Talk:My Lai Massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg My Lai Massacre is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
March 29, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Death (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Human rights (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Crime  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


Correct this article[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 10:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Undoing malicious hacking by Anna Frodesiak[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 05:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Part about "College Dropout"[edit]

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[edit]

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)