Talk:USS Pueblo (AGER-2)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Until referenced this comment/sentence should be deleted![edit]

"North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has specified that it is being used to promote anti-Americanism." if he has specified it, then where? not only is a problem the comment un-referenced, but the problem is componded that a reference is allouded to in saying "has specified" - ian.murphy 6:48 est 1/1/09 Sydney, Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Material[edit]

It's fine and dandy to edit this article, but don't delete material without talking about it first. Stargoat 00:21, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, let's talk. I don't think it's necessary to always have to talk about edits that are obviously needed. But as you insist, would you like to talk about why you replaced redundant text that means the article now indicates three times that the vessel was outside Korean waters? Is once not enough? How can you claim that "Bucher followed his orders, which dictated that he not spark an international incident"? Was the detention of 82 US military persons as POW in inhuman conditions for 11 months not an international incident? How could Pueblo be "boarded again by high ranking North Korean officials" when they had not already boarded her? Moriori 03:05, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
The Pueblo was already boarded by North Korean soldiers. After the ship entered North Korean waters, the ship was again boarded, this time by high ranking North Korean officials. Bucher did follow orders. The North Koreans created the incident , not him. It's a testiment to his leadership that none of the captives died once they were in North Korean hands. Furthermore, no combat, aside from the North Korean attack on the Pueblo, took place as a result of the Korean aggression. As for the vessel remaining outside of Korean waters, it is impossible to keep this incident in context without referring to that very basic and fundamental fact. Stargoat 13:04, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What do you think I meant when I wrote "US Naval authorities insisted that for the entire time during the incident, Pueblo was miles outside North Korean territorial waters". A very basic and fundamental fact, clearly stated. Your need to duplucate that message escapes me. Maybe your statement "The North Koreans created the incident" contains the answer. Moriori 06:16, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)
The article does not say three times that the Pueblo incident began in international waters. It says this once. The article makes another reference to the Pueblo stopping before enter Korean waters. The geographic importance of this reference is obvious; without the reference, the statement, an important event during the capture, makes no sense. A third reference to another incident over 30 years later, also refers to international waters. But this is a seperate incident with the ship, an incident with geographic importance. Your attempt to alter an article about a battle of manuever on political borders without refering to the positions of the partipants is less than honest. Stargoat 13:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
POV was expressed in the statement that "crew confirmed this fact" without the crew's position having been established as fact. Military sources typically recount battles in the light most favorable to their side. The North Koreans did, and have had something to say.
This is all pre-GPS and there are abundant navigational ambiguities that can be considered as well as differences in how nations estimate their internal boundaries. Bamford's Body of Secrets offers a NPOV account of this incident. Also, the claim that there were so many secret documents on board that it was impossible to destroy them all didn't fly well with the captian's superiors or with the rest of the navy, so I don't know how it can fly as fact here. The captain was roundly criticized for his lack of planning, late start and innefficient approach in destroying secret documents. Tron 16:53, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The crew's assertation on the ship's position may be accepted as fact. Too many years have gone by with this not being challanged by any of the crew members for this to be doubted. Furthermore, this was a planned operation by the North Koreans. Well armed boarding crews do not miraculously appear on patrol boats. The North Koreans set out to capture a US ship in international waters. The ship's position outside of Korean waters is as much a fact as anything can be. The level of demand you place on truth is unrealistic.
Captain Bucher's criticism of a lack of planning, late start, and ineffcient destruction of documents was later vindicated. Bucher had asked for, and was denied, basic items such as self destruct mechanisms on the intelligence machinery. The Pueblo had also been told that air cover was coming, air cover that never arrived. The ship itself was barely seaworthy, with constant mishaps plaguing the engines. If you're looking to blame someone for the incident, look to the US admiralty that failed to send fighters and bombers to the vessel's aid. Stargoat 20:28, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Stargoat, I decided to pull out of this debate because I’m not getting into an edit war. But on reflection, your suggestion I lacked honesty needs addressing. The entry I amended DID indicate (the word I used) three times that Pueblo was in international waters, and that does NOT include the incident 30 years later. (Your reversion indicated it twice). My point was -- and has been reinforced by your subsequent edits -- that there is overkill of indicating Pueblo was in international waters, especially as we don’t have a North Korean perspective on this. As it is now the article makes FOUR referencess to Pueblo being in international waters, namely

"Pueblo was miles outside North Korean territorial waters
"the spy ship was operating from international waters.
"Pueblo ..... then stopped immediately outside North Korean waters.
"Once Pueblo was in North Korean territorial waters (INDICATING she had been outside them)

As I said. Overkill. Seems to me to be ramming home POV . Well, you have stated "The North Koreans created the incident" so I guess that gives the show away..Moriori 21:54, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that this site is full of blatant propaganda, there is a North Korean perspective on this.

