Talk:Mayaguez incident

See also SS_Columbia_Eagle_incident

It's interesting how these two incidents frame a peculiar trajectory of Viet Nam.

I was told that the Mayaguez was the last US merchant ship out of Saigon before it fell, and that it carried four containers of US embassy documents when it was boarded by the Khmer Rouge.

Declassified Documents

There are declassified documents that ought to be integrated into this article and added to the References section. E.g. Debrief of the Mayaguez Captain and Crew, May 19, 1975 -- David Woolley 13:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation required wrt Mayagüez, Puerto Rico

Currently Mayagüez and Mayaguez redirect to Mayagüez, Puerto Rico. I think they need disambiguation pages that give a choice of that and SS Mayagüez, which is a redirect to this page. Also the linking of SS Mayagüez on this page is self-referential. --David Woolley 13:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Now done --David Woolley 23:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

rewrite and references

I checked my sources and did an extensive rewrite (I forgot to sign in so my IP appears instead of user name)--many facts were present in the original, but like the Marines on Koh tang, were isolated from each other. Also I found a few indications of language lifted directly from copyrighted sources, so that was re-written. Finally, I included my two main references, but I have others I'm going to check also for agreement. --Buckboard 11:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

additional perspective needed

This article needs to include more from critical perspectives, this article from the journal Cold War History might help: article. Specifically we need to look at claims that the Prisoners had immediately been ordered to be released, that they were released 45 minutes before bombing began (why is there no mention of bombing of the mainland!), that Kissinger and Schlesinger had both been against any negotiation, that Kissinger wanted a massive show of force even if killed the crew, and etc.

There should also be discussion of the decision-making process. I know I've seen material about that in print.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 10:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Famous photo of Ford, Kissinger, other Cabinet members laughing?

There was a news photo of President Ford & other Cabinet members (obviously unaware of the debacle) laughing with relief upon news of the Mayaguez's rescue. Can't find it. Billbrock 12:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Chemical Agents?

The article states "On the morning of May 14 an Air Force F-4 spotted a small craft leaving Koh Tang but was unable to turn it back, limited to using warning shots and chemical agents". What chemical agents is this referring to? This phrase seems excessively broad, and something this inflammatory really needs a citation. Phaid 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As I suspected, the "chemical agents" were riot control gas (Flight Journal article in the References among many other sources). It's really super irritating when people use the generic "chemical agents" for this kind of thing, because obviously it's intentionally vague and meant to imply deadly chemical weapons. Maybe we should also start referring to bullets as "projectiles containing poisonous heavy metal compounds"? Phaid 10:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy about Marines left behind

Looper5920, if this article is going to include details and prose about people being bludgeoned to death with B-40 rockets and their bones bleaching in the sun, then it needs a cited reference. Otherwise it reads like wishful thinking on the part of someone writing a men's adventure novel. Phaid 16:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hostile Boarding

Article states that this was the first hostile boarding since 1826, but that the craft was empty. If the craft was indeed empty and the characterization remains as a "hostile boarding" this distinction does not belong to the Mayaguez incident, rather, it belongs to the capture of the U-505 under Adm. Dan Gallery. Thoughts?

128.239.194.96 02:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC) TTTW

What are the circumstances of the 1826 boarding..what vessel does this refer to? Berean Hunter (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One must also wonder why it took an hour-long assault to take an "empty" ship. Some explanation of this (not to mention cites!) is needed.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 11:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Military sources?

Was this article written almost entirely from military sources? Besides being highly detailed (perhaps too detailed), the extensive use of military time in the article and details about equipment used read a bit odd for a Wikipedia article. IMO, the article ought to be trimmed down and adopt a less... "technical" diction. RobertM525 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's OK to use military lingo or acronyms, but each use should be paired with a "regular English" description for non-military readers.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Casualty count?

Maybe I'm missing something, but does the "Casualties and losses" note in the summary box (sorry, I'm sure Wikipedia has a 'proper'name for it) double count the 3 Marines left behind as both KIA and MIA? or is the "Casualties" paragraph missing 3 KIA? The numbers don't appear to add up but I don't want to assume one is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.111.107 (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The History Channel is saying 41 dead (unless I wasn't listening carefully). Maybe they said casualties, but I don't think so.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it standard practice to not include the victims of military accidents during military operations as casualties? If so these numbers really don't add up since there is a mention of a CH-53 losing all 22 passengers.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

