Misplaced Pages

Talk:USS Maine (1889)

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yoenit (talk | contribs) at 09:06, 8 April 2010 (→Plagiarism??). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:06, 8 April 2010 by Yoenit (talk | contribs) (→Plagiarism??)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Maine (1889) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Maine (1889) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconShips
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShipsWikiProject icon
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Maritime / North America / United States
WikiProject iconThis 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
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Maritime warfare task force
Taskforce icon
North American military history task force
Taskforce icon
United States military history task force
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCuba Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cuba, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cuba related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CubaWikipedia:WikiProject CubaTemplate:WikiProject CubaCuba
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cuba task list:

Task list

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconShipwrecks Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

  • Lady Elizabeth (1879)
    • Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
    • Improve grammar
    • Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
    • Discuss desired additions -None
WikiProject iconMaine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaineWikipedia:WikiProject MaineTemplate:WikiProject MaineMaine
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on February 15, 2005, February 15, 2006, February 15, 2007, February 15, 2008, February 15, 2009, and February 15, 2010.

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogsbody7 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 14 February 2009 (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. J.M. Archer (talk) 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 Bay of Pigs 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! VKIL (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. EaswarH (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The quoted part of your remark is obscure. Please be specific Tedickey (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe EaswarH's point is that much of the article is plagiarized from the webpage at whatbindid and whatbinhid. And, I believe that he is correct. --Badger151 (talk) 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. Tedickey (talk) 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: WP:FRINGE. Supertouch (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Probably not - but it might refer to useful reliable sources which are not readily accessible Tedickey (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoenit (talk • contribs) 23:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
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? --Badger151 (talk) 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? Yoenit (talk) 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 Yoenit (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Categories: