Jump to content

Talk:My Lai massacre/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Auto Archiving

I just turned on auto-archiving (45 days)--this talk page is insanely long, and not having archiving means people sometimes reply to discussions from years ago. If anyone objects, post here and I'll take it off. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

- Another hacker! Don't take off a thing! So what if people take years to respomd to issues! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101yrotsihdlrow (talk • contribs) 09:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The reason that is a problem is because it is unlikely the person from several years ago will notice the "response." Then the new person gets confused and upset when no one responds to them. It's much better for someone to add a new comment at the bottom of the page to start a new discussion, pointing back to previous dicussions as necessary. Please note that none of the information is removed--rather, it is just moved to the Archives, to which there is a convenient link at the top of the page on the right hand side. Qwyrxian (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nebelkrieger 8 January 20011, Photograph reference

According to the german wikipedia version and an arcticle in a german newspaper the "Unidentified dead Vietnamese woman" is called Nguyen Thi Tau.

If you can provide a full citation for the German article (the article's title, author if available, publication, date of publishing, and URL link if available), then we could add it. It's fine if the article is in German, as long as the newspaper is reliable--that is, if it's just a tabloid making a guess, we shouldn't add the info, but if the newspaper is legitimate, then adding is no problem. If you provide all that info, I'd be happy to format and add it to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


Title: "Opfer des Vietnam-Kriegs. Die GIs schossen weiter, überall war Blut" (Victims of Vietnam War. The GIs kept shooting, blood was everywhere own translation), Author: Solveig Grothe, Publication: eines tages Zeitgeschichten auf SPIEGEL ONLINE, http://einestages.spiegel.de/external/ShowTopicAlbumBackground/a19522/l0/l0/F.html#featuredEntry)


Thank you. First of all I was thinking in a wrong category. It´s more an online magazine called "Spiegel Online". It´s no yellow press publication and renowned in Germany. In their column "eines tages" they discuss contemporary history from popular culture to war issuses.


If you look for that picture in the article you won´t find it because in the author´s opinion it´s too graphic and disturbing (and she might not be wrong). But she makes a reference to that disturbing picture with the woman and the sun hat. Two of her children survived and made it to their grandma´s village. During that trip they heared a helicopter and pretended to be death because they thought they could be shot on sight otherwise. But in fact it seemed to be an army photograph who shot pictures of them. Those pictures probably are the numbers 2 an 13 in the article. One of those kids later made it to the German Democratic Republic and still lives in Germany. He reached that the My Lai memorial documentation center changed the name on the subtitle of the aforementioned photograph showing his dead mother to her real name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebelkrieger (talk • contribs) 10:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is regarding the picture of a dead woman and her brain. Her surviving son, who now lives in Germany, has visited Vietnam and requested that the caption of the picture be changed to reflect his mother name: Mrs. Nguyễn Thị Tẩu (chín Tẩu). Here is the link to his memoir in Vietnamese [1]. His name is Trần Văn Đức and his sister is Trần Thị Hà. They were the kids crawling on the road. [2] Nguyenaiviet (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Quotes as lead-ins

Personally, I think that having quotes at the beginning of each section was an interesting way of writing the article. However, it must be noted that that would do best for a book about the subject. I am not sure that having quotes as lead-ins is encyclopedic. Any thoughts? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh...I haven't even looked closely at the article (I've been mostly monitoring the regular desire to go off topic on the talk page). But you are correct--those quotes are absolutely not encyclopedic. This is not (or, shouldn't be) a magazine article/book/journal. We're not here to "interest" the reader--our only job is to provide clear, encyclopedic summary of what reliable sources have said about this subject (see WP:TONE and WP:NOT). Please feel free to go in and remove all of those lead-in quotations. Since they're all primary sources, my feeling is that they can probably just be removed, but if you see a better place for them (with appropriate context, inline), I guess they could be moved. I'll try to remember to take a look myself in the next few days, but please feel free to be bold and start editing away yourself. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I assumed as much, but I just wanted a second opinion. I don't think there is a guideline on this. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

pronunciation

The footnote says it was originally pronounced "my lay". However, that is not included in the lead, and "me lay" is there instead. Which is correct? — kwami (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Graphic and Disturbing

The pictures in this article are incredibly graphic and disturbing. Now, I am rarely in favour of any kind of censorship, and I don't think that the pictures should be removed. However, I think in the case of this article a warning at the beginning would be appropriate, that way a reader does not have to unwittingly stumble upon the image of the bloodied corpse of a child with half of it's face blown off. As I said, the pictures should in no way be removed (after all, they show the reality of the massacre), but If I knew how to properly add a warning to this artice I definitley would. 142.150.48.149 (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)S.B, Feb 11 2008

The truth hurts, but it's the truth. Too bad. 66.99.254.5 (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not called a massacre for nothing buddy. Wikipedia DOESN'T censor to cater to any special interest groups or people it might offend. I mean what the hell did you expect to see? There's pictures far more shocking and grotequese on Wikipedia and still their not censored. That's ridiculous, why would you get rid of the very symbolic images that made this event world history?

Gamer112 (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with the original statement. There should be some sort of warning label at the top of the page. I expect to see this sort of stuff on shock sites were viewing is somehow restricted. I am not in favor of removing them however, and, like i said, there should be a warning label. If there is any more of this kind of imagery on wikipedia then that all should have some system of warning. For example there should be a system for flagging certain pages for younger viewers or for the potentially squeamish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.170.237 (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a warning (though I don't really think one is necessary, given the ubiquity of images of violence in the news, computer games, etc.), but let's not presume who may be offended or disturbed. Any warning should simply say that this article includes images of victims of violence, or similar. Then people can decide for themsleves whether they wish to go ahead and view the images or not. Keep in mind, footage of the Vietnam War - including so-called action footage - was televised on the evening news at the time. One could argue that seeing moving images of violence while digging into your evening meatloaf might be more unsettling than viewing a selection of images in an article with Massacre in the title... Pinkville (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just surprised there's a woman laying there with her brain out. I wasn't born from that time, but I do know it was a sad and horrible thing to have happened. No, this isn't a "remove the pictures please", just me saying what I feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.149.132 (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how could anyone be offended by this article. As for disturbing... well, I am glad that people find this article disturbing, and for one I believe that people who REALLY do find these images disturbing should read this article and look at ALL the photos. Anyhow, Wikipedia doesn't censor, Wikipedia doesn't warn... you will be presented with what you were looking for - no warnings, no censorship, plain and simple - just how it should be. BytEfLUSh (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

When I look for information on for instance the 2004 Tsunami on Wikipedia, I'm not directly confronted with any images of the 230.000 victims, while we know hundreds of such pictures float the internet. So why should someone browsing for factual information on this historic War-event be confronted with dozens of very graphic images of an event which caused some 500 victims?

I know it's not about victim count but please tell me, when should someone looking for factual information expect to be confronted with such pictures, what's the argumentation here? The gruesomeness, the tragedy, the innocence and demographics of the victims or perhaps just because you perhaps (rightfully) feel this was a dreadful act of inhumanity in a meaningless war? All very arbitrary arguments to say the least... Let's not pretend that showing these images or not has anything to do with censorship. The (fine) article depicts all the horrible facts about the massacre clearly. Deciding what (and how many!) images to show with it is a matter of artistic choice, layout even. I'd argue for using less images in this article, but would settle for a compromise by placing a warning text in the article. That way the reader knows before proceeding that the writers of this article personally find it necessary to confront you with more disturbing images of this tragedy then one perhaps expects.

By the way: Wikipedia DOES warn. I somehow find it ironic that we do think it's important to warn our readers for plot summaries and such, while the plot of a movie or book is much more of a cold fact then an image in our specific case. Arjanpelle (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The word "massacre" is a horrifying enough warning by itself. If you don't see the word "massacre"s hellish connotations, or if that word somehow sounds mild to you, that's your problem. Massacres are not to be expected as not gruesome or undisturbing. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

See the My Lai documentaries yourself

The people who put together two film documentaries about My Lai, in 1989 and 2010, suffered tunnel vision. They did not seem to have any military experience. Certainly, they did not seem to have gained from it if they had. And they had not studied the Classics. They lacked proper perspective.

