Talk:John Paul Jones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Paul Jones article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review John Paul Jones has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Page name

I think there should be a neutral disambiguation page for John Paul Jones. Look how many people point here that mean to go to John Paul Jones (musician). How about moving this page to John Paul Jones (commander)? --CPK 22:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) butty

A pirate, murderer and pediophile vs a Pop-Idol, is this an encylopedia or a tabloic news papers ?
An almost-significant musician versus a key figure of American history? I don't think so. The only reason for all the links is excessive wikilinking in trivia articles; if that was going to be the new criteria for disambiguation, I would make zillions of history trivia articles to pump up other link counts. Stan 23:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Okay. I didn't mean to say they're equally important btw :) --CPK 00:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] British propaganda

This page has obviously been written by a Brit. It is full of lies about the Jones' behaviour. It contradicts all informations from Historians.

John Paul Jones is considered as the "Father of the US Navy". See the Samuel Eliot Morison's biography of John Paul Jones, re-published in 1989 by the Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, Maryland.

God Bless America and alas Britain!

[edit] Reversion

Ironically wrt the last comment here, I just reverted a bunch of semi-literate accusations that JPJ was actually dishonorable and a war criminal. I've not seen these claims made anywhere else, an authoritative source will be needed. They might be better treated in an as-yet-nonexistent Battle of Flamborough Head article that could really get into the broadside-by-broadside. Stan 05:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ad Hominem attack, to use English spelling as proof of your your argument is lame.

You admit your own ignorance on the matter than resort to an ad hominem attack to justify reverting the text.

The "I have not begun to fight" quote is Hollywood fiction not fact.

The following are a matter of historical record, confirmed by any authoritative of the action, I suggest you seek some out.- Jones struck his flag, a fact confirmed by Alliance which is why it tried to sink the BHR. - He locked his prisoners in the hold of the sinking BHR, His Master Sergeants of Arms, released them AGAINST his orders, something confirmed by his own account of the battle.

As someone hoping to add material, the onus is on you to back it up, not the other way around. As for the Serapis, I have College open on my lap, and it says "5th Rate 44, 886bm, 140 x 38ft", and goes on to mention the capture. As you should know if you have any knowledge of the ships of the time, it is very often the case that they carried more guns than their official rating indicated. If you can't get this basic detail right.Stan 15:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My own comments are establishing this facts!

, I have no confidence in the rest of what you're claming, and if you have no source to quote from, I have nothing to go look at for myself. Also, please make up your mind about whether you're going to edit logged-in or not, and if you don't quit with the reverting, I'll ask another admin to protect the page. Stan 15:40, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I made a couple of minor changes, to hopefully resolve some of this. The quote is not well-documented, but it is well-known; so I NPOV'd it. There is some record (US Navy Historical Center) of the ensign falling and that being intepreted as striking colors, so I added that. Jinian 16:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This is an improvement, I would request that Jinian aid a resolution.

I would also point out that if you delve into the history of this page you will find I actually wrote a large part of the original battle account and it is an important insight in to character of Jones and in justifying the earlier assertion that he was a war criminal even by the brutal standard of the time. A claim which must be made and must be justified. This page has repeatedly had the unpalatable elements removed in an apparent attempt to placate the modern image of JP Jones as an all "American hero". Unpalatable they may be, however they are also fair representation of the history. I've added some [dubious – discuss] and

 The factual accuracy of this article is disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (March 2008)

tags to the main points I have issues with in the existing text.

JPJ has been extensively studied by real historians, there is lots of scholarly material that one could cite. The fact that you're not doing so, despite repeated requests, tells me that your claims are BS. The fact that you're editing anonymously also tells me that you're not willing to stake your reputation to your claims. I don't have an opinion on truth or falsity - if a real historian says "JPJ was a war criminal", then great, let's get the name of the historian and put it in there along with the direct quote. If you're just making up stuff based on your anonymous personal opinion, we don't want any of that. Stan 17:11, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, I happen to have C.W. Brown's 1902 bio of Jones, and although I don't consider it impartial enough to use as a source, it does reproduce some of his letters verbatim, and a quick perusal yields both a reference to the "cowardice or treachery" of several of his officers in signalling a surrender, and in response to the British query, "I answered him in the most determined negative that I had not yet begun to fight" (notice he's reporting the sense of what he said, not the words directly), and goes on to mention that the gunner had "run aft without my knowledge to strike the colors", and that a cannonball had already carried away the ensign-staff. So it's not necessary to pass around anonymous accusations and innuendo - we can quote directly from the source, keeping in mind of course that JPJ's report may not be factually accurate, and as is common in combat, it may never be possible to do more than report the conflicting accounts. Stan 17:28, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't have any particular axe to grind about JPJ, but here is what Rev. Edward Neilson, the Church of Scotland minister of Kirkbean, the parish where he was born and raised, had to say about him when writing in the ‘Old’ Statistical Account of Scotland, published in 21 volumes between 1791 and 1799.

