Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Stanislaw Solinski

After chatting to both contacts & media in Poland, and in Dragonawa particulary, I am now even more certain Stanislaw Solinski is no longer alive, and as there are no media reports after his birthday in early 2005, that he almost certainly died later in that year. We must remember that not every death is covered by the press (Stephen Butcher, Harry Newcombe, Justin Poor, etc.), as perhaps it should be, but no media report should not be taken as proof of being alive (and all three above are 100% dead). I will continue to work on finding (or scanning) an obit or a mention or something on this man for precise evidence of death (i.e. exact year, month and day), but as there is no evidence for him being alive (bar here, it seems - and that's not evidence), I would stress to people to, please, give me the benefit of the doubt (as you did with Stephen Butcher), and allow his name to be removed, provisionally, into the 2005 deaths section until I can prove a date of death or online proof he has died (or of course vice versa & he pops up alive again!).

Originally he was removed, but appeared back up again, strangely, towards the end of the year?

My brother-in-law is Polish, and a fluent Polish speaker & this is why I've got a vested interest in it & have been able to use contacts with this case even though my name is about as Polish as the late lamented Emiliano Mercado del Toro's was American.

Thanks in advance for your understanding with this case, especially you, Bart, as you reinstated him last time.

Richard J —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.144.160 (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Yes, since no one confirmed his death. Extremely sexy 00:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

We should NOT move someone into '2005 deaths' with no confirmation of death. If you will, we can create a 'limbo cases' at the bottom of this page. Many people assumed dead turned out to be living...Edna Parker, Du Pinhua, Gladys Hawley, etc. Simply not being heard from on one's birthday is NOT proof of death. In the most extreme example, Du Pinhua was in the news in 2002 for her 116th birthday, and then not heard from again until 2006 for her 120th. With Edna Parker, she was heard from at her 109th, but not again until her 112th. For Gladys Hawley, she was heard from at her 109th birthday but not again until her 111th. Also, even if they died, we shouldn't invent a date. With Maria Bernatkova, we know she is dead, but we only have fl. 1968. No death date. Eventually, sometimes a death date is found (as with Maria Corba). Please be patient and STOP trying to make this a game of can we drop the most people possible. The list should reflect a balance between skepticism and optimism. The comments of some ("no one's died in a long time" and "they'll all be gone by 2006") were way off base. → R Young {yakłtalk} 07:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he should be left on the list until some type of confirmation of his death can be located. When it comes to these veterans, it is more likely that a birthday would be overlooked before a death. --Brianmccollum 09:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I might have guessed. Well, Robert Young, you deleted one of the French unknown veterans. Where is the proof? If you can't provide it, why did you delete him?

I was told that he died in December 2006. Last I checked, both he and Pawel Parniak were in the UNVERIFIED section. Last I checked, UNVERIFIED means 'NO PROOF.' Is this too hard for you to understand?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I know your credentials, but there's till no proof. Where is the proof that all these German veterans are alive or that they've died? Or is it a case of we trust Thomas or we trust Robert but we don't trust anyone else? We don't trust a French or British or Polish contributor?

It's a case of openness, transparency, and a track record. Credentials are earned. In the cases of the Germans or French or Italians, someone with a proven track record has said they are dead or alive. In the case of Poland, we don't have a track record and, moreover, what was claimed... that "Solinski's birthday in 2005 didn't make the papers" indicates that the Polish correspondents were not even claiming that they knew he was dead, only that they could not vouch that he was still alive. Last I checked, I suggested a LIMBO list for cases like this. Did you not read that? Also, if I revert an edit with multiple changes, I may not have favored all the original version. In fact, those who make the changes should make them one at a time, to allow cumulative improvement. I would favor moving Solinski back to the "unverified" list, where I had put him earlier (or did you forget?).→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

In that case, that's contributor snobbery & not exactly working together is it?

Name-calling is not exactly working together, is it?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly a "game" but do you really want the scenatio that the last veteran alive was found to be someone who died years ago?

That's what the unverified/limbo list is for.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have asked local sources in Poland about him and they believe he is gone. I admit I can't prove it yet but look at some of the deaths in 2005 & 2006 & see if they have online proof - especially the Polish fellows.

If they believe he is gone, they should report it...but no one reported it! The only mention came from a French blogger!→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There's still nothing online for Stephen Butcher. Under your rules, even though i've seen his death with my own eyes, he should be put back on, hmm?

I never added Stephen Butcher back. That was someone else. Making false charges don't accomplish anything. Also, you claim to have seen him die, yet no one has claimed to have seen Solinski die. There is a difference.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, however, although this lack of faith saddens me, can we have a compromise?

I already suggested a compromise...unconfirmed deaths should be moved to the bottom (either as unverified or as limbo cases). This isn't about faith, it's about making sure we are doing the right thing by double-checking.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Could his entry have a small mention of something along the lines of "may have died in 2005, confirmation currently being sought" or something? At the very least that would make things clearer about this particular case.

Thanks, Richard J

I do have faith in you, Richard. Extremely sexy 19:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert, your reply, more or less, is fair enough. There are still some sticking points (name calling for one, which you bring up, but then 20 words or so later you revert to), but I'll let them drop for the sake of resolving the issue. The only thing in reply to some of your post is that you keep stating Solinski and the "dead" "unknown" French veteran are in a limbo list. I can't see Solinski is in a limbo list, or an unverified list for that matter. I can't see "Raymond" in a limbo list. All I can see is SS in the main list, and Mr X as having died in 2006. So, I didn't "forget" that fact, as it isn't there to start off with! But whatever. I'll get this resolved & sort out something for Solinski before long.

Robert meant that he suggested this, Richard. Extremely sexy 21:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If you look at http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weteran whoever is keeping track of the Polish veterans on this list also thinks that Solinski died 2005, fairly strong circumstantial evidence I would have thought, after all a Polish speaker is more likely to have spotted an obituary in a Polish paper, then us largely English Speakers here. [[SRwiki 10:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)]] 10:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This misses the point, however. No one believes that Marie Bernatkova is still alive. However, her death was never reported. We cannot assume she died in 1968 without some facts. No one from Poland has said anything or posted anything with even a death date, and the claims that he died were equivocal...i.e. "I doubt that he is still alive" rather than "he died March 1 2005." There is a difference.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)



Last infrantry veterans?

Can someone make a list of the last 'infantry' veterans? After the death of Robert Meier, I wonder if there are any combat-wounded veterans left. Mr. Meier was actually shot in the knee...131.96.70.164 06:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a more general point here as well, it would be good if we could have a few notes on some of the veterans listed, The German, and Italian Vet lists, are noticeably short on background information. I am not doubting they are real Veterans, just that it would be nice to know a little bit more about them. A problematic one (well at least to me) is Stanislaw Wycech, if we don't even know which army he served with, how can he be validated? By the way, I've put some information on Wycech on th site as well. SRwiki 08:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jim Lincoln, a bit of information

Evening All, Just idling round after, work and I found this little snippet on Jim Licoln: http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2006/10/18/SteppinOut/More-Than.Just.A.Bar-2375155.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dailyemerald.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com So apparently he lives in Eugene, Oregon, and sounds remarkably sprightly for a 108 year old. I was just wondering if now we know where he lives, if someone could do the Public records check on Jim Lincolns in the area of Eugene, and see if a 108 year old does live there. I would do it myself but I have no idea how to access the US public records. Thanks SRwiki 17:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What you've found is, I think, the same report that saw him put on here in the first place.

Below, however, is a list of male Lincolns in Eugene, Oregon:- make of it what you will......

A Lincoln B Lincoln Dale E Lincoln 37 yrs old David M Lincoln 32 yrs old Herbert E Lincoln 70yrs old Herbert L Lincoln 33yrs old J Lincoln James (Jim) Lincoln, 61 yrs old Leon E Lincoln 61 yrs old Robert D Lincoln 55 yrs old Samuel A Lincoln 41 yrs old

There are no more James or Jim Lincolns in the county (Lane) other than the one above.

As for the rest of Oregon.. the oldest is a fellow of 82, in Gresham, Oregon.

There are some without a birthdate as well, but whether they are mistakes, or the man himself, I do not know.

Well, that's the evidence......

Richard J

While I believe that Jim Lincoln is a fake, your searches shouldn't be misconstrued as comprehensive. Many people are unlisted in phone books. What search source are you using?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I never ever claimed my research was COMPREHENSIVE, Robert, please don't start this sniping AGAIN, I'm trying to let this unecessary unpleasantness go & work on resolving the issues. All I did, as requested by SRwiki, was check the US Public Records at a number of different sites. The above was what came up. I didn't suggest anything, delete anything, just presented some evidence on this case, for people to digest. What they do with that evidence is up to them..

My suggestion is he is a fake, but I'm not sure, and can't conclusively prove anything. But I can at least put supporting evidence for a case for & against, surely? After all, there's more evidence there above than a lot of WWI veterans have (say Raymond X for example).

But really the question we should all be asking is what evidence is being found to further SUPPORT his original claim and is that consistent with everybody else on this list?

Richard J


Perhaps a phone call placed to the bar may shed some light on the subject. The owners or employees may have some information, as well as the writer of the article. Perhaps Mr. Lincoln himself will be there when you call, and questions could be asked to him directly. --Brianmccollum 05:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry folks I realise I have been leading people up a blind alley here, The original citation: http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/06/28/d1.cr.108yearold.0628.p2.php?section=cityregion contains an interview with the man himself. I still don't believe it though, especially as there doesn't appear to be a record of a Jim Lincoln of the right age in the county.SRwiki 08:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe Jim Lincoln is real...but part of the justification for validation can be had by exposing fakes. So, if someone talks a tall tale and claims to be an extraordinary age and a WWI veteran, the idea is to blow the bubble out of proportion until it bursts (like Merlyn Kreuger). Eventually someone somewhere should find the time to track this man down and get to the bottom of this.

The point of having someone in the footnotes that may be a fake is not simply to give them a chance to prove it. It is also there to keep a watch on, and to be informative (otherwise someone several months later will say "hey guys look I found this new case"). Think of a "WANTED" poster...a "person of interest" wanted for further questioning.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 17:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Polish veterans

Hello there. I'm Polish. I've checked Polish websites and made some changes to the article. The previous main source, i.e. http://dersdesders.free.fr/pologne.html has mistkaen information on Kos surname and Wycech date of birth, there is a lack of Polish fonts. I've searched for Stanisław Soliński, but not a single information exists except for Polish Wikipedia pages, but those are based solely on this English Wikipedia article and http://dersdesders.free.fr/pologne.html webpage. While reading about weteran quests on wars anniversaries I've realised that Stanisław Soliński might have never lived, or might have deceased years ago, so I'm deleting his entry here.

So that's it? Does anyone know who this annonymous poster is? The regular posters had resolved to move Stanisław Soliński to the Limbo category for the time being until further information could be found. Being Polish does not give one authority or license to delete an entry. --Brianmccollum 06:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
By a strange coincidence I posted this to the Stanislaw Solinski thread yesterday.
If you look at http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weteran whoever is keeping track of the Polish veterans on this list also thinks that Solinski died 2005, fairly strong circumstantial evidence I would have thought, after all a Polish speaker is more likely to have spotted an obituary in a Polish paper, then us largely English Speakers here. SRwiki 10:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 10:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC) I think the evidence is building that Mr Solinski is probably deceased (or the new possibility that he never existed) SRwiki 07:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Stanislaw Solinski "existed" alright, but whether he was ever a WWI veteran was never confirmed, which makes it even more bizarre he should've been in the main list. (Look about half-way down) http://www.dziennik.krakow.pl/public/?2004/02.11/Podkarpacie

Anyway, it looks, like FINALLY he is off the list, like he should've been ages ago, and it seems I was justified all the time in suggesting he died in 2005. I hope my credentials are a little more "justified" now.....

Richard J

Oh please. How can a 2004 link prove that someone died in 2005? Preposterous! In 2004, 2005 hadn't occured yet. I'd rather delete Solinksi entirely than to completely make up a 'convenient' death-date.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the two above comments were badly edited by Statistican here Robert. The 2004 link was shown as an example that Solinski existed, not when he died. The comment that he had gone in 2005, was originally related to the polish Wikipedia page, that lists him as dying in 2005.

I think it would be fair to have read the thread at the time and in whole rather than resort to namecalling & rudeness later on. To be fair to you, it was badly edited but a moment's thought by you would've helped try & resolve the issue rather than cause any more bad feeling here.


Can somebody translate the link? Now he's listed as being in limbo. Can't the link solve the problem? Statistician 06.02.2007 13:18 (CET)

[[1]] 2 February 2007

  1. Józef Kowalski
  2. 2 February 1900-
  3. 107 years old —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.181.75 (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

If possible, could you translate the article?

Yes, I can. Unlike Jung, this guy does appear to be a WWI vet...

Oldest inhabitant still gets around.Joseph is a inhabitant of rest home. He need a wheelchair, and has poor sight & hearing, but it is possible still for him to communicate and be communicated to. Mr. joseph is great company, and is lucky, as he has a big bunch of co-inhabitant of other members of the rest home with him always, and can count on frequent visits from his family near by. His secret to long life is not to worry so much.

Joseph was born in village of Kowalski Wicyn on 2 february 1900. He was in combat near the end of first world war with bolsheviks. In WW2, he was in captivity. Then after that he moved to Przemysławie Lubuskie, where he worked as a farmer. After ill-health he moved to the rest home, which houses over 200 people, many of whom are now over 100 years of age.

Cheers, Richard J

The polish Wiki doesn't list Kos, Józef & Wycech, Stanisław. Does anybody know why? Statistician 02.02.2007 20:33 (CET)

Could someone add this fellow to the list then, please? Since the tables were brought in, it's become mighty difficult to add people. He seems to have more credence than some of the US veterans, for a start.

