Talk:USS Maine (1889)/Archive 1

National Geographic Findings
I am unable to get access to the National Geographic study mentioned. This story (http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/15/remember.the.maine/index.html) makes reference to the National Geographic study and indicates that even National Geographic was inconclusive and that the explosion could have been caused by either possibility.

This article states that the National Geographic study found the conclusion to be certainly external. That is in doubt. The references must be furnished else the final article will remain in doubt. 75.67.222.18 (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Boiler explosion?
I've heard a third what happened to the Maine: that a boiler explosion destroyed it. Anyone have any references on this? --Carnildo 06:31, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A boiler explosion would not have done it. First, if my memory serves, only one boiler was operating at the time of the explosion, just enough to power the electricity and other machinery. The Magazines that are known to have exploded were well forward, away from the boilers. I also believe the the flaming event of a boiler explosion is not the boiler exploding but when the firebox collapses, but this again would not have been in proximity of the forward magazines. Imo a most likely cause was a series of related events specific to the unusual and unlucky circumstances that the Maine found herself at that particular point of time that contributed to to the disaster. The smoking gun, still ignored to this day, was the fresh paint in the forward coal bunkers and the Maine's portholes were closed severely reducing ventilation (these early steel warships were badly ventilated). The paint issue was one of the first asked questions of the board of inquiry, but was quickly passed over as the question was not about paint fumes but the condition of combustables...the officers had to say they were properly locked up (they probably were) ....however paint fumes from the curing paint could have migrated virtually anywhere throughout the forward portion of the ship including the magazines (nothing was very well sealed those days, cork was usually used) and ignited by many sources, someone sneaking a smoke--crews were not that educated in those days, electric sparking or even a minor coal bunker fire...this possibility has to my knowledge never been tested but paint fires/explosions were a constant danger on ships. Dogsbody1 There just has not been enough study of the event done yet in my opinion. To prove the cause I think you have to disprove the other causes. I tend to lean to Rickovers analysis, but I think it tried to hard to prove it's point. There should have been mine debris found....and believe me, when the main was raised, they would have found it had it been there. They WANTED to find proof of the mine. So much for conspiracy theorists...they could have planted evidence of mine but didn't. If I had the time and money I would build a scale replica of the maine and test the paint theory. Dogsbody1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.120.107 (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting versions
This article says:
 * In 1976, Admiral Hyman Rickover of the United States Navy published an investigation that concluded that the tragedy was self-inflicted, probably the result of a coal bunker fire. Some historians have disputed these findings, maintaining that failure to detect spontaneous combustion in the coal bunker was highly unlikely. Other people maintain that Maine was the victim of sabotage or sacrificed to rally public opinion against Spain.


 * In an expedition in 1998, the National Geographic Society explored the wreck and commissioned a structural analysis by Advanced Marine Enterprises. They determined that the explosion could have been internal; the theory they embraced was that an undetected smoldering coal fire had ignited volatile coal dust in the air, creating a small explosion that touched off the nearby powder magazine. However, AME also said damage to the bottom plating and seafloor could be consistent with an external mine.

However the Spanish-American War said this:
 * Expert opinion is still divided; most now consider an accidental explosion of coal fuel to be as likely a reason as any for the ship's fate.

and now says this:
 * With the benefit of modern forensic science, the explosion is now widely believed to have been an accident caused by the spontaneous combustion of gunpoweder magazines situated too close to heat sources. Both old and new conclude: Modern analytical tools, especially computer simulations, have all but confirmed this. Few still think a mine could have been the cause. While some people still think that the cause could have been some other form of sabotage, they point the finger at Cuban revolutionaries who hoped to draw the U.S. into the war or U.S. operatives on orders to trigger an inevitable war to oust Spain from the Caribbean. Almost all agree, the Spaniards would have no interest in provoking a war.

There appears to be a direct conflict about the results of the structural analysis. Is there anyone well-versed in this matter who can bring these two versions into harmony? Thanks, -Willmcw 23:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read that some theorize a mine caused the explosion of the ship, but it is largely unknown. While I'm not a registered user of Wikipedia, I'd have to agree with the second statement posted above.  Spain, who could almost not support their own troops in Cuba, would not risk another war with the US (or any other country for that matter).  They were largely in debt and were fighting the Third Carlist Wars before sending troops to Cuba in the early 1880's. The Spanish had a hard time holding ground in Cuba due to rebels.  If anyone wants to read further about it, you may do so at http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/  (Although the section about the USS Maine is not well explained in that article, it's mostly about the conflicts between the Spanish and Cuban.)

In February two events crystallized U.S. opinion in favor of Cuban independence. First, the Spanish minister in Washington, Enrique Dupuy de Lóme, wrote a letter critical of President McKinley that fell into the hands of the Cuban junta in New York. Its publication caused a sensation, but Sagasta quickly recalled Dupuy de Lóme. A few days later, however, the Battleship Maine, which had been sent to Havana to provide a naval presence there exploded and sank, causing the death of 266 sailors. McKinley, strongly opposed to military intervention, ordered an investigation of the sinking as did Spain. The Spanish inquiry decided that an internal explosion had destroyed the vessel, but the American investigation claimed an external source.
 * The following is from the above posted statement (added by me but registered after posting):

Not sure what to make of it, but it's from the Library of Congress website. Anyone have any ideas? -Vidabonita 21:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Longest ship?

 * There is a memorial...at the Arlington National Cemetery, which includes the ship's main mast...The fore mast of the Maine is located at the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland (which is used as an 'example' at the academy of the Maine being the longest ship in the U.S. Navy since both masts are so far apart).

As this appears to be an in-joke, does it have a place here? I had to read it twice before I "got" that the writer isn't actually claiming that the Maine is an exceptionally long ship, he's recounting a bit of Academy doggerel about the main mast being in Virginia and the fore mast in the center of Maryland. Thrown in as a parenthetical aside, I think this is likely to cause confusion. Maybe it should be set off as a complete sentence with a little less subtlety about its meaning? Canonblack 13:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Additional Memorial
There is also memorial to the Maine in Havana, Cuba.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.30.179 (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Math Problem
"Two hundred and sixty-six men lost their lives as a result of the disaster: 260 died in the explosion or shortly thereafter, and eight more died later from injuries."

260 + 8 = 266?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrulz123 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Some other US ships attacked by foreign forces in times of "peace"?
How can you have a headline that states "Some other US ships attacked by foreign forces in times of 'peace'" when the paragraph above it includes Theodore Roosevelt saying that “we shall never find out definitely” the cause of the disaster? Wouldn't that statement and the other evidence presented in the article prevent the USS Maine from being included in just such a list?Walkerson 00:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that headline would make a better catagory for wikipedia? (considering the debated nature of the Maine's sinking)--Narson 16:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

RFK's remark
I would suggest you include a reference to RFK's remark to his brother the President (JFK) when they were discussing their options during the Cuban Missile Crisis. RFK is on record (the audio recording is available) suggesting they "sink the Maine again or something" as an excuse for invasion.Walkerson 00:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Location of USS Maine's foremast
Sorry, but whatever mast is located at the Naval Academy, it is NOT the foremast of the USS Maine. That prize is loacated in Madison Square Park in the Borough of Manhattan in New York City. The reason why it ended up there is because the Maine was launched from the Brooklyn Navy Yard (It could not have been renamed New York Naval Shipyard until 1898, when Brooklyn - which is where the yard still sits - was consolidated into NYC to form the City of Greater New York). SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 19:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, I thought there was a mast from the Maine (fore, main, I don't know) at Arlington Cemetery.   Acroterion  (talk)  20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Arlington article cites masts from the Maine at the USNA and Arlington - no mention of Madison Square Park.   Acroterion  (talk)  20:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No sources reference the Maine's masts anywhere but Annapolis (foremast) and Arlington (mainmast). This site  does not show any part of the Maine in Madison Square Park.    Acroterion  (talk)  01:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy
I could have sworn that, when teaching about the destruction of the USS Maine inciting the Spanish-American War, that my teacher noted that it could have been staged by the American government to give reason to declare war. Granted, it's been a few years, but I am pretty sure that that was what we learned. Anyone else learn it that way?--HantaVirus 13:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's possible that you were taught that, and I suppose it's possible that the Maine was blown up by the US, because we can't conclusively rule it out. It's also possible that the Japanese blew it up, or the Germans, etc.  Everyone loves a conspiracy theory. --Badger151 05:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This conspiracy theory is assumed as proven in the Spanish version of this article, citing the disclosure of Top Secret documents from the US 100 years after the incident. The problem is, there is no reference to that. Is anybody aware of these top secret document disclosure?


 * Yes. The de-classified (disclosed) document that you're asking about is here. It's about Operation Northwoods. Note section 3a. --Лъчезар (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In Spain it is widely believed that the USS Maine was blown up either by the USA or by a pro-USA cuban faction in order to provoke the war between Spain and them, since it was clear that Spain could not win it: it didn't have neither the resources nor the willness needed to win a trans-athlantical war; the days of the Spanish Empire were long gone. Of course, you won't find any true proofs about it if you only research US papers, for it would be too shameful to admit that kind of trick. However, as I said, since Spain couldn't win the war, and because the USA haven't proved to be very trustworthy in matters of diplomacy, spaniards usually tend to believe that it was the USA who sunk its own ship.


 * I've read plenty of conspiracy theorist who insist that the descruction of the USS Maine was a false-flag operation by the US Government, and most of the people who preach this nonsense are 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists. Whenever I encounter these idiots, I remind them that it was an accidental boiler explosion that William Randoph Hearst claimed was an attack by Spain, not the federal government. DanTD (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but if you believe that 9/11 was caused by "Al-Queda" it is you who are the idiot. If you can not or will not think for yourself, you should not be editing WP.  Bofors7715 (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bofors7715, be careful about calling people idiots. Please read WP:NPA. Also, you might take a look at this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is actually that people like Borofs7715 paint strawman theories that are usually easily ridiculed or disproven. With the risk of doing some strawmanning myself: The pakistani money trail, saudi-bush-whitehouse relationships, Osama-CIA relationships? Coincidences all of it of course. Correlation does not imply causation, would be easier if it did.


 * However, I feel it's still interesting to think about who benefitted from this?
 * Halliburton got tons of new nice non-bid contracts. Yes, ofc Cheney isn't in that company anymore... guess that removes all suspiciouns. Wolfowitz got to further his normal jingoistic agenda.
 * There's so many people that benefitted from this, even terrorists. They prolly got a ton of new supporters, wich in turn provides future terrorist acts and futher no-bid contracts and so on. Rove etc. Pick whomever you want, and they all got exactly what they wanted. Except the american people I guess, they're loosing civil liberties. Guess it's a fair trade for the illusion of safety.


