The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 13 dates. [show]
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article (in particular its lead section) presents two events as equal halves of the larger "Gulf of Tonkin incident". Worse, it barely describes the "second" incident other than it most likely being false while going into detail about the events of the "first" incident. This seems to contradict the sources which primarily refer to only the August 4 event as the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" and to the August 2 event as a mere prelude. Googling "Second Gulf of Tonkin Incident" gives almost no results. It appears to have been coined by this article. Particularly strange is the military conflict infobox for the August 2 event. I would argue that the scope needs to be redefined to fit the sources, with the August 4 incident becoming the sole primary topic and the August 2 incident being included as a smaller prelude. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the summary (lead) and the info box should be revised to fit the main article. I think most sources (and, at this point, the main body of the article) say that both the August 2 battle and the August 4 (erroneously) perceived battle were part of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Over the next several days I could propose a revision of the lead if no one else does. Sean Barnett (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article needs revision but I do not agree with User:Prinsgezinde that the supposed August 4 attack was the main incident and August 2 a mere prelude. An actual attack took place on August 2, no attack took place on August 4. Both the real and purported attack comprise the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Mztourist (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are most certainly related and notable in their own right and I would never suggest filtering out the August 2 incident or minimizing it. However, the August 2 incident features far less prominently in the sources but more prominently in this article. This would be contrary to the policy of due weight. I think the current weight balance between these two is exactly the opposite of what it should be (in the lead at least). Furthermore, I don't think Wikipedia should coin terms like "Second Gulf of Tonkin incident". Sources only describe one incident, even if it comprises two (both real and imaginary) engagements. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your assertion that "the August 2 incident features far less prominently in the sources but more prominently in this article." I think the article provides a good balance of detail regarding both attacks and then the later section goes into detail on the fact that no attack took place on August 4. I'm not sure where you get the "Second Gulf of Tonkin incident" from. Mztourist (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I would propose as a revised summary (Sean Barnett (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)):[reply]
The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnamese: Sự kiện Vịnh Bắc Bộ), also known as the USS Maddox incident, was an international confrontation that led to the United States engaging more directly in the Vietnam War. It involved both a proven confrontation on August 2, 1964, carried out by North Vietnamese forces in response to covert operations in the coastal region of the gulf, and a second claimed confrontation on August 4, 1964, between ships of North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. Original American claims blamed North Vietnam for both attacks. Later investigation revealed that the second attack never happened; the American claim that it had was based mostly on erroneously interpreted communications intercepts.[1][2][3]
On August 2, 1964, the destroyerUSS Maddox, while performing a signals intelligence patrol as part of DESOTO operations, was approached by three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron.[4][1] The Maddox fired warning shots and the North Vietnamese boats attacked with torpedoes and machine gun fire.[1] One U.S. aircraft was damaged, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats were damaged, and four North Vietnamese sailors were killed, with six more wounded. There were no U.S. casualties.[5]Maddox was "unscathed except for a single bullet hole from a Vietnamese machine gun round".[1]
On August 4, 1964, destroyer USS Turner Joy joined Maddox on another DESOTO mission. That evening, the ships opened fire on confusing radar and sonar returns that had been preceded by communications intercepts suggesting that an attack was imminent. The commander of the Maddox task force, Captain John Herrick, reported that the ships were being attacked by North Vietnamese boats. In fact, there were no North Vietnamese boats present. While Herrick soon reported doubts regarding the task force’s initial perceptions of the attack, the Johnson administration relied on erroneously interpreted National Security Agency communications intercepts to conclude that the attack was real.[1]
While doubts regarding the perceived second attack have been expressed since 1964, it was not until years later that it was shown conclusively never to have happened. In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, the former United States Secretary of DefenseRobert S. McNamara admitted that an attack on the USS Maddox happened on August 2, but the August 4 Gulf of Tonkin attack, for which Washington authorized retaliation, never happened.[6] In 1995, McNamara met with former Vietnam People's Army General Võ Nguyên Giáp to ask what happened on August 4, 1964, in the second Gulf of Tonkin Incident. "Absolutely nothing", Giáp replied.[7] Giáp claimed that the attack had been imaginary.[8] In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it showed that Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that the perceived incident of August 4 was based on erroneous initial Navy perceptions and flawed interpretations of intercepts of North Vietnamese communications.[1]
The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by U.S. Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.