Aarne Arvonen

If you read this: http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20020806IE7 Absolutely nothing in there to suggest he is a Veteran. Thoughts anyone? SRwiki 18:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The article appears to suggest he is a war veteran of the Finnish Civil War, but not of World War 1. But when it says recruited to work in St. Petersburg, would this be "recruited" as in a job, or "recruited" as in the army?

What I will say though is there seems to be an awful lot of adding "veterans" on just because they're male, and over 105.......

Given that the article says he was taken on a six month contract I would go for recruited for a job. If you dig round some of the links It is mentioned this was after the Russian revolution SRwiki 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

He is a veteran of the Finnish Civil War, according to a Finnish correspondent. However, it could be argued that this is part of WWI (after all, the war began in 1917, when Russia was weakened due to German attacks). So he served before the Armistice.

Thoughts?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 19:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can find someone who speaks Finnish, and can translate the Finnish wiki-article at http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarne_Arvonen Statistician 02.02.2007 20:33 (CET)

I found a translator (into German): "> Ensimmäisen maailmansodan aikana hän oli linnoitustöissä > Venäjällä.

Im ersten Weltkrieg war er in Festungsarbeiten in Russland.

> Vuoden 1918 sodassa hän oli punaisten puolella ja joutui > vankileirille Tammisaareen.

Im Krieg des Jahres 1918 war er auf der Seite der Roten und kam in einen Gefangenenlager in Tammisaari."

In English: In WWI hier work on a fort in Russia. In the war of 1918 he was on the side of the Red and came in a prison camp in Tammisaari (Ekenäs)."

-> He isn't a WWI-Veteran. Statistician 03.02.2007 0:45

But is he a veteran? Of the Finnish Civil War, which could be thought of as part of WWI? After all, the French and Indian War in the American Colonies is considered part of the Seven Years War in Europe→ R Young {yakłtalk}

Likewise, the War of Jenkins' Ear is said to be part of the War of the Austrian Succession even though it started first.

Rather than state things in unequivocal terms, it is better to state the facts and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.

Did Clement Ader invent the airplane? Hmmm...what about Gustave Whitehead? When you consider that the Wright Brothers were only considered the 'inventors' of flying after bribing the Smithsonian in 1948, and that the 2003 model replica failed to fly, we can see that 'history' is not facts but INTERPRETATION.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Back to topic, can we consider this man a veteran of the war or not? Many of you regulars here know a great deal about this time period, so maybe we could all take a few days to review and research and then come up with a valid conclusion. Can we consider these Finnish battles as part of the war? How has this (Finnish)war been treated in modern history thus far, as I can't believe this is the first occasion that such an issue has presented itself? I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say. Despite whatever arguments that may have arisen thus far, if this old soldier deserves recogintion as a WWI Veteran, then we have a duty to see that he is properly recognized on this page. This should be an interesting discussion, but, as goes without saying, please site facts and sources.--Brianmccollum 07:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Going aside from the off-topic nonsense from Robert Young, which has no place here, it is quite clear that Arvonen is a veteran of the Finnish Civil War, but not of World War 1. In that case, that would put him in the WWI era section, along with Charles Brunier.

Anyone with that small of mind shouldn't even be in this discussion. So, you think who invented the airplane is not debatable? Please. Even Louis Epstein agrees that Gustave Whitehead flew before the Wright brothers. Taking a larger view, if you fail to see the analogy between, for example, the French/Indian War is to the Seven Years' War as the Finnish Civil War is to WWI, then I suggest you need some refresher courses in both logic and history.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 23:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Who invented the aeroplane is indeed worthy of discussion. Just not here, in what I remind the author is a discussion on World War 1 veterans. I can see the analogy but there's simply no need to go into depth about something that has no relevance at all in this discussion. Who cares what Louis Epstein thought about the first flight when we are discussing Finnish veterans for goodness sake???? Interesting also that you talk about a good debate and that name-calling is the last bastion of a losing argument and you sign off with a suggestion that people should learn their history as they're ignorant.. Hmm.. Pot Kettle Black....

Might I add, a good debate isn't simply about right and wrong but each side should learn something from the other, and give some ground when the other side deserves credit. Again, name-calling IS the last bastion of a losing argument. So, calling historical analysis 'nonsense' lowers the debate for everyone. Claiming it is 'off-topic' is even further from logical.

Taking a larger view, check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk

If we don't want him as a WWI vet, then at least a WWI-era vet. How can the US consider American Expeditionary Forces in Russia WWI veterans, but we can't consider Finns in the Russian Empire as WWI vets? Also, even the name 'Finnish Civil War' is a misnomer, as it is more a struggle for independence from Russia, which was an opportunity that arose from the confluence of Germany's attack on Russia, the Bolshevik revolution, and the deep dissatisfaction with many with the world's largest land empire, a polyglot assemblage made by force and ruled through fear.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 23:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Finnish Civil War isn't a part of WWI, but a result of WWI and the Russian Revolution. I would give him extra credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_last_events#Finnish_Civil_War

Okay: I agree. Extremely sexy 16:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We claim it is a "world" war, but we don't even include all of Europe? Had Germany not attacked Russia, the Finnish Civil War wouldn't have happened. And it happened before Nov 11 1918.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 23:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You are probably correct that if Germany hadn't attacked Russia the Finnish war would not have happened, but then again you could say exactly the same about the Second World War, which would not have happened without the First World war, or that the First World War wouldn't have happened without the Franco-Prussian war of 20 odd years earlier, or that the Franco Prussian war would not have happened without.... and so on. Everything has cause and effect, no war exists in a hermetically sealed bubble. but in order to make some sense of what has happened it is necessary to seperate conflicts out by Chronology, combatants etc. Looking at the Finnish Civil war (or independence war - I am trying to be neutral here)it appears we have a province of the Russian Empire attempting to Seccede, and the war is fought almost entitrely between internal pro and anti forces. World War 1 era? - certainly, a part of World War 1?, personally I don't think so SRwiki 09:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article, written by someone other than me:

The Finnish Civil War was a part of the national and social turmoil caused by World War I (1914-1918) in Europe. The war was fought from January 27, 1918 to May 15, 1918, between the forces called the "Reds" (punaiset) led by the People's Deputation of Finland under the control of the Finnish Social Democrats, and the forces called the "Whites" (valkoiset), led by the Senate of Vaasa representing the Senate of Finland formed by the bourgeois parties. The Red Finland was supported by Soviet Russia, and the White Finland by the German Empire and Swedish volunteers.

Hmmm...so Germany supported the 'whites' and Russia the 'reds.'

Saying the Finnish Civil War isn't part of WWI is like saying Afghanistan isn't part of the "War on Terror."→ R Young {yakłtalk} 23:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree...in that case do we include veterans of the Russian Revolution? Czolgolz 02:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. I was thinking about that, too. :) The First World War ended in Russia in 1917... the Finnish Civil War after that. If the Russians wouldn't have fought with the Germans, the Germans don't Lenin back to Russia - so is the Russian Revolution a part of WWI? I don't think so. There were a lot of fights after the WWI as results of the WWI, but not part of WWI: Polish-Soviet War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lithuania#Freedom_wars_.281918-1922.29 Statistician 06.02.2007

What exactly do you mean with "the Germans don't Lenin back to Russia"? Extremely sexy 12:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot "send": "the Germans don't send Lenin back to Russia".

Statistician 06.02.2006, 15:54 (CET)

So in fact you really meant "the Germans wouldn't have sent Lenin back to Russia", right? Extremely sexy 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Statistician 08.02.2006, 01:48 (CET)
Got it, man. Extremely sexy 11:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, include civil wars in Africa being fought between 1914-1920, then. In fact any wars before 1924.......

There were German troops fighting for the "Whites", Russian troops fighting for the "Reds", some possibly in the very same trenches with Aarne Arvonen. Are those Germans and Russians WWI-veterans ? If they are then Aarne Arvonen is as well, don't you think ?

I think this depends very much on who we think of as WWI-veteran. The Finnish Civil War was very much part of a greater picture but is not as well known as eastern or western front as it seems. On both sides there were international troops supporting their interests. There were Russian and German troups taking part in fighting. I am sure You and most of us would consider these soldiers serving in Finland as WWI-veterans. Aarne "Arska" Arvonen was serving with the "Reds" side by side with Russian soldiers, maybe against his will but anyway he was there. They lost making this "Finnish front" as perhaps the only scene in WWI were the German side did win in the end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War describes well the involvement of German and Russian troops.

I think it could be discussed a little further what does it mean to be a WWI-veteran ? What restrictions for the definition there are ? Are some of the war scenes not counted in ? Is it that someone serving the Red Finnish Army cannot be classified as WWI-veteran ? Is this only because he is not serving the Russian Army ? Even when the Russian soldiers may have been in the very same trenches at the same time ?131.96.70.164 01:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: I didn't write the above, I just copied/pasted what a Finnish correspondent e-mailed me.131.96.70.164 01:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but I think, our working definition of a Vet includes soldiers of a combatant nation, regardless of where they where, I would hazard a guess that a fair few British soldiers spent the war guarding some rock or other in the Indian Ocean, but for our purposes we would count them as WW1 vets, solely on the basis of being in uniform, for a relevant country. Not entirely sure if that answers the question, but in the case of the German intervention in Finland, a case could be made that they where furthering the aims of Germany in WWI (i.e. to get the Russians permanently out of the war), so they are WW1 vets, but the same may not apply to the Finnish fighters.

It's a bit messy, I agree, but simultaneous does not always mean the same as to go off topic a little: the UK has fought several simultanous wars, e.g. The Second Afghan War (1878-1881), and The Zulu War (1879), but no-one would argue they were the same war. So in this case you could argue that Germany was fighting two wars, and then argue whether any German soldier who only fought in the Finnish Civil War, should be considered a WW1 vet or not, but given the relative brevity, and number of German troops involved, I suspect this would have amounted to no more than a handful of German troops, - but if one ever came to light, then it make for an interesting debate SRwiki 12:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference, however; the Zulu and Afghans were not a united enemy. In both WWI and the actions in Finland, Germany was fighting the Russian empire, so they were fighting the same enemy at the same time. I believe that at least constitutes being a WWI-era veteran, and some could view the conflict as part of a whole. The only connection between the Zulu and Afghans would be a larger concept such as "British Imperialism" (like the "War on Terror") whereas the other had common enemies (Germany vs. Russia, Germany vs. Russia) at the same time131.96.70.164 01:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The WWI-Era is getting a bit messy. I know it was talked about quite a bit last year. I was for having an Era listing, but wonder how far it should go. I am comfortable to have a cut off date for USA veterans as being 11-11-1918, and for the USA Era veterans extend to 6-28-1919. The USA veteran Era would be extended to those US veterans that went to Russia to fight during the end of WWI and after, but of those 5,050 they are all deceased, and as for the US Vets that went to Siberia I believe all of these soldiers are deceased (if any of them are alive the VA considers them WWI vets, and they are allowed a WWI victory medal). That is only my opinion of how the USA vets should be counted. AS for some of the other countries it is a bit messy. I kind of like the Era section and even the limbo section and unverified. This gives us a heads up. The main thing that bothers me is adding and removing those from the main list without either a document to verify a date they were in the service, and to move one out when we cannot find a newspaper stating the person has died. I think the Era section can and probably will be a can of worms, but it gives us something to work with to make sure no official WWI vet has been left out. I really think we need to be strick about the main listing. I also think it would be a good idea to list any special atributes as for example Mr. Mayne being the last British officer (probably the last allies officer for sure), and if they were only in training or saw combat. We have decided that it does not matter if they were only in training, and I am fine with that, but if we know for sure lets list that on the side. (PershinBoy) 63.3.7.2 05:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I always suspected it would get a bit messy, the next challenge will be when possible claims are unearthed from conflicts where most (if not all) of the combatants were not part of an organised army as such. Still should make for some interesting debates SRwiki 09:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If we cannot agree that Aarne is a "true" WWI vet, how about adding a heading "Finnish Civil War" ? Aarne does differ from US vets under heading WWI era veterans in many ways. He was at the front before the rmistice, along with some "true" WWI vets unlike none of the US vets in the category. Could you live with this ? Also, if you think of the description "Veterans, for the purposes of this list, have been agreed to be those that were members of the armed forces of one of the nations involved in the War, up to and including the date of the German Armistice that ended the War on 11 November 1918. Other WWI-era veterans are listed separately. This policy may vary from the policy in actual use in some countries", one could very well think of Finland as a combatant nation. There, the peace treaty wasn't signed before October 1920 in Tartu, Estonia. Please look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tartu_%28Russian-Finnish%29.

What do we mean by World War I Era?

Morning All, now that Arvo has re-appeared on the list, I think we need to get more of a handle on what the term "world war 1 era" veteran means for the purposes of this list. Originally it appears to have merely followed how the US defines a world war 1 veteran, but as far as I can see it's definition is slowly expanding, not that I have a huge problem with this, currently we have two claimants from French Syrian expidition, and from the Finnish Civil War (or war of independence depending ou your view) but there are other conflicts that fall into this era, most of which are a product of the end of the war, (e.g. Russian Civil War, Greco-turkish war, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1900%E2%80%931944 for a fuller list. If we are to have a world war 1 era veteran, category then we would have to include veterans from a whole slew of minor - mostly European Conflicts arguably going up to the 1924 Georgia uprising. I am just wondering if other people are OK with sort of thinking, as we could end up with dozens of names on the World war 1 Era list - assuming people track them down in the first place.

In the meantime I have moved Charles Brunier and Arvo into the WW1 era list.