 * About the Spanish-American war, just adressing what is logical. Wwhat would be the rational thing, wich is more likely? That Spain, unwilling and unable to be in a war with the US and even much less to win one, instigates a sinking of one of the US' military ships in what must appear to them as apparent suicide and knowingly would give the US all the reasons they (thoose who wanted war with spain over cuba) needed for war?
 * Or that thoose who were desperate for war with spain over cuba arranged a false flag operation? We KNOW false flag operations have been suggested even with precidencys in the US. Operation Northwoods. Ofc, THAT ONE was "declined".
 * I know we probably will never know for sure, and YES it could have been alot of people. What we can do is look at what is most likely and who benefitted, and that part is pretty clear IMO. Ofc, wikipedia is not the place for such speculations.
 * Annoying username (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't help but laugh abit when I read "The day after the Maine was sunk in Havana harbor, Assistant Secretary to the Navy Theodore Roosevelt stated that “we shall never find out definitely” the cause of the disaster. Roosevelt's words have proved particularly enduring"
 * He knew within 24h that it would never be solved. Oookay, I wonder how when the report came on the 25th. I guess he either had a crystal ball or didn't have much faith in his forensic people, huh?
 * Annoying username (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

"One afternoon I walked down to inspect the monument to the Maine in its little traffic island on the Malecon. I was thinking about my country’s negligent, heartless, and seldom heroic role in Cuba. The monument, the eagle atop it long gone, looked as forlorn as a lone tree on a stormy shore. Its inscriptions, which have been altered in the fashion of the revolutionary placards in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, describe the men who died on the Maine as victims sacrificed to the cause of American imperialism." http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1995/7/1995_7_95.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleutealado (talk • contribs) 05:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

English Language?
Unlike many romantic languages, in English, we do not refer to inanimate objects using gender-specific pronouns such as he, she, her, etc. Why do we refer to this boat as "her" and "she" throughout the article? I understand this is the language of sea-faring people, but on the English Wikipedia shouldn't we stick to English?
 * Well, yes, but the convention for ships is pretty strong, and so arguably is English. --Badger151 05:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been a tradition in English speaking countries for centuries to refer to ships with the feminine pronoun. Just catalog as one more of the hundreds of unique and wonderful odd things about the language. ~ (The Rebel At) ~  22:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

English is an adoptive "bastard" language. The original english alphabet is gone replaced with the Latin and half the words are of french origin. (which is romantic) so adopting the rite of calling ships her or she should seem natural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.78.113.128 (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Book
Inserted reference to: Samuels, Peggy and Harold Samuels 1995 Remembering the Maine. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC and London ISBN 15609847430 even though this volume uses non-neutral terms e.g. "jingoism" and "yellow journalism," which are not acceptable in Wikipedia. One notes that this book suggests, as an alternate explanation, -although Weylerite Voluntarios had cause and reason and thus are considered primary suspects- that Cuban independence fighters could have set the first explosion. However, the example given (Calixto Garcia Velez, a son of General Garcia not mentioned by name on page 150) blowing up a Spanish patrol boat on the Cauto River) was accomplished with dynamite not gunpowder, as were Cuban rebel ambushes and attacks on a least one train carrying Spanish Soldiers. The point of this argument is that gunpowder, not dynamite, is far more consistent with lack of fish kill (according to data in this book).  The Cuban forces were also very short of gunpowder, on other hand the Spanish loyalist scouts called "Guerrilla" in those days often used older rolling block rifles which presumable, (unlike the Spanish regular forces who used Mausers with smokeless powder) still used black powder cartridges.  El Jigue 1-10-07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.188.149 (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Gap between launch and commissioning
Is that usual - almost six years ? -- Beardo 03:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It was probably a bit slower than other navies, but there are some things to consider:
 * The United States at the time had no experience building battleships (Maine became BB-2 when reclassified as a coastal defense battleship). The armor plates alone accounted for three years of construction time (although this was prior to launch)
 * Maine was the biggest warship built in the US at that point. Everything was experimental for the builders, and took time
 * Commissioning date includes the need to fit all the equipment for the ship - guns, boilers, et cetera - that weren't on the ship at launch
 * The Dark 12:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Texas was caught in the same dilemma. The Maine and the Texas were originally designed for compound armor (steel bonded to iron), at the time of their original design competitions, compound armor was the norm, but new face-hardened armor (using the Harveyizing process on nickel steel) that came to everyone's attention as the Maine and Texas' keels were laid (the Texas' keel laying had other delays due to contract problems with the Brits),and somebody got the bright idea that the Texas and Maine, even though they were second class ships and already obsolescent ought to have this superior armor...part of this was due to the Navy's desire to force the industry to develope the armor in the first place. As a result the Texas and Maine's commissioning was delayed 3 years which allowed the Texas to catch up to the Maine and be commissioned first. The Texas and Maine did suffer the embarrassment of being launched without their armor belts being installed which made them ride high in the water and looked like missing front teeth on each side of the ship. In retrospect, this was a mistake as the Texas and Maine should have been showing the flag in the mid 1890's rather than rusting at their moorings waiting for the new armor. But in fairness to whomever made the decision, the delays in the armor production were not anticipated. This might have worked to the Texas' advantage as her 12" Harvey armor plate was hit under the starboard 12" gun turret by a Hontoria 5.5" shell at Santiago and it hardly caused a dimple. The compound armor probably would have stopped a 5.5" shell, but the hit would have been more noticible .dogsbody1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.120.107 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Franklin Roosevelt
According to the "Unsolved Mystery" section, Franklin Roosevelt was the Assistant Secretary to the Navy during the sinking of the Maine. But, according to the FDR article, he became Assistant Secretary in 1913, while the Maine was sunk in 1898. Is this a discrepancy, or am I missing something? Jekman 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe they meant Teddy, not Franklin, good catch.Yossiea 17:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dead fish?
The article gives the lack of dead fish as an argument against the mine theory:

'' "Two problems with the external mine theory remain. One is the absence of dead fish in Havana harbor the next day. Assuming that fish lived in the polluted waters of the harbor, many of them should have been killed if a mine exploded in their habitat, but no one reported seeing any floating in the harbor. Also, no one reported seeing a jet of water thrown up during the explosion, a common sight when mines explode underwater." ''

The explosion of the magazine of a battleship (or cruiser), which in this case obliterated the forward half and killed nearly the entire compliment of enlisted crew before they could abandon the ship, is of much greater force than the detonation of the mine would be. A mine of that time would be hundreds of pounds and would be intended to puncture a hole in the iron hull of a warship; the magazine could be many tons, and evidently was. It's all the ammo for all the guns for all the fighting the ship can do before reprovisioning. Such an explosion would kill many more fish than a mine by itself. The fish arguement is inane.

