# Talk:USS Montana (ACR-13)

I removed the following 2 items:
1) L.M.Nulton "led a landing party" 

Reason: the battles were over by the 28th, when he arrived at Veracruz.
2) L.M.Nulton items altogether

under the command of Louis McCoy Nulton,
Reason: According to NavSource Online: Cruiser Photo Archive-- he did not receive command until 13 August 1914 - see http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/acr13/acr13.htm
Wkboonec (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, the occupation of Veracruz lasted until November, giving him ample time to lead a party ashore. Also, it's not likely that a contemporary newspaper is wrong about who was there. Parsecboy (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Parsecboy: Please forgive me for my lack of resources: I am unable to read that reference to help me evaluate the story on Louis M. Nulton. On the other hand, I have done extensive work on the es:Ocupación estadounidense de Veracruz de 1914 and I have come to understand that, after the first few days of battle, the US Army (not the US Navy nor the US Marines) looked over a fairly peaceful town.  

Yes; in 7 months there was plenty of time for "leading a party ashore" but I find such "heroic deed" quite exagerated.  It doesn't make sense if there was no fighting going on.  Unless, of course, it was an R&R party (go lie on the beach, see a baseball game, listen to the bands playing in the parks, watch the girls go by around the main square, visit the churches and see the sights).
I bet you my last cookie that whoever claimed that "party ashore", had no idea what it could be all about.
Saludos desde la Ciudad de México.
Wkboonec (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Here is another book that confirms Nulton was at Veracruz - the relevant line is "After a short time at the Naval War College he commanded the Nashville in 1913 and the Montana in 1914 and 1915, taking part in the operations at Vera Cruz in 1914."
Cookies or not, the AP certainly had correspondents in the city reporting on the events - surely they knew what they were talking about. Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Parsecboy: Let me explain: English is not my native language.  Maybe you can help me polish my efforts. I firmly believe that this matter of the USS Montana taking the dead bodies in their coffins, from Veracruz to New York, is well worth mentioning.
One of the sources is this (free; lucky me!) New York Times article:
Vera Cruz Dead here on Warship
Let me try again. I could use your help.  I'll try to do my best to edit the article on the USS Montana, which is quite relevant to the history of Veracruz in 1914.
By the way, I am also contributing to clarify the erroneous entry for the acr1307 photo related to the USS Montana on NavSource Online: Cruiser Photo Archive. 
I couldn't care less for the article on the USS Wyoming. 
Thanks,Wkboonec (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, the NYT article you linked above confirms that Nulton was the commander of Montana at the time. The Navsource site is simply mistaken. Parsecboy (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes; I now realize that I was mistaken. Not on Nulton but on how I was going about setting his record straight.  I have got in touch with the History & Archives Division at  Naval History & Heritage Command
Louis M. Nulton was the commander of the USS Montana at Veracruz (April 28 to ca. May 5, 1914) and he may have gone ashore to meet with Admiral Fletcher and General Funston, but he most certainly did not lead a party prepared to engage in battle, as implied by the phrase "led a landing party ashore".
NHHC will be soon reviewing and presumably editing his biography, and afterwards we can enter the corrections in Wikipedia.  Not the other way around.
I am sorry about my confusion. Cordially, Wkboonec (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)