Talk:My Lai massacre/Archive 1

message: I searched My Lai, MyLai, My lai, My lai massacre, and a couple others and got nada...  Sorry for the confusion.
Other problems, people like to transform 'Americal' into 'American' - please prevent this from happening.
~ender 2003-04-13 2:26 MST
----
Removed the line "Also, My Lai was never the same, the people never felt safe ever."  First, poor sentence structure - second, very biased.
~Jim 
----
:No problem, pasting the two articles together was easy. However, I didn't take the time to actually merge the content of the two together, perhaps you could handle that since you're already doing related work? I can't do anything about other people changing "Americal" into "American", perhaps you might add a note at some point in the article mentioning the difference and hope that future editors will see it. HTML comments are enabled, , so you could use those to place a warning for editors at every instance of "Americal." Bryan
::Thanks, that's a great suggestion - I hadn't seen anything saying they were enabled, and hadn't bothered to try it.  Probably not going to do the megethis morning, we'll see if I have time to get back to it.  I'm sure there are many other willing hands out there... ~e
:Oh, you mention not being able to find the "minor edit" checkbox - that's only available for logged-in users. I'd suggest creating an account for yourself and logging in, it's much more convenient that way (you can automatically sign talk comments with ~~~ that way, too). Bryan
::Yeah, never had an account (and I hate having accounts), guess that became privleged use :)  ~e
----
I find this article to be POV. Smack
----
The deleted language implies that there were other universally agreed upon U.S. war crimes in Vietnam, even though the Wikipdia article on war crimes only lists My Lai. Bombing and invading Cambodia are not universally seen as war crimes. Iwalters 03:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  preliminaries 

message: In 1968 Tom Glen wrote to General Abrams expressing concern about American soldiers attitudes and behaviour towards Vietnamese Prisoners and civilians.
The letter did not mention any specific incident and in particular did not mention MY LAI.
Colin Powell apperently responded to this letter noting that the writer had not given any details that could be investigated and that while individual soldiers may be guilty of crimes against civilians, in general the relationship between US soldiers and Vietnamese civilians were good.
Whether or not Colin Powells assessment of the relationship between US soldiers and Vietnamese civilians was correct there is nothing to link Colin Powells response to the Glen letter with the attempted coverup of the My Lai massacre.
----
Hector changed "Viet Cong" to "National Liberation Front" here.  Is this a change we are planning to make WP-wide?  Will this be confusing to anyone?  Let's talk. Jwrosenzweig 20:44, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This reminds me of Lancemurdoch, who kept insisting that labels such as "Khmer Rouge" and "Shining Path" were obfuscations cooked up by western media to deny the true revolutionary origins, character etc etc etc of these groups. It may be so that the these groups would prefer other labels, but unless there is a really convincing reason to do so, I think we should stick with that which what they are generally known. Hector?... Viajero 21:52, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They're the same person, of course. -- VV 23:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

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

message: wow.... thats a little biased, don't you guys think?
:“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” – Stephen Colbert JCCyC 16:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also: Abu Gharib? 

message: Is this officially known as the My Lai Massacre, as opposed to the My Lai massacre? I don't know either way, so I don't want to go recklessly moving things about, so I figured I'd drop in a note here. - Vague | Rant 08:41, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
:Consulting the Library of Congress Subject Authorities Anglo-American Subject Authority File, s.v. "My Lai Massacre", LC Control Number sh 93003756, cited 5 January 2006, the authorised name of this event is indeed the "My Lai Massacre". Pinkville 14:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation? 

message: I could be wrong, but I just read four hours in my lai and the aftermath section seems to be taken directly from the book.. if not the whole section, at least entire paragraphs are taken directly (if my memory does not fail me).  If this is the case should be removed or rewritten. --Freshraisin 21:05, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm/deny this?  I am sure that it is at least a close paraphrase, I remember reading very similar sentences, but I would like to have a response here before I remove the section. --Freshraisin 15:48, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
:I see this is an old query, but thought I'd drop a comment in case it troubles anyone else.  I wrote the first Aftermath section (see ), although it's been much edited and improved since.  It was all my own prose, although some (especially the last paragraph) was essentially a paraphrase of (non-copyrightable) facts from the PBS site listed in the External links -- I believe it's sufficiently original to avoid copyright issues.  Other details came from other listed links, and a college class on Vietnam.  I knew it was a rudimentary sketch, and have always hoped someone might have more to add to it, but I thought the article was really lacking in any sense of historical perspective beforehand.  — Catherine\talk 19:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath: plagarism? 