The article also mentions that no water geyser was observed (therefore, no mine). Again, the explosion of the magazine, from whatever cause, would make the bigger splash; also, this happened at night (all the crew were asleep). For a geyser to have been observed and recorded, someone would have to have been watching the battleship from a safe distance, at night but with sufficient light, during the fractions of a second between the detonation of the mine and the detonation of the magazine; and then report it. Actually, the existence of such an observer would itself be evidence for the mine theory (someone knowing where and when to look). Both the fish and geyser agruments are inane.

The article should record these arguments if, and as, they were debated or reported by the journals of the day; that is, such arguments could have historical significance, but they do not have forensic significance.

Pete St.John 22:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1899?
How could the ship have been launched in 1899 if it sunk in 1898? I don't understand.
 * Dude, put down the crack pipe and read the article more carefully. It clearly says she was launched in 1889 Dr algorythm 10:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

180 degrees Fahrenheit or Celsius?
The section on the coal bunker fire hypothesis states that coal starts burning at "180 degrees". I would guess that's degrees on the Celsius scale, since on Fahrenheit that wouldn't be enough to boil water. However I'm hesitant to make a change since the article on coal, while full of many many wonderful details, fails to mention the temperature at which it starts burning. Dr algorythm 10:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Doc, I suspect that this is because coal's combustion temperature varies depending on the type of coal used, atmospheric pressure, and many other factors. The 180 degrees cited smells fairly apocryphal to me. I may excise this portion. Antidespotic 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooh, here's a United States DOE Environmental Safety and Health bulletin that cites 750-800° Fahrenheit (400-425° Celsius) as the general range for spontaneous combustion. The mechanism described in the Maine article appears to be correct. I will add a citation and correct the temperature range. Antidespotic 21:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, done. I would love to see a few more references and a little less sensationalism in this particular section of the article. Antidespotic 21:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Armored Cruiser or Battleship?
This article claims that the Maine was classified by the Navy as an "Armored Cruiser" while simultaneously describing her as a battleship. These are very different classes of ships; battleships in this period of time were the largest fighting ships in fleets and usually fought in the line of battle, while armored cruisers were long-range vessels capable of independent operation that usually did not fight in the line. Which is a more appropriate classification for this vessel?

I note that the Wikipedia article on pre-dreadnought battleships describes them as displacing 15,000-17,000 tons, while the Maine displaced less than 7000. However, other sources cite the US Navy as classifying this ship as a "second class battleship". Antidespotic 01:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick jaunt over to the United States Naval Historical Center page on the Maine produced a wonderfully mixed response. "USS Maine (1895-1898), originally designated as Armored Cruiser # 1" is the heading of the page, followed immediately by,"USS Maine, a 6682-ton second-class battleship, was built at the New York Navy Yard and commissioned in September 1895." My only guest would be that the Navy re-classified her after construction to battleship.  ~ (The Rebel At) ~  01:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, the redesination was made by the Navy after the Maine was clearly not comparable to the follow on ACR's. The Maine and Texas were authorized in 1883 as an armored cruiser and a second class battleship respectively. They were deliberately made smaller than their contemporary European ships, usually second class ships devolved from a first class designation as they approached obsolescence but the Maine and Texas were deliberately made small, primarily to ensure that they would have short range (reduced coal bunkerage) and not be used for anything but defense (a very isolationist congress in control). As designed the Texas fit the second class battleship designation nicely, having 12 inch battleship guns (only two)and battleship armor, although greater than average battleship speed (an oddity in that regard). while the Maine was a bit of a mess...she was most comparable to the Brazilian Warships Riachuelo and Aquidaba, already in existance in the 1880's and having a marked superiority over those ships, but even had she been commissioned by 1891 or so (close to her original target date--she had to wait till 1895) she would have been obsolescent either as an armored cruiser or a second class battleship...by 1895 she was a complete anachronism with her 10 inch guns and slow speed (slower than originally intended) and did not fit the classification of anything useful....which is one reason she was a good candidate for risk at Havana Harbor in 1898. The tonnage of the two very useful follow-on Armored Cruisers ACR-2 Brooklyn and ACR-3 New York was 9,000 and 8,000 tons. The tonnage of first class battleships at the time the Texas and Maine were supposed to be commissioned (using Brit battleships as a comparison) had risen from about 11,000 tons to 16,000 by the early 1890's, of course these were big ships with a lot of built in range to police the Empire, the first US 1st class battleships commissioned in mid 1890's were around 11,000 but they had as much or better armor than the big British ships and comparable 4x12 or 4/13 inch guns, standard for the pre-dreds. The US Navy of course got to decide what to designate her, they felt that by the time she was finished the second-class battleship was proper, although in reality third class battleship or coast defense ship might have been more appropriate. Of course the Navy was desperate to show the flag in the mid-1890's and calling it a second class battleship helped with US prestige at a time when other nations were only just waking to the fact that the US had a Navy worth considering. The US at this time was being ridiculed all through Europe....that ridicule ended with the Spanish American War. Dogsbody1