To say anything other than North Koreans created the incident is patently absurd. The United States did not attack a North Korean vessel. The North Koreans left their waters, entered International Water, and captured a US vessel. How did the North Koreans not create the incident?
Furthermore, to refer to a geo-political event and attempt to ignore the geography is also parently absurd. The position of the ship in relation to the border of the two countries is factual. Without geography, the article is worse than pointless, it is dishonest. Stargoat 03:11, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It's actually patently(tm) absurd to believe americans where they would rig ambiguities uniformly ignoring the whole world. Some would even believe that overflights and submarine eavesdropping in other countries' waters are okay if that's US. But these are not, and wish you wouldn't trust US propaganda, it's none the better than any other crap. --Gvy (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


I would not want to enforce any undue burdern on truth by further imposing my curiosity and doubt on this version, but a quick read does leave me looking for the meat of the investigation into the main question - had the ship operated in North Korean waters?

Not that I would take the word of the Workers World Daily over that of the White House, but WWD continues to publish the claim the Pueblo was in Korean waters. I don't think it is an undue burden on truth to investigate the climate in which a sailor was asked to navigate a ship at sea within a mile of a line that could result in full-scale military hostility, and to ask what were that sailors priorities, to the mission and to the crew, while navigating that very close line. It doesn't seem too burdensome for a writer to seek other sources beyond the accounts of the crew. The crew's account was tainted by a forced confession, by security requirements and perhaps by their own limited knowledge.

Though there were 83 on board, not all would know precise navigational details. Certainly the six officers and two civilian "hydrographers" on board would be bound by security agreements to say what they are told to say, forever if neccessary. Other than those on the bridge, there would be no way for others to know if they were 12 miles from a jagged coastline, or 10 miles or 15 miles. The official account asserts the ship was operating within a mile of a contested boundary during a time of heightened tensions. Is there any published memoir of the captain's efforts to comply with the boundary? Could the captain fully appreciate the situation into which he had been ordered to sail a state-of-the-art spy ship?

Whatever the truth of the matter, the article only summarizes the origin of the Pueblo, its affiliation with the USS Liberty, and why the two sister ships were so targeted. More indepth analysis is available, if anybody ever gets around to exploring, understanding and compiling it here. Basically, the ship was put at risk when reported provocations by North Korea against the south were dramatically increasing. Tactics that were acceptable off the coast of the USSR were risky in Korea. The crew was not well equipped to destroy classified equipment because they were told to operate as if on a low-risk assignment. The ship was not equipped for the kind of high-risk mission it was performing when captured. A U of Ohio professor summarized criticisms of the operation with this analysis:

"The planners' low-risk assessment hinged on the fact that the Pueblo would be operating in international waters. This was the core of the problem. While the US and Soviet Union conducted such operations off each other's coasts and reached a tacit understanding, there was no such consensus with other communist states. The US intelligence community assumed that the understanding between the US and the Soviet Union extended to the greater communist bloc. The Pueblo failed all of the criteria for low risk status, including political sensitivity, weather, scope of operation, ability to perform, and degree of support."
Mitchell Lerner
Professor of History, Ohio State University