Thanks SRwiki 09:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, new user interested in this subject. Why not a "world war 1 era" catergory including related conflicts worldwide through 1919, and cut there, since the recent US "WW1 era" veterans included joined the armed forces not later than 1919. No need to go up to 1924.

I would also like another Finnish civil war participant added to the list, Lennart Rönnback, b. may 21,1905. He joined the finnish fight for freedom before his 13:th birthday & his first active fight was to help unarming the Russian troops in Vaasa Jan 28, 1918. See swedish language article http://www.vasabladet.fi/story.aspx?storyID=581819 Regards, Hepcat65 07:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Before we add him, can some-one translate the article in question? my natural reaction is to treat any claim to have been a boy soldier with fair degree of caution, we think William Olins claim to have been a 13 year old soldier, is wrong. I would treat a claim to have been an even younger combatant, with even more suspicion. Don't get me wrong I don't doubt boy soldiers have and regrettably still do exist, but any claim appearing out of the blue some 90 years after the event, needs to be approached with caution.

I would also treat the story of disarming Russian Troops in Vasa, with some scepticism, as far as I am aware Vasa was firmly in the grip of the White Finnish forces from the start, so I am a little sceptical about whether there where any Russian troops there to be disarmed. I must stress again, it could have happened, but i think a bit more proof is required.

On a more general note, I chose the 1924, at the Georgia uprising is the last gasp of the unrest to have engulfed Russia in the wake of the Revolution. But it also highlights the problem, that we could end up with lots of very difficult to dis/prove claims from small, poorly recorded wars, involving non-regular combatants 86.129.202.51 10:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was proper to include the Finnish Civil war in the "ww1 era" since it took place before the armistacle.. the Georgia uprising seems a bit late. Here's my translation of interesting parts of the article about Lennart Rönnback ; "Lennart Rönnback had not even reached his 13:th birthday when he, as a member of Böle protection unit took part of the disarmament of the Russians in Vaasa January 28, 1918. He would actually not have been allowed to carry firearms, but did it nevertheless. He borrowed one revolver of a villager.

But it did not come to use. It lay all the time safely in the pocket during the fights, he says. Rönnback came there with his group, transferred to strengthen the so called Gerbykolonnen with the archipelago inhabitants. But nowadays, few details from that january Sunday is retained in his memory.

Lennart Rönnback was born May 21, 1905. His mother died in 1913 and when also his father went in 1918, he had to move to his uncle in Böle. During the nervous days of the war of independence, he served as a guard as many other boys.

From my uncle I borrowed a Grafton gun. But I got only one cartridge. And my uncle was most anxious about the Grafton gun wouldn't end up in the Russians' hands, he says with a big smile. A strong memory from the freedom war concerns the sight of Onni Kokko lying injured with bandage around the head at the hospital in Vaasa. Kokko was adjutant to the lutennant Oskar Peltokangas from Brändö. Rönnback remembers that he admired Kokko for his bravery and he therefore decided to visit him at the hospital where he lay injured. He can not have been more than 14 years old, Rönnback says. On this point (Finnish historian) Nils Erik Nykvist in Vaasa can add that Onni Kokko was fast as a weasel and very popular among the men. Both Kokko and Peltokangas was fatally injured in Tampere March 25, 1918. Both lies buried in the heroes graves in Vaasa."

Extra material on child soldiers in the Finnish civil war: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:LimingaSoldier13years.jpg "13-year-old child soldier Onni Kokko from Liminka. The child fought on the white side of the Finnish Civil War in 1918. Such child soldiers were commonplace on both sides." Hepcat65 13:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair play to you, it appears as though child soldiers were common, so I can't really argue against his inclusion as WW1 era vet SRwiki 13:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Does the French government only recognise western front veterans?

I have just found a site that has a picture of the French Medal struck for those involved in the Gallipoli campaign - http://www.diggerhistory2.info/graveyards/pages/equip-uniform/fr-medals.htm - go about 3/4 of the way down. So I am just wondering how did it come to pass that the French government only officially recognises Western front veterans, can any one shed any light? Thanks SRwiki 16:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Franz Künstler

Someone keeps changing my correction with respect to German resident Franz Künstler. He is an Hungarian citizen residing in Germany. He served for the Austro-Hungrian forces and later moved to Germany. I can´t tell when he moved to Germany, but I know for sure he kept his Hungarian citizenship. He is the final survivor of the Austro-Hungarian forces.

Okay, but can you prove this? Extremely sexy 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back. The Name "Franz Künstler" is a typical German name, and so, without proof I don't know why it should be changed. Statistician 12.02.2007 1:16 (CET)

I found the following two articles:

http://www.niederstetten.de/aktuell/archiv/archiv01.html "Über den im Jahre 1900 in der Nähe von Temeschwar geborene Ungar berichtet am Montag, 7. August zwischen 18.45 u. 19.45 Uhr die Landesschau unter SWR."

http://www.fnweb.de/archiv/2006/m09/11/me/region/20060911_f0b1154001_24406.html "Geführt werden die Besucher seit nunmehr 30 Jahren von Franz Künstler, dessen Geschichte ebenso interessant erscheint wie die des Museums. Geboren am 24. Juli 1900 in Soost, Ungarn, wurde er gegen Ende des zweiten Weltkrieges aus seiner Heimat vertrieben. Seit 1946 lebt der inzwischen 106-Jährige nun im alten Pfarrhaus direkt am Schloss." The first one says "born Hungarian", but the second one writes that he was dispersed after WWII - like many people with German origin at that time... So, it sounds to me that he is what we call in Germany a "Spätaussiedler" (= people with German origin who come back to Germany after some generation - normally they achieve the German citizenship when they come to Germany). I will do some research. Statistician 12.02.2007 1:28 (CET)

I believe that too - if he was born with that name in Temeschwar in "Siebenbürgen", he is most probably a descendant of the "Siebenbürger Sachsen" who came from Germany some generations before.

I've phoned a woman how works with him. She says that he was born as a German-Hungarian and was dispersed, because he was German. She thinks that he has the German citizenship, but will talk with him to prove that - but that will need some time, because we will have to solve this with letters. Statistician 12.02.2007 13:02 (CET)

I was wondering if Franz Künstler really is the final survivor of the Austro-Hungarian forces. Could it be that he served for the German forces instead, given he is a German-Hungarian? (unsigned comment)
Hungary was a part of Austria-Hungary, and so he fought for Austria-Hungary. What's the problem about that?

Statistician 19.02.2007 3:16 (CET)

Beyond which, since the Empire collapsed by war's end, any other Imperial soldiers surviving would by definition be on that list, but no one else is. That aside, the question doesn't make a lot of sense. Look at WWII, where ethnic Japanese fought for the United States, ethnic Germans fought for the Soviet Union, etc., etc., etc. Ravenswing 20:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Last U.S. combat veterans

Greetings,

I question the assertion that Howard Ramsey is the last U.S. combat veteran.

First, let's not forget that, technically, those who served in the Navy could have been torpedoed by U-boats, so Lloyd Brown could be considered a combat veteran.

Second, Frank Buckles did go to France: http://www.talkingproud.us/HistoryWWIVets.html.

I'm not going to argue that escorting German POW's was that dangerous, but Howard Ramsey drove supply trucks, not exactly an infantry position itself.

So, I think even among the term 'combat veteran' we need to separate those very few who served on the front line, in the line of fire, from those working logistics/operations that incurred some risk but not extreme risk.

Obviously, Harry Patch and Henry Allingham may be said to have incurred extreme risk. Any others come to mind?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 06:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The real point I'm making is that the first thing people have when they think of 'combat veteran' or WWI is the trenches. Given how dangerous they were, relatively few survived in proportion to those who performed the still-vital but less risky tasks of supply. In a sense, Mr Pierro could be seen as the last 'real' US combat veteran. Even he usually was part of the 'supply' team but hearing some of his stories...such as being ordered to pick up live shells and him nearly getting hit by another, makes me think that Pierro, even if not an infantryman, still was close enough to the front to have experienced signficant danger.

A few years ago, Alfred Pugh claimed to be the 'last combat-wounded WWI veteran' (at least from the U.S.). Of course that was overstated. But the recent deaths of Maurice Floquet (Nov 10 2006) and Robert Meier (Jan 29 2007) (both combat-wounded veterans) makes me wonder if any of the remaining veterans were wounded by enemy fire. There is a chance there may be a few; the point here is, can we identify these people so they can get the recognition they deserve while still living, not after they have passed on and been overlooked. 65.81.28.227 17:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thought: ironic that Charles Brunier was wounded in combat! He was a hero and awarded medals as such (in both world wars). But he was also a 'villain' for killing someone. So he is disqualified from 'icon' status, but as for historical facts, his place needs a little more research but most agree he was wounded in action.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 17:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry Patch certainly WAS injured by enemy combat, that's been well chronicled. Whether he's the only remaining veteran who is, maybe others can confirm? Richard J

Ok, I do think Antonio Pierro was the last U.S. veteran that had really served on or near the front lines. Even Mr. Pierro wasn't an infantryman, but went to the front lines to retrieve dead bodies, itself a dangerous job. Howard Ramsey drove trucks (still dangerous but far less so than the 'front line'). It seems we have a sliding-scale here.

With the bursting of the US. age bubble (Emiliano Mercado Del Toro, Moses Hardy, George Johnson, Ernest Pusey, Antonio Pierro) and numbers bubble (dropping from 13 to 6 since Nov 11 2006), there certainly isn't much left for the U.S. WWI vet fans to cheer for. Italy is back in the lead again with 7....→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Italy leads? I think you'll find it's Britain - Choules, Young, Lucas, Bolaise, Allingham, Patch, Mayne, Stone, Powers - 9. Though it must hurt you to give Britain credit for something, Mr Young. (unsigned comment)

One would think that you would bother to SIGN your posts. Note that this article lists persons by residence, and using that standard, Italy leads with 7 veterans. If you choose to list persons by place of birth, don't forget that Ponticelli and Tuveri were born in Italy and last I checked, 7+2=9. So, Italy leads. It may hurt you to admit that a nation with far fewer veterans to start with has been the equal of the mighty Brits...that is, if you include the disputed Violet Bolaise case. As for England, I'll give you credit for winning Wimbledon in 1936.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: this isn't over until the last veteran passes away. And if you 'win,' you win. C'est la vie.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For a "noted historian", and "well-travelled" person to think that "England" & "Britain" is one & the same is an unforgiveable error. Good thing Alfred Anderson is no longer alive.... How he would have bristled to have been called "English".

But then, what else to expect of a Brit-hater. The War of Independence ended..ahem.. a while back, Mr Young, move on. (unsigned comment)

First off, let me say that as a child I actually 'rooted for' the Tories, because I felt the American educational system was too jingoistic. I in fact take a stand against what I see as TOO MUCH BIAS in favor of one group over another. In the case of WWI vets, we see virtually every UK veteran now listed with their own article, but for the rest of the group, we're surprised to see one story for France, zero for Italy, etc. Hence, it is not about 'hating the Brits' that I'm about, but standing up against the tide of provincialism...seeing one's own group as overly important.

Second, I clearly know what England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, etc. are. This is a TALK page, not a scholarly journal. Personally, I think the real shame is the amount of hate between England and Scotland. But, as I said, "English", because, last I checked, Scotland had ZERO remaining WWI vets while England had nine.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 21:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: hardly surprising that there's so few British veterans left now considering the sheer amount killed in the war. So, if you take that into consideration - the Italians have the most left... Figures...

Greetings, aside from all this, why is Violet Bolaise's service disputed as mentioned above? Her service was verified in 2006, by Dennis Goodwin, the UK's foremost World War 1 expert, and friend & confidante to the remaining British veterans. Surely we're not doubting Goodwin's word, (for if we do, we doubt anybody's word) or have I missed something? (unsigned)

Sounds rather convincing to me. It says her start date is unknown, but isn't only the end date important here? Czolgolz 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
But the problem is whether she served before the Armistice or not, my dear friends. Extremely sexy 22:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to confirm I wrote to Dennis Goodwin at the end of last year, and he confirmed to me that he may have made an honest mistake concerning her start date, and was investigating further. I was the one who noted Violet Bolaise's entry accordingly. You have reminded me that it is about time I wrote to him again. Thanks. SRwiki 09:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, as you should know. Extremely sexy 11:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Louis Lagaurnadie

Should this fellow be on the list at all?

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?act=Print&client=printer&f=3&t=64988 http://jolagier.blog.lemonde.fr/jolagier/2005/10/combien_resteti.html (towards the end) http://seb77.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2006/11/index.html

Both the veteran himself & his government don't consider him a veteran - so why should Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.230.214 (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Greetings,

You should understand that the term "poilus" doesn't really translate well to English. In France, a WWI veteran must have served 3+ months in combat. None of this 'one day on the train' stuff like in the U.S. Even the one saying he is not a veteran said he joined in April 1918. By U.S. standards Lagaurnadie is a WWI veteran...but not by the higher French standards.

Also, let's not forget that sources conflict. Desderers lists Orin Peterson as a US WWI veteran:

4 millions de soldats américains furent engagés dans la guerre 14-18. 100.000 y trouvèrent la mort.

