| Revision as of 09:06, 8 April 2010 editYoenit (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,750 edits →Plagiarism??← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:01, 8 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,119 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| (122 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown) |
| Line 6: |
Line 6: |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|archive = Talk:USS Maine (ACR-1)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:USS Maine (1889)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=90 |small= |dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Ships}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ships|B1=no|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes|B5=yes|class=C|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|B1=y|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes|B5=yes|Maritime=yes|US=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cuba|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WPMILHIST|class=Start|B1=no|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes|B5=yes|Maritime=yes|US=yes}} |
|
|
{{WP Cuba|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Shipwrecks|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{ShipwrecksWikiProject|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Maine|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spain|importance=low}} |
|
{{WPMAINE}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{OnThisDay |date1=2005-02-15|oldid1=16335607 |date2=2006-02-15|oldid2=39775930 |date3=2007-02-15|oldid3=108240226 |date4=2008-02-15|oldid4=191368221 |date5=2009-02-15|oldid5=270811200 |date6=2010-02-15|oldid6=344215638 }} |
|
{{OnThisDay |date1=2005-02-15|oldid1=16335607|date2=2006-02-15|oldid2=39775930|date3=2007-02-15|oldid3=108240226|date4=2008-02-15|oldid4=191368221|date5=2009-02-15|oldid5=270811200|date6=2010-02-15|oldid6=344215638|date7=2013-02-15|oldid7=538265079|date8=2014-02-15|oldid8=595436446|date9=2015-02-15|oldid9=646941143|date10=2016-02-15|oldid10=704737734|date11=2017-02-15|oldid11=765486156|date12=2019-02-15|oldid12=883473580}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Funeral of nine of the victims of the "Maine" disaster == |
|
== Maine stronger than the Texas? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* {{cite web|url=https://www.loc.gov/item/98500963/|title=Funeral of nine of the victims of the "Maine" disaster|author=Paley, William Daly. Decker, Karl. Thomas A. Edison, Inc.|date=March 27, 1898|quote=Taken at Key West, Fla. First comes a detachment of sailors and marines in the left foreground, while at the right is seen a crowd of small colored boys, which precedes any public procession in the South. Then follow the nine hearses, each coffin draped with THE FLAG. At the side of each wagon walk the pall bearers, surviving comrades, their heads bowed in attitudes of grief. Next come naval officers and marines, and lastly a procession of carriages, followed by a large crowd on foot.|website=loc.gov|accessdate=19 March 2018}} |
|
I have no idea what this phrase means and wonder why it was used. The Texas was superior to the Maine on virtually all counts as a battleship as the Maine's design was not even adequate as an armored cruiser for which purpose it had been designed. The Maine was was grossly inferior to the follow-on Armored cruisers (admittedly both the Texas and Maine were built within "political" limits which made them second-class ships of their respective types, and there is no reason to compare it to 1st Class battleships either (or even the Texas). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Missing designations == |
|
Rumors about the Texas' "weaknesses" were just that, brought on by some instances that occurred due to unfamiliarity with the British design, and also some superficial damage that occurred during the war which would have also occurred to the Maine had she been used the same way and same extent...except she had already blown up. The Texas |
|
|
proved to be a very sound ship once familiarity with her design was 1895-96 was obtained. The Texas was designed in a manner that she could not have blown up due to a coal |
|
|
bunker fire (if that is what cause the magazine explosion on the Maine)....the Maine was not built with such safeguards. The Texas had a fine combat record and did useful service after the war. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Various sources refer to this ship as "(BB-2)" and "(BB-2/c)", but our article text does not address these designations. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 22:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
The fact is that the Texas and Maine are not comparable as they were built for different purposes and were totally different designs. The en echelon gun arrangement on the Texas was completely different than the Maines, and done for a different purpose--but both ships were designed for a maximum of forward and rear firing weaponry, neither were intended to be "broadside" ships. The Texas was purpose built as a second class battleship, the Maine as an armored cruiser that was pigeon-holed into the battleship category when it was clear she could not compete as a cruiser. Her ten inch guns were just enough to rate her as a battleship. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Broken citation == |
|
Any direct comparisons to the Texas are irrelevant. What should have been written was that the Maine and Texas, although authorized together, were very different ships and were not comparable. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There a harv citation with content "DANFS Maine (ACR-1).", which generates the big red error message "Harv error: link from CITEREFDANFS_Maine_(ACR-1) doesn't point to any citation." (if you have visibility of those messages turned on). This usually happens when someone deletes material containing the full citation without cleaning up after sortenened footnotes that refer to it, though occassionally it's an error in the original citation. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 22:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