message: I've just read this article for the first time and it's not something I know anything else about.  I'm a little disturbed, however, by one or two lines - and even the odd paragraph - which read like something from a military manual!  Whilst I'm sure these lines are not intended to justify the massacre, they certainly appear attempts to 'explain' the soldiers behaviour.  Is there not a better place to go into the 'reasons' as to why soldiers may end up committing such atrocities and should this article not just concentrate on the facts of the massacre?
This is one of those lines:-
"Immediately prior to the offensive, Charlie Company had lost a well-liked sergeant to a VC booby trap. They were shaken, angry, and frustrated that they were unable to take revenge against an enemy they could never find".  
Was this put forward in the soldiers defence?  It sure reads like the kind of line one hears in court! 
Well, anyway, I'm inclined to edit the aforementioned lines out.  But, as I have already said, this is not an area I know anything about so I'm disinclined to touch...  Any suggestions?  Marcus22 13:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. The line is appropriate to a work "exploratory", POV non-fiction not Wiki. In general though I think the article does a decent job with NPOV. I don't think any one could read it and think the soldiers have been let off the hook. Marskell 23:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: i like how the americans somehow turned the perps into the victims. "The troubled image of Vietnam veterans greatly increased the difficulties of soldiers struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse and homelessness." americans are so noble.
:Now that you mention it, that paragraph could be seen as problematic, if not outright tasteless in this article, considering the subject. Here is the full paragraph:
:Some of the public's anger was turned towards the soldiers themselves. With vivid media images of this and other atrocities fresh in the minds of Americans, soldiers returning from Vietnam did not always find the warm heroes' welcome that had greeted the returning veterans of other wars. The troubled image of Vietnam veterans greatly increased the difficulties of soldiers struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse and homelessness.
''
:I'll go ahead and remove the second sentance (bolded), since it seems superflous and NPOV, implying that Vietnam veterans might have deserved a hero's welcome.MMad 05:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  post trauma 

message: According to University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor Doug Linder, GIs joked that "anything that's dead and isn't white is a VC" for body count purposes.
Who is Doug Linder and why do his accusations deserve to be in the article? I wouldnt have a problem with this remaining in the article if it was a fact that the soliders said that. But it appears that it is unsubstantiated therefore I feel that it shouldn't be in the article. Lets try to keep this non biased and as accurate as possible. Any thoughts?
JJstroker 09:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doug Linder is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. He maintains a web site of famous trials (from Sokrates and Jesus to O.J. Simpson and Bill Clinton). The quote is from his introduction to the My Lai trial. He is a reputable academic source, and I don't think this quote is even controversial. I've certainly heard it in some variants for the last 20 years (i.e. pre-WWW) and that is in Germany, where Vietnam is not a hot-button topic.--Stephan Schulz 10:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revision possible inaccuracy? 

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

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

message: "...reduced public support for the war in the United States" sounds a little weird. Don't know how to put it the right way, so noting here.
--Cyhatch 19:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone who knows English well enough 

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

message: If I can help, I have many different perspectives of information pertaining to pyschological explanations and others to why My Lai happened. I even have the attempted justification of My Lai by Martin Gershke (might be mispelled) of how a massacre is like masturbation. He states that at first you feel guilty about it, but it is natural because it makes people feel good. Believe it or not, I have heard some academic enthusiasts use this angle which I personally shake my head in disgust. Some explanations pertain to the background of the soldiers from everything to socioeconomic status and the intelligence levels which I dont believe is really convincing but I could help in this article if that help is wanted. PLease respond if so. 66.32.117.147 {added by Pinkville 17:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have pertinant information with authoritative sources that you can cite then you can certainly add it to the article. That 's what Wikipedia is all about. By the way, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~. Pinkville 01:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reasons 

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

message: Charlie company was ordered to burn houses, kill the livestock, destroy foodstuffs, and perhaps to close the wells.
Report of the Department of the Army Review of the Preliminary Investigations of the My Lai Incident
Volume I
U.S. Army inquiry headed by General William R. Peers
The Son My Operation, 16-19 March 1968 
Pg. 2-2
66.32.112.246 05:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  original orders 