Beyond the questions of whether the ship actually violated North Korea's waters, there are greater and related questions involved about the rights of sovereign nations to conduct proactive warfare in the face of circumstances that soon could become a threat.Tron 03:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is that the USS Pueblo was operating in international waters. Pueblo certainly was boarded in international waters, after Captain Bucher turned the ship away and ran. Furthermore, if the US vessel had been knowingly operating in North Korea waters, its charts would have been displayed by the North Koreans long ago.
According to the North Korean Senior Col. Kim Joon Rok, the North Koreans put 41 heavily armed men on the Pueblo in a short period of time. That means that the attack on the ship was pre-meditated. Nations don't just happen to keep a platoon and a half of soldiers at sea in case a ship shows up and they feel like capturing it that hour of that day.
The United States in this incident was not engaged in warfare. It was a pitifully armed vessel operating outside of North Korean territorial waters. By all accounts I have seen, the vessel was 15 miles off the Korean Coast when the incident took place. That would place it more than three miles outside of North Korean waters. The ship was listening to radio broadcasts that the North Koreans made into international waters. The Soviets (later Russians), Chinese, Americans, North Koreans, and other navies continue to practice this, sometimes with ships, sometimes with airplanes. The North Koreans attacked and boarded a ship on the high-seas during peace time. This is an act of piracy.
I am familiar with Lerner's book. He makes examination of false evidence by the North Koreans. He also brings to light errors made in US assessements of the violence that the North Koreans were planning. But these are not the causes of the capture of the Pueblo, merely contributing factors. Errors in judgement by American planners did not board the Pueblo, kill and beat sailors, and capture the ship.
Captain Bucher did publish a book about the capture of the Pueblo. It's available at:
(Bah, stupid firewall.) Stargoat 17:14, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Charts only include what navigators place on the chart. What is the typical margin of error for a 1960s era nav chart? How were officers of the nations' leading spy ships instructed to maintain charts when operating very near contested boundaries? Was record keeping of the time oriented more toward generalized records of official accounts, or did captains provide superiors with detailed accounts of movements due to drifting and currents so planners could have an accurate idea of how close to the line ships sailed? Either way, if the Pueblo's activities were secret, the navigation chart could have been one of the first secrets destroyed. Tron 17:39, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
200px|left 200px|leftre: "if the US vessel had been knowingly operating in North Korea waters, its charts would have been displayed by the North Koreans long ago".
It appears they were. And now on Wikipedia.
JRT7 08:33, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The statement above that -

The ship was listening to radio broadcasts that the North Koreans made into international waters. The Soviets (later Russians), Chinese, Americans, North Koreans, and other navies continue to practice this, sometimes with ships, sometimes with airplanes.

- is highly questionable. The Americans certainly do this, and certainly violate international boundaries, as with the U2 spyplanes, but does anyone else? To have a military ship or plane off another country's coast is clearly an act of aggression. Remember how American reacted when missiles were placed nearby in the sovereign country of Cuba. The emphasis on the legality of the US actions is a violation of NPOV.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The placement of missiles was indeed provocative, but no one claimed it was illegal. However, it is quite different to listen to your neighbor's conversations from the street than it is to buy weapons and point them at your neighbor. Americans have in the past violated sovereign airspace, but that's not the case with this ship. The emphasis is not overdone, but does point out that what they were doing was completely legal and that other countries do it. As a member of the military, I've seen Russian and Chinese "fishing trawlers" with no nets and scores of antennas. It's hard for us to mind if we do the same thing, so we basically go about our business and use proper OPSEC, no big deal. Buffs (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I also don't concur that having "a military ship or plane off another country's coast is clearly an act of aggression." International waterways/airspace is for EVERYONE. no one owns it or can dictate its use beyond intl treaties signed by BOTH parties. This is why naval ships of ANY country can use the Suez Canal and Panama Canal even during wartime. Presence does not equate to hostile intent. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

lots of missing info[edit]

Hi, I'm new. Studying the Pueblo has been a hobby of mine for the last 7 years or so. I have a dozen of the 15 or so books written on the subject and have several other sources, including the Spring 2001 issue of the Naval War College Review which has an excellent article on the Pueblo and the most complete bibliography on the subject that I have seen to-date.

I would like to edit the article, but am unsure of the accepted protocol. Rest assured, I'm not going to do a wholesale rewrite or anything of the sort. There are several facts missing that I'd like to add as well as an external link. If I find anything I think needs to be significantly altered or removed, I will certainly post about it here first.

What strikes me as the most significant missing fact is that the Soviets put the Koreans up to hijacking the boat in order to obtain the crypto equipment on board. The Russians had been getting the codes from a CIA informant but couldn't make use of them without the equipment. I'll have to watch the documentary from the history channel again to get the pertinate facts straight.

