Talk:USS Maine (ACR-1)

The Conspiracy Theory is a Conspiracy

This is pretty much the most POV article I have ever seen on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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)

Either the article has undergone extensive editing since your post, or your concerns are unfounded. I don't see any statements that go beyond saying that some people believe there to be a conspiracy theory. Darktangent (talk) 16:38, 18 October 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)

No dive, seriously?

The article suggests nobody has sent an ROV to investigate the scuttled wreck so far? If so, it should be mentioned in the article, because that is strong indicator of the USA being dishonest and hiding something from the world. If I were Castro Jr., I would demand an international ROV dive to finally expose the 110-year old american imperialist trickery. 87.97.52.2 (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How is that a "strong indicator". Who are you proposing should be sending a ROV down there and who is paying for it? Do you really think they would be able to draw any conclusions? 174.106.27.140 (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If the Cubans are so hot to find out what blew her up let them pay for it themselves. Nobody else honestly cares.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure they have their reasons, and I doubt that it is because of a cover-up. It probably wouldn't uncover any new information, as the wreck has already been examined, in detail, by HUMAN eyes (they drained all the water around it in order to examine it). It may have been an internal explosion, and the reasons for going to war unfounded, but a cover-up? As Occam's Razor states, the simplest explanation is most often the correct one; The U.S. genuinely believed a spanish mine caused the ship to sink--a cover-up is simply too unlikely. Darktangent (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent Analysis of Sinking

The show "Unsolved History" from 2002 on the subject of the USS Maine provides detailed historic and engineering analysis along with field testing, which provides compelling evidence for an accidental sinking. A coal bunker fire (not uncommon at the time) went unnoticed, igniting an adjacent munitions bunker through the steel bulkhead. The resultant explosion ruptured the bottom of the hull mostly along rivet plate connections. The inward bent plate section 'Section 1' was reviewed by an engineering expert, who was able to demonstrate that 'Section 1' was deformed initially by uniform tension - such as an internal explosion - and subsequently bent inward by the force of the water rushing into the ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.134.161 (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Was going to mention this as it just showed on the science channel. Definitely needs to be added, but I'm not good with adding information. Darktangent (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, even if it was an on board fire that sank her you could never prove that it wasn't intentionally started. well, without a time machine anyway. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

ACR

Of course I and most people don't know what "ACR" means. It should be defined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.4.123.176 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As it was listed as an Armourd CRusier, it probablly stands for armoured cruiser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.24.97 (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that that designation was used while the ship was still afloat, but was applied retroactively when the Navy began numbering its armored cruisers. Really should get rid of it, but people are likely to fuss about it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time just now to do much digging, but I see some info here, and I see that the Armored cruiser article asserts without support that the USS Maine was redesignated as a 'second class battleship' in 1894. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it Vreeman or Vreeland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.152.241 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yellow journalism

No information the role of William Randolph Hearst and yellow journalism??? —howcheng {chat} 04:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not really appropriate for this article as it is about the battleship, not the war in general. Should be part of the article on the Spanish–American War --dashiellx (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a brief mention is appropriate considering the ship's sinking was a catylist for the war. Jonyungk (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)