John Paul, who some years ago, took the name of John Paul Johns (for what reason let the world judge) was the son of John Paul, a gardener by trade. He was born in Kirkbean, about the year 1745. Of this person’s character, this parish cannot boast. His pillage of the house of the Earl of Selkirk; his attemps to burn the town of Whitehaven, out of whose harbour he had served his apenticeship, and his conduct to his native country, during the American war, are instances of ingratitude and want of patriotism, generally known, and over which, for the honour of humanity, we would wish to draw a veil.

In the Statstical Account, the whole of Scotland is reported upon in some detail, parish by parish. In each case this work was usually undertaken through the ministers of the Church of Scotland. Such men represented the most reliable sources of credible local knowledge. I believe this is the best contemporary view from a British perspective of the character of JPJ. He does not seem to have been a local hero, at least. JEM12:44 16 March 2006 (UCT)

[edit] Whitehaven

Is this the same John Paul Jones who invaded Whitehaven in whatever year it was, and has a pub named after him also? Should this not be mentioned?? Selphie 11:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) **

I have to concur here. This area of JPJ's history, if expanded, might shed some light onto the controversy concerning his character that seems to have been of some import. John Adams himself, in fact, probably would have agreed with some of the more negative portrayals of John Paul Jones' behaviour. This captain's assault on the his old home port would certainly be of some interest. The implication of course, from my perspective, being that he was an overly proud man, more skillful in politics than really in commanding. While I would never go so far in an encyclopedia article striving for NPOV, some readers should be given facts that would provide a more balanced picture of the man.
I'm going to have to check my facts more carefully, but there is a very well documented incident following the capture of the Drake between JPJ and his first mate Simpson. In fact, looking at this article, I'm incredibly shocked that the HMS Drake isn't even mentioned in connection with the blurb on his time in the Ranger. It is undoubtably his most important accomplishment, and sheds much light on his character and controversy (though little of the latter, due to his political connections, has survived). I think I'd make this my first project, but would need access to my university's share drives again in about a month. weee. let me know what you think people.
Seanherman 02:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Ship Rates

The HMS Serapis was most definitely had 44 Guns, but it was an older 2 deck 5th Rate. A simple search of British Ship Rates and History on the Serapis would prove this.

James

[edit] Expansion

Let me know what you think. I added a ton to his early career and revolutionary period up until his return to Brest, France after defeating the Drake. I tried to fit it into the rest of the article, so I hope I didn't screw it up. Thanks Seanherman 20:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the early stuff needs to be reworded to be NPOV (& indeed some of the rest) & possibly delete the references to other websites (I didn't check any but it reads like it's just been lifted from a series of haigiographic websites), I haven't attempted this as I don't know enough about his career/life to be identify & remove specific biases. I have changed the present tense to the past tense & made a few other wee changes. I've tried to render the ship names in a consistent format (italics) but I think I've missed a number early on - also there are a lot of repeated links (got rid of some but didn't have time to do them all), every time the Ranger was mentioned there was a link - there should only be one link (the first) for anything. Overall good though there's a lot of information there, it just needs to be edited.

I see there is nothing about the story that he killed a man in a duel in Scotland & then added the Jones to his name & moved to America, does anyone have any confirmation on this as if there is a reputable source it should be included.

There could also be more on his role in Russia, I was surprised how little there was, as in Scotland (where his name is known at all) he's known for playing a major role in the American & Russian navies (some say founding them). Overall though decent article, though I can't comment much on accuracy. AllanHainey 14:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tidbit of info that should be added...

John Paul Jones' ship, The Ranger, was named in honor of Robert Rogers and his famous unit. Although Rogers' Rangers are most significant to the French and Indian War, such a reference should be made as a glimpse into the evolution of American history and, also, those whom John Paul Jones considered heroes of cultural importance. The names of ships used by famous sailors are as culturally important as the names of swords used by famous warriors.