This article needs a complete rewrite. The facts are that the USS Pueblo was having mechanical and navigational problems, and entered DPRK waters as a result. The offended KPA indeed captured the ship, but did not realize it's importance at the time. The DPRK used the Pueblo and it's crew as a propaganda symobol and never realised the value of the electroics they had captured.
The Article as it stands pays a diservice to the Truth, as well as our intelligence by parroting American propaganda.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 00:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC) and reformatted with this message by CWC 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

"Parroting American propaganda" is not an indication of POV? lol. And cowardly--sign your name.--Buckboard 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If the total of contributions with “citation needed” were to be culled from this piece, the remaining page would be very brief. Why is it acceptable for an “encyclopedia” to feature so much undocumented and unreferenced material? For example, I am very curious as to how the Pueblo got from a port on the Sea of Japan all the way over to Pyongyang. This page matteroffactly states that it was sailed around the peninsula. I suggest the implications are significant enough that it would be preferable to step out of the Wikirut just this one time and not present the hypothesis until it can be shown as something with substantiation. At the time of this writing the piece has 12 citations, and 12 items marked with “citation needed.” Not very encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

New material[edit]

I've visited the boat in the summer of 2004. I suggest if you are unsure of your material, post it in the discussion forum, and people can comment on it before you commit it to the main article. Of course you could also maybe add some sections one at a time, and see if the general consensus lets them remain.

I've visited the boat in the summer of 2004. I suggest if you are unsure of your material, post it in the discussion forum, and people can comment on it before you commit it to the main article. Of course you could also maybe add some sections one at a time, and see if the general consensus lets them remain.

The Pueblo Surrender - A Covert Action by the NSA (ISBN: 0553292617)[edit]

Robert A. Liston argues that the 1968 seizure of the U.S.S. Pueblo was part of a National Security Agency-run operation, in which the ship and its unsuspecting crew were offered as bait. The centerpiece of the plot, according to his scenario, was a rigged code-machine placed aboard the ship for the North Koreans to "capture" and use, leading to the breaking of Communist-bloc military codes. Liston, a novelist and jounalist, doesn't claim to have proven his case, but the documentation and material obtained in interviews render his theory shockingly plausible. The book carefully reconstructs the ship's seizure, and the Chinese and Soviet military involvement in its aftermath. Liston's primary focus, however, is directed toward the NSA, which he compares to the Soviet KGB in its ability "to manipulate the actions of our civilian and military leaders." ( Pueblo 's commanding officer, Command Lloyd Bucher, is presented as an honorable dupe.) From the agency's viewpoint, the operation was a brilliant success, maintains the author, helping prevent U.S. defeat in the Tet Offensive, causing the Soviets to abandon a military adventure in Red China and opening the way for a Beijing-Washington rapprochement.

Liston's theory of the Pueblo incident is not mentioned on the page. Has it been considered and/or rejected as completely out of hand?

- Schultheis 08:23, 15 October 2009

Weirdly enough, the encoding machines are still on board.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

First captured ship?[edit]

Top of article:

She was the first U.S. Navy ship captured in war since the Napoleonic wars in 1807.[1]

and later..

She is widely believed to be the first American ship to have been captured since the wars in Tripoli, but that is incorrect. On December 8, 1941, the river gunboat USS Wake (PR-3) was captured by Japanese forces while moored in Shanghai.

Can we make the first statement more consistant with the later one?

- Eric 21:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I wondered about that too. Perhaps the first statement could be true, and the second almost correct, if we consider a gunboat to be less than a seagoing ship? -- 20:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Post-Repatriation Fate[edit]

What do you think might happen to the Pueblo if and when it is repatriated? My guess is that due to its age, it will probably either be scrapped (to erase bitter memories) or preserved (to educate future generations). What do you folks think? --Metric1031 00:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully by the time conditions between N Korea and the rest of the world progress to the point where N Korea volunteers to repatriate the vessel, the US will just give it back to them as a gesture of goodwill. I say "volunteers to repatriate" because I don't see the US offering any carrots to the Koreans to reward their piracy--even after all these years. Tafinucane 02:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the ship will be decommisioned (the day After it arrives back in the states)Lastcharlie 17:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"an environmental research ship"[edit]

This statement really sounds like a euphemism. Considering the linked article says the ship was captured while following "specific orders to intercept and conduct surveillance of Soviet naval activity in the Tsushima Straits and to gather signal and electronic intelligence."