I've made some changes to the lede, I don't think anything more is required. Mztourist (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks fine at this point too. Sean Barnett (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References
^ abcdefRobert J. Hanyok, "Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2–4 August 1964"; Quote: This mishandling of the SIGINT was not done in a manner that can be construed as conspiratorial, that is, with manufactured evidence and collusion at all levels. Rather, the objective of these individuals was to support the Navy's claim that the Desoto patrol had been deliberately attacked by the North Vietnamese [on Aug 4]... Archived 31 January 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Cryptologic Quarterly, Winter 2000/Spring 2001 Edition, Vol. 19, No. 4 / Vol. 20, No. 1.
^Cite error: The named reference :1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference :2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Moise, p. 78 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Moïse 1996, pp. 78, 82, 92 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMoïse1996 (help).
^"Film: The Fog of War: Transcript". Errol Morris. Retrieved 28 June 2021. McNamara: "It was just confusion, and events afterwards showed that our judgment that we'd been attacked that day was wrong. It didn't happen. And the judgment that we'd been attacked on August 2nd was right. We had been, although that was disputed at the time. So we were right once and wrong once. Ultimately, President Johnson authorized bombing in response to what he thought had been the second attack ? it hadn't occurred but that's irrelevant to the point I'm making here. He authorized the attack on the assumption it had occurred..."
The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag operation, so it's a little unusual to see that the term "false flag" does not appear anywhere in the article. Compare this to the Gleiwitz incident and the Shelling of Mainila which are explicitly referred to as false flags in their respective leads.
For consistency's sake and to preserve the article's NPOV, I suggest changing the opening sentence to the following:
We'd need some reliable sources that use the "false flag" phraseology specifically. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this BBC News article should be sufficient? It's the same source used on the Shelling of Mainila page to support the claim that the attack was a fabrication carried out by the NKVD. 78.16.187.226 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link here is broken but the one you added to the article works. This is fine from my perspective. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One source isn't adequate. There was a North Vietnamese attack on 2 August which the BBC story acknowledges. The lede and later in the page discusses the purported 4 August attack, however it is not accurate to describe the entire incident as a false flag. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there will be further web articles like this one. Someone who wants to focus on this issue might want to check Wikipedia library or other academic sources too. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, and the BBC acknowledges, there was a North Vietnamese attack on 2 August. While the 4 August event was a "fog of war" situation which was not properly investigated. The page presents both events with the correct nuance which the BBC story does not. A "false flag" attack is completely different being, as the WP page says, "an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party". So unless the US acquired North Vietnamese style torpedo boats and attacked the Maddox with them, this wasn't a false flag attack. Mztourist (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Daily Beast article is wrong about what constitutes a false flag operation. During the Tonkin Gulf incident on August 4, the U.S. erroneously represented what happened but did not attack its own ships (indeed, its ships were not attacked that day). Sean Barnett (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Conservative writer and political commentator William Buckley published in 1990 a novel Tucker's Last Stand in which the August 4 incident was presented as a false flag operation, with the CIA operating high-tech equipment to spoof the sensors aboard the US destroyers and make them think they were under attack.
Captain John Herrick, who had commanded the Desoto patrol and had been the highest ranking US officer present at the incidents of August 2 and August 4, saw the novel and began to wonder whether it had been based on something real. He told me that Buckley was very well connected and might have heard about an actual secret operation. He asked me to look into the possibility that the August 4 incident had been a false flag operation.
I told him I was sure that Buckley's fiction had been pure fiction. Ed Moise (talk) 21:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which of course it was, insofar as it came from the Bawlmers not the amateurs by the Potomac. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are not permitted to refer to our own works on Wikipedia. I have not been violating that rule. I was not responsible, directly or indirectly, for the references to my book Tonkin Gulf and the Escalation of the Vietnam War in this article.
But the 2019 revised edition of my book is much better than the original 1996 edition. Would it be permissible for me revise references (put in by others) to Moise 1996 so they refer to Moise 2019? In most cases this would involve changing the page numbers. Ed Moise (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t seen this question come up before.
I think it’s a good idea that should be welcomed.
No one will be more capable of updating these references efficiently than you. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s entirely reasonable to state what the NSA’s own historian in its in-house journal, Cryptologic Quarterly, writes about the NSA itself. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikivoice seems fine here to me also. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