Nonetheless, the documentaries show that the massacre of civilians at My Lai was inevitable.

Soldiers in the field were given specific orders to kill all enemy combatants and civilians, including old men, women and children, before they set out for My Lai.

There are two glaring omissions in the documentaries:

The army brass and intelligence agents who ordered the massacre at My Lai are not identified.

The absence of the young men from the village on that day is not explained.

There are numerous differences in the documentaries. For example, the earlier film recounts that there were no reports of enemy fire before reaching the village. The recent documentary recounts that the first helicopters into the area, before ground troops arrived, reported taking enemy fire.

One can view the documentaries Online:

FOUR HOURS AT MY LAI (British, 1989) (Select the version with the title in caps.)

PBS - American Experience - My Lai (WGBH, Boston, 2010)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 101yrotsihdlrow (talk • contribs) 08:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you recommending that this info somehow be incorporated into the article? Please understand that this page is not a place to generally discuss the My Lai Massacre--it exists solely so that editors may discuss possible improvements to the article itself. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't be a smart ass. This is an excellent place to discuss My Lai. 101yrotsihdlrow
Actually, no, it is specifically not allowed by WP:NOTFORUM. There are hundreds to thousands of other places on the internet where you can discuss topics of interest to you. This page has exactly one purpose: to discuss potential improvements to the Wikipedia article My Lai Massacre. Apologies if you don't like that, but it's a fundamental part of how Wikipedia works. Qwyrxian (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
101yrotsihdlrow, you better stop discussing this topic as it is extremely offensive to Qwyrxian. Although discussing the topic usually does not harm or offend anyone despite being against WP:NOTFORUM, Qwyrxian is somehow offended in ways I cannot understand. What your saying may seem harmless, but "generally discuss[ing] the My Lai Massacre" is extremely harmful to Wikipedia, wasting its precious bytes, as well as robing Qwyrxian of his invaluable seconds reading, and for some reason replying to, what you said. Any further discussion may lead to arbitration. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Nahceilrahc, 2 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

The article is being used to advertise a Hollywood film that will never be made. It is common knowledge that there are no real plans to make the film. Unless the film is actually made and released this site should be free of any and all references to it. Thus, I suggest that all references to the Hollywood movie director Oliver Stone and the movie he is supposed to have made, "Pinkville", be deleted. Please understand that this is not a personal matter. It is in the best interests of the general public.

Nahceilrahc (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added another reliable source indicating that Stone has resumed preparations for the movie. Now, I'm the person who said above that the info should stay in, so I'm not going to mark this as completed, as I'd like to hear the opinion of other editors. Right now, I'd say it's debatable, as the movie isn't even in pre-production yet, thus meaning that WP:CRYSTAL could be said to apply. At this point, given that the reports we have are not so strong, it wouldn't bother me if that whole paragraph was removed, since we can always add it in again once production is confirmed. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'm going to decline this request simply since another user objected to it being removed. The edit request by User:Nahceilrahc was suggested "boldly", and "reverted" by User:Qwyrxian. Now is the time to discussion. I offer no opinion on the content. -Atmoz (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia. There are some surprisingly good entries. But there are also some extremely bad entries.

There is much that is missing from the Wikipedia article on My Lai. The article could be vastly improved to better explain My Lai. On the other hand, some of its content is of dubious value and should be deleted.

The Hollywood movie director Oliver Stone and his publicists release articles and videos every month with claims that Stone still plans to make a film about My Lai called “Pinkville”. These articles and video clips pop up by the dozen every month. This has been going on for many years. It has become obnoxious.

The last reports by people close to the movie industry in the U. S. and Thailand are that there are no plans to make the film.

In any case, Stone’s remarks made clear that he was interested in making a fictionalized account of the incident rather than try to expose or explain actual events and facts.

If you are a film fan obsessed with Stone and insist on plugging him, you may do so on the many Hollywood websites. Or do so on Stone’s own websites. He even has a Wikipedia page.

Stone’s current Wikipedia page, by the way, does not mention plans to make a movie about My Lai. (There is no mention of it in the section about his future projects.)

If you like to believe all the Hollywood industry publicity about Stone’s plans for “Pinkville”, you may refer to them on Stone’s Wikipedia entry. The discussion page would probably be the best place. Or, better yet, list them on your own Wikipedia page.

