from the review by Profesor Kuzmarov)

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 12:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing important Thompson quote on Glenn Andreotta saving the boy

I cannot edit the article. Is it locked ?

"Returning to My Lai, Thompson and other air crew members noticed several large groups of bodies. Spotting some survivors in the ditch Thompson landed again and one of the crew members entered the ditch."

We should specify the crew member was Glenn Andreotta.

Then add the following:

After wading through the remains of the dead and dying men, women and children, Andreotta extracted a live boy, and handed him up to Colburn and Thompson. As Thompson described it:

"Glenn Andreotta—if there was a hero, I don’t like that word, but if there was a hero at My Lai—it was Glenn Andreotta, because he saw movement in that ditch, and he fixed in on this one little kid and went down into that ditch. I would not want to go in that ditch. It’s not pretty. It was very bad. I can imagine what was going through his mind down there, because there was more than one still alive—people grabbing hold of his pants, wanting help. “I can’t help you. You’re too bad [off].” He found this one kid and brought the kid back up and handed it to Larry, and we laid it across Larry and my lap and took him out of there. I remember thinking Glenn Andreotta put himself where nobody in their right mind would want to be, and he was driven by something. I haven’t got the aircraft on the ground real stable. He bolted out of that aircraft into this ditch. Now he was a hero. Glenn Andreotta gave his life for his country about three weeks later. That’s the kind of guy he was, and he was a hero that day."

The reference is "Moral Courage In Combat: The My Lai Story" (PDF), USNA Lecture, 2003 http://www.usna.edu/Ethics/Publications/ThompsonPg1-28_Final.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.187.213 (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Women and Children"

This article really likes to point out how bad it was that women and children were killed, despite the fact that there were some men present. It's this "Women and Children" mentality that continues to portray men as expendable commodities and women as incapable, childish, defenseless, and "more important" than men. 69.97.85.131 (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this article as it is does grave injustice to civilian men who were killed in this massacre, it also potrays women as incapable by equating them with elderly people and children. I think Wikipedia is way past beyond such gender discrimination. Men are not expendable, women are not incapable.TheDeltaPi (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Xmemory, 10 December 2010, Glee reference

{{edit semi-protected}} Replace last paragraph of Media section re: Glee for link accuracy, quotation accuracy, spelling:

On an episode of the television series Glee aired December 08, 2010, Sue Sylvester, the scheming coach played by Jane Lynch, states that "...mastery of camouflage is the only thing that kept me from being court-martialed after that My Lai misunderstanding."

Xmemory (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: As a better solution, I've removed the whole sentence from the article. That one line pop culture reference does not belong in this section or this article in general. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)