"In 1777 the frigate Ranger, originally a privateer named "The Portsmouth" left Portsmouth Harbor en route to its famous raid against England. The ship's figurehead depicted a colonial ranger holding his rifle. The following year, in 1778, Elizabeth Browne -- wife of Robert Rogers -- petitioned the New Hampshire General Assembly for a divorce from her husband on the grounds of Desertion and infidelity. Ironically, Elizabeth then married Captain John Roche the man who had originally been chosen to command The Ranger. Roche, also rumored to be a heavy drinker and a man of untrustworthy character, was replaced aboard Ranger by an ambitious young mariner named John Paul Jones. Jones sailed Ranger into history even as Robert Rogers was commanding the Queen’s Rangers against his own homeland." [1]

Some of this information is obtained from The Annotated and Illustrated Journals of Major Robert Rogers [2] by Robert Rogers, Timothy J. Todish (Contributor), Gary S. Zaboly (Illustrator). Also: American Colonial Ranger: The Northern Colonies, 1724-64 [3] by Gary S. Zaboly.

[edit] Rape of a 12 year old

The only mention of the rape is the reference "rival officers plotted against him and even maliciously assailed his private character" - This solely gives Jones' side, and accuses the victim, 12 at the oldest (though she claimed she was ten) of malicious intent. The fact is he was accused of raping a 10 year old, he tracked down the father to confirm she was not ten but twelve (Whatever that proves) and proceeded to change his story - Firstly saying that she left his house without any problems, and then, telling the French ambassador that She had, in fact, ripped her own clothes off so as to set him up. None of this is mentioned in the article and as such remains POV. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 10 vs 12, I'd expect the whole age of consent laws (or whatever similar laws they had back then) would have been different (i.e. lower) to what they are now. Quite probably 12 was legal back then but 10 wasn't. Hence it would make a big difference to him which it is. Mathmo Talk 17:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General nitpicking.

Changed "his mother was a member of the MacDuff clan" to the now correct version "his mother was a member of Clan MacDuff."

Other correct phrasing might be "his mother was a member of the Clan MacDuff." --Ollie Garkey 02:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

While we are at it...no American ship in the American Revloution was ever given title "USS." "USS" doesn't get used until much later, I think mid-19th century. Remember what USS stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcal1971 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] There is a very small vandalism on this page.

May 1, 2006

Someone's idea of a bad joke;

   Early command

Jones’ first assignment was aboard the frigate USS Alfred (30 guns, 300 men) sailing from the Delaware River i...It was aboard this vessel that Jones took the honor of hoisting the first American flag over an American Naval vessel (note: Jones actually raised the Grand Union Flag, not the later and more familiar Stars and Stripes design).[4] I did you last night and it was fun. AAAAAAAAAA After returning from this

I'm not a registered user, and I don't have the tech savvy to figure out who's responsible, so I'm leaving the re-editing of this page, and prevention to experienced Wikipedia content editors.

[edit] Article on Reburial

There is an article on the reburial and dispute about whether it really was JPJ reburied in the April 2006 issue of Smithsonian magazine. About 4.5 pages of text, ignoring the pictures. It begins on page 32. GRBerry 00:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


This article states that Jones first went to sea in 1759 but the ships name links to a page for a ship that was built in the early 1780s. I wouldn't know how to fix this but I am pointing it out so that someone who does know can.

[edit] Is this true?

I came across this interesting fact while reading An Outline History of the American Revolution (1975)...

The battle off Flamborough Head is the only recorded naval action won by a sinking ship, with the victorious crew sailing away in the defeated vessel. - p146

One, is this true, and two, shouldn't this be included in the article? --Sparkhurst 00:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong link

The current link on the page for the Friendship that Jones was apprenticed on links to a ship built too late to be the same one. I'm simply removing the link, as there does not appear to be a page on the proper one.--Az 20:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a second wrong link: the mention of Isle Royale points to a site about Isle Royale National Park, an island located in Lake Superior. In the context of the late 1700's, Isle Royale referred to the French possession of Cape Breton Island, the eastern third of what is now Nova Scotia. The link should be redone to point to Nova Scotia: History or Cape Breton Island: History, due to the mention of the fort, coaling station and American prisoners. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.202.130.20 (talk) 16:04, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I've semi-protected this article. There has been a recent spike in ip vandalism and it appears that not many editors have this article on their watch list. As a result some vandalism has gone undetected and the integrity of this article has been compromised. I'll come back and unprotect within 2 weeks or so or another admin can remove protection if they judge it safe to do so. -- No Guru 17:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slaver?