Shouldn't we just say "a spy ship boarded and captured by North Korean forces in..."

Shermozle 08:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

"Spy" is POV. "intelligence-gathering" is neutral.--Buckboard 02:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Environmental research ship links to Technical research ship, and in that article it says: 'The mission of the ships was publicly given as conducting research into atmospheric and communications phenomena. However, the true mission was more or less an open secret and the ships were commonly referred to as "spy ships".'--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


"According to the American account.."[edit]

I don't understand the point in beginning the sentence this way. Is there an alternative version put up by North Korea? (And I don't doubt there is.) Or did the author feel "the American version" were lies without necessarily knowing an alternative version? Or something. I don't know. But right, I'ma remove this for now, anyone feel free to put it back and explain why here. Word. Zanturaeon 08:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The article has multiple factual errors and several violations of NPOV; the most stand-out is this:

More than likely, no one wanted to take responsibility for an attack on North Korean vessels attacking Pueblo

Which is simply speculation and doesn't belong. There are statements from the Captain of the USS Enterprise as well as the commander of the US Air Force squadron in S. Korea that attempted to scramble F-105 in response to the Pueblo's distress call (they were armed with nukes and the re-arming took to long for them to get to the ship) that ought to be included to bother address the speculation in the statement above and to give a more complete picture of what was going on. There were about a half-dozen ship that actually altered course and heading toword Wosan in response to the call, including the USS Kitty Hawk, and the Truxtun, the Collett and the Halesy responding with the Enterprise. This is from the US Congressional Iniquiry into the incident, which I have in front of me as I type this.

The opening sentence, if not in violation of NPOV, is still unnecessarily inflamatory and ought to be rephrased.

mark 02:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

i read through the article and it as simple as this. according to international law with a 12 mile limit of territorial water, it was in internatinal waters. according to the north korean claim of a 50 mile limit, then it was in there waters. therefore, its only disputed because the north koraens are in contempt of international law. (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in North Korean waters now.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Any body care about the location?[edit]

Here it is at,125.725533&spn=0.00186,0.003659&t=k&om=1

Accuracy of the "SNOWJOB" statement[edit]

In researching my own article on this subject, I was unable to find anything to verify the "snowjob" photo described in the article. I contacted the USS PUEBLO Veteran's Association and exchanged e-mails with Don Peppard, one of the crewmen who was onboard the Pueblo and who was subsequently held captive by the North Koreans. He stated that he and his crew never used any sign language in propaganda photos aside from the "Hawaiian good luck sign" (the finger).

I was going to revise the paragraph in the artice to reflect this fact, but it would require some significant deleting... so I opted to bring it up here first. Hot Pastrami 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and remove that reference to the "snowjob" photo. One of people who was reputedly in that photo (Don Peppard) has asserted that it is false. Hot Pastrami 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a map?[edit]

Anybody up to the task of creating a set of maps (one for the US, the other for NK) showing territorial limits and where significant actions during the events occured? 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Time magazine[edit]

According to this newspaper article, the North Koreans found out the real meaning of the "Hawaiian good luck sign" because TIME magazine helpfully explained it to the whole world, apparently in a photo caption in the October 18, 1968 issue.[1] Perhaps we should mention that?

Also, does anyone know whether TIME ever apologized?

Cheers, CWC 19:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they just wished the prisoners good luck. Aloha!--Jack Upland (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for Contributors[edit]

Read the books, talk to the crew, and visit the National POW museum. It will help clear up erroneous facts. There are several books available, some even written by crew members. Werecowmoo (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Crew Size / Complement[edit]

The "General Characteristics" blurb at the top right states that the Pueblo carried 70 men and six officers. However, in the article (and most other pages), North Korea is stated to hold 82 prisoners (after one of the crew dieing during capture). I suspect one of these two are incorrect, but am hesitant to edit the page. Do as you will, Wikigods. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Which date is correct?[edit]

"On 5 January 1968, Pueblo left Sasebo, Japan. She left Sasebo on 11 January with specific orders to intercept and conduct surveillance of Soviet naval activity in the Tsushima Strait and to gather signal and electronic intelligence from North Korea."