Stone should not be mentioned in the Wikipedia entry for My Lai again until he releases a Hollywood film about it. Otherwise, the entry reads like an advertisement and publicity for Stone posted by a sycophant. That should not be the purpose of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Nahceilrahc (talk • contribs) 11:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's ridiculously over the top. I'm no sycophant for Stone, I'm not even really fond of his movies. My logic in keeping it in is the sources. However, the sources have to be balanced out against WP:CRYSTAL, which is to say that we shouldn't include info that isn't certain about the future. As such, I'm willing to take that section out. We can and should re-add it as soon as principal filming starts, if, in fact, it ever does. Once it does, though, then the information must go in.Qwyrxian (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Better wait until such a film is actually showing in the movie theatre. Many Hollywood films never get past the first week or two of filming. Many more are never completed. And many completed films are never released. User:Anyoldnamewilldo(User talk: Amyoldnamewilldo|talk]]) —Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

Merge tag

An editor has proposed merging this even with My Lai, Vietnam article.

  • Oppose - villages are part of our political geography, and Wikipedia includes thousands of village-level articles. And, of course, the massacre is a notable event. Since the two subjects can stand on their own, there's no need to merge them. Rklawton (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The massacre is a notable event; per very longstanding Wikipedia policy, named towns always warrant their own articles. There's no possibility of this proposal passing; unless anyone raises a credible objection in the next couple of days, I'll remove the tags. – iridescent 00:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As above, this event is highly notable in and of itself, and more than meets the general notability requirements to have its own article. Merging this in would practically imply that all events that happen in a particular city should be merged into their own city pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Whoops! We're all making a mistake--there is currently no article My Lai--it just redirects back here. I think the person actually made a mistake by making this a merge request--instead, I think the person actually wants to open the My Lai article. And then when I do a little more research, it turns out that My Lai no longer exists as a village--it's actually in Sơn Mỹ, which redirects to its district Sơn Tịnh District. So, the question is, do we know enough about Son Mỹ to make a stub class article about it? Probably; if no one else starts this, I'll look into it next week. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Wait a minute, I'm wrong again...there is an article on My Lai, although I'm not so sure their should be. But, in any event, the original editor's request (see Talk:My Lai) appears to be in error; I'll notify them on their talk. I think we can remove the merge tags at any time. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI - the article about the village is here: My Lai, Vietnam Rklawton (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture your mother, sister, wife or daughter

As of June 2010, this derelict article -about one of the most important events in American military history- says absolutely nothing [SFA] about the sexual crimes against females that took place before, during, and after the wholesale murder of hundreds of noncombatants.

These were not alleged crimes. Not only were they witnessed, they were recorded by an embedded Department of Defense reporter-photographer team, Jay Roberts and Ron Haeberle. Hundreds of Vietnamese females were defenseless in the grip and trap of the Platoon led by Lt. Calley. In the eyes of these troops, since all the women were soon going to be killed, there was no sense "wasting them". At least one final use should be made of them. Some of the men took this opportunity to become what were euphemistically called =Double Veterans=. This chest ribbon was earned by raping a female and, after releasing inside her, executing her. This particular circumstance was reported to and by Bilton and Sim in "4 Hours at My Lai".

Two days post massacre, when helicopter door gunner, Ron Ridenauer, passed over the remains of the massacre, he spotted the nude body of a woman. "She was spread-eagled, as if on display. She had an 11th Brigade patch fixed between her legs, as if it were some honor. At least three members of Charlie Company were formally charged with rape in connection with the My Lai massacre. Although the Army eventually confirmed in its official findings that systematic rapes had indeed taken place, the charges against the accused men were quietly dropped."