It states in this article that the Bonhomme Richard was a former slave ship. However, the Bonhomme Richard article states that she was a merchantman with no mention of being a slaver. Is there any evidence to support the slaver statement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.120.17 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] What did John Paul Jones really say?

I read in a biography of him that he said "I have just begun to fight!" ,but I see on this page it says "I have not yet begun to fight?". Could somebody please clarify this for me?

My Great Uncle (8 times over) actually said, by all accounts which I've ever read, "I've not struck my colors yet, I've just begun to fight." Mirriah


Thanks for the testimony. Sorry though, we can't use it. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. But if anybody here is working on a book, maybe you can convince them to put your testimony in their book, and then it can go here! Sounds like a lot, but them's the rules. 138.88.46.137 02:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There are notable problems with this article

Of which I tried to clear up only to have them changed right back. Not the least of which is Bonhomme Richard was not a former slaver but a converted East Indiamen merchant ship and the brother of JPJ was dead prior to his arrival in America and so certainly didnt suggest any name changes

All of which can be found in Evan Thomas bio on JPJ along with supporting end notes

Denali93

If you see obvious problems then change them and state your references, if you dont state your references how will anyone know what you say is fact? --Joebengo 16:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah but...

Yeah but when did he learn to play the bass when he was mucking around in boats all the time. We must be told! --LiamE 20:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Navy Admiral?

Why is he included in Category: United States Navy admirals? The article says he never rose above the rank of captain in the U.S. Navy. --dm (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My only thought is that he was in the Continintal navy and the rank structure may have been different and might not have included flag officers, etc. Maybe some research should be done to see if he was ever awarded the rank of admiral posthumuously or if the rank structure of the continintal navy was different.--Joebengo 04:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Continental Navy officers works better. While he was never officially bestowed the title, he has been referred to as Commodore Jones in several works simply because once a Naval Officer has command of more than one ship, it's a command normally the rank of Commodore or higher. Commodore is the equivalent of Rear Admiral. --Brad (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


John Paul Jones → John Paul Jones (US Navy) — This article shoud be renamed, and John Paul Jones (disambiguation) should be renamed John Paul Jones. I notice that a simliar proposal was brought up several years ago and dismissed without much discussion. The opponent of the move noted that Jones, the figure from the American Revolution, is of greater historical imporatance than John Paul Jones (musician); however, historical importance should not the only criterion in deciding where a term should redirect. The reality is that many readers are searching for the bassist, not the naval hero, when searching for the term "John Paul Jones." The term should go directly to the disambiguation page, providing quicker access to whichever John Paul Jones article the reader was searching for. —The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - It seems to me that JPJ the sailor is famous in America but not elsewhere, and those not in America would be searching for JPJ the musician. Having a disambiguation page is a fair compromise. Clear air turbulence 22:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No doubt the naval commander is less known outside the US, but the musician just isn't that well known everywhere and is probably not at the level of a military hero. Led Zeppelin is famous, yes, but how many people know its members? SnowFire 03:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although the naval commander may not be known much out of the aspect of american history I still feel that when someone is searching for John Paul Jones they are looking for him and not the bassist, no one goes on wikipedia to look at the life history of a bassist for led zepplin but thousands of students every year look up the history of john paul jones (the naval commander) and therefore I would stick with the way it is.--Joebengo 03:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The musician is more famous anywhere other than the US... and in the US the musician sold many, many millions of records. Policy suggests disam page should be used if there is no overwhelming single usage and it is clear there are two popular uses here. Not 100% sure on (US navy) though, would have thought (Naval Commander) or (Sailor) myself. I would support anything sensible along those lines. --LiamE 09:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Led Zeppelin is a legendary band that sold millions of records, which would give that JPJ a strong case for parity... if he wasn't the bass player. The sad fact is that the bassist is typically the most unsung member of the band, and this case is no exception. So while the naval hero may not be well known outside the US, the bass player probably doesn't fare much better. It's Page, Plant, Bonham, and whatshisname. My guess is that the bassist probably gets most of his visitors from people going to the band article, and then clicking the links for the band's members, while most of the people going directly to the John Paul Jones entry are looking for the sailor. --Groggy Dice T | C 05:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While disambiguation might not be a terrible idea, I don't think we can objectively judge the cultural and historical impact of these two figures accurately. Personally, I find it hard to believe, when we're 200+ years removed from Led Zepplin's heyday, that John Paul Jones the bass player will be as historically significant as JPJ the commander. If Led Zepplin is still even widely recognized at that time, I doubt its bassist would be. The naval commander, on the other hand, is an important figure in the naval history of a world superpower. I'd also like to think (god I hope this is true) if you took a worldwide poll, more people would be familiar with the American Revolution than Led Zepplin. Afterall, I know about something about the long Russian red revolution, the long French Revolution, India and Pakistan's division, the fall of the Roman empire, and Iranian revolution, Warring states period in China, etc.. While American culture has also been widely influential on a global scale, I don't think this makes a convincing argument for placing Led Zepplin's bassist on equal historial footing with America's most famous Revolutionary naval commander.Seanherman 19:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • Any other paranthetical disambiguation phrase ("commander," "American Revolution," "naval hero") would suffice if "US Navy" is deemed to be unsuitable.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 17:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Humped seals?"

