| Revision as of 08:33, 26 June 2010 edit87.97.52.2 (talk) →No dive, seriously?: new section← Previous edit |
Revision as of 11:44, 26 June 2010 edit undoMiszaBot I (talk | contribs)234,552 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:USS Maine (ACR-1)/Archive 1.Next edit → |
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{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 }} |
|
|
|
|
== Maine stronger than the Texas? == |
|
|
|
|
|
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). |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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--> |
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== False Flag Hoax == |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The Conspiracy Theory is a Conspiracy == |
|
== The Conspiracy Theory is a Conspiracy == |
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?Pafferguy (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
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. EaswarH (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
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? Yoenit (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion met.jpg)