Quotes in this comment are from the 1975 book by Susan Brownmiller: "Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape." She discusses the sex crimes at My Lai upon pages 103 to 105. Anyone reading this material ought to visit a public library and at least read those pages. --Ed Chilton

This attack was clearly a war crime, perpetrated by a battalion, and covered up by the higher command. Is it too late for war crimes charges to be laid? This did occur more than 20 years after nazi war crimes, which are sill being prosecuted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

More about the media

This page is being used for advertising. There is no need to mention Oliver Stone. Stone made one half-way decent film in his life, Platoon. The rest was hyped-up trash. Long ago, film-making for Stone became a cover for other activities, like narcotics and prostitution. He was never serious about making Pinkville. He bilked United Artists out of $6 million for a tiny film set in Thailand. Through five years of bull-shitting, Stone managed to make his name synonymous with My Lai. Considering his comments in the press he doesn't know Peers from Koster. So, let's edit Stone out.

Some of the 2010 movie My Lai Four by the italian producer Gianni Paolucci can be viewed on You Tube. This film looks like trash. If it is to be mentioned on this page then another movie about My Lai, by a Vietnamese film maker, Le Dan, also released last year, should also be mentioned. This is a film romanticization about William Calley, leader of the first platoon into My Lai.

The 2008 British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) documentary, The My Lai Tapes, included a few interesting points. Unfortunately, not many listeners can go to the National Archives to hear all 400 hours of audio tapes of testimony before the Peers Commission. The excerpts played on the BBC program, which ia available on You Tube, arouse interest. But the program seems to leave some doubt that there is really more on the tapes worth hearing. BBC should try again.

Good idea! Until a Hollyood film is actually released let's have no more advertising. Signed: Surfer

This is a talk page about this article, not your personal views on Oliver Stone's directorial efforts. Stick to the subject, anonymous Hellbound Hound (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


-Don’t get emotional, bub. Are you the Hollywooder who hi-jacked this entire site for several months a couple of years ago?

Just mentioning known and relevant facts.

The $6 million My Lai movie set is below the Karen village of Mae Aw in the south of Chiang Dao District of Chiang Mai Province in Thailand. Go see for yourself. It isn’t worth $60.

Stone and Willis wanted to play up the old media myth, which the army found convenient, that Calley was responsible for the massacre. If Calley had F. Lee Bailey on his side he wouldn’t have spent a day in the brig.

Stone and Willis wanted to portray Peers as a hero for exposing My Lai and then losing his career as a result. Utter nonsense. Who put them up to that? The CIA called My Lai. Peers, a long-time CIA man with the pacification program in South Vietnam, was sent in to hide that. The Peers Commission was a joke. Like the Warren Commission. Anybody can tell you that. Peers was never persecuted or ruined and he did not lose his career. Only the division commander, Gen. Koster, lost his career. His office was suspected in the massacre and he was damned for trying to “cover-up”. But Stone and Willis don’t want to say that.

Stone and Willis should be investigated. Their buddies too.

Don’t delete this comment. Don’t call it a personal attack. Or a racial slur. Or whatever. Don’t try to defend or advertise the baddies by attacking an honest Joe.

Signed: The Man on the Street (If you read, you know.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beginthebeguine (talk • contribs) 11:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


No. Why would you ask such a ridiculous question?Hellbound Hound (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Now who's getting emotional? This all reads like your POV, but if you've got reliable sources, don't be lazy -- insert them into the article.Hellbound Hound (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


-Do not vandalize my post again.


My comment above is correct. It is common knowledge. If it isn’t on this site’s main page, that’s because no one is taking the page seriously. Indeed, there are people advertising themselves and their buddies. There are people selling pictures . . .

If you want to know about My Lai, go to a library. Go to newspaper archives. Go to television archives. Listen to the My Lai tapes. Don’t go by Wikipedia. Nobody in journalism or academia relies on Wikipedia. And you won’t learn a thing from Hollywood.

If you want to know something about Stone, go see his “film set” in Thailand, as I suggested. Or read his crap for the past six years about his Pinkville “project”. A lot of it is still on the Internet. Or look at his films.

Signed: The Man on the Street — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beginthebeguine2 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't vandalize your post. I responded to your comments.

