Talk:Mayaguez incident/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2006 (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)

The article says, " Nevertheless, the Marines boarded and recaptured the ship anchored offshore a Cambodian island, finding it empty.[1]" Empty? Of crew? Cargo? Fuel? I can easily believe it was empty of crew; the article shouldn't have such an ambiguity. Sluefoot (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2015 (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)

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)

Confusion between Knife call sign and model names

I see that there is such a model as the HH-53 Jolly Green but there is no mention of a CH-53 Knife. It seems that Knife was the call sign for the CH-53s. Is it possible that the model number was CH-53A, CH-53D or Sea Stallion? 207.126.248.6 (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Knife was the radio callsign used by the 21st SOS, I will need to check if these were CH-53A or Ds Mztourist (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

time zones

The United States was on Daylight Saving Time at the time of the incident. The time zone listed should be Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), not Eastern Standard Time (EST). Also, the time difference between Washington and Cambodia was 11 hours. The article specifies "At 12:05 EST (21:05 Cambodia), a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) was convened to discuss the situation." This implies a 9 hour difference, which is incorrect. Other places in the article correctly have an 11 hour time difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.183.121 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2012

Best Article Ever!

This is the best article I have EVER read on Wikipedia! Fucking brillient! Reads like an action/adventure and made me feel as if I was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.185.236 (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the vulgarity, this comment suggests that this article may require heavy revision if, in fact, it does read as this commenter states. In my nearly irrelevant opinion, it is a bit sensationalistic, as well as rhetorical. It also seems to conflict with the article on BLU-82, which states that a BLU-82 was dropped on Marines by mistake. Were there any verified Marine casualties from the BLU-82's use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.207.121.139 (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the article and provide any constructive comments, it has already undergone one GA review, but failed largely because it is not possible to provide a Khmer Rouge account of the battle. You should read the BLU-82 article more closely as it states that the BLU-82 was dropped "to assist US Marine forces", not dropped on the Marines and so there were no Marine casualties. Mztourist (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Merge

This article should be merged with SS_Mayaguez. --189.122.201.52 (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. It was a major incident of Gerald Ford's presidency Mztourist (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. However, this was not a 'major' incident during Ford's tenure as President. There were, and are, far more pressing events which took place between 9th August 1974 – 20th January 1977. EDJT840 (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Diplomacy?

The military history--tactical, strategical, and operational--is important. But the article lacks attention to failed diplomatic efforts. In fact, the wording makes it sound as though the US were the sole aggressor: "The merchant ship's crew, whose seizure at sea had prompted the U.S. attack, had been released in good health, unknown to the U.S. Marines or the U.S. command of the operation, before the Marines attacked. It was the only known engagement between U.S. ground forces and the Khmer Rouge." US actions could be more accurately described as a "rescue operation" or a "counter attack."

Here's some info for starters. On 13 May, the same day that President Ford was notified of the capture, the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C., refused to accept a U.S. note of protest to give to the Cambodians (Head, 114). Chinese Communist officials in Paris also refused to provide any help or assistance if the U.S. used military force to recover the ship and her crew (Head, 117). Also on 13 May, messages were delivered to the Cambodian embassy in Peking, China, as well as to the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Peking. Both messages were returned on 14 May (Head, 116). --Richard Head, Frisco Short and Robert McFarlane. Crisis Resolution: Presidential Decision Making in the Mayaguez and Korean Confrontations. Boulder: Westview Press, 1978.

--189.122.201.52 (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Poor intro

The first sentence: "The names of the Americans killed, as well as those of three U.S. Marines who were left behind on the island of Koh Tang after the battle and who were subsequently executed by the Khmer Rouge, are the last names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial" of the introduction is relevant but not so relevant that it should be given the prominence that it has. --189.122.201.52 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Maps!