message: Another explanation for the willingness of the soldiers to partake in the My Lai Massacre was a lack of education. Most soldiers scored low on military exams and few had education beyond college. Project 100,000 endorsed by Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara provided remedial education for those that weren’t able to pass the military intelligence tests.
“The My Lai Courts-Martial, 1970”
By Professor Doug Linder of the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law School
Website
An Account link:  http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_intro.html
“My Lai 4: A Report on the Massacre and its Aftermath”
By Seymour M. Hersh
Pgs. 53-84
Published in Harper’s Magazine May 1970
Another issue that was suggested was the training the military instilled on its soldiers. An article written by Christopher Lehmann-Haupt dated Sep. 7, 1971 mentioned some of Calley’s comments in a book by John Sack titled, “His Own Story”, in which Calley states that his training at OCS taught him about blind obedience without attention to context in which to judge orders. As Calley states, “I’m one little finger of a Frankenstein monster.”
“The Calley Case Not Resolved”
New York Times
By Christoher Lehmann-Haupt
Published Sep. 7, 1971
Pg. 37
Uses as sources excerpts from “Lieutenant Calley. His Own Story” By John Sack
“The Court-Martial of Lt. Calley” By Richard Hammer
An article written by Robert Rivkin mentioned the discipline installed in soldiers. Rivkin stated that the whole training process, rituals like marching, saluting, techniques of dehumanization, and abuse created an unthinkable killer. What the military wanted was a soldier that didn’t think. The military breeds out common sense
“Is Discipline Bad for the Army?”
New York Times
By Robert Rivkin
Published Dec. 21, 1970
Pg. 35
Another explanation is one that seems to displace guilt rather than explain cause and effect. An article written by Ward Just in the New York Times dated July 11, 1971 looked at three books about the My Lai Massacre. One of them was “Destroy or Die” by Martin Gershen. The book asserted that the soldiers of C Company were really frightened young men that had to fight the wily Orientals whom were cowardly by hiding behind their women instead of coming out to fight like a man. His explanation or justification of the actions for committing a massacre is that killing is as natural as masturbation. You feel guilty at first but it is natural 
“Calley: Soldier or Killer?”
New York Times
By Ward Just
Published July. 11, 1971
Pg. BR4
Uses excerpts from:
“Calley: Soldier or Killer?” 
By Tom Tiede
“Calley”
By Arthur Everett, Kathryn Johnson, and Harry F. Rosenthal
“Destroy or Die”
By Martin Gershen
Some have attempted to explain events like the My Lai Massacre through psychology. In an article by Daniel Goleman, Dr. Stanley Milgram, professor of psychology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, conducted an experiment that found most people would inflict an electrical shock to a perceived helpless victim if told to by an authoritative figure. This may suggest that people are really more capable of committing My Lai Massacres if under the same circumstances than we tend to think.  
“Dr. Stanley Milgram, 51, Is Dead; Studied Obedience to Authority”
New York Times
By Daniel Goleman
Published Dec. 22, 1984
Pg. 29
Robert T’Souvas, one of the soldiers in the My Lai Massacre died as a homeless man when he was shot by his female companion over a bottle of vodka 
“Arrest in Killing of Veteran”
New York Times
By unknown author
Published Sep. 22, 2988
Pg. A22
66.32.112.246 05:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more explanations 