Secondly, anyone can edit a Wikipedia article. If what you write is correct, simply insert the information into the article along with the citations. Is this too complicated for you to understand?Hellbound Hound (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The note for the pron says "At the time of the original revelations of the massacre, Mỹ Lai was pronounced like the English words "my lay".[this pronunciation is not included] Later, the pronunciation "me lie" became commonly used." Are there sources for any of this? 67.164.156.42 (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order

I don't know what the standard is, but wouldn't common sense dictate that the names of the Commanders, which all include their rank, be ordered by heirarchy rather than alphabetical order of their surnames? WookMuff (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Undoing malicious hacking by Anna Frodesiak

Who is Anna Frodesiak? Whoever it is just hacked about 100 lines from the My Lai talk page. Anna Frodesiak is another obnoxious hacker who claims to be working as an editor for Wikipedia. Anybody can be an editor for Wikipedia. Many so-called Wikipedia editors have obvious conflicts of interests and very dubious motives. They vandalize sites and claim Wikipedia guidelines as an excuse. Anybody can do that. It fools no one. Anna Frodesiak is probably just another crazy idiot. But there could be personal reasons for hacking the site as well. Of course, some hackers claiming to work for Wikipedia are actually employed by third parties to watch and hack sites. That could be the case here. Anna Frodesiak could be another Hollywooder. That seems most likely. A couple of years ago a Hollywooder deleted 90% of the My Lai talk page and locked up the entire site for several months. (“Just dotting i’s and crossing t’s.”) There are countless websites for Anna Frodesiak but none offers a single biographical detail. He/She is a shadowy figure. His/Her home page says absolutely nothing. There is only a photo of James Wales, founder of Wikipedia. It is unlikely that Anna Frodesiak is James Wales. Hackers claiming to work for Wikipedia and to have the support and encouragement of Wikipedia have been taken to court and sent to jail. The comments that Anna Frodesiak hacked are entirely valid and belong in any discussion about My Lai and the media. After all, My Lai was as much about the media as it was about a military adventure. The media often distorted and misrepresented the facts. It still does. Hollywood and Wikipedia are part of the media. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The public should demand - and Wikipedia should require - full transparency from all of its editors. Anna Frodesiak cannot survive transparency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godhctaw (talk • contribs) 05:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because it had nothing to do with improvement of the article. It attacked Oliver Stone, and was soapboxing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
There is still a website that claims a Hollywood movie, called Pinkville, about the My Lai massacre, is to be made. The website, ACESHOWBIZ.com, claims the movie is to be released next year, in 2014. It is to be directed by Guy Stone and to star Nicholas Cage. A brief description of the movie, however, mentions Bruce Willis as the star instead of Cage. This does not seem to be a serious posting. I checked with United Artists and the response was that there are no plans for such a film. Claims that such a movie is to be made go back six years. When in the history of Hollywood has there been such nonsense? It all sounds like an excuse to bullshit about Vietnam. - signed Elmcansu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmcansu (talk • contribs) 05:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Part about "College Dropout"

As veteran who served there after being drafted out of law school, I would note that it is essentially meaningless to say Calley was a college dropout. That suggests that graduating from college was somehow essential to serve as a junior officer or to know how to do the right thing. I would also note that I never saw, or heard, of any similar atrocity during my time in that war; this is a crucial point because critics of the war used the massacre to suggest such events were typical. In other words, they used the tragedy as an ideological hammer to pursue their own agendas. Anyhow, it would be futile for an actual veteran to try to edit the article, which -- like most such articles -- are written by nonveterans pursuing their own goals.

I disagree on almost all counts. 1) the dropout content is from an RS. It is not up to us to exercise our own opinion; if the RSs make this point as being cogent to the discussion of recruit quality, then we report it. That's wikipedia. We are not here to tell our opinion, or find some sort of "truth", we are here to report what is said in RSs. That's not my opinion, that's policy. 2) Your anecdotal accounts are meaningful to you, but meaningless to the article. You are not an RS. If you feel the account of this massacre is unbalanced, please find content in RSs or make specific requests for changes. Just ranting about it is not the purpose of the Talk page. 3) Nowhere is it stated in the article that My Lai is indicative of the general operations of the war. You are assuming implications where there are none, 4) wiki does not discriminate in who can edit articles other than to require all editors maintain NPOV. You have expressed a very strong POV lean on this, and therefore should probably refrain from editing, just as someone with an opposning POV lean should refrain. If there are specific things you think are not neutral (please keep in mind that "not agreeing with your POV" is not the same thing as not being neutral) then either find sources to add content or requests specific changes here.204.65.34.29 (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeking opinions of others

Please voice your opinion if this concluding sentence belongs to the Section 2 Aftermath of the article, or elsewhere. Thank you, --Murus (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Nick Turse, an American historian and investigative journalist, in his book Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam (2013) wrote that in South Vietnam between 195,000 and 415,000 noncombatants were killed during the war years.

