Talk:William Calley

"Mugshot"? (see infobox)

Please remove the word "mugshot".--All military services take photos of their personnel.--Yeah, he and twenty-some others were taken to court for killing civilians, but there is no (available) source that shows that he was detained at the time of the photograph.--Quite possibly, sources will show that the photo is from "Check-in" at new command in Vietnam, or photo at new duty station before he came to 'Nam.--The onus is on you to come up with sources, if someone thinks that the photo is from detainment (mugshot-during-detainment). 2001:2020:32D:9981:615F:CD83:73FE:6C00 (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Nominated for the main page

This article has been nominated to be linked on the main page under the section In the News. Interested editors may discuss the nomination at WP:ITNC. This notice may be removed after seven days or when the discussion has been closed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Omission regarding his (enlisted) rank?

The article does not say, what his various ranks were, while an enlisted soldier.--What were his ranks, before his "promotion" (or commisioning). 2001:2020:347:B4E7:6D6E:DB04:2332:9569 (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Death date citation

I found this as the earliest mention of his death date.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2024/07/29/william-calley-dead-my-lai-massacre/ Lordkhain (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

War criminal

There is a contradiction between the lead sentence and a statement later in the article.

The lead sentence is:

"William Laws Calley Jr. (June 8, 1943 – April 28, 2024) was an United States Army officer and war criminal who was convicted by court-martial of the murder of 22 unarmed South Vietnamese civilians in the My Lai massacre on March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War."

However, the section on "Murder trial" states:

"Due to Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention excluding allied civilians from the status of protected persons in an international armed conflict, Calley and his fellow soldiers could not be legally tried as war criminals."

My bolding in each quotation.

The lead sentence makes it sound like he was convicted as a war criminal by the court martial, but the subsequent sentence in the body of the article states that he was not tried as a war criminal, and therefore not convicted of that offence.

If the article is to use the phrase "war criminal" in the lead, a reliable source is needed for that characterisation, and the contradiction between the lead sentence and the subsequent sentence needs to be reconciled. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

"War criminal" is an objective description of the nature of the conduct -- deliberate killing by military personnel, purportedly in furtherance of waging war, of unarmed, noncombatant civilians -- for which he was convicted. On the other hand, as explained in the article, he could not be charged with "war crimes" as a legally category of formal offense. I don't think the first sentence confuses this distinction (ordinary meaning of words vs. legal terminology), but I will divide it into two sentences to make that even more clear (as a temporary fix, at least). The incident is described as a "war crime" in the first sentence of My Lai massacre. And Calley is listed as a "prominent indictee" in the article on "war crimes". So consistency seems to point toward its use in the lede of his own article. On the other hand, I now see this topic was discussed on this page back in 2015, with the result of leaving out that descriptor. So that might suggest not reopening the matter now, I suppose. Interested to hear what other editors think. PDGPA (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Rephrasing the lead sentence doesn’t eliminate the contradiction. The substance of the article says that he could not be tried for war crimes, because of international treaties governing the laws of war, and U.S. federal law. He was instead tried and convicted of murder. There needs to be a cite in support to justify saying he was a war criminal. We cannot justify the term by saying it flows from the content of this article. That is a form of WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed under the basic principle of « No original research ». Nor is it permitted to rely on other Wikipedia articles in support, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source: WP:NOTSOURCE. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I did not fail to understand your point, Sarge. The first three sentences of your reply seem to ignore mine (that the term "war crimes" used outside a technical legal setting does not necessarily have as restrictive a meaning). But the rest of your comment may be correct under WP general principles, which by itself could carry the day. As I said, I will be interested to hear what other editors think. PDGPA (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)