Les derniers survivants sont:

- Lloyd Brown (07-10-1901) : Charlotte Hall (Maryland) ; il servit à bord du navire de combat le USS New Hampshire. - Howard V. Ramsey (02-04-1898) : Portland (Oregon) ; il servit dans l'AEF en France durant les derniers mois de guerre. - Frank Buckles (01-02-1901) : Charles Town (Ouest Virginie) - Anthony Pierro (15-02-1896) : Swampscott, Massachusset ; d'origine italienne, il émigra aux Etats-Unis en 1914 ; il combattit pour les USA en France (à l'Ilse-Aisne, St. Michel, Meuse-Argone). - Jud Wagner (05-09-1899) : Kansas - John F. Babcock (23-07-1900) : Spokane, Washington (US) ; combattit dans l'Armée canadienne. - Coffey J. Russell (01-09-1898) : Ohio - Samuel Golberg (19-03-1900) : il servit dans la cavalerie. - Harry Landis (12-12-1899) : Tampa Bay (Floride) - Charlotte Winters (10-11-1897) : Maryland ; servit dans l'US-Navy - Orin Peterson (27-02-1900) : Washington ; il servit sur le continent américain.

So, which way do you want it?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks. I can see why he is listed, when you take into account others. Fair enough, I just wondered. PETERSON SAYS HE DID NOT JOIN UNTIL POST 11-11-1918...... LET'S NOT GET THAT STARTED AGAIN.


Wilhelm Remmert

I found an unknown German WWI-Veteran. I phoned his family and spoke with them. Sadly there isn't any article at all about him. Statistician 12.02.2007 13:33 (CET)

So, how did you find out anyway, and when exactly was he born? Extremely sexy 13:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We know that he still lives, and normally all German men of 18+ served in the War - not serving was a exception. So I talked to his family and asked them if he was in WWI. This is the same way newspapers confirm this, since there aren't offical lists in Germany. Statistician 12.02.2007 14:13 (CET)

Okay then, but do you know as well where exactly he lives, please? Extremely sexy 15:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just one word of caution: without further proof, I would not be so quick to call veterans like Remmert and Kaiser "second oldest" or "third oldest German man". Not all men of that age served in WW1, for various reasons. For example, there were quite a number of fourth, fifth, sixth... sons who in most cases did not serve because three of their elder brothers did.

Greetings,

Please note that the German Office for Federal Administration maintains a list of everyone in Germany aged 100+. The chances of a case missing aged 107+ is extremely small. However, it is likely that as you said there will be more German underage cases emerging. Part of the problem was that there was a social stigma about the war until very recently. With people like Charles Kuentz and Robert Meier coming forward to meet Allied WWI vets, many of the German vets are finally OK with being recognized.

So, let's suppose someone was recruited at 15 and was born in 1903. Today they would be 103 or 104 years old. Chances are, we won't know about him being a WWI vet unless he lives to 105 or older (when our German trackers are starting to track). So, as I said earlier, there will be WWI vets until at least 2009, probably later.

What we are running out of, however, are WWI infantry/combat-wounded vets, of which very few remain.

Sincerely, Robert Young→ R Young {yakłtalk} 10:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1. It's right that not all German men served in WWI, but the Veterans are selected out of the list of the oldest German men. 2. In WWI it was not possible to serve as a child. Perhaps a 17-year-old boy can serve freely, but Germany didn't recrute them. So we can say that the last Veterans can be found very soon. There wouldn't be any born after 1901 - and 1901 for itself is very unlikely. 3. The official German list of people 100+ isn't what you think. The local registrations send the datas to the Bundespräsidialamt, and the Bundespräsidialamt sends them a letter (for 100th birthdays and every other birthday starting with the 105th), so if the local authorities forget to report them they wouldn't be in the statistics. There are cases not counted in the list... and people that don't work for the government can't take a look at this list... 16.02.2007 11:43 (CET) (unsigned comment)

WWI Era Veterans and Veterans of the First World War who died since 1999

There is another problem with that: someone listed as WWI Veteran in Veterans of the First World War who died in 2007: Lehtinen, Eino. He's a Finnish Civil War Veteran, so he should be listed as WWI Era Veteran. I deleted him from Veterans of the First World War who died in 2007. Statistician 13.02.2007 0:50 (CET)

By the way, someone deleted my text from last night - I think because he/she only restored an older version of the discussion page - so I posted it again (now as a new topic). What do you think about the topic? Statistician 13.02.2007 12:18 (CET)

You are doing a great job, man. Extremely sexy 11:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were going to ARCHIVE the pertinent deleted messages, but I see no archived messages after Jan 18.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 08:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly which messages you are looking for? You can see all articles I've archived on the history page: other articles after that aren't my doing.

Statistician 14.02.2007 16:05 (CET)

So everything has been saved, Stéphane? Extremely sexy 15:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why have all the previous messages been deleted by Statistician? Links like the Stephen Butcher information have gone completely? The last archived message I can see is 18 January, but there seems a heck of a lot missing since then........?

I hope he didn't delete those "solved" cases, since everything should definitely be kept in an archive. Extremely sexy 01:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Statistician,

No one can find these 'archived' cases. Where did they go?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 10:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And moreover, where did he go? Extremely sexy 12:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

They had been saved in the wrong archive, but now they are in the right one. A point to think about: The Finnish Civil War was from January 27 to May 15, 1918, but WWI ended March 3, 1918 for Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty of Brest-Litovsk). So what? Do you really think this is a part of WWI? Country A is fighting against B and starts a war against C: is the war against C the same as the one against B? (unsigned comment)

Would like some more information about Mr. Harry Landis of Florida

It seems to me, from the article I read, his situation is like that of Mr. J. Russell Coffey. He was also in training before the war ended. However, Mr. Landis did not speak out as being a WWI vet. since he was sent home after training, and was not sent to the battlefield. Perhaps he thought 'training only' did not count as being a WWI vet. HOWEVER, it is my understanding that training was before 11-11-1918. If so, he would in fact be a WWI vet. I am hoping there are other cases out there like this, and believe there may be a couple more. I really believe there are more German WWI vets out there, that were not in the fight long, but were veterans in the age range of 13 to 16. Any constructive thoughts more than welcome. 63.3.7.129 07:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)(PershinBoy)

It sounds like Harry Landis would be a full veteran. Mr. del Toro was in training as well when the War ended. I agree with your statement about the German World War I veterans. I feel the same way about Russian veterans. The fact that two veterans of the Finnish Civil War (I would still count them as World War I veterans, having been with the Russian Army) were discovered just now shows me that that there are likely more left that have not been discovered. The same is probably true for the United States as well. (unsigned comment)

I don't think so about German veterans. This was WWI, not WWII. German soldiers of 13-16 for this War are not common. (unsigned comment)
You are correct, I was thinking more of WWII. I do think there are a couple more Germans and Russians out there, and maybe another U.S. vet that doesn't think he counts because he was only in training. 63.3.7.129 16:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)(PershinBoy)

The 1930 census lists Harry Richard Landis as a WWI veteran. Clearly, this is not a case of vanity or age exaggeration. Considering that Mr. Landis's wife is still alive and he is caring for her, I'm sure he is more concerned with her than with his own recognition. The WWI draft lists Harry as drafted in Sept 1918. He reportedly began training (per the reporter) in Oct. 1918 before being sent home after the Armistice. So far no new US vets have been discovered since Mr. Landis, although worldwide we had Mr. Remmert of Germany emerge earlier this month. One French vet still remains anonymous.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Maurice Starkey

What happened to his listing in WWI Era Vets? Did he pass away, or was he just deleted? --Brianmccollum 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

He passed away in December of 2006. (unsigned comment)
Indeed so, a mere six days before his 105th birthday, my dear friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans_of_the_First_World_War_who_died_in_2006. Extremely sexy 17:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry to hear that. Thank you for filling me in. --Brianmccollum 20:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's my pleasure, as you should know. Extremely sexy 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Renaming military 'veterans' to 'personnel'

Am I the only one who was disappointed at this broadside?

(diff) (hist) . . mb Surviving veterans of World War I‎; 01:34 . . (+10) . . Cydebot (Talk | contribs) (Robot - Moving category Lists of veterans to Lists of military personnel per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 2.)

Last I checked, everyone in this list is a former, not current, member of the military. Also, the word 'personnel' sounds so lame and business-speak...human resources personnel. People become simple personnel clones.

Also disturbing was that these re-names were made without alerting any of the list participants...a bad-faith gesture. I suggest someone re-open the discussion and hold another vote.

Or, we could go with the flow and have a blanched version: "Antonio Pierro was the last American personnel of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive." Doesn't work for me.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 07:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I cannot agree more with you, Robert. Extremely sexy 10:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Finnish civil war veterans

Uhm - is the Finnish civil war considered a part of World War I? Is that specific for the Finnish civil war or is any conflict during the time of World War I considered an integreal part of World War I? Gardar Rurak 08:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also - I can accept including Finnish civil war veterans on this page if there are special circumstances which somehow links the civil war to World War I - I don't know enough about either of the two events to know if this is the case. However, it's pointless to write up the names of everybody who lived and fought in a conflict during this time - this would include quite a few conflicts:
While it is certainly fine to keep track of this I wonder if it's really appropriate for this page. When people come to this page they will clearly be looking for veterans with some sort of affiliation to World War I - not the First Silesian Uprising. If this becomes costumary the "Surviving Veterans of World War I" in year 2015 will contain the names of a bunch of World War I era Veterans - and no actual World War I veterans. That's arbitrary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gardar Rurak (talk • contribs) 08:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
Many of those conflicts listed above are intricately linked with World War I, some clearly aren't. The Mexican Revolution, the Xinhai Revolution and the Basmachi Revolt clearly aren't closely tied in to the goings on with World War I. Although the Basmachi Revolt may have started due to the fact the Russians were tied up fighting World War I - the conflict (or ongoing low-level insurrection), clearly wasn't impacted in any way by what was going on in World War I - though many of the other conflicts you mentioned did resolve themselves soon after World War I concluded - precisely because of the resolution of World War I, indicating how closely the nature of their conflict was tied to World War I. It's a good argument to have, but I would argue that conflicts that started and ended based around factors relating to World War I - that are closely tied to World War, I like that - have a fair argument to be called World War I-era in relation to a page relating to World War I itself. The three I listed above clearly don't fit that brief description I believe. jkm 09:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Linked to WWI is not WWI. And again: can somebody show me a historian that counts the Finnish Civil War to WWI?

Statistician 19.02.2007 3:21 (CET)

Well, if any surviviving veterans from the WWI linked wars above up to.. say 1919, can be found - then why not include them in the WW1 era category. Or split the page into one with pure Western Front survivors, and another page with WWI era survivors? I doubt many can be found anyway, so the page doesn't risk being flooded with newcomers. In the 70s there were lots of stories of old men from the Caucasus, up to 150 years old - turned out to be fake identities, using their father's identities to avoid joining the military. But anyway, shouldn't there still be one or two Russian Eastern Front veterans out there? Can anyone who participates here read/understand Russian? (I can't) Hepcat65 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And nor can I. Extremely sexy 19:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find many...if any...veterans of the above conflicts. Certainly some are not relevant and probably have no living survivors. Your point is a 'shotgun' point...throw everything out there and hope something sticks. In the Finnish Civil War, one side was being supported by Germany and the other by Russia, at the same time the main Germany-Russia conflict was going on. Let's not forget that U.S. veterans of the Mexican border conflict are listed as "WWI veterans" (like Samuel Goldberg). Let's not make hypothetical issues. We can deal with each real issue as it occurs.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Floyd Matthews articles

Greetings,

The Floyd Matthews articles clears up a mystery (who was the man who moved from Florida to Alabama?). Note also that Charley Newton Cook and Henry Abram died in Dec 2003, not Dec 2005 as the article states (check the SSDI). One more thing, the article says there are just "10" WWI veterans left in the USA...this from a man who definitely knows the difference between WWI and WWI-era. So, I wonder if there are three more cases out there we either don't know about, or perhaps it is someone like Robley Rex that despite all the excoriation, no one has yet produced any draft or join-date documents for.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 15:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed so, and I posted them, so say "thank you, Bart". Extremely sexy 15:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Lloyd Clemett: oldest Canadian WWI veteran dies

Obituary: Lloyd Clemett, 107 Canadian Press/ Toronto Globe & Mail

TORONTO — Lloyd Clemett was the youngest of a band of brothers to heed the call to battle and sign up to fight in the trenches of the First World War.

The enthusiastic teen set his sights on the battlefields of France, but three older enlisted siblings, his young age and fate ensured his safe return to Toronto when peace was declared on Nov. 11, 1918.

Late Wednesday, Mr. Clemett died in the city where he was born, raised a family and lived for more than a century. He was 107.

His death leaves only two known surviving Canadian veterans of the First World War.

Lloyd Clemett joined the army as a private in the 109th Battalion. The army made him a bugle boy when he enlisted for the First World War in January, 1916.

“It was something you had to do, so you went and you did it” was the explanation he offered when asked why he went to war, his son, David Clemett, said in an interview.

“It's really something that he never elaborated on, he never talked about when I was growing up. It was just a fact, that at some point in time he was in the First World War.”

The only indication that his father had served in the conflict was a brass-bound war chest containing his service uniform, tucked away in the basement of the family home in north Toronto. It was only in recent years that Mr. Clemett shared his war stories with his family.

Like so many others anxious to join their countrymen in the trenches of France, Mr. Clemett told the army he was 18 – the official enlistment age – when he signed his papers in January, 1916.

“He went when he was 16, he got sent over to England and was working with the lumber group over there, doing timber,” said his niece, Merle Kaczanowski. “It was at the very last, when they needed more people, he actually did get shipped over to France.”

Ten per cent of the roughly 600,000 Canadians who enlisted to fight in the war died on the battlefields of Europe, and 170,000 more were wounded.

The war would ultimately claim 15 million civilian and military lives on both sides of the conflict.

Although Mr. Clemett's true age was discovered in England, his older brothers also did their best to ensure that their younger sibling was kept out of harm's way.