5 January or 11 January —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

5 Jan: departure Yokusaka; 9 Jan: arrival at Sasebo; 11 Jan: departure Sasebo - see --Enemenemu (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

They SUED the communists?![edit]

Haha, is there some sort of Epic Cognitive Failure award for the living, or can only cadavers get Darwins, etc.? On the other hand, might just have been an attempt to get free TV exposure.

I think it was an attempt to get access to money for compensation in the form of N Korean assets held by the US government. Similar things have happened when people sued over assets of Iran, Libya, etc. (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Korean War?[edit]

This topic is under discussion -- initiated by me -- in the Korean War forum. I think we should merge the listing of numerous incidents between the two countries to the Korean War article. (See discussion.) My point is that numerous incidents have occurred ever since the armistice was signed in 1953 and that elevating a series of occasional incidents between the two Koreas does not elevate the tensions to a "War" status. War is serious (and tragic) business, and too often we want to apply the term superficially (for example, the war on drugs.) For this reason, I'm being bold and revising the reference.--S. Rich 06:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Conversion of units[edit]

Hello, I notice the article uses yards as equivalent to meters, for instance it says the submarine chaser passed 4,000 yards from Pueblo, and then says in parenthesis 4 Km, establishing the equivalent in the metric system. This is wrong since a yard is .9144 meters, therefore 4,00 yards are 3.657 Kilometers. This mistake is done every time a distance unit is used. (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Omar Chavez

NSA conspiracy theory[edit]

Please contain all discussion of the dubious source/statements here. ToFeignClef (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

can a ship be held captive?[edit]

The crew certainly can be, but this reads as anthro'ing the vessel. I think this statement needs to be re-written for better clarity in the lead. Seized? Taken? HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Soviet Union involvement versus North Korea acting alone[edit]

After the paragraph stating that the Soviet Union did not direct the North Korean actions, it is said "Contrary to the above paragraph..." that the Soviet Union was involved. Can someone please determine which of these is an accurate account or, if the facts are in dispute, edit the article so that is clear. The article shouldn't be arguing with itself.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myles.coen (talkcontribs) 05:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

USS Pueblo (AGER-2)[edit]

The USS Pueblo attack was carried out 6 days before the start of the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam. It was ment to draw US aircraft and ships out of the Viet Nam theater of operations to Korean vacinity. The teansfer of USA tatical assets at the start of the Tet Offensive improved the chance of success for the Comunist forces Tet Offensive in Viet Nam. The Pueblo Attack was probably a tactical success for the Communists in the Viet Nam theater of operations; it is just the Mass-Medas reluctance to discuss this deversion of USA forces that keeps it from being well known. (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Bruce Saltzman Shelton CT USA

One crew member killed?[edit]

I quote the text in the article:

The North Korean vessels attempted to board Pueblo, but she was maneuvered to prevent this for over two hours. A sub chaser then opened fire with a 57 mm cannon, killing one member of the crew.

The text continues:

Pueblo followed the North Korean vessels as ordered, but then stopped immediately outside North Korean waters. She was again fired upon, and another sailor, fireman Duane Hodges, was killed.

This would describe the deaths of two crewmen, however the aftermath paragraph includes:

Meanwhile the North Koreans blanked out the paragraph above the signature which read: "and this hereby receipts for eighty two crewmen and one dead body"

I have read other sources that describe the crew of 83 and the return of 82 from captivity. Can this be corrected and verified clearly throughout the text? Yhnell (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS Pueblo (AGER-2)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 16:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take this article for review. I should have a full review up within the day. Dana boomer (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be expanded to three solid paragraphs for an article of this size. The lead should summarize the body of the article, without providing unique information (information not found in the body of the article).
    • The Lawsuit section is over four years out of date. Has anything happened since 2009? This is also true for the Offer to repatriate section.
    • "By whom?" tag in the Aftermath section.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The referencing in this article needs significant work. Overall, more in-line references are needed, both in the places identified by "citation needed" tags and in other areas. There are significant swaths of the article completely lacking references, while included statistics and potentially controversial information.
    • What references are in the article need additional work:
    • There are five dead links in the article, see the Toolserver report for further information. This report also lists a couple of links to redirects which point back to this article, which should also be fixed.
    • Bare urls are unacceptable for references. Web references should have titles, publishers and access dates at the very least.
    • Please check references to make sure they are all reliable. The dead links currently make it hard to check all references for reliability.
    • The links in the Sources and External links sections will probably provide a significant amount of the sources necessary for improving the in-line referencing of this article. Any ELs that are used for sourcing should be removed from the EL section.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    • While there is no actual edit warring in the article history, it does show that this article has been put together by a number of different disconnected editors, which shows in the article itself. In general, a concerted cleanup effort by an editor or coordinated group of editors is needed to bring an article to GA status, and it is clear from the edit history that this has not happened.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • I am unsure of the point of the two galleries later in the article, especially the one of the Tourist attraction section. What do four pictures of the Pueblo in NK tell the reader that one picture does not?
  7. Overall:
    Overall, this article is a long ways from GA status, especially with regards to referencing. Because there is so much work that needs to be done on the referencing, I have not completed full prose, image or NPOV checks. Please make sure that the article meets the good article criteria before renominating the article at GAN. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