15 were killed in the Koh Tang assault, with 3 left behind and later killed. 23 Air Force crew were killed 2 days earlier when their CH-53 crashed in Thailand due to mechanical failure, while they were staging for a planned rescue attempt that wasn't mounted. I think the conflict box usually just states the casualties that occurred directly in the relevant operation and so on that basis 15 + 3 is the correct figure. Mztourist (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair point given the operations combat only lasted a day and there was 2 days between the casualties in the accident and the combat. What about the Cambodian casualties? Do they count deaths / wounds on other days as a result of bombing elsewhere?--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It should include all the Khmer Rouge navy crews killed when their boats were sunk and the Cambodians killed when the US bombed the mainland, but as its difficult to determine the exact figures I think the 60+ is only an estimate of those KR killed on Koh Tang. Mztourist (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved both (reversed redirect). DMacks (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mayagüez incident → Mayaguez incident — This looks like a bit of overzealous adaption of the spelling of the Puerto Rican placename. From several sources I have consulted the ship's name was not registered with a ü, but with a regular u. Regardless of the ship's registered name, the common name principle should apply: the ship is referred to in contemporary news accounts as Mayaguez and not Mayagüez. Similarly, the incident—in the references listed in the article—is referred to as the Mayaguez incident (with no umlaut over the u).
SS Mayagüez → SS Mayaguez — (see above for rationale.)
— Bellhalla (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support The proposal represents the usage at the time. If the ship did not have a diaeresis, the city's spelling is immaterial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Looking at the references, it seems the common name of the ship differs from that of the city. Jafeluv (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support, the ship's name did not use diacritical mark. older ≠ wiser 13:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I leave it to other editors to change spelling used in the two articles to match the new titles. DMacks (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll read through and start the review later. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, I think the remaining issues from below that we still need to resolve are:

• The gallery of images question.
• The potential for a map showing the location of these events.
• Webpages still need date accessed, etc. to be added

Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's all gone quiet. I'm going to have to fail the article at this review, but its quite close now and I'd be happy to rereview at a later date. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

• " the Khmer Rouge then fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the ship" - might want to clarify if this was at the ship (as in hitting it); aimed at the ship but missed; or aimed across the bow.
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• "radar wasn't working" - expand to "was not"
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• "12:05 EST" - the initial timings were given with am/pm in accordance with the MOS on times, but these are lacking the am/pm bits.
  • Will change to 24hr format throughout Mztourist (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• " George H. W. Bush then head of the U.S. Liaison Office in Beijing " needs paired commas after Bush and Beijing.
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• "The aircraft carrier USS Coral Sea, then en route to Australia " second comma needed after Australia
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Mayaguezs" - should be "Mayaguez's"
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• " identified large radar returns" - worth linking or explaining what a radar return is for the non-mil audience!
  • Have added x-ref Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• " and again drawing Khmer Rouge gunfire" - you haven't mentioned gunfire before, making the "again" unclear
  • Yes, it's mentioned in the previous sentence Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Missed that, sorry. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• " Khmer Rouge leader, Sa Mean, ordered Captain Miller to get the ship under way" - you've explained who Sa Mean is again, but not Captain Miller. If you said "get his ship under way", you'd achieve that without making the sentence any longer.
  • Capt Miller is identified in the section the Khmer Rouhe seize the Mayaguez, but have added wording to clairify Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• " ordered the commander of the Seventh Air Force, Lieutenant General John J. Burns at Nakhon Phanom Royal Thai Air Force Base" - needed a second paired comma after either Burns or Base.
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• "08:16" - you've started to use the 24 hour clock here - you'll need to be consistent in what time format you use throughout the article.
  • I will change to 24hr format throughout Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Nine USAF HH-53 Jolly Greens " they're linked, but worth explaining that these are helicopters.
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• "There were differences between the two types which would become relevant during the battle: the HH-53 is air-refuelable, has 450-gallon foam-filled tip tanks, a tail Minigun with armor plating, and two waist Miniguns" - you switch about in tense here: e.g. "were differences" "is air-refuelable" - you should probably stick with one tense to avoid confusion.
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• "and the fact that the containers on the Mayaguez could not bear the weight of the helicopters and that rappelling men down would expose them to gunfire." - several "and"s here. Worth explaining/noting/linking what "rappelling" is.
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Early on the morning of May 14, the Mayaguez crew was loaded onto one of the fishing boats and they left Koh Tang following two of the Swift boats on a heading for Kampong Som." - If you were to say "the Cambodians loaded the Mayaguez crew onto...", it would bring the Cambodians back into this section as active players, avoiding the sense of this all being about the US (see later).
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• "The fighters then came at the fishing boat " - "came at" sounded a bit informal to me. "attacked the fishing boat"?
  • They weren't attacking the fishing boat, rather they were shotting in front of it to try to make it turn back

Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'd recommend using your wording here then, as it could be misunderstood otherwise. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• "it may have been relayed " - tense, this should be "might have been"
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• "The Khmer Rouge commander, apparently fearing" - was this the local Kampong commander?
  • yes, change made Mztourist (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Concerned that the use of B-52s might be overkill" - again, overkill felt informal.
  • Changed to "excessive" Mztourist (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Unknown to the Americans then converging on Koh Tang, none of the Mayaguez crew was on the island and it was heavily defended by over 100 Khmer Rouge." - a very short paragraph. Couldn't this be combined with the next para?
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• "The Khmer Rouge defenses on Koh Tang were not intended to counter the Americans, rather they were there to counter the Vietnamese. " - again, you could phrase this as "The Khmer Rouge had built the defenses on Koh Tang to counter the Vietnamese, rather than the Americans.", building them in as active participants again.
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• "LZs" - you never expand this acronym. Incidentally, for non-military audiences, I'd recommend you avoid the LZ term where possible, as it will distract some readers who won't be familiar. e.g. "the CH-53s approaching the East Beach LZ " could just finish "East Beach", and still carry the same meaning.
  • Added x-ref but have also deleted LZ's generally
• "At 06:30, the CH-53s approaching the East Beach LZ encountered intense automatic weapons and RPG fire from entrenched Khmer Rouge." - another example where you could phrase it as the Khmer Rouge doing something, rather than the US. ("The Khmer Rouge put down intense automatic..."
  • Disagree, the subject here is the CH-53s and how the first one was shot down Mztourist (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• "President Ford went on national television" - "US national television", or "national television in the US".
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• " further reinforcement of Koh Tang was unnecessary and at 11:55 it ordered" - I'm not a US mil person, so I may be wrong, but aren't the Joint Chiefs of Staff plural? (i.e. "they ordered"?)
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• "By 14:00 firing on the West Beach had reduced substantially..." A very long paragraph - I'd advise breaking it into two.
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• "FAC" - elsewhere, you call the aircraft by their code names, which I found easier to read. I suspect that talking about Nail 68 in this section, rather than FAC, would be easier for the non-mil audiences to follow.
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• " a jungle penetrator" - ? Worth linking/noting/explaining
  • It's not defined anywhere and I wonder whether an explanation is necessary, so I have changed it to rescue hoist Mztourist (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Extraction of Marine elements" section generally - I couldn't work out what the Khmer Rouge forces were doing throughout this section. Is there any way of making it clearer?
  • they had fallen back from the beaches but as night fell and once they had replensihed their ammunition supplies they began attacking the Marine positions again. Not sure how it can be made any clearer Mztourist (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Such is the case of Lcpl Ashton Loney" - the "such is" clause felt a little archaic to me. How about "left where they fell, including Lcpl Ashton Loney..."?
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• " (with leaflets dropped and the Wilson broadcasting the crew's intentions) " - you could lose the brackets if you liked here.
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• "3 hours" - I think this should be "three hours" under the MOS.
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• "In 1985, an eyewitness report" - Worth saying who the eye witness was (e.g. Khmer Rouge mil? A local? etc.) Or do you mean Em Som? (if so, I'd use his name to start with). In this section, is there doubt over Em Som's account? The way its written, it almost implies that he might not be being truthful. The reason I ask is that it seems hard to believe that he'd lie about this, but it's not presented in the same way as the regular narrative earlier on (which again, is often based on eyewitness reports).
  • No it wasn't from Em Son
• "obligatory Purple Hearts" - do you mean obligatory (one is obliged to have one, and can't refuse) or that they're awarded automatically?
  • Removed obligatory Mztourist (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Aftermath" section. The first bit of this is written in a list style, but could easily become a regular paragraph (e.g. starting "A number of US personnel were awarded medals following the events, including...", or something like that.
  • Done Mztourist (talk)
• "Estimates of Khmer Rouge casualties" - whose estimates?
  • added U.S. Mztourist (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• The long list of US personnel killed in the operation. I must admit, I'm not certain this belongs here. Most articles on ops don't list all of those killed, unless there is something particularly notable about the names. Having served in military campaigns myself, and with full respect to their families, it isn't clear to me that the list of individual US deaths or their places of birth are notable in this context. Some of the individuals, such as those whose bodies were recovered later, are mentioned in the next paragraph, some are mentioned previously, but it seems odd to then present this list in this way. If we were to add the 25+ Khmer Rouge on as well, it would become very long indeed. Do the secondary sources on the operation usually present the information this way?
  • I have got rid of the table and consolidated the references into one para Mztourist (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• The lead section is very short for an article of this length.
• I couldn't find the lead bit about the Vietnam Wall in the main text, or the "It was the only known engagement between U.S. ground forces and the Khmer Rouge."