:You convinced me. (Not that it took a lot of work.) I deleted the bit about ''Maine'' being the bigger badass. I have wondered if that was a reference to the structure of the ships (in which case ''Maine'' might have an advantage, given her lighter armament?) rather than their relative fighting power, but if that is the case it needs to be clarified in the text and what was there made no sense. It's gone. ] (]) 23:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
== "]" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21#USS Maine (ACR-1}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style="background-color: #FFCFBF; font-variant: small-caps">] <sub>(''']''' / ''']''')</sub></span> 20:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== False Flag Hoax == |
|
== Wrong date in the title == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
There seems to be a typo in the title of the article. Shouldn't it read 1898 instead of 1889 ? ] (]) 14:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
I removed references to the Northwoods conspiracy. The discussion was worded in the article as to make it seem like it was a memo from 1892, it was not. The full Northwoods document can be seen here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf It is clearly a document written in 1962 as part of the ] invasion; it has noting to do with the USS Maine. In fact, it has referenes to false radio reports and destroying aircraft, obvioulsy both impossiblities in 1898! ] (]) 17:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Sorry, I misread. I thought the article referenced the sinking and not the ship as a whole. |
|
== The Conspiracy Theory is a Conspiracy == |
|
|
|
:Please ignore the comment above. ] (]) 14:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
This is pretty much the most POV article I have ever seen on Misplaced Pages. The section on explanations for the explosion is written like a persuasive essay convincing people that it was the result of American sabotage. I was ''about'' to post enormous rants on this everywhere I saw fit, leave Misplaced Pages, and never come back, and then I realized: |
|
|
'''EVERY CITATION THAT SUPPORTS THE AMERICAN SABOTAGE THEORY OR REFUTES THE OTHER THEORIES IS FROM A SINGLE WEBSITE''' |
|
|
Something ought to be done about this, but honestly I can't think of what. The information doesn't need a source, but how can both sides be represented?] (]) 00:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Plagiarism?? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Anybody reading the 1st source "whatbindid and whatbinhid" can see the obvious plagiarism in this article. Please rewrite to avoid copyright issues. Most of this article is nothing but a blatant copy-paste. ] (]) 12:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The quoted part of your remark is obscure. Please be specific ] (]) 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I believe EaswarH's point is that much of the article is plagiarized from the webpage at . And, I believe that he is correct. --] (]) 04:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Or perhaps both are derived from a common source. In either case, it should be possible to compare older versions of both, e.g., using the Internet Archive to see the older version(s) of the other site. ] (]) 09:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::An important question is would that website be considered a reliable reference in the first place? It seems to deal exclusively in conspiracy theories, see: ]. ] (]) 11:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Probably not - but it might refer to useful reliable sources which are not readily accessible ] (]) 11:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Deleted the hypothesis section and rewrote the inquiry section to remove (most of) the plagiarism. I completely kicked out the conspiracy theory website, using a more reliable source instead. Unfortunately I can't find any for the 1999 NGM investigation, so still needing references there. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Another update with a new source, article should be plagarism free now. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ref format == |
|
|
|
|
|
There are at least two citation formats in use on this page. Does anyone have a strong preference on which is used? --] (]) 22:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Check dates Court inquiries == |
|
|
|
|
|
While rewriting the section I found conflicting dates for some events of the Naval Court Inquiries. Websites don't agree and I can't seem to find any official sources (though that might just be because it is 2 am). If somebody could find an official source, especially for the day the results of the first inquiry became public that would be great (the article conflicts, giving both 25 and 28 march 1898). Then again, do we really need such accuracy? ] (]) 23:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
: Found a decent source now and corrected them. Funny that neither date was correct, it should have been 21 march ] (]) 09:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC) |
|
Various sources refer to this ship as "(BB-2)" and "(BB-2/c)", but our article text does not address these designations. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
There a harv citation with content "DANFS Maine (ACR-1).", which generates the big red error message "Harv error: link from CITEREFDANFS_Maine_(ACR-1) doesn't point to any citation." (if you have visibility of those messages turned on). This usually happens when someone deletes material containing the full citation without cleaning up after sortenened footnotes that refer to it, though occassionally it's an error in the original citation. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion met.jpg)
The redirect USS Maine (ACR-1 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § USS Maine (ACR-1 until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)