In the article, Pueblo is listed as originally being known as FP-344, then FS-344. But in the section at the bottom, under Design 381 coastal freighters, FS-344 links to USS Banner (AGER-1). Can anyone clarify? Elsquared (talk) 10:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Pueblo was ex U.S. Army FS-344 which was changed from FP-344 when Army did an early mass change in those coastal freighters from FP (freight-personnel) to FS (freight-supply). That is clear in a number of sources, including DANFS. Banner was U.S. Army FS-345. DANFS is likely wrong with the built as Captain William Galt since the Army did not tend to give names to the ordinary FS types until very late or post war. Palmeira (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Fixed that particular problem. The whole "USAT" prefix in the FS group is erroneous. That was reserved for Army owned or bareboat chartered vessels that were generally larger and not numbered. As can be seen in numerous photos, including the Army days one of the page, it was simply U.S. Army (designation) XX for the numbered vessels. That applies to FS, tugs, small tankers and all the other small Army watercraft. Palmeira (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on USS Pueblo (AGER-2). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

He said/she said[edit]

I don't think the location of the ship at the time of the attack is clearly stated, nor the stance of North Korea.

On the 20th, we state that the ship was 15 miles away, but the attack occurred on the 23rd. There is a separate diagram, that places the ship farther than 12 miles on the 23rd, but we have no citation for that (and it would be better to clearly state the distance in the text)

Does NK claim the ship was closer than 12 miles -- In which case, we should at least list both claimed distances -- or does NK simply claim that their territory extends farther than 12 miles -- In which case we should clearly state the agreed on distance and then clarify that NK disagrees with international nautical boundaries. --Bertrc (talk)

I think it's true that the DPRK forces didn't board the vessel until it was within the internationally recognised boundaries.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Who was killed?[edit]

Can anybody find a citation for the name, rank and position/assignment of the sailor who was killed when the NK ships first fired? --Bertrc (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

@Jack Upland: - Ship articles list the class of the vessel, where applicable, in the opening sentence of the lead. There is no reason to arbitrarily remove this. Further, there is no reason to replace it with "spy ship", when as you pointed out, it's already in the body of the article. Your edit summary said "see talk", yet you made no talk page entry to explain your edit. However, you should have proposed the change on the talk page before making it. Lastly, you have made multiple comments on this page, a half dozen or so all at once, yet none of them really have to do with the content of the article, which in not appropriate per talk page guidelines. Please see Wikipedia policy for guidance. - theWOLFchild 10:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I made a comment under "Environment research ship" above, which I think you have read. I think the that description isn't factual or neutral. The US Government might make false claims about the vessel, but under Wikipedia policy these claims have the same status as DPRK regime claims. The introduction should accurately summarise the topic. I don't think this is done. If you click through, you will finally find an admission that the ship was a spy ship. Or, alternatively, you can scan the body of the article (which I didn't do) and discover the STARTLING truth. Who do you think you are kidding???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not "kidding" anyone, so relax. The NVR, which is the guiding reliable source here states that the official classification type for the Pueblo was "Environmental Research Ship", also known as "Technical Research Ship". We are not going to alter standard ship article layouts and go against solid sources just because you "think the US gov't might be lying". You would need a much more compelling reason, supported by wiki-policy, and reliable souces to have your edit to the lead stand. - theWOLFchild 10:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
So it wasn't a spy ship?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
That's not the issue here though, is it? The issue was your edit. You removed content which shouldn't have been removed and added content that didn't need to be added. So you were reverted. No need to get all upset about it. Let it go. - theWOLFchild 10:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, no, I tried to improve the article by making it more accurate and informative.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────An NPOV tag now? Meh... whatever floats your boat. (pardon the pun). But, you forgot to date your tag, and you really should start a new section here, laying out your case for NPOV, the changes your proposing and your support for them. Good luck. - theWOLFchild 10:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