“His brothers intervened. They said, 'No, no, Lloyd stays with us, he's not going anywhere,' ” his son said. “I think that's how he ended up in the forestry division.”

When his division was shipped to Aubin St. Vast, France, Mr. Clemett volunteered several times for the front line. The sound of artillery fire in the distance only fuelled his company's desire for combat.

“That made them that much more compelled to go to the front,” said his son.

One month before his 19th birthday, Mr. Clemett received orders to join the others at the front, but fate intervened.

“The day that the Armistice was signed was the day his battalion was supposed to go to the front lines,” David Clemett said.

“Disappointed” at having never seen action in the war, Mr. Clemett returned home and took a job as a railway agent.

A life-long hockey fan, Mr. Clemett played for the Brampton Maple Leafs in the 1920s and also coached a woman's softball team.

He opened a lawnmower repair business and kept it afloat during the Great Depression, married his wife, Catherine, in 1936, and raised two sons in Toronto.

Mr. Clemett finished out his working years as a meter reader and repairman before retiring in 1965.

When his wife died in 1993, Mr. Clemett continued living alone, in their Millwood Road home.

“He was in pretty good physical shape up until about the age of 103,” David said.

“He'd whittle baskets out of peach stones. He'd read a western paperback book every day, bake his own cookies, muffins and bread.”

Failing vision and hearing led Mr. Clemett to move in 2003 into the veteran's residence at Toronto's Sunnybrook and Women's Hospital, where he lived out his remaining years.

Oregon Loses Its Last WW1 Veteran

Oregon loses its last living World War I veteran By Frank Lenzi/Portland Bee

AM 860 KPAM, Feb 23, 2007, Updated 1.9 hours ago

He was proud of his service, but Howard Ramsey hated war. Oregon’s last living World War I veteran has died. He was 108.

Ramsey, America’s oldest known combat veteran, served in France. Dale Potts, commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars post in Tualatin said Ramsey was shaped by his duty during World War I.

“He said ‘nobody should have to go through that hell,’” Potts said.

Ramsey’s job during the war included driving officers up to the frontline and bringing the bodies of dead soldiers back. Ironically, Potts said that the military initially would not let Ramsey join the war effort.

“He didn’t weigh enough,” Potts said. “So he and a buddy, they ate bananas and drank water for a couple days and they went back again and enlisted and…he weighed enough and they took him in.”

Potts said Ramsey could see the humor in almost any situation.

“You couldn’t go away without feeling good about yourself after you talked to him. He was just a great, wonderful guy,” Potts said.

Potts is in the process of planning a funeral service for Ramsey, with veterans from all wars represented.

“I mean he’ll be looking down at us, and the bigger send-off, the better.” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redpepper1952 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC).


Notice this is the last Oregon World War 1 veteran - mentioned in almost every news report. Surely this is confirmation that Jim Lincoln, already not verified in terms of age, military career or in fact ANY verifiable info at all, just shouldn't be on the list at all. I agree that we should be careful not to delete people for the sake of deleting, but in absolute truth, has ANYONE got ANY proof that Lincoln is: a) 108 b) A world war veteran c) telling the truth about anything?

I really don't think we should have him on the list. At least William Olin's age is verified. I can't think of one single good reason why Lincoln should be there, sorry

One, the case hasn't been investigated yet, that's reason enough. You don't execute a killer without a trial first, even if you know they did it. Two, none of these news stories has any clue what they are talking about or any good references in them. Claims that there were '50' US WWI vets is just one example.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would use caution about zapping Olin/Lincoln from the list. True, the news reports state Ramsey was Oregon's last WWI veteran, but what about Florida? When Mr. Pusey died in Nov. news reports came out stating he was Florida's last WWI vet. Then Mr. Landis was found. 63.3.7.129 19:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (PershinBoy)

Babcock and Landis

Apparently John Babcock and Harry Landis have also died => http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2&aid=118907.

To the poster who states "apparently John Babcock and Harry Landis have also died". Nonsense! You base that assumption on a reporter's list that for whatever reason omittes their names, naming only 4 WW1 U.S. Veterans. Better check the facts and information more closely for reliable proof! P.S. I did.. checking the Spokane newspapers. No mention that John Babcock died and the same for Harry Landis. Premature at best. User:Redpepper1952 9:18 27 Febuary, 2007.

Well, Babcock was Canadian, so he wouldn't be listed. Any word on Landis? Czolgolz 20:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Chances are he is still alive, because he isn't on any official list, hence. Extremely sexy 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a reporter's list, NOT a reliable source.

Here is a more reliable source:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/02/08/oldest_world_war_i_veteran_in_massachusetts_dies/

Jim Benson of the federal Veterans Administration Department of Veterans' Affairs, said Pierro's death leaves only seven World War I veterans on VA rolls nationwide. He said there may be three or four additional veterans not on the rolls, adding it is difficult to know with any certainty.

Note that 7-1 (death of Howard Ramsey) equals six.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

In truth, the U.S. wouldn't count Babcock who served with Canadian forces. I wonder if they count Robley Rex or someone we don't know about.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I received an autograph from Mr. Landis in the mail postmarked 2-23-07. He was alive several days ago. Sadly though, if your lucky (as most would think) to live to be 108 or so, the odds of being well one week, and what you will be doing this time next year is up in the air. This note was to just let you know he was alive several days ago. I know Jim Benson will not tell us the names, but is he counting the U.S. Vets. with the same cut off date and such? 63.3.7.1 04:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC) (PershinBoy)

Raymond Guay and the last anonymous French veteran

Greetings,

One of the two anonymous French veterans was revealed as Raymond Guay (Apr 17 1900-Jan 2 2007). It has been reported that the last anonymous French veteran is 'almost 108', indicating birth in 1899.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


Stanisław Soliński has died

I'm Polish. Yesterday I wrote an e-mail to http://www.chorkowka.ugm.pl/, where Draganowa is. They wrote me back that Stanisław Soliński has died in Draganowa on December 6th, 2004.

Thank you very much indeed, dear colleague. Extremely sexy 15:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Robert Young will accept this as proof or not. I don't expect he will apologise to all those he insulted simply because a)they said he was long dead b) he didn't find it out for himself first.

Anyway, thanks again to the Polish contributor for this, and we avoided the potential fiasco of having a dead veteran being "one of the last living" veterans. But as Solinski has twice been removed, and then twice added again, we will wait & see...(unsigned comment)

First of all, thanks to the Polish contributor for finally 'laying Solinski to rest,' metaphorically, if not in reality.

After all this, it turns out I WAS RIGHT...SOLINSKI DID NOT DIE IN 2005. I await the apologies of those who were wrong, but insisted on adding him to '2005' with NO citation and no one even saying that they knew he died.

Second, whoever wrote the unsigned comment...your ignorance is devastating. What do you think LIMBO means? It means we don't know someone is alive, but we don't have a death date. WOW. I never said that Solinski was ALIVE...I said that we don't have a death date, and no one who deleted his entry ever said he died, they only said they 'assumed' he was dead because there was no 105th birthday story. There is an old saying "ASSumptions make ASSES of us all."

If you stopped one moment to realize what I was saying, there would have been no dispute.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Stanislaw Solinski has returned, but it was the same person who added Boris Efimov and Matthew Engh this time...(not me).→ R Young {yakłtalk} 21:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, so he is a ghost who can't find eternal rest before having killed our anonymous contributor. Extremely sexy 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Józef Piotrowski

Does any Polish correspondent know if this man over here has died, and, if so, when exactly?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Unverified cases section

What happened to that section? The American and British sections have been erased. If someone could please fix if that would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.191.145.24 (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I tried, but I made an almighty pigs ear of it. It needs the attention of some-one a bit more IT literate than me. SRwiki 08:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So I will fix this as well now. Extremely sexy 11:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There is still a problem with the listings. Engh, Matthew seems to have resurfaced again, though not formatted properly. Are we still to believe that this is the work of someone playing games, or is this a legit addition by one of the regular posters? Someone who knows more about how to change this, should format it correctly or delete it if need be. --Brianmccollum 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, someone must have been updating the page while I looked at it. Is there any substance to this veteran claim, as his name popped up on here a few months back if you all recall. --Brianmccollum 20:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No, not at all in fact then. Extremely sexy 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Boris Efimov

Hmm, I'm not sure about this case, having googled his name I can find nothing to support World War I service, to quote from his Wiki bio:

"During the First World War, his family fled the advancing German armies and returned to Kiev, where he pursued legal studies, only to be interrupted by the October Revolution and subsequent turmoil. He began to express his emotions through caricatures of politicians, the first of which were published in 1919 and circulated in the Kievian Red Army." There is a big difference between fought with his family and fled with his family

Another quote from a Russian biography (http://www.peoples.ru/art/painter/efimov_b/): "Boris returned to Kiev, completed training in real school, and in 1917 enrolled at the Kiev Institute of National Economy. But completing there for a year, he moved to the Faculty of the University of Kiev.

In interviews with the man himself he makes no mention of his possible war service.

I also don't think that the war service of such a notable person would have gone unnoticed all this time.

In short: he makes no claim, and no biography of him makes a claim either.

Thoughts anyone? SRwiki 08:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a Great War vet to me. Czolgolz 12:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts as well. Extremely sexy 13:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The same guy who added Matthew Engh has also added Boris Efimov to the Veterans list. At best, Boris Efimov may be in the WWI Era Category, but nothing any of us has come across seem to indicate any veteran status at all. Why would someone add two people to this list without any type of citation? What else has this guy changed? --Brianmccollum 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This guy doesn't seem to realize he doesn't have to retype the whole article over each time. Czolgolz 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He is incorrect anyway. Extremely sexy 22:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
You are right. He is incorrect. Someone needs to revert the page back, as it is inproperly formatted. --Brianmccollum 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I see he is back again! Who is doing this? There is absolutely no evidence that Boris Efimov was in the Russian Army, Kievian Red Army or any other army for that matter. He says he was a student, his official biography says he was a student. I doubt if he was ever in uniform as it is never mentioned anywhere. If you have any evidence, please, put it up for discussion, don't just assume that a man of the right age must have been a soldier in World War I SRwiki 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Gladys Powers war service

Just a little snippet: http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/issues06/052106/news/052106nn1.html. If someone could do me a favour and turn it into a reference on the main page, I would be very grateful. SRwiki 08:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I will try to do just that. Extremely sexy 11:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. SRwiki 14:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I did it, and it's my pleasure. Extremely sexy 14:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

John Babcock

A Canadian WWI veteran, living in the USA. Shouldn't he be listed on this page somewhere? GoodDay 23:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

But he is though. Extremely sexy 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I found him. Babcock & Dwight Wilson are recognized (by the Canadian Government), as the last 2 surviving Canadian WWI veterans. GoodDay 00:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
But only Wilson is still living in Canada, hence the confusion, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Jean Grelaud

It has just been reported in French media that this French veteran died on 25 February 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.3.249.137 (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

"Last French Veteran" could be heading for a fiasco

Greetings,

The death of Jean Grelaud means that there is an increasing chance of the last 'French' veteran heading to a controversy. First and foremost, the French government only recognizes combat veterans who served at least three months, and at this point, there are only two remaining: Louis de Cavenave (born Oct 16 1897) and Lazare Ponticelli (born Dec 7 1897). This doesn't bode well for France, considering that both are 109...and one was born in Italy!

In addition, we still have the cases of Louis Legaurnadie (served less than 3 months), Justin Tuveri (actually served in Italy and only lives in France), and a 108-year-old anonymous veteran. True, the issue cases of Raymond Guay and Charles Brunier have disappeared, but now we have a situation where we have five remaining WWI veterans living in France, but one is anonymous (leaving four), one served in Italy only (leaving three), and one served less than three months (leaving two 'official' poilus). But since one of the two was born in Italy, there is only one remaining French, born-in France WWI combat veteran...Louis de Cazenave. And he's 109! What is most likely to happen now? Confusion!

We have also seen these results in the USA, where all the combat veterans have died, unless you count serving well behind the front lines and/or serving on a ship....→ R Young {yakłtalk} 06:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Of course this has already happened in Australia, which has seen the deaths of their last combat veteran, but still has three British vets and one non-combat veteran left...→ R Young {yakłtalk} 07:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Morning All. It will probably be more problematic for us, than for the French government. My bet is that they will stick with the recognised two poilus, even if Mr 1899 outlives them, I can't see them doing a re-run state funeral, instead his emergence is likley to be met with a Gallic shrug, and they will move on. I think the researcher who is keeping this man anonymous in order to embarass the French authorities, is fooling himself, if he thinks the French auhthorities will actually be that bothered. The other two are not relevant in the eyes of the French Government.

Interestingly enough the Australians had their state funeral a couple of years back, when the last veteran of Gallipoli died - and he was a symbol for all the Australian troops - so they managed to avoid these sorts of tricky issues. SRwiki 07:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, Ponticelli has been living in France for 99 years, so, it would take an extreme patriot to deny his Frenchness. Tuveri is no problem for France since he never served for them. If Italy follows the French and Canadian models, then he could cause embarrassment if he outlives all their other veterans. It's a shame for Legaurnadie, but those are the rules. Captain celery 14:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article. However, the last thing stated says it all: those are the rules. At present, France will honor one of the two vets known to have served 3 months+. I think France takes this more serious than the USA, of course, as it was in their backyard. Most Americans don't have a clue that any WWI vets are still living. When I tell people, they are amazed. As for those concerned in the USA about who was the last combat veteran, please show me an article. There was hardly a mention of Moses Hard, the last African American, when he died! 63.3.7.1 03:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC) (PershinBoy)

Franz Künstler

Someone keeps changing my correction with respect to German resident Franz Künstler. He is an Hungarian citizen residing in Germany. He served for the Austro-Hungrian forces and later moved to Germany. I can´t tell when he moved to Germany, but I know for sure he kept his Hungarian citizenship. He is the final survivor of the Austro-Hungarian forces.

