Talk:Mayagüez incident
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)