 * Hmmm... so do we classify her according to what she was called, or what category of ship she best fits into? Antidespotic 21:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Who was the last living survivior from the Maine disaster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.188.174 (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Aniother piece of USS MAINE
It should be noted there is a torpedo tube from the Maine on Display outside the National Avuary in Pittsburgh, PA.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basesurge (talk • contribs) 05:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Explosion solved
I just saw a Science Channel show that proved "[t]he cause of the explosion that sank the ship remains an unsolved mystery" is no longer true. It was an internal explosion beyond the shadow of a doubt, according to the show. I am no expert here, but perhaps this page might need updating. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dirham just added two edits along these lines, but they need to be written better and reliably sourced. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a couple of "Refimprovesect" templates to that section and the preceding one. --Лъчезар (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I couldn't find the book he cited. So I added an "Unreferenced section" template. Please if anyone can find this book, add an appropriate reference to it and remove the template. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've finally managed to prove that such a book does exist (look here), but "Memoria del 98" is its Spanish title. As Hugh Thomas is a British historian, this must be a translation of his original book in English. The question is, what is the original English title of this book? And if the contributor who added this meant page 104, this must be page 104 from the Spanish translation, not the English original. I think that we need to know either the original English title and page or at least the ISBN of the Spanish translation in order to write the required reference and clear the issue there. --Лъчезар (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Content
I think that thisarticle does not focus enough on the USS Maine in general,but rather its explosion. I suggest either editing the article to include more about the service of the Maine prior to the explosion, or rename the article "Explosion of USS Maine." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.216.50 (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The 1911 inspection of the Maine
I believe that my grandfather was one of the men who was sent to inspect the Maine. Can I verify this through this site? Does anyone have information about this?

JK MacBryde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.146.87 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Staged incident hypothesis section moved here
I've removed this section from the article and moved its contents here for discussion. The section had been tagged. Publicist Jared Israel states that the Operation Northwoods memorandum de-classified in 1997 shows that the USS Maine explosion was a staged incident. Section 3 in page 8 of thie document says: ''3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms: a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.'' From this, Israel concludes that "the Joint Chiefs seem to take it for granted that the sinking of the Maine, which was used to justify the Spanish-American war, was a staged incident. Keep in mind that to this day – over a hundred years after the incident – the U.S. military refuses to publicly acknowledge that the Maine was destroyed in a Northwoods-style provocation, though they privately know this was the case."

References


 * All this relates to paragraph 3a on page 11 here.
 * In the item cited in Ref 1, Publicist Jared Israel does not state that the memo shows that the USS Maine explosion was a staged incident.
 * The assertion "From this, Israel draws the conclusion that ..." is supported by Ref 2, which is bylined Jared Israel but is hosted on the The Emperor’s New Clothes website. I'm not sure whether that website is considered a reliable source, and I don't think that that opinions held by Jared Israel (who this section characterizes as a "publicist" and who is described in the WP article on him as "a ... conspiracy theorist who contributes to the website The Emperor’s New Clothes") should be given equal weight alongside the other [...] hypothesis subsections. I'm doubtful about the inclusions of his opinions in the article at all; If included, perhaps those opinions should be relegated to a Conspiracy theories section, similarly at the Article-section level to what has been done at the Article level with Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, would you mind if I move the section to a "conspiracy theories" section in the main article, with the "original research" label (albeit I don't see any original research but perhaps I just don't see it)? --Лъчезар (talk)

Just added such a "conspirational" section with an edited version of the above quoted text, with even the slightest signs of "original research" removed and with added another author who also thinks this. Hopefully this is acceptable. Of course, feel free to comment this here if you see some problems with it. --Лъчезар (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved the section yet again, this time into a subsection titled Conspiracy theory hypotheses, with the individual theories in subsections there. I've also add a bit to the Jared Israel subsection. I've added a link to the English version of the supporting source cited in the Mikhail Khazin subsection, and tagged it failed verification because it does not appear to support the article assertions. I've replaced the edited and truncated quote in the Richard Williamson subsection with an accurate quote of the complete sentence (I think that the previously omitted part of the quotation provides useful context).


 * (begin insert)
 * I made a couple of changes here (see page history), removing the duplicate reference and the "failed verification tag". Why? Because the English translation of Khazin's interview is much shorter than the Russian original and doesn't include the cited sentence. In the Russian version, see his answer to the tenth question. There, Khazin says:
 * В тревожные времена надо менять психологию общества, сплачивать его. Лучший способ - угроза. Для США это не впервые. В 1898 году, чтобы начать войну с Испанией, по итогам которой они отобрали у нее Филиппины и Кубу, американцы взорвали свой собственный броненосец «Мэн» на рейде Панамы. В 1941 году был Перл-Харбор.
 * This is translated by translate.google.com as follows:
 * In troubled times it is necessary to change the psychology of society, unite it. The best way - the threat. For the United States is not the first time. In 1898, to start a war with Spain, on the basis of which they robbed her Philippines and Cuba, the Americans blew up their own battleship «Man» on the roads of Panama. In 1941, was Pearl Harbor.
 * Khazin mistakes Panama with Havana, but the other part of the sentence is the same as the one I've cited. --Лъчезар (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've bracketed your inserted material and my response with flags identifying it as an insert. into the middle of my prior comment.
 * OK, thanks!
 * You and I have an apparent disconnect about the cite. The supporting URL cited in the article is http://www.kp.ru/daily/24189/396671/, which is titled "Михаил ХАЗИН: «Через три года большинство наших олигархов разорятся»". That cited URL has a clickable link to a Pravda-provided English version which it titled, "Mikhail Khazin: U.S. will soon face second 'Great Depression' " (not the title given in the cite). That article, AFAICS, does not support the assertions in the article. You and I seem to be looking at two different articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly! It's a fault of the translator at that newspaper who didn't translate the entire text to English but just selected sections (why only them, I don't know). I replaced the link with a link to a copy of the same article elsewhere without a link to the poorly translated English version, so readers won't be mislead. --Лъчезар (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (end insert)


