Talk:My Lai massacre

This is a selected entry at Template:March 16 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

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

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

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

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

Colin Powell 'whitewash'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

347 or 504 civilian deaths?

Someone changed the number of civilians killed from 347 to 504. Which is correct? Quadell 15:24, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

How the story broke

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

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

This is a selected entry at Template:March 16 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

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

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

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

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

Colin Powell 'whitewash'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

347 or 504 civilian deaths?

Someone changed the number of civilians killed from 347 to 504. Which is correct? Quadell 15:24, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

How the story broke

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

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

cover-up

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

American or US and Vietcong or National Liberation Army

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

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

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

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

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

Reasons to prefer "Viet Cong":

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

Reasons to prefer "National Liberation Front":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US vs American

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

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

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

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

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

Jiang,

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