Okay, but can you prove this? Extremely sexy 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back. The Name "Franz Künstler" is a typical German name, and so, without proof I don't know why it should be changed. Statistician 12.02.2007 1:16 (CET)

I found the following two articles:

http://www.niederstetten.de/aktuell/archiv/archiv01.html "Über den im Jahre 1900 in der Nähe von Temeschwar geborene Ungar berichtet am Montag, 7. August zwischen 18.45 u. 19.45 Uhr die Landesschau unter SWR."

http://www.fnweb.de/archiv/2006/m09/11/me/region/20060911_f0b1154001_24406.html "Geführt werden die Besucher seit nunmehr 30 Jahren von Franz Künstler, dessen Geschichte ebenso interessant erscheint wie die des Museums. Geboren am 24. Juli 1900 in Soost, Ungarn, wurde er gegen Ende des zweiten Weltkrieges aus seiner Heimat vertrieben. Seit 1946 lebt der inzwischen 106-Jährige nun im alten Pfarrhaus direkt am Schloss." The first one says "born Hungarian", but the second one writes that he was dispersed after WWII - like many people with German origin at that time... So, it sounds to me that he is what we call in Germany a "Spätaussiedler" (= people with German origin who come back to Germany after some generation - normally they achieve the German citizenship when they come to Germany). I will do some research. Statistician 12.02.2007 1:28 (CET)

I believe that too - if he was born with that name in Temeschwar in "Siebenbürgen", he is most probably a descendant of the "Siebenbürger Sachsen" who came from Germany some generations before.

I've phoned a woman how works with him. She says that he was born as a German-Hungarian and was dispersed, because he was German. She thinks that he has the German citizenship, but will talk with him to prove that - but that will need some time, because we will have to solve this with letters. Statistician 12.02.2007 13:02 (CET)

I was wondering if Franz Künstler really is the final survivor of the Austro-Hungarian forces. Could it be that he served for the German forces instead, given he is a German-Hungarian? (unsigned comment)
Hungary was a part of Austria-Hungary, and so he fought for Austria-Hungary. What's the problem about that?

Statistician 19.02.2007 3:16 (CET)

Beyond which, since the Empire collapsed by war's end, any other Imperial soldiers surviving would by definition be on that list, but no one else is. That aside, the question doesn't make a lot of sense. Look at WWII, where ethnic Japanese fought for the United States, ethnic Germans fought for the Soviet Union, etc., etc., etc. Ravenswing 20:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I got some news from Frank Künstler - he answered my letter. :) He served at the italian front from March to November 1918.

I also asked him some questions about his nationality: He sees himself as a german and conected to the german nationality. He was an hungarian citizen until 1946. He don't have the german citizenship but is equated with german citizens. Statistician 23.03.2007 2:42 (CET)

Wilfred Baker

This story popped up on the BBC today, but I couldn't find him on the list. Normally I would assume that it's just an unverifiable case, but it seems odd that the BBC would report on that. Any thoughts? Canadian Paul 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This just goes to show that we should not assume we know 'all' the remaining WWI vets.
There are two options here: one, his claim is real but overlooked; two, his claim is fake and not scrutinized. Perhaps some of our UK correspondents could do some background-checking for us.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, Mr Baker was 'originally from England.' It could very well be he was excluded from the 'Scottish' lists due to that, and from the English lists for not living in England. We have seen that before. However, there remains the chance of a tall-tale as well, though age 106 isn't that tall of a tale to tell. Again, it would be best if a UK correspondent could do some fact-checking for this claim.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 00:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Morning all, he could have been overlooked I suppose. I will keep an eye out for any other obituaries - the national papers here now publish a full obituary for WWI vets, and I would expect The Scotsman would make a note of Scotlands last war veteran dying. Also the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 (for non UK Wikipedians: this is THE national current affairs programme in the UK) now has a short piece on the passing of any WW1 veteran, and they haven't said anything this morning.
The Englishman in Scotland factor shouldn't be a problem as the Royal British Legion keeps tabs on this sort of thing, and they are a UK wide organisation.
If I was to put a bet on it, my hunch is that this is a bit of journalistic licence. But I will keep an eye out, and I will mention him in my next letter to Dennis Goodwin. Thanks. SRwiki 08:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Morning again: I have just found a report from Mr Baker's 106th birthday party at the time over here, where he is described as a WWII veteran - it mentions he joined the navy in 1918, but makes no mention of WWI service, so, I suppose he could have been in training, but he could just as easily have signed up after Nov. 11th. I will see what else I can find. SRwiki 09:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well: I have to say I distinctly do remember that report on him with indeed no mention of possible WWI involvement at all. Extremely sexy 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There is one big advantage regarding Mr. Baker's service compared to many others on our list: anyone with a 30-year military career likely has a detailed service record that should make the research task straightforward, and the facts relatively easy to confirm. Frankwomble 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Wilfred alive or dead? If the BBC have said that he is dead, why has he appeared on the "Unverified, but still living" part ot the article? Mithrandir1967

Where and when did the BBC say that wilfred baker had died? (unsigned comment)

Just look at the beginning of this discussion. Extremely sexy 22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Some overzealous editors see the trees but not the forest...wasting a lot of edits before realizng 'he is dead' and should be on the 2007 deaths list, if anything.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 19:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is perfect, so neither is Robert Douglas Young, right. Extremely sexy 19:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bart, no-one is perfect EXCEPT Robert Douglas Young, I think that sentence should say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.110.220 (talk • contribs)

Or it could be No one is perfect, NOT EVEN Robert Douglas Young--Rye1967 19:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant, dear friends. Extremely sexy 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, Bart, you went as far as to 'correct' my correct spelling of the Ukrainian claimant, Hryhoriy Nestor, on my TALK page. Wow, what dedication. In fact, since the spelling here is probably incorrect, perhaps you could fix it for me.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 13:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Over and done with. Extremely sexy 19:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

shouldn't realy have a go at the person who wrote up the bio for wilfred baker as at least they wrote one up and saved everyone else the trouble. by the way ive written up a few bios and im pretty new to this so would be a help if someone could just look 'em over, i'm only 17 but love learning about World War One veterans so thought i'd try and help others learn a bit more, also harsh criticism will makw me cry so leave it out. so far i've done claude choules, william young, john babcock, russell coffey and dwight wilson so if someone could just have a quick check would be appreciated. thanks. (webbmyster)

Webbmyster, first please learn to use capitalization correctly. Second, more disturbing is that judging from the weblog history, YOU are the person who added Wilfred Baker as 'living' to the list when several people repeatedly indicated that he is dead. Making it appear you are defending some anonymous person, when that person is you, is dishonest. Not listening to others is not a positive trait either. Finally, in regards to your threats to cry in response to harsh criticism and you only being 17: many of these WWI veterans you are reading about joined at only age 15. Some had to eat worm-infested cans of food and pick up dead bodies while being shot at. You do them a disservice by suggesting that mere verbal correction (correction of mistakes, not name-calling insults) is enough to make you cry. If you truly want to honor them, I suggest you toughen up a bit there, chap.

Finally, I will offer a KUDOS for starting the extra articles on Choles, Young, but especially Coffey. That you are adding articles for persons outside your home country is a positive character trait.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 13:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I already did just that, dear webmaster. Extremely sexy 23:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

thanks man hope its all good. am trying to do some of the italian and german veterans at the moment so will have some of those up soon, but finding out where and if they served in combat is proving annoying compared to where they were born and now live. (webbmyster)

It's my pleasure though, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 23:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Webbmyster...keep up the good work, and remember that critizism is designed to improve wikipedia, not belittle you...I once worked on an article for three months, only to have it deleted as unneeded. Remember to type out numerals under twenty (write 'three' rather than '3', except in dates). Also, if you type four tildes ~ in a row on the discussion page, it will automatically sign your name and the time like this: Czolgolz 14:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

ok man. i know how to talk and what words mean, but my computer doesn't automatically do capitals so i cant be bothered to edit things when i'm just replying to fools who take things to seriously. i respect your work and what you do but you shouldn't have a go at people who obviously aren't as good as you in these areas as yourself for just trying something out. also i didn't write anything on wilfred baker as the only link i've found to anything on him, only works on the pc's at college. cheers to everyone for the positive comments, much appreciated and the help with different bits. Webbmyster 09:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So I see you bring out the name-calling. It is not for you to tell other people 'not to have a go at it' when you made the mistake, and then tried to hide it. That is unprofessional. Despite trying to sound 'above the fray,' you just sound plain silly. Claiming to be 'not as good' is no excuse: everyone can be better. But if you are 'not as good,' then wouldn't it make sense to listen to those who are better, more experienced, etc.? So either way, you're wrong. Why not just admit it and move on? Is that too much? As for making too much of it, this wouldn't have been anything if you didn't make such a fuss. So, go look in the mirror. "Simon Cowell"→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you from Australia by any chance? Extremely sexy 20:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Auto-updating

I don't mind an autoupdating age thing, but let's be sure that we have it for everyone, not just Australia.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 19:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I already asked that particular contributor, Robert. Extremely sexy 19:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Just make sure the format suits everyone first before making the change to all the other tables. - fchd 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the autoupdating format is fine, but as Mr. Young states, be sure that we have it for EVERYONE. 63.3.7.1 05:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (PershinBoy)

I have updated the other tables also. If there is a prob with it, it can be reverted, I don't mind. Now that I can see the sortable age for each country, I think it would be better if all 36 vets were in one list so we could sort them all by age. The per-country lists were actually created by me a year ago when there were a lot more vets living.--Rye1967 16:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Great job once again. Extremely sexy 18:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

cheers man thanks. will try it but i'll probably cock it up. nice one the guy who loves having a go at people, i didnt write that article on wilfred baker as i dont have a clue how to find out any information on him as the only link that anyones mentioned about him will only work on the computers at college so i am still 'innocent'. if i had wrote it i'd have admitted to it man. and no worries im not that bad that im gonna cry if you criticise me man just didnt wana seem like some new guy to this who is writing up bio's on people and other people thinking who the hells this and whats he doing. but thanks to the people with the words of advice etc, much appreciated. Webbmyster 19:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs up for you. Extremely sexy 19:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You might be good at making friends, but not at telling the truth, spelling, capitalization, punctation, writing complete sentences, proper grammar, or listening to others. You must be a high-school student. I do not apologize for 'telling it like it is.' If everyone just gave you a pat on the back and said "good enough," would you ever get better?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

oh dear. i don't understand why you get so annoyed by everything that happens, take stuff with a pinch of salt man. Webbmyster 08:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

what's high school? can you not read i wrote college, which i thought would indicate i went to college and im studying music so just incase you want to have a go about that you can! Webbmyster 08:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dan Keating

Whilst looking through some notable people born before 1904, my eyes rested on this fellow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Keating http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/ulster/article1096049.ece http://www.irelandfrombelow.org/site/scriofa/island1-1/island-1-2007.html

He fought in the war between the British & the Irish from 1919 onwards.

Now, I could just add him on willy-nilly to the main site, but I felt this is one for discussion first.

Firstly, he fought in a war in 1919. That's more than say, some of those who joined the US army in 1919 had managed.

The linked article says he joined in 1920, not 1919.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, he fought in a WWI era war, as did the two Finns.

BUT, of course - is this war directly to do with World War 1? Doubtful. Though you could say the battle for peace & for independence IS a indirect result from World War 1.

This would clearly be for WWI-era only, but is there a case for this chap to be included with the two Finns? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.144.231.68 (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I say no...with the Finns, one side was fighting for the Russians, the other the Germans, which makes it at least related to the war...the fight between England and Ireland was a civil disorder, after the First World War was over...There are still veterans of the Mexican revolution who should be included here, otherwise. Czolgolz 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say include him in the World War I-era section. After reading that conflict began brewing in 1916 I would consider this war an indirect result of World War I. (unsigned comment)

You could consider a World War II a direct result of World War I, but that doesn't make it the same thing. Would you consider deaths in the Israeli/Arab war World War II casualties, since that conflict resulted in modern Israel? Czolgolz 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say yes to era-veterans. Bert Clark who died in 2005 who is written up under British veterans though he served in Ireland and not any area considered part of the war, so surely someone from the opposing side should be allowed on the list. Webbmyster 23:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This could get very tricky, as it raises some questions: Some would argue that The Irish War of Independence, never really ended until the good Friday Agreement of 1998, as the Provisional IRA continued what it saw as an armed struggle against British imperialism in Northern Ireland (an extreme viewpoint admittedly, but some would argue this) If so then you could give WW1 era status to all combatants up to that point. It would also open up WW1 era status to the various revolutions that occurred in Europe in the aftermath of WW1.

Personally I don't think the connection between the Irish War and WW1 is solid enough to consider it as a related conflict, it has its own causes and roots that go back centuries, the only connection that I can think of is that the Republicans saw an opportunity to take advantage of the situation, were Britain was otherwise engaged.

One other question it does raise though, is that what is now Eire (Southern Ireland) would have sent troops to fight under the British Flag in WW1 - I just wonder if there are any WW1 vets remaining in Eire. As they could easily have been overlooked SRwiki 07:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In Ireland, any battles between the British and Irish leading to Irish independence are not considered part of WWI. Any Irish nationals who did take part in WWI, for instance with the British Army, are not likely to be 'overlooked' by those that make such lists for the British Isles. If you examine lists of deaths in the early 2000s you will see some listed there.--Rye1967 10:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Theres a problem in that on lists of veterans who have died i've noticed more then 1 who just fought in Ireland and also India. So does that mean we should take them off the list because now we're saying it has nothing to do with WW1 so therefore they shouldn't be on there.Webbmyster 12:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say you have a point there. Extremely sexy 12:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We also have people still alive and also deceased, who were still in training and didn't serve at all. Who's to say where they would have served because we dont know, yet we're still allowing them on the list. Webbmyster 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)webbmyster

The thing is, I think there needs to be a separate section or page here. Is Keating a WWI veteran? No. Is Keating a WWI-era veteran. Yes. Is Stillman Munger (for example) a WWI veteran? No. Is Stillman Munger a WWI-era veteran. Yes.