 * I think that all of these should be treated IAW WP:FRINGE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * agree Tedickey (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's notable as it's the official version in Cuba --Лъчезар (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "official version in Cuba" sounds as if you're citing a government publication. (If not, your wording is misleading) Tedickey (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I cite CNN and a book about Cuba (as you can see), not a government publication. Sorry if my wording wasn't precise. --Лъчезар (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We're still unresolved on how to handle this WP:FRINGE Tedickey (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A quote from WP:FRINGE:
 * If a fringe theory meets notability requirements, secondary reliable sources would have commented on it, disparaged it, or discussed it. Otherwise it is not notable enough for Wikipedia.
 * In our case, it's notable as it does cite the required secondary reliable sources - The New York Times and CNN. --Лъчезар (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"The man who sank the Maine" - an article in The Sydney Mail, 1 December 1900
I found this article which is a scanned copy of a 109-years-old newspaper entitled "The man who sank the Maine", by Edward Newton McCulloch. Unfortunately it's rather difficult to read. If you manage to read it and understand its essence, please share its main point here. Thank you very much! --Лъчезар (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fairly easy to read - looks like a work of fiction Tedickey (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems
The recent edit speaking of having added a couple of Refimprovesects drew my attention. When I attempted to supply some supporting cites in the "Causes of the sinking" section, I ran into problems. That section currently begins as follows:

I first tried to cite this in support of the assertions re McKinley (which I would have changed to say "immediately ordered an investigation" instead of "demanded an immediate investigation"). OK so far, but soon after that I would have cited thisto show the results of the investigation, which were: " In the opinion of the court, the MAINE was destroyed by the explosion of a submarine mine, which caused the partial explosion of two or more of her forward magazines."&mdash;which is totally out of keeping with the "All parties involved concluded without a doubt that the explosion of the forward six-inch (152 mm) ammunition magazines had caused the sinking." assertion.

Backing off bit to look at the article rather than at just a section, I see that the TOC currently reads:


 * 1 Construction
 * 2 Sinking
 * 3 Causes of the sinking
 * o 3.1 External mine hypothesis
 * o 3.2 Coal bunker fire hypothesis
 * o 3.3 False flag conspiracy hypothesis


 * 4 The investigations
 * o 4.1 Del Peral and De Salas Inquiry
 * o 4.2 1898 Court of Inquiry
 * o 4.3 1911 Court of Inquiry
 * o 4.4 1976 Rickover investigation
 * o 4.5 1999 National Geographic investigation

etc.

Keeping it in mind that the sinking of the Maine is an important historical event, leading as it did to the Spanish-American War, which led to the US acquisition of the Philippines and to the Philippine-American War, I suggest reorganizing the article as follows:


 * 1 Construction
 * 2 Sinking
 * 3 Initial investigations
 * o US and Spanish investigations (all that I have seen on the Spanish investigation is here).
 * o Consequences (Declarations of war, Spanish-America War ensues)


 * 4. Later investigations
 * o 1911 Court of Inquiry (needs supporting sources)
 * o 1976 Rickover investigation (needs supporting sources)
 * o 1999 National Geographic investigation (needs supporting sources)

etc.
 * Unresolved hypotheses

Comments? Alternative/better suggestions? Wtmitchell Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I found out that most of the information in this article was taken from here, with some rewording. I added this as the source to the places where I saw that this was the case. Now only a couple of requested references remain unresolved. --Лъчезар (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "with some rewording" (only if one allows for 99% change). Before offering comments like that, you might consider looking at the history of that site. Tedickey (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand you. What do you mean? --Лъчезар (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

prominent historian
Eliades Acosta is quoted as a "prominent historian". But (aside from using the literal quote), the source has issues anyway - reading it closely, it's unclear whether the focus of the article is to dredge up interesting tidbits about the Spanish-American was, or to promote sales of Eliades Acosta's book. Most of the google hits on the fellow are advertisements; scholarly discussion is preferred instead. Tedickey (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Most logical cause
All the investigations carried out by Spaniards concluded that the Maine exploded due internal deflagration without doubt. Since there doesn´t exist any document describing the plan of sinking the Maine not in the USA nor in Spain, I think we can only talk about guessing. My guess: The United States wanted surely the war with Spain as soon as possible (the press, the politicians, finally the people). The very same unnanounced presence of the Maine in Cuba is a clear act of provocation. You can imagine nowadays an Spanish F-100 frigate entering New York harbor without anunce, lets self-invite ourselves! you know. The Spaniards didnt respond to such provocation, they even invited the Maine crew to a party in the harbor. If they wanted to kill americans, they would like to see all of them inside the Maine. All the eyewitness said the Spaniards were as much surprised as the Americans by the explosion. We have some good actors, but our naval officers are not among them. I am not a great friend of the conspiracy theories i dont think the Americans sunk the ship intentionally, but it is CLEAR as water for me that the Maine exploded accidentally and immediately afterwards many high politicians, journalists and officers in the United States cried YEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS!!!!!! And the war started. The most simple theory uses to be the right one, and my theory is quite simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.29.20.103 (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding about this. The Maine was sent to Havana to protect American immigrants there (the Spanish had radicals too, you know) and to counter a somewhat threatening advance by German battleships into the Caribbean.  This would be exactly like a "Spanish F-100 frigate entering New York harbor" if New York was undergoing massive anti-Spanish riots, the United States was involved in a civil war, and Chinese ships and aircraft carries were advancing on America's East Coast.  It was intended to put pressure on the Spanish, but in a perfectly legitimate way, the same way the U.N. tries to put pressure on Sudan.  Remember, thanks to the newspapers, most Americans thought that the revolution in Cuba was nothing more than a genocide perpetrated by the Spanish. 67.164.173.31 (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Every investigation carried out by anyone says that the Maine was destroyed by an ammo explosion. The question is what triggered the blast, and various investigations from all time periods since then have had varying conclusions.