Relevant policies: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SYNTH, WP:WEIGHT. Anons, new editors, and POV-pushing editors always love to add their little summaries to the end of sections and it's completely obvious every time. That's what this is right here. An editor is determining that to summarize the section we need to mention the total number of civilian casualties in the Vietnam War. But this is not relevant to the My Lai Massacre. That connection is not made in the source. The source does not imply a pattern of civilian casualties as we do. The information isn't bad, and indeed we do cover it at Vietnam War Casualties at great lengths. But putting it here, where it is, is a subtle POV push that is just not acceptable and not necessary. Additionally, the number given, "between 195,000 and 415,000", is the total number of civilians killed by all groups, including the communist forces. Putting this at the end of an article about an American war crime is absolutely ludicrous. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep This sentence is closely related to the My Lai massacre since it helps to understand why it happened at all and puts things into perspective. The above arguments neatly pack up into WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT --Murus (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it was you who added it, here. Welp, no surprise to see you rush to defend it. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
You have said what you wanted and you don't have to say you love me... :)) Now you'll have to wait and listen to what others gonna say, since the issue is and will be under discussion on talk page until all interested parties will be given an ample time to speak up, and then somebody will summarize and close the discussion. Meanwhile, the disputed sentence has to stay in the article, whether you like it or not. If your are genuinely interested in improving the article you can start working on references where there are a lot of doubles, not to waste your precious time. Please, realize that this is all about consensus, on which WP was and is built, and your further deletions will constitute an act of sheer vandalism, my dear friend PraetorianFury. --Murus (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Believe it or not, editors are actually supposed to discuss material with each convince each other what the best course of action is. "Consensus" on Wikipedia is not "revert and then try to find people help you revert". If you have no justification for the material given, then it will stay out. Wikipedia is not a democracy, you should be attempting actual dialog, not hoping for people to agree with you. This is truly bizarre WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I don't know how long you've been here, but this is not how we do things, and it looks like you can expect editors besides myself to tell you as much.
And no, the material does not need to stay in. The only policy on the "default" status in an edit conflict is WP:ONUS, which says exclude. Perhaps you should have a read before throwing around accusations of vandalism. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
"I don't know how long you've been here,..."; "...is absolutely ludicrous"; "...you rush to defend it"; "Perhaps you should have a read before throwing around accusations" = Warning: On several occasions you have crossed the thin red line of WP:No personal attacks! --Murus (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC) P.S. By the way, how's references' clean-up going?
For one, these are not personal attacks (I commented on your contributions and not you). For two, take a look at WP:SPADE. Our policies on civility are not your shield. PraetorianFury (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not needed, and indeed appears to be WP:SYNTH. The article isn't about the Vietnam War in general, it's specifically about My Lai; the total number of non-combatants killed is simply not relevant to this article especially since the numbers in isolation are meaningless. This is an article singular American war crime, not the history of war crimes; I fail to see how this statistic increases the understanding of the subject of the article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 03:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input! --Murus (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct this article

There are some crucial omissions in the article that should be corrected.

It should be noted at the beginning of the article that the objective of the operation was to engage a VC battalion believed to be headquartered in the coastal village shown on army maps as My Lai 1.

The operation involved three infantry companies - Alpha, Bravo and Charlie - and the US Navy. Alpha Company took up a blocking position to the north of the area of operation. Bravo Company took up a position to the south, close to the coast. The Navy blockaded the coastline to the east.

Many have questioned why the assault began, with Charlie Company, several miles inland to the west when the VC battalion headquarters were believed to be on the coast. Shouldn’t the initial attack have been on the VC headquarters at My Lai 1? This village was not entered by American soldiers until the third and last day of the operation.