So why is Munger on the list and not Keating, even though both clearly didn't fight in World War 1?

Could we not have a page for WWI veterans (verified & unverified) and perhaps the start of a page for those that might have fought in the wars in Mexico, Ireland, those registered in the US army in 1919 etc etc (all the wars Robert Young listed somewhere, which was very useful) as a separate section/wiki page? Also it has to be said, with a wider scope, and the likelihood that soon the original WWI veterans will be dead (within a few years), then the opening up of WWI-ERA veterans could be fascinating.

It's an idea worthy of some thought, I would hope, and hopefully won't be simply dismissed. After all, it would be a shame for all this research to just stop when the last WWI veteran goes. 86.144.231.68 15:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the era part should be in another section. Those who don't know WW1 history will be confused. By the way who is the admin. of this page? Is it Robert Young or extremely sexy? Or are there several admins. for this page. Just asking. (unsigned comment)

Essentially, anyone's an admin, but Rye1967 tends to be the one main guru. Bart (ES) does a lot of the cleaning up, Robert Young does a lot of the... (I'm sure there's a better way of putting it, but time is short) putting debates across & new info. (unsigned comment)

Not that my opinion matters but i reckon go with the WW1 era veterans page. Webbmyster 22:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

If someone wants to start a WWI-era page, it should be wikilinked from the 'main article' page along with all the 'related' conflicts. I think, however, that we need to consider that the U.S. soldiers who served in 1919 were recruited directly as a result of WWI, with the intent of pressuring Germany into agreeing to surrender terms, or cleaning up the battlefield, or serving as occupation troops. Also, the Finns listed served in 1918. True, the war in Ireland was related, because the IRA saw an opportunity to take advantage of British weakness. However, this is indeed a murkier claim, in part because Mr. Keating joined in 1920, and the IRA seemed to have waited for WWI to end first to launch their war, so as not to be seen as supporting Germany (the sinking of the Lusitania had turned much of Ireland against Germany).→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite true: there was a pre-match warm up during Easter 1916, but I wouldn't be surprised if, after the Lusitania, the IRA decided that now was not quite the right time. SRwiki 13:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... 'tis murky indeed. Mind, it could be worth a go. I'll look into it & get that war list from the archives & see what (if anything) we know about the survivors of each one. I think it's fair that Mr Keating should not be on this page (WWI veterans), anyhow. I also think that the WWI-era veterans page is one we can look at for the future, I think it's a worthy project. RDJN

I do indeed agree. Extremely sexy 15:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Edwin Lee

Mr Lee probably was indeed a chaplain in World War I, but I think it should be deleted. If there was a man born in 1884 living in 21st century America, then we would have heard about it a long time before now. 130.88.52.112 16:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Captain celery

That's my opinion too. Extremely sexy 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that over half of his life is missing. There's no information about him from after the age of 60, such as a few months ago when he became the oldest human being of all time. He's been the world's oldest person since Sarah Knauss died, so we're going to have to change a lot of our tables. When Robert sees this, he's liable to go crazy. 130.88.52.112 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Captain celery

He already is though. Extremely sexy 16:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as crazy as you, Bart, Mr. Un-capitalizer of everything and self-appointed irritant.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No: you are the one who doesn't understand humour, and you are the one who is calling names: beware for my sweet revenge, Robert. Extremely sexy 15:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Another "helpful" contribution from the person who gave us Boris Efimov a few weeks ago I see! SRwiki 08:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you write "helpful" though? Extremely sexy 10:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Bart doesn't understand SARCASM! Also, the fact that this person would put a case from 1884 (last verified alive in 1945!) in the 'living' section says a lot about how unreliable 'Marcus' is. Absence of evidence is not proof that someone is 122 years old.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Bart, I keep forgetting that not everyone reading here will understand some of the odder ways we use punctuation in the UK - if something is in quotes, it will mean the opposite of what it says - unless it is actually a quote, of course. I will try not to do this in future, guess I was starting to get a bit irritated by some of the stuff Marcus has dropped on us. SRwiki 13:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well: gotcha both then, since I knew that all along (I was being ironic), but Robert hasn't any sense of humour at all, regrettably so. Extremely sexy 15:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Lists of known veterans' deaths by year

I just added another WWI vet to the '2003 deaths' section. Does anyone know how to change the 'deaths lists' totals?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 06:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean right at the bottom? No idea, that was Bart's idea. (unsigned comment)

This is really very ironical indeed: Robert himself made a template for this, and I only updated it. Extremely sexy 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

William Olin

Forgive me for asking, but what happened to this guy? Was he proved a fake? Has he died? Did he even exist? I only ask as normally there is an explanation or a short note on the discussion page when someone goes off the main list... Thanks. RDJN 86.144.231.68 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well: the article about him was discussed and deleted, since there is no proof at all of his alleged service, hence. Extremely sexy 16:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But his case was cited, and isn't that all one needs to make a claim? (unsigned comment)

Apparently there was no citation at all, but I have searched for one, since I was strongly against deletion, all to no avail, however, and so it subsequently was deleted then. Extremely sexy 18:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bart, there's an article here. Are you saying that this was discussed and then decided to delete him as it wasn't proof? Don't get me wrong, I think he is a fake, but his story is as "solid" as Jim Lincoln's. I just don't want to take him off my list unless EVERYONE's agreed he's a fake or someone has proved he's a fake. Cheers. RDJN. 86.144.231.68 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I full agree with you, but why didn't you take part in the discussion at the time, please, and I hope you can still ask for a revision => is the article saved in any way though, and, moreover, the original link has expired, so that's no valid citation, or is it? Extremely sexy 18:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was a discussion. There certainly wasn't any recent mention of him on here. Maybe if people are having discussions about veterans a link could be put on the main page to it, in future? The article can be found at the following URL: http://www.forumeerstewereldoorlog.be/viewtopic.php?t=6174&view=next&sid=e1d04cb7f559c19a6bab38ed86d4e968

But if Olin has been deleted, then Jim Lincoln has to go to. His story, pardon my French, is a complete crock of horse s**t. (unsigned comment)

It was mentioned on the article about him though, and here is a link to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_Olin, but how can you get it restored? Extremely sexy 21:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you should now ask for an undeletion as per this page of request policy. Extremely sexy 22:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't Bart, I'm not a Wikipedia member. But you could. However, with this citation, surely anyone can see that Olin at least deserves his place on the unverified list, along with Lincoln & Bolaise, the other two mmmmmmmmmms..... RDJN

But they really haven't got any article either. Extremely sexy 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(reproduced with original link below)

World War I veteran ponders 102 years • Oldest in Kane Co.: He joined Army at age 13, worked to transport wounded

By Linda Schweitzer SPECIAL TO THE COURIER NEWS

AURORA — Age is only a state of mind for William Olin of Aurora.

The last surviving World War I veteran in Kane County, Olin celebrated his birthday Monday, and he looks much younger than his 102 years.

And it's not the first time the seasoned veteran, born Aug. 28, 1904, has fooled people about his age.

In 1917, when the United States entered World War I, Olin was 13 years old and had a strong desire to support his country. He enlisted in the Army and shortly after was shipped to Bohme, France.

"I was a pretty good size, about 6 feet tall, and they never questioned you," Olin said.

"I told them I was 18 years old. I was a fool kid, and it was too late for my parents to do anything."

Olin doesn't like to talk about the war, but he said, "I did everything. When they asked for volunteers, I would volunteer."

"I chased an ambulance," he added. "I was the mule, and it wasn't what I thought it was.

"Olin's job as an ambulance assistant was transporting the bodies of American soldiers.

"They told me I didn't have to wear sidearms because the Germans had a pact with them that they wouldn't shoot an ambulance. But actually, they used that red band on your arm for a target."

Olin later was shot in the knee and spent time in a military hospital, before receiving a medical discharge in 1919.

After the war, Olin found a job as a mechanic in Aurora, working on cars, trucks and privately owned airplanes. He married three times and had eight children; two are deceased. He claims many grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great-grandchildren.

"I've never counted them, but I've got over 200 from five generations," Olin said. "And I don't know all of their names; but everyone says, 'Hi, Grandpa' and I have to say, 'Who are you? Who is your father?' "

Olin lived in three different houses in Aurora and built two of those homes. He worked for the West Aurora school district for 27 years, taking care of school buses. He left the district in 1974.

"I was 70 years old, and the age limit was 55," Olin remembered. "So I went out to my little farm and raised sweet corn, beans, carrots and tomatoes."

His advice for growing old and wise is to "drink all the whiskey and chase all the women you can," but he admits with a laugh that he didn't do that.

Olin now lives in a supportive living apartment at the Aurora Rehabilitation and Living Center on Farnsworth Avenue. 08/30/06 http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/couriernews/city/3_1_EL30_A3VET_S10830.htm _________________

I eventually found it somewhere in the archives, but to really get and be able to read it you have to register though, which is not free of charge evidently. Extremely sexy 19:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty good citation to me. I think he should be added back onto the list. (unsigned comment)

He has already been readded to the list. Extremely sexy 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'm glad you people aren't judges because you can't seem to separate things well. I nominated the William Olin article for deletion because I felt that, being an unverified claim, he did not deserve a stand-alone article. However, I do feel there should be a mention on THIS page. The purpose of this page is to list not just the verified veterans but also the claimed veterans. We are TRACKING them. Thus, it is not inconsistent to feel that Mr. Olin did not deserve a standalone article but merited at least a 'footnote' mention in this article.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 04:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, William Olin should remian in the unverified section fo this page until his claim can be fully disproved or proven. So far, nothing has been submitted to remove him from that list in any manner. As for his own, self-standing article on Wikipedia? I must admit, I am torn and if there is nothing really substantiating his claim, then it should be deleted. Perhaps another big push into researching this man's claims should be done first until all avenues and parties are exhausted? I'm sure many of you put a great deal of research into this man when his claim was originally presented, but what evidence is there that he did not serve? I admit, his age at the time of the War definitelty raises eyebrows, but obviously there were cases of just such a thing occurring back then. Is there no War Record from the time back then? Nothing even about his hospital stay during the war or anything on any US Census? Is there anything besides his own words (or news articles from his own words) that support his service? --Brianmccollum 10:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well: for starters, there is no William Olin of anywhere near that age at all living in the entire state of Oregon. Extremely sexy 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you might be getting mixed up with Jim Lincoln. SRwiki 08:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Could be, but isn't this also the case for him? Extremely sexy 14:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that's the problem: there is no paper evidence to back up his claims, and if you dig round in the archive for this article, even his descendants think he is talking rubbish. But how can you prove he did not serve? How to prove a negative is one of those tricky philosophical questions, that has defeated a good few better minds than mine. Still, there is a citation, so he needs to be left where he is I guess. SRwiki 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
But there is a fair point here: if the only known citation is some-one claiming it for themselves, should it really count? Olin & Lincoln are substantially different from "Mr. 1899" and Bolaise, as some-one else believes them to be veterans, and we have a fair chance of establishing the truth (I am still waiting for Dennis Goodwin to get back to me regarding Bolaise), whereas with with Olin and Lincoln, every-one else who has looked at their claims thinks they are the proverbial crock, and in the case of Lincoln at least one of his claims - to be a research scientist - is contradicted by the total lack of records at the universities he claimed to have worked in and the lack of any published papers in his name. It doesn't totally disprove his claim: the university has lost his records, he only published in very obscure and now lost journals, etc. But it makes his claim look pretty unlikely to my eyes, maybe we should make a note against both of them that their claim is unsupported by any physical evidence or independent research, or believed to be false. Thoughts any-one? SRwiki 08:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair point once again. Extremely sexy 14:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Bart, William Olin IS the age he says he is. That's been proven already by US public records. The only query is if he is WHAT he says he is - a WWI veteran.

Jim Lincoln, however, there is no proof AT ALL of his age, his birthplace, and indeed ANY of the things he claims. The oldest Jim Lincoln in Oregon is around 80, IIRC.

To have Lincoln on here is an embarrasment, but Olin is less clear cut. I EXPECT he is fibbing, but it needs proving.