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoenit (talk • contribs) 09:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 not 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)

Number of Maine seamen buried at Arlington
One section of the article states 165 are buried at Arlington. Another section says 229 are there. Should be standardized. Jonyungk (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

other memorials
There is a memorial in lacrosse Wisconsin with the "in memoriam" plaque and a gun erected July 4 1918. The gun is dated 1787. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.83.127 (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

USS Maine sinking location
I've added in GPS coordinates of the sinking site. The coordinates were extracted from a map that was included in the salvage report made by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The report was scanned and uploaded to Google Books. However the map didn't scan completely, so the location is approximate but should be fairly close. Also, the map didn't show the entire harbor so I matched the contour of the shore with existing satellite photos (the shore hasn't changed all that much). I also didn't link the coordinates to GeoHack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradermort1 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Referring to an object as "she"
Why does the article refer to an object (the battleship itself) with a pronoun characteristic of a sex? I know other languages refer to all things as possessing a sex, but not the English language, we just use "it" and only have one, sexless, article "the". Should we start correcting the article? Mike382 (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because that's how English-speaking mariners have referred to their ships for centuries.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Date format mdy or dmy
This article originally, on February 28, 2003, with mdy dates. It has strong national ties to the US (obviously). It was changed to dmy dates on 27 June 2009, with including the edit summary that the US military uses dmy dates. Wikipedia policy is that articles should retain their original date format unless there is reason to change it based on either strong national ties or consensus on the talk page. WP:STRONGNAT states that because the modern US military uses dmy dates articles about the modern US military should use dmy format. This ship was lost on February 15, 1898. That is not modern. I found no discussion about date formats in the archives of this talk page.

From all of the above, it is my belief that the change in date format from mdy to dmy dates had no consensus and was against policy. As such, I am planning to return the dates in this article to using the mdy format. Prior to making the change, I wanted to see if there was a consensus against doing so. Makyen (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction qualifying USS Maine as "latest naval development"
The article is contradictory. First paragraph says "Maine and her near-sister ship Texas reflected the latest European naval developments, with the layout of her main armament resembling that of the British ironclad Inflexible and comparable Italian ships...". Second paragraph says "Despite these advances, the Maine was out of date by the time she entered service". One could argue that both statements are not contradictory to each other, since the first "reflected the latest European naval developments" refers to the laid down date, 1888, and the second "the Maine was out of date by the time she entered service" refers, as indicated, to the time she entered service, 1895. But, even in that case, the first assertion is still wrong. The en echelon arrangement of the main guns were already outclassed in 1888 (laid down date) as proven by the Trafalgar-class battleships of the Royal Navy laid down earlier in 1886 or the precedent Admiral-class battleships in service since 1885. All of them having their main guns arranged in centre-line mounts. I think should be more appropriate to say that USS Maine was an outclassed or "out of date" ship design from the very beginning of her built. Then I suggest to change the first paragraph by "Maine and her near-sister Texas reflected outdated European naval designs resembling that of old British and Italian models already outclassed" and omit the entire first sentence of second paragraph "Despite these advances, the Maine was out of date by the time she entered service, due to her protracted construction period and changes in the role of ships of her type, naval tactics and technology." since it is wrong and redundant. Luis Ignacio Martínez (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Luis Ignacio Martínez

New York Tribune Article - Raising the Maine
The author of this article might find the following NY Tribune news article important in perhaps adding to or amending certain information in this article. I have not read all of the article, so I am not fully aware if the information found within it would enhance this article or not. I will leave it up to others to decide if this link should be added to the article.

I was using this NY Tribune page as a reference to my own article about an English golfer. Then I saw the nice piece about the Maine and thought it important enough to bring to the attention of other editors.