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

• Good.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

• "Unknown to the Americans then converging on Koh Tang, none of the Mayaguez crew was on the island and it was heavily defended by over 100 Khmer Rouge." - lacks a citation.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
• Webpages listed as references need the date on which they were accessed.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

• Yep.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Fractionally too detailed for my personal taste in places, but not so as to prevent it being GA quality.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• You've grappled with a real challenge here, which is that all of your sources are US sources. Like other articles with similar challenges (I reviewed one on the UK in Palestine recently), this biases the account to some degree, simply because all the facts are recorded from one side. That said, within that constraint you've produced an article which is fair and unbiased - nicely done.
• Two thoughts. Firstly, it might be worth adding a footnote early on, explaining that the account is based solely on US sources due to the lack of Cambodian accounts. Perhaps obvious, but makes it clear.
• Secondly, whereever possible, I'd advise that you try to write the Khmer Rouge in as the active noun in the sentence. I'm IDed some above, but for example, if the sources clearly say that a helicopter was shot at by the Khmer Rouge (understandably phrased, as in this context it will usually be the pilot describing what happened), seize the opportunity to style the sentence as "The Khmer Rouge fired at the helicopter", rather than the reverse. It remains accurate, but stylistically prevents the US forces always being the active part of the sentence. It's just a thought, but it can prevent an article based on a single side's sources feeling too lopsided towards one side in the way that its written.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

• Stable. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

• Checked and suitably tagged.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• Images are relevant.
• Any chance of a map showing where the island is?
• "These 23 airmen perished when their helicopter crashed due to mechanical error." - the caption should probably explain that these are US airmen (obvious when you've read the article, I know, but not if you're skimming it!)
  • Done Mztourist (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'd query whether the galleries are in line with Wikipedia:Image use policy, which advises that galleries should only be used if "if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." It's not obvious to me why most of these images can't be placed in the regular text in line with the policy. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to add a comment for the GA review. The article appears to be based almost entirely on Wetterhahn, with essentially trivial usage of the other sources. This is highly problematic, as over-reliance on one source tends to lead to issues with plagiarism and close paraphrasing. There are a number of high quality works on the Mayaguez Incident - for instance, I would expect to find A Very Short War used in the article (it appears to be widely available in libraries. The Mayaguez Incident: Testing America's Resolve in the Post-vietnam Era was published this year and should be consulted as well, as it represents some of the most recent scholarship on the incident (it's not as common but does have wide dispersion and you can probably get ahold of it through inter-library loan). I would be opposed to passing the article for GA solely on this problem. Parsecboy (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Useful info, thanks. Mztourist, what are your thoughts? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The article isn't based almost entirely on Wetterhahn's book, it also relies heavily on the official USMC account written by Dunham. Wetterhahn's book was written some years after Guilmartin's A Very Short War which was first published in 1995. While the details of the battle from the U.S. perspective are almost exactly the same in Dunham, Guilmartin and Wetterhahn, Wetterhahn's book includes details from interviews with Khmer Rouge participants in the battle thus giving their perspective and also provides details of the fate of the 3 missing Marines and subsequent efforts to locate their remains and those of the Knife 31 crew, none of which is covered in detail in Guilmartin's book. I wasn't aware of The Mayaguez Incident: Testing America's Resolve in the Post-Vietnam Era, I will try to get hold of it and see if it sheds any new light on anything, but to be honest I don't see that it will make much difference to the essential details of the article. If Parsecboy can identify any issues of plagiarism and/or close paraphrasing from Wetterhahn, then of course those sections can and ahould be rewritten. Mztourist (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

About three quarters of the footnotes are to Wetterhahn (there are only a handful to Dunham, and many of those are used to double-cite material). If Dunham, Guilmartin, and Wetterhahn are more or less the same on the US perspective, then it should not be a problem to make the referencing more diverse. Parsecboy (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, are there any points that you feel are wrong or absent though? Hchc2009 (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've asked the question on the GA discussion pages, and there's no formal rule about this; drawing on a range of sources is encouraged, but isn't a formal standard at GA. With that in mind, I'd agree with Parsecboy about it being an area for potential development, but that shouldn't stop this article passing at GA. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)