NPOV January 2016[edit]

The issue is obvious. It was first raised in 2005, but didn't get an adequate answer. The ship is described in the first sentence as an "environmental research ship". The introduction does not say the ship was employed in "spying", "espionage", or "intelligence-gathering". The introduction should summarise the contents of the article. The first sentence does say that the ship was "attached to Navy intelligence", but this doesn't explain what its purpose was. As far as the uninitiated reader knows, the ship was engaged in oceanography or meteorology. The two other articles on AGER type ships don't describe them as "environmental research ships" in the introduction, and both make it clear that the ships were involved in intelligence gathering. By comparison, the 1960 U-2 incident describes the U-2 as a "spy plane" in the first sentence. The US government claimed that it was a weather research plane, but this is not mentioned in the introduction because it is patently false. This article does later say that the Pueblo was 'what is colloquially known as a "spy ship"'. This seems to indicate a reluctance to use the term, but nevertheless there seems no doubt that the Pueblo was a spy ship (in fact, it is listed in the article), so I don't really see the point of providing reliable sources that say that. But, if you insist, Don Oberdorfer in The Two Koreas describes the Pueblo as a "spy ship" and "an electronic surveillance ship" (p 120). Sheila Miyoshi Jager in Brothers at War describes it as a "intelligence ship" (p 374). Bruce Cumings in Korea's Place in the Sun describes it as a "spy ship" (pp 460, 480). Do any independent sources describe it as an "environmental research ship"?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
From what I can see, places in the article where it is described as a "spy ship" all need citations, so the ones you've listed here could certainly be helpful. As for the lead, we could change the opening sentence to:

USS Pueblo (AGER-2) is a Banner-class environmental research ship, attached to Navy intelligence as a spy ship, which was attacked and captured by North Korean forces on 23 January 1968, in what is known today as the Pueblo incident or alternatively, as the Pueblo crisis.

The new addition (seen here in green) should address your concerns without innaproprately changing the layout. - theWOLFchild 00:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks OK.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The change has been made to the lead. I'll leave it to you to add your refs to article's body. - theWOLFchild 02:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on USS Pueblo (AGER-2). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Who moved it? (Tourist Attraction section)[edit]

The Tourist Attraction section doesn't have many details of the move. The following web site: (by the USS PUEBLO Veteran's Association) states:

"US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang and met with Kim Jong Il. During the course of those "negotiations" the North Koreans felt they would be able to move USS PUEBLO from Wonsan on Korea's east coast to the Taedong River at Pyongyang on the west coast. This was a voyage of over 1000 nautical miles, all in INTERNATIONAL WATERS.

The move of the ship from Wonsan to Pyongyang was handled by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry who had been appointed by President Clinton his North Korea Policy Coordinator. In that role he was in favor of negotiation and appeasement. He was instrumental in arranging Secretary Albright’s visit to NK. He allowed the ship relocation from East to West and told the US Navy - hands off."

Is there other evidence of Sec. Perry's involvement in the move? If so, I'd say that this article, and the Perry wiki article should be edited to reflect his involvement.

Please let us know your thoughts. And thanks for keeping the page in good shape!


Ambidexter AmbidexterNH (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, is there any evidence? What we have is an assertion. It would be quite possible for the Pueblo to be transported in a freighter without the US administration knowing about it...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Using Media Viewer, this has NPOV description[edit]

Using the Media Viewer (which is crap, by the way), the flickr caption reads "Captured from imperialist spies!" or something. I edited the main file to just say "USS Pueblo" but since Media Viewer reads metadata...yeah. Can't do anything about it, that I know. Will delete pic soon thanks! Mercster (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a factual caption to me. It's hard to deny the North Koreans captured it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)