message: Why is the Peers report not mentioned within this article? It is very long, I know, I read it all for my paper on the My Lai massacre but what is in it is very good stuff. Some of the things spoken about was that several officers refused to cooperate with the investigation and also evidence pointed to actions of cover-up on many levels of the military. Also what I like about the Peers report is that it mentions the things that should have been noticed by commanding officers but werent.
A report was released under the investigation led by Lt. Gen. William R. Peers. Peers employed numerous men and resources to investigate the My Lai Massacre. The Peers report gave several indicators during the My Lai 4 operation, which should have hinted that an unusual event occurred that warranted suspicion. Some of the examples of these unusual indicators that stood out were:
1) A high report of enemy kills. C Company reported 90 VC KIA (killed in action) within 70 minutes. This performance by C Company was very exceptional according to the norm during the Vietnam War. Minimum command reaction to this report should have been to make an inquiry into the location and size of enemy, unit identification, and the possibility of exploitation. None of these were done.
2) There was a high body count attributed to artillery prep. TF (Task Force) Barker personnel recorded in their operations journal that C Company had “counted 69 VC KIA” at a location which is near the center of My Lai 4. However, the brigade journal indicates that location of the kills is 600 meters northwest of the original site. Not only did the reports of the location of dead not coincide but also this was a high number of deaths attributed to artillery fire, which was higher than the norm. Yet no inquiry was made into this figure or the exact location of deaths. 
3) There was a low ratio of weapons retrieved to VC KIA. The rate in the My Lai 4 operation was 1 to 40. In other words, for every 40 VC killed, one weapon was retrieved. This Ratio did not indicate enemy contact.
4) There were no reports of enemy contact and no requests for fire support. Usually during combat operations, when a company comes into contact with the enemy, an enemy contact is reported. Also during combat with a large number of the enemy, fire support in the forms of artillery, helicopter gun ships, or aircraft are called.  
5) The objective for My Lai 4 was to fight the 48th Battalion of the VC. Yet there was an early report that 30-40 VC left before operation began in My Lai 4. Where did they go and who were the VC that C Company fought? 
6) C Company enacted large enemy casualties in a short amount of time but hardly had any casualties themselves. C Company reported a ratio of 10 to 1 as a casualty listing. Which meant that for every 10 of VC, 1 U.S. soldier became a casualty. This could be attributed to a highly successful operation but given the high rate of enemy kills mentioned before; this casualty rate was unusual (pgs. 10-22 to 10-30, Peers 2). 
These are only a few of the many listed by the report. Along with the indicators of an unusual event, which were not picked up by the commanding officers, the Peers report stated that there was sufficient evidence to suggest a cover-up at all levels within the Americal Division, including outside the division as well (pg. 2-9, Peers 3). Documents were missing or destroyed. Testimonies were withheld or there was evidence of false testimonies given (testimonies seemed to either conflict or there were various versions of testimony from the same individual) (pg. 11-1, Peers 4). The Peers Report found sufficient evidence to conclude that some people failed to follow directives dealing with war crimes and the handling of noncombatants. The Peers Report stated that there was enough evidence to suggest that C Company committed the crimes of murder, rape, sodomy, maiming, assault on detainees, mistreatment and killing of detainees, killing livestock, destruction of crops, closing of wells, and burning of dwellings (pg. 12-2, Peers 4). The Peers Report also mentioned that there was evidence to indicate that there was another massacre within the vicinity at the village of My Hoi sub hamlet of Co Luy hamlet, known to U.S. military as My Khe 4. About 22 men of TF Barker, B company were reported to have participated or witnessed this event. Of these 22, 2 were later killed in action, 8 refused to testify, and several others could not recollect the events. However, there were witnesses and circumstantial evidence to suggest this massacre did in fact occur (pgs. 7-1 to 7-9, Peers 5). The Peers Report recommended that investigations and charges be brought on certain individuals. As a result of the Peers Report, charges were brought against officers and enlisted men. Unfortunately, charges against 13 of the 14 officers were dropped due to insufficient evidence 
“Lieut. Gen. William R. Peers, 69, Led Inquiry Into My Lai Massacre”
New York Times
By Wolfgang Saxon
Published Apr. 9, 1984
Pg. D14
Report of the Department of the Army Review of the Preliminary Investigations of the My Lai Incident
Volume I
U.S. Army inquiry headed by General William R. Peers
The Son My Operation, 16-19 March 1968 Cited as (Peers 1)
Reports, Investigations, and Reviews pgs 19-68 Cited as (Peers 2)
Front Matter; 1. Introduction; 2. Summary Report Cited as (Peers 3)
10. Reports, Investigations, and Reviews; 11. Suppression and Withholding of Information; 12. Findings and Recommendations (pgs. 1-27)
Cited as (Peers 4)
Company B, 4th Battalion, 3d Infantry: Actions on March 16-19 March 1968; Significant Factors which Contributed to the Son My Tragedy Cited as (Peers 5)
66.32.112.246 06:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry contribution long 

message: I just noticed that POV and Citation tags have been added to this article. Before anything resembling an edit war begins, I'd like to suggest that the tags be removed, but that in-line citations be added if/as appropriate. Any thoughts? Pinkville 15:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the references listed in the References section, only three are actually cited in the article. The intro includes no citations, nor does the entire Background section. The Massacre section, comprising nine paragraphs, has only two references cited. Of the Cover-up section's five paragraphs, only one sentence, a quote, is cited. The remaining two sections, Courts martial and Aftermath have no citations. Throughout the article, there are many things claimed as fact, such as the "body count" mission evaluations, with absolutely no references to back up these claims. This systematic bias, unsourced as well, is flagrant in this article. In-line citations would be required at the end of nearly every sentence in the article. For these and other reasons I have disputed the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article, as well as cited lack of sources for the individual sections. —Aiden 15:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned, the references do not need to cited in the article, unless there's a quotation, or a dispute over facts, etc. The style adopted throughout the article has been to include the source of information in the text itself, e.g. "...in testimony by Martin Teitel at the hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Problems Connected with Refugees and Escapees in May, 1972...", looking in the references at the bottom of the page one easily finds "Teitel, Martin. Again, the Suffering of Mylai, article preview, New York Times, 7 June 1972, pg. 45.". As for the claim that the article is POV, I think you need to be more specific. No one disputes that the event took place, or that large numbers of unarmed civilians were killed. The number killed is disputed, and the article covers that dispute comprehensively. As to justifications for the massacre and criticisms of it - both are treated in the article, though, of course, even the US military and government eventually condemned the action and assigned blame. So if you could give a better indication as to why you think the article is "systematically biased, providing only one POV" , that would be very helpful. Pinkville 16:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You should also read the other comments on this talk page. The "body count" issue, for instance, is discussed above. Pinkville 16:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an example, the Background section only includes one reference at the very end of the second paragraph, after it is already asserted as fact (and without citation) that the US engaged in indiscrimate killings. —Aiden 16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see a mention or suggestion of indiscriminate killing, in fact, this paragraph talks about US orders to exaggerate the numbers killed. I don't mind adding in-line citations. I still don't see any evidence of the article being "systematically biased, providing only one POV". Pinkville 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: Somebody seems to have a problem with this article! In every part is a sign: "This article has no references!". Haven't you seen the last large part called REFERENCES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.21.145 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 June 2006
:I suppose what the editor in question was looking for are references (e.g. using footnotes) for claims made. Check out recent featured articles and you will find plenty of examples. The reasoning is that other editors should be able to verify claims, rather than having to search through a dozen references for the source. Rl 16:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced? 