The article needs a map or maps. A picture is worth a thousand words. Where did the Mayaguez start? Where did it intend to go? Where was it seized? What were the territorial waters that Cambodia claimed? --189.122.201.52 (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Disputed Territory

The territorial waters where the boat were seized were "territorial" because they surrounded Koh Wai island. At the time, Thailand, Vietnam, and Cambodia disputed ownership Koh Wai island. This is extremely relevant (yet unmentioned). The ship and its crew were seized in disputed territory. Prior to the incident, did the US government have a stance on to whom the island belonged? Did the crew believe they were in international waters? Did they believe that they were in Thai or Vietnamese waters? --189.122.201.52 (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Be bold! Edit it yourself! Mztourist (talk) 11:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

rp tags

Would anyone object to consolidating references using {{rp}} tags? This article would seem to be a good case for them, as there are 95 "Wetterhahn" footnotes and 15 "Dunham" ones, so the number of total entries in the Notes section could be reduced from 145 to 35. Nick Number (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• agreed, thanks Mztourist (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This is done. Nick Number (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

US bias

The introduction reads as a US narrative for a patriotic American audience. Wikipedia ought to be more neutral and less American oriented.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Really? How so? It is all purely factual and actually speaks to the fact that the whole battle didn't need to occur. Mztourist (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

FAC included Nail 47 in addition to already-mentioned Nail 68

This is not a criticism, but I am quite certain that the FAC operating over Koah Tang during the late afternoon air operation was actually Nail 47. The reason I submit this is that I was then a C-141 Aircraft Commander operating in the area. My crew and I had delivered the second load of Okinawa Marines to U-Tapao AB the previous afternoon and during the Marine action, we were operating a regularly scheduled MAC trip from Clark AB to Nakhon Phanom AB and back. We were carrying several 21 TASS staff who provided us with the operational frequencies for the Nails. We listened to about 40 minutes of the action along East Beach as we transited the area returning to Clark. I can assure anyone reading this that Nail 47 was thoroughly dedicated to providing necessary air support to the Marines. Who ever the Nail 47 pilot was, I am unendingly proud to have him as a brother USAF Pilot! Dave Cliff, Maj USAF(Ret) 12.246.135.158 (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, sir. According to page 48 in this source and other books I have and have found online, Nail 47 was also operating in the area. Nail 68 (Maj. Robert Undorf) assumed the duties of on-scene commander in control of air support. Nail 47 ortbited in support of the west beach while Nail 68 extracted the Marines on the east beach. I'm sure there were many heroes that day, but LtCol Austin credited Nail 68 as being "unquestionably...the first aircraft on the scene that seemed to sense what was going on, what had to be done, and how to coordinate with us on the ground to make it happen". Also, you'd probably like to know that the Nail 47 pilot was named Capt. Rick Roehrkasse. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, so please feel free to make any changes you feel are needed (as long as they are backed by reliable sources, of course). Cheers, and thanks for your service.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 21:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Only engagement between US ground forces and Khmer Rouge

The statement that the Mayaguez incident was "the only known engagement between U.S. ground forces and the Khmer Rouge" is unreferenced and may be the result of a conclusion obtained through original research. Find a source for it, please. --Katangais (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Timeline confusion

Why is this incident considered to be part of the Vietnam War, if this incident took place from May 12-15, 1975, and the Vietnam War is considered to have ended on April 30, 1975? Also, why is this event considered to be part of the Vietnam War, if its casualties are not considered to be the last casualties of the Vietnam War? (The last casualties of the Vietnam War are considered to be those of Charles McMahon and Darwin Judge, the two Marines who died in a North Vietnamese air raid on April 29, 1975, the day before the Fall of Saigon).

It sounds like historians either need to move the end date of the Vietnam War to May 15, 1975, or they need to reclassify the Mayaguez incident as an individual incident that was not, in fact, part of the Vietnam War. Mcleanm302 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The casualties of the incident are the last names listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, after McMahon and Judge who died in a rocket attack and after Nystul and Shea who died when their helicopter crashed at sea during Operation Frequent Wind. Take it up with the US Department of Defense.Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)