The first line of the article below the quicklinks says: "John Paul humped seals off the coast of Southerness and started his maritime career at the age of 13, sailing out of Whitehaven as apprentice aboard the Friendship. " John Paul Jones was able to hold out for two whole days on his burning ships!

Sailing jargon can be pretty obscure, but I believe this is a case of vandalism. Phil 00:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought he was too busy humping children to bother about seals. --LiamE 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

john paul jones is cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.149.196 (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Father" of the Navy?

Why has no one yet mentioned John Barry? Isn't it said that he is the "Father of the American Navy" also? Themikeg (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jones advocated for many of the standards the modern US Navy uses today. Educated Officers, regular pay for crews etc. Of course, at the time he was ignored but later on someone thought "Gee, Jones was right". And now we have the legend. --Brad (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dab links

With all due respect to the editor who reverted my edit of the dab links at the top of the page, I must respectfully disagree. First of all, and most importantly, the arguments in the box dealt with the issue of whether this article should be moved or not. The decision was to keep JPJ on the naval hero, and that issue is done with.

Now as to the dab links. Why do you prefer the current setup, with two dab links—one to a general dab page, another to the great Zepplin bassist? My guess is that it is because you believe that there are so many people who would expect to find the bass player here, that they somehow "deserve" to find their guy mentioned right on the page. Well, there are probably many other pages on Wikipedia where the same thing was true. But does MOS support such a use? Not as far as I have seen. To my eyes, this current setup simply clutters up the top of the article. I don't think it's necessary to revisit these old arguments on the move to simply conclude that we need to follow general practice, which I believe is to have a single link to a single dab page, where the fans of John Baldwin can quickly find their guy. This is just not really different than any other dab situation, in my opinion. Unschool (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Although there is certainly nothing in WP:MOS or WP:DAB to suggest that what's done here is "the right way", it is specified that "common sense" should be applied when disambiguation is required. My point was that, at this time (early 2008) John Paul Jones (naval officer) is not, within the context of the whole English-speaking world, more notable than John Paul Jones (musician) and the decision to give the naval officer the generic heading "John Paul Jones" is therefore itself somewhat in defiance of WP:MOS. Two wrongs may not make a right, but in this instance, at this time, I think a compromise is reasonable, given that both men are, by a considerable margin, currently more notable than any of the other JPJs on the disambiguation page (with the possible exception of the ship-name, but anybody wanting to know about the USS John Paul Jones should probably read about the naval officer too!). David Trochos (talk) 10:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reburial ceremony speech

The article currently reads "In 1913, Jones' remains were finally re-interred in a magnificent bronze and marble sarcophagus at The United States Naval Academy Chapel in Annapolis, Maryland. The ceremony was presided over by President Theodore Roosevelt who gave a lengthy tributary speech." I doubt this is accurate as Theo Roosevelt was not President in 1913. Either the year is incorrect, Roosevelt spoke as former President, or then-current President Woodrow Wilson gave the speech. - Deeplogic (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Naval Historical Center indicates that Roosevelt spoke at the 1906 re-interrment ceremony, but he was transferred to the grand sarcophagus in 1913, with no indication of presidential fanfare. So, it should read along the lines of A) "In 1906, Jones' remains were initially re-interred at the Naval Academy...The ceremony was presided over by President Theodore Roosevelt who gave a lengthy tributary speech." or B) "In 1913, Jones' remains were finally re-interred in a magnificent bronze marble sarcophagus at the United States Naval Academy Chapel in Annapolis, Maryland." or C) Statement referencing his initial burial in 1906 with Roosevelt's oration followed by a final burial in his present resting place in 1913. Auror (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)