First and Second Platoons of Charlie Company roamed through My Lai 4 and killed at will and simultaneously. It is often said that First Platoon killed most of the villagers in My Lai 4 but Second Platoon seems to have killed many too.

Second Platoon did all the killing in the sub-hamlet of Binh Tay to the north of My Lai 4.

There is absolutely no mention of Charlie Company’s Third platoon in the article. Why not? Third Platoon, which was the Command Platoon, entered My Lai 4 after First and Second Platoons and killed villagers too. The company photographer accompanied Third Platoon and the photos most widely known are of villagers killed by the Third Platoon. Third Platoon also finished off many of the wounded left for dead by the other platoons.

Third Platoon also killed several suspects later after interrogation. This should not be omitted.

First Platoon of Bravo Company killed close to 100 villagers in My Khe 4, on the coast, later in the morning. More details about this should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twenty-four Thousand Miles (talk • contribs) 10:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Allegations of Rape

The words "kill" or "killed" or "killing" appear collectively in the article over 70 times. The words "rape" or "raping" occur only 4 times in the article. And yet one of those 4 mentions of rape is in the fourth sentence of the article. The citation for that reference when consulted does not include anything beyond the allegations of rape at My Lai against SGT Kenneth Hodges, charges substantiated only by a fallacy of division: "Gonzales speculated that sexual assaults occurred throughout My Lai and Binh Tay: 'I know there was raping because anytime we ever did go into a village there's always raping,'" (William Thomas Allison, My Lai: An American Atrocity in the Vietnam War, page 21).

I'm wondering why speculation of rape is afforded such prominence in the article (the fourth sentence) with only scant evidence to support it. I'm wondering why the 3 other mentions of rape in the article are all allegations against people whom the article itself says "threatened to rape" but who were precluded from raping, either because someone intervened, or because the victim was murdered before the rape could occur. This massacre is well documented -- so where is the evidence of rape, and why isn't it in this article? 2602:306:CCDA:4DB0:F81B:FF11:9EBD:8BAB (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on My Lai Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on My Lai Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Unicode spellings: renedering Vietnamese names in Vietnamese

I noticed inconsistent use of the Anglicized spelling, Son My, and the version with Vietnamese diacritics. Therefore I changed "Son My" to "Sơn Mỹ" through most of the article. Exceptions were made in wikilinks, as well as in a direct quotation and in the title of a reference. It may be helpful if a Vietnamese speaker could add the IPA pronunciation. English speakers would be naturally inclined to pronounce the name as English son and me or my. I left "My Lai" as it is, because this is the usual way the massacre is referred to in English. I do not wish to impose the Vietnamese diacritics incorrectly on any sources that did not use them, but Wikipedia's voice should generally print the words as they are printed in their native languages. Presumably "Sơn Mỹ" means something different than the same five Latin characters with different diacritics. Could any editors who wish to discuss further changes please ping or replyto me? Roches (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Excised text

I removed the following block of text that was smack dab in the middle of describing the incident:

In 1966, Quảng Ngãi Province witnessed a purported massacre at the hands of South Korean troops, the Bình Hòa massacre. In February 1968, in neighboring Quảng Nam province, during a similar counterinsurgency search-and-destroy operation, the Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre and the purported Hà My massacre were committed by South Korean Marines. As for the U.S. military, seven months prior to the My Lai Massacre, on Robert McNamara's order, the Inspector General of the U.S. Defense Department investigated press coverage of alleged atrocities committed in South Vietnam. In August 1967, the 200-page report "Alleged Atrocities by U.S. Military Forces in South Vietnam" was completed.[1] It concluded that many American troops did not fully understand the Geneva Conventions. No action was taken, however.

This is may be relevant context, but it does not belong between the paragraphs describing the night before the massacre, and the massacre itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.240.111 (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Good catch as it explains why Colin Powell was not startled by the letter that he was ordered to investigate since My Lai Massacre was not a single, isolated incident of the Geneva Conventions violations in Vietnam at the time. I inserted excised text in a passage related to Powell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.254.133 (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on My Lai Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on My Lai Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on My Lai Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on My Lai Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hersh, Seymour M. My Lai, And Its Omens. The New York Times, March 16, 1998.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:My_Lai_massacre/Archive_3&oldid=1150820253"