message: Is there a reason all the paragraphs in this article are separated by lines? Other Wikipedia articles don't look like that. Pulsemeat 05:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently they were recently added by 220.225.194.5. They since been removed. Pinkville 11:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: I would like to ask anybody with any level of credentials, even a high school history teacher, to please update this page and make it decent, because of the more recent tragedies in Iraq. Students are going to look at this site and see what is not only incorrect, but lacking sources. In my college history textbook, their one paragraph on My Lai is FAR different than Wikipedia. I know, go figure. But it's a shame that one paragraph is accurate, but an entire page sounds like no credible source I've looked into. I referenced this page for an assignment and my teacher asked me what the hell I was talking about. So in short, CLEAN THIS THING UP! It is incorrect, non-fact checked, and it very badly written to the point of making no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.19.69 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 5 June 2006
Which University are you attending? A Christian one or something? The university where I am at recognizes these assertions in this article as fact. There are no problems with this article. I would like to initiate this argument with you. Please attack the premises, each, individually, so that I may at least be given the opportunity to refute what you state about this article. I have credentials and if you are willing to exchange yours than so will I. Perhaps you may like to take a trip to my University and explain to our history students here within a classroom what you find false about this article? Are you an undergrad or something? Which textbook are you talking about. Please , list your sources. Which teacher are you talking about, please give me the number of that professor or teacher so that I may contact him or her to clear this matter up. It sounds like your teacher doesn't know anything but the textbook. Try grad school out. This is where you learn the stuff that they don't include in undergrad textbooks. That is where you are going to learn how to think for yourself rather than being force-fed how to think. The facts in this article I have personally passed through the hands of my peers at my university and they are fine. Unfortunately, I have an assumption or fear that there are people raised on timid and untrue beliefs that have attacked Wikipedia as a whole not because Wikipedia is wrong, but because Wikipedia displays the objective truth including the unpopular themes. I reiterate, list the problems with this article and let's go from there. Otherwise your personal feelings are involved as mine have become in this reply. The author of this article is doing a great job ! Leave the author alone OR list facts and sources and we will go from there. If at any chance you provide more significant and credible evidence to refute the article's claims than I assure you that this will compell me and most likely the author to change our opinions and make those corrections. Argue the article's facts, dont state something about a college textbook out of the many from other institutions of higher learning and not including ones on the shelves for sale. Without facts and sources, scholars may be correctly acccused of speaking loud but not saying anything. 05:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Page Needs a LOT of work 

message: The answers.com retrieval of this page has a list of individuals involved in carrying out the killings - but here there is only a list of those who tried to stop the killing. Why was the list of the instigators removed?
*Thanks for pointing this out. It was deleted without comment by an anonymous editor on  April 12th, but ensuing vandalism led us to not notice it when cleaning up, I guess. I've fixed it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those involved 

message: The carnage at My Lai might have gone unknown to history if not for another soldier, Ron Ridenhour, who, independent of Glen, sent a letter to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress. The copies of this letter were sent in March, 1969, a full year after the event. Most recipients of Ridenhour's letter ignored it, with the notable exception of Representative Morris Udall. Ridenhour learned about the events at My Lai secondhand, by talking to members of Charlie Company while he was still enlisted.
Can I get a source? Not that I doubt it, but I'd like a source that Nixon ignored the letter. Best wishes. --A Sunshade Lust 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignored the letters source