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1910-07-26/ed-1/seq-4/

--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Battleship designation error
The introductory line states "USS Maine (ACR-1/BB-2), ..." is wrong. USS Maine was indeed ACR-1, however, BB-2 was USS Massachusetts. Maine was used for the heavy cruiser/armored cruiser ACR-1, and also USS Maine (BB-10). Maine was intended to be the name of BB-69, which was canceled at the end of WWII. MR2David (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite right.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Cause of USS Maine's explosion now known?
I was told that it is now known that the Maine exploded due to a boiler malfunction (according to my history teacher, who said that there was some research done somewhere. How helpful, I know.) and was wondering if this article needs updated with that information. Opinions? 2602:304:68B5:D360:7C08:D6BF:44A:6AC9 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In order for such an update, we would need a reliable source stating such a claim to cite. Unless it was some sort of official government finding, it would need to be phrased as the opinion of whomever it is making the claim. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure your teacher wasn't referring to some of the information already on this page? 331dot (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on USS Maine (ACR-1). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051211094310/http://www.usni.org:80/NavalHistory/Articles98/NHallen.htm to http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/articles98/nhallen.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Cuban sabotage.
How the Battleship Maine was destroyed by Rickover, Hyman George discusses this, taking as a given that it was seen as a possibility. (He resoundingly dismisses it, of course.) The idea that this was a false flag attracts the usual colander-hatted idiots, but it was seen as possibility at the time. De Lome apparently warned of the possibility of some type of sabotage; his fall from grace may have led people to discount or ignore it. Anmccaff (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Density
In the armor section it states " Although all three armors shared the same density (about 40 pounds per square foot)". Density in English units should be in pounds per cubic foot. I don't have a reference handy, but 40 pounds per cubic foot is way too small. I'm guessing that a one square foot of steel one inch thick should weigh about 40 pounds.104.129.204.84 (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're correct, a 1-inch armor plate weighs 40.8 pounds per square foot.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Causes of the explosion
Please, do not draw definitive conclusions when nothing 100% sure, the boats do not explode occasionally because of the boiler and the arsonist of the territory of the ammunition. Reflect on this: What is the probability that a US ship will explode in Havana, in a moment of belligerent tension driven by the US yellow press? UU.? Did the ships of the US Navy occasionally explode? We can consider many hypotheses, we can manipulate history, eliminate articles of a thousand types, none conclusive at 100%, but, of course, the most logical and reasonable is the operation of the false flag. The most probable cause of the explosion of the Maine was an American sabotage, with the intention of unleashing a war for a false flag operation. This last hypothesis is the most probable since several investigations indicated that the explosion occurred inside the ship. Asepsia (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OR, borderline vandalism, reverted. Anmccaff (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Vandalism? No, the explosion by carbon is a hypothesis just as it is also the hypothesis of sabotage, nothing conclusive and neutral has been proved. If you do not contemplate all the versions of the story then you are giving a skewed and manipulated story, it has always been said that it was a US sabotage. I have only included the other hypothesis that in this page seems censored.incluidAsepsia (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Then surely you can find an authoritative source that says that. Anmccaff (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course, Nothing can be tested 100%, there is no proof of anything. Everything is based on hypothesis and speculation and the Sabotage is a further hypothesis, although by probability the most real of all, since what is the probability that your ammunition store exploded due to a failure of the boiler? Did the ships occasionally explode? It is a ridiculous idea, considering the number of factors such as the presence in Havana, or the pre-tensions. Probability is the safest, but even so, sabotage is nothing more than a speculation as is the accident. How did the ship sink? We will never know for sure, but the hypothesis of sabotage is what the entire Hispanic world holds, Cubans have always considered the maine was sunk by the Americans themselves to justify the war fueled by the yellow press, but there are always references:


 * Rohter, Larry (14 de febrero de 1998). «Remember the Maine? Cubans See an American Plot Continuing to This Day». The New York Times. Consultado el 2 de octubre de 2011.http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/14/world/havana-journal-remember-maine-cubans-see-american-plot-continuing-this-day.html?pagewanted=all


 * CNN. 15 de febrero de 1998 Remembering the Maine http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/15/remember.the.maine/ Remembering the Maine


 * Asepsia (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * From which, we see: . Accusing the U.S. of blowing up the Maine is just a way of linking the war to all of the propaganda that blames the U.S. for Cuba's current problems.. Good source, that.  Anmccaff (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course, it is an American newspaper and has the subjectivity of the author, Cuba as an enemy, but it does not stop being a hypothesis as well as the assumption that it explodes due to a design failure of the ship. Unfortunately, the cause of the explosion can never be demonstrated, but if we are going to speculate what it was, I think we should contemplate all the hypotheses. And sabotage, of course, is the most realistic in this strange circumstance.. Asepsia (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay I made a more neutral edition, I have only exposed the hypothesis, but I have not concluded that it was any of them. Since it is impossible to know the real reason for the explosion if it was an accident despite all the cluster of coincidences or sabotage. Asepsia (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources reveal another hypothesis. No subjective son.Asepsia (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Consider the internal explosion of the Imperial Japanese Navy battleship Mutsu in a Japanese harbor or any of the others listed in Category:Ships sunk by non-combat internal explosions. --Naaman Brown (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Classification

 * I see a lot of references in other articles describing the Maine as a 2nd Class Battleship, but I see no supporting information for that classification in this article, or other credible sources. Was she at one point officially reclassified, or does that just fit the popular myth?--Kevin Murray (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Sister Ship to USS Texas

 * I see a lot of references in other articles describing the Maine as a "near sister" to the USS Texas. I don't see any support for that assertion.  The ships were quite different, with one being a US design and the other a British design.  What is the definition of a "sister ship"?  These two vary in classification, displacement, speed, armor, and armament.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Copy
ovA_165443 (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

What is the citation that is referred as "Wegner"
In the text there are mentions to "Dana Wegner, who worked with U.S. Admiral Hyman G. Rickover on his 1974 investigation of the sinking...". Then there is a "This quote needs a citation" template from 2012 in one of the sentences, and then there are several references (currently numbers 74, 75 and more) that are appearing as "Wegner p.11-12", "Wegner p.11" and so on in the reference list. There is no additional specification of this source in the rest of the article.

The "Wegner" untrackable source is the only kind of sourcing of the coal explosion interpretation, I think. Would it be possible to make explicit the source?--Feministo (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


 * That quote was added in this edit, but the revision does not list Wegner in the Bibliography. --50.53.41.40 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This edit effectively removed the Wegner reference. --50.53.41.40 (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The Wegner quote is from Chapter 2, "New Interpretations of How the USS Maine Was Lost", in "Theodore Roosevelt, the U.S. Navy and the Spanish-American War" edited by Edward J. Marolda (Palgrave, 2001). --50.53.41.40 (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Converted Marolda reference to chapter reference for Wegner in this edit. See Cite book. --50.53.41.75 (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

James W. Forsyth telegram on the destruction of the Maine
Hello! Apologies in advance if I do something wrong, I'm new to WP talk pages.

Anyways, I've been studying the destruction of the U.S.S. Maine, and was curious why a certain National Archives Catalog entry containing an 02:13 Feb 15th 1898 timestamped telegram (19 hours before the destruction is noted) announcing the destruction of the Maine is nowhere to be seen. Link to said entry Possiblynova (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)