RDJN 86.144.231.68 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So then I would definitely propose to undelete the article about him. Extremely sexy 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Del Toro & Pierro

I hated to see these two pass away, it was nice to have a male briefly top the world's oldest person list (del Toro) and Pierro worked at the same GE plant in Lynn as my future daughter-in-law. But it's been awhile, and I'm wondering why they still have a mention in this article. I could perhaps understand it in Pierro's case, as the current oldest WW1 vet inherited that title from him, but I think perhaps the point has been reached for these two names to be removed, given the number of other WWI veterans who have passed away this year without any current mention in the article. Any thoughts? (unsigned comment)

  • Agreed. This article is aboutsSurviving veterans, the opening paragraph should therefore focus on the current survivors as well. --Maelwys 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree the notes on Del Toro should be moved to the died 2007 page. SRwiki 07:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Most of the info on Del Toro could be moved, but his age of 115 is notable as the oldest ever known WWI vet: a useful comparison for the ages of surviving vets. --Rye1967 08:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The opening paragraph has already been changed accordingly. Extremely sexy 11:29, 29 March

2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell he is the oldest known veteran of any war, which would make him even more notable. Does any-one know of any other candidate for this particular honour? SRwiki 07:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The second-oldest verified veteran ever was Antonio Pierro at 112 years and 346 days, or Moses Hardy at 113 years and 335 days (or perhaps third-oldest at 113 years and 335 days). Behind them are Giovanni Frau and George Johnson, at 112. The last Boer veteran, George Ives, died at 111, as did Ernest Pusey. Extensive research on Civil War veterans showed that ALL claims to older than 109 were FALSE, both Confederate and Union. The oldest verified Civil War veteran was James Hard, who died at 109 (claimed 111). Albert Woolson, cited as 109, died at 106. John Salling, said to be 112, was an impostor who was really just 101. Robert Hodges, who claimed to be 115, was really just 106. Even Lloyd Brown, said to be 105, was 104 according to the 1910 census. So, when age inflation is accounted for, Emiliano's record is not challenged. R Young {yakłtalk} 08:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lloyd Brown

Lloyd Brown. Just to let you know, I just received contact from Lloyd Brown's daughter, and he is in the hospital, and not doing well at all. The last six months have been a big blow in numbers with our United States WWI veterans. My thoughts and prayers to him and his family. 63.3.7.129 21:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (PershinBoy)

I'm sad to hear this about Lloyd Brown. My thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family as well. --Brianmccollum 00:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So you also "know" Nancy Espina. Extremely sexy 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering (I did not want to add it to the main listing without asking) could someone add a bio page on Mr. Brown, like it has been done for Mr. Babcock and Mr. Coffey? I also think it should be added that he is now believed to be the last living U.S. Navy WWI veteran (of course looking at the list one could probably deduct this info). 162.114.211.139 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (PersinBoy)

I think "Webbmyster" already did so. Extremely sexy 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

well im trying. ive got some information on him etc and will put it up later. Webbmyster 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)webbmyster

You're doing a great job, "Webbmyster"! 63.3.7.129 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC) (PershinBoy)
I agree: splendid. Extremely sexy 01:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't like to pressume anything so why has Mr. Brown been taken off the list? there is nothing in deaths? webbmysterWebbmyster 21:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well: someone (an anonymous user, by the way) updated his article with the information that he died today, but he or she provided no reference at all to prove this fact, so I'm still a bit suspicious about his possible death, although it had already been announced somewhat in this section yesterday, resulting in Maryland (the only state that still had more than one left) losing both its last WWI veterans in the space of just two days (the oldest one and last woman the day before yesterday, and the youngest one today), if it is true that is, and I guess it is nevertheless though. Extremely sexy 21:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

oh dear. cheers for letting us know man. webbmysterWebbmyster 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's my pleasure though, as you know. Extremely sexy 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He is dead: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/03/last_us_navy_ve.html (unsigned comment)

This is some sad new indeed. In the past few years he had become somewhat of a symbol of the soldiers of The Great War, at least in my eyes, after having participated in the Memorial Day parades in Washington and all. Though he always sounded so humble in interviews and never seemed to think of himself as anything special, he had taken on a role, again in my eyes, as the Grand Patriarch of all US Veterans of all Wars. It was as if, in his later years, he was once again called upon to serve his country yet again in this new capacity, as he had once done honorably as a young man long ago. His passing is sad and he will be missed. --Brianmccollum 11:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Another one down regrettably

Whos name has been deleted from the veterans list taking it down from 36-35 because i can't see hows missing?Webbmyster 10:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC) webbmyster

Charlotte Winters, as she's dead. She's on the died in 2007 page. Also check the history page at the top as it'll say why people have been taken of the list. Thanks, RDJN

i know how to check thanks, but when i went on no one had put her under deaths and she wasn't at the top fo the page!Webbmyster 12:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)webbmyster

Indeed: she died yesterday at age 109 (not bad, is it?). Extremely sexy 14:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Notably, we see USA Today listing four remaining American veterans of WWI:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-27-cover-ww1-vet_N.htm?POE=NEWISVA

LAST SURVIVING VETS OF AMERICAN WARS

Nearly 90 years after America entered World War I on April 6, 1917, just four known U.S. veterans remain. Charlotte Winters, 109, of Boonsboro, Md., the last female veteran of the war, died Tuesday. That leaves Frank Buckles, 106, of Charles Town, W.Va.; Lloyd Brown, 105, of Charlotte Hall, Md.; Russell Coffey, 108, of North Baltimore, Ohio; and Harry Landis, 107, of Sun City Center, Fla.;

So it seems Mr. Landis has been accepted, but not Robley Rex or Orin Peterson. I guess that settles these debates unless some new evidence comes to light.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 23:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless they are just following "Wikipedia". Extremely sexy 01:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless this article came direct from the VA, I would imagine the information came from this site. 63.3.7.1 06:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (PerhinBoy)

CNN are reporting on this as well right here: they allege there are 5 known surviving veterans, but sadly they don't detail who they are. (unsigned comment)

I would say CNN is looking at this site also, and #5 is Mr. Babcock. They just don't take the time to review that he did his training in Canada. Just my guess, but I'd say that's the case. 162.114.211.139 14:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (PershinBoy)

I already thought as much, dear PershinBoy. Extremely sexy 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. veteran numbers collapse and statistics

Greetings,

The collapse of the U.S. WWI veteran numbers since Nov 10, 2006 (about 13) to just '3' today is astounding. Even for an entire year, the death rate at age 110 is only 50%. To have so many die in such a short time defies statistical odds. Interestingly many of these veterans had been visited quite often in recent months, from NPR to autograph-seekers to book-writers to newspapers. I do wonder if any of this had some effect. Ironically, it seems that for the oldest-old, 'recognition' can sometimes be a 'negative'...it may give them a sense of life-fulfillment and thus no reason to continue living. There is also a chance some of them may have gotten ill after meeting much-younger persons. Nursing-home settings may not be a fun place to be, but often these people are kept isolated for months and even years. Of course, that gets into the quality-vs-quantity issue.

One note, it seems the American news has finally begun to 'get it.' USA Today did a front-page cover story on Frank Buckles this week. Mr. Buckles, it seems, has been chosen as the best remaining representative. Mr. Coffey is not in good shape physically and little is known about Mr. Landis (however, some recent misinformation on the Landis article borders on vandalism...q.v.).

One more note: statistically, the 'oldest' and 'last' veterans (or survivors, period) are often NOT the same. More likely, the 'last' survivor is going to be among the 'youngest' of the surviving group. Consider, for example, the Titanic survivors: one lived to 104, a few others to 100+, but currently the last two survivors are a mere 95..the youngest two remaining. With Australia's WWI vets, Jack Lockett reached 111 in 2002, and that mark hasn't been come close to since. Part of the reason is sample size: a greater sample size produces a greater likelihood of someone reaching 110 or older. Notably, the U.S. in the last year or so has lost Emiliano Mercado Del Toro (115), Moses Hardy (112 or 113), George Johnson (112), Ernest Pusey (111) and Antonio Pierro (almost 111)--a remarkable FIVE super-c's. With the death of Charlotte Winters at 109, the oldest remaining US veteran is now a mere 108, and the average age of the three remaining vets is 107 (down from 108 in November). The sample has gotten smaller because the youngest remaining vets would all have been underage (and the number of underage vets, while significant, is not nearly as much as the numbers aged 18-24). Looking at the last ones, J. Russell Coffey would have been 20 in Oct 1918; Harry Richard Landis would have been 18; and Frank Buckles, 16. There remains a small chance of finding someone else or re-crediting a 'discredited' case (like Robley Rex). However, for the meantime it does look like the Time Magazine prediction in 1995 of the 'last American WWI vet' dying in 2007 may come true. Ironically, it may be up for the other nations (the UK and Italy each have 9 vets remaining) to carry the torch into 2008 and probably a last one or two into 2009. Or Mr. Buckles could defy the odds and lead the Americans to 2009, but the statistical power of one is 'hanging by a thread.'

R Young {yakłtalk} 03:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting article you have written. At first I didn't agree with the part about media and autograph seekers leading to a quicker death. Most seem honored to be in the limelight. However, coming into contact in person and even with the mail, they are exposed to a lot more germs. 63.3.7.1 05:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (PershinBoy)
Of course staticstics are just that, math calculations. It is just as posible, although statistically less likely, that one of the remaining vets could also live to be 115. But although we might think of these possibilites, and are all reading here due to our interest in such records, such speculation is of very little importance overall. These people have lived long and productive lives, have served their nations, and are worthy of our admiration and respect. --Rye1967 11:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It's sad that we are now seeing the passing of the last eyewitnesses to the global conflict that shaped modern Europe. I often marvel at how little attention is paid to World War I and the incredible effect it had on our modern world, including the current situation in the Middle East. I encourage you to take a look at the USA Today article on Frank Buckles -- one of the best I've seen in a long time -- and to listen to the PRX audio narrated by Walter Cronkite, and pass them on. Frankwomble 13:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting thoughts from Mr Young. I think that there will still be some survivors into 2010, actually, with luck. Will Stone & Claude Choules, for example, are doing very well indeed (touch wood) so far - and Henry Allingham (albeit the oldest of the lot) is an inspiration. I expect, sadly, Coffey to go in 2007 almost certainly, but we shall see. It would be nice to have over 25 veterans at the end of the year (verified & unverified), but I don't know whether that's going to happen. 86.144.231.68 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC) RDJN
I'm afraid at the rate it is going, by the end of the year I doubt more than 12 to 18 will be living. I do think there is a good chance for a couple to be around for several more years though, although I wouldn't want to bet on it either way. It's amazing. I doubt if any of us reading these articles will even make it to 100! 63.3.7.129 21:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (PershinBoy)
Well: my mother's father made it to 96 and his own mother died at 93, plus my father's father is still alive atage 93 currently and his own mother died at 92, so with some luck and especially the right genes, who knows, but, as you put it quite rightly, it's God's decision, and a question of fate, since nobody has a crystal ball, or maybe you? Extremely sexy 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

oh dear you're all making me depressed. next people will be running sweep stakes on which veteran is going to peg it next or which country will lose all its veterans first! are there not more important matters to discuss rather then when you think a certain veteran will die! webbmysterWebbmyster 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, there are more important matters, but that's not what this site is set up for. It's to honor and discuss the last WWI veterans. Our topic has taken a depressing turn, but, as someone mentioned above, these men (and women) have lived very long and productive lives... We should be so lucky. 63.3.7.1 06:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (PershinBoy)

I don't find it depressing at all. After all, these people are over 100 years old. Robert Young may have a point, but he seems to be treating them as holy relics, and not as people. They are bound to die because of their old age, so one should not wonder if this is due to stress or not. I think the doctors would know more about this than we do. (wikipedia guy)

Wikipedia guy, in a way these people DO become 'holy relics'...if not what is the purpose of their articles? My great-great-uncle served in WWI and died in 1978. His service was the same. What is different is that, in 1978, it was still ordinary to be a WWI vet. In fact, as recently as 1987 there were still an estimated 91,000 U.S. WWI vets still living. As the numbers dwindle to near zero, we are losing not just a centenarian but the last living witnesses to an historical era. Charlotte Winters became a 'holy relic' as the 'very last' American female WWI vet, and Lloyd Brown for the Navy, Jud Wagner for the Marines, etc. Also, it's not just their age or even veteran status: it's that they were there. Robley Rex apparently joined the military 'just after the Armistice.' He is well over 100 and a veteran. But 'close, but no cigar'. It's like the difference between being the father of a baby (Larry Birkhead) and being a pretender (Howard K. Stern).

Second, statistics show that the annualized death rate for persons aged 105-109 is about 40-50% and for age 110-115 about 50-60%. Thus, to go from 13 to 3 in 139 days (77% death rate in 38% of a year) is much higher than expected. Some of this must be due to the fact that, after a period of death rates less than expected, a sort of 'evening' force may level out here. However, I do think there is a little bit of psychosomatic connection here as well. Among the elderly, a spouse often dies within a year of a husband. Here, we have both 'fulfillment' (many of these WWI vets in the USA were given lots of recognition over the past few months), perhaps sadness at hearing other colleagues go, and perhaps a bit too much attention. Or maybe just a streak of bad luck. R Young {yakłtalk} 05:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

According to NPR this morning, the Veterans Affairs office counts three US veterans (and one Canadian) still alive. So we match. Czolgolz 13:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I guess John F. Babcock became an American when he emigrated from Canada to the U.S., did he not? Extremely sexy 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read that he is now a U.S. citizen. (PershinBoy)

While he is a U.S. citizen "now", he most likely has dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship. The main thing is that at the time of WWI, he fought for Canada, and Canada only. I hope the U.S. Dept of Veterans is not trying to "claim" him as one "of their own" so to speak. He left Canada after WWI. I say this because I too am Canadian. {User Redpepper 1952} 21:50, 2 April, 2007 (UTC)
Good for you, and I fully agree. Extremely sexy 12:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Józef Kowalski

Regarding the Polish article as reference 11, http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/wiadomosc.html?wid=8714409&ticaid=13802:

It starts by stating that he is the oldest Polish resident of the Lubuskiego province (which is south western Poland as I remember: voivodships translates to administrative regions, somewhat similar to Wales/Scotland/England/Northern Island forming the UK, except in Poland these all have administrations). It then says he is in a nursing home at Tursku Sulęcina. He is wheelchair bound, with poor sight and hearing, but he can still be communicated with. He is the soul of the home, which has a number of occupants, and he can count on frequent family visits as they are nearby. The secret of long life is not to take anything too seriously. He was born in the village of Wicyn on February 2nd, 1900 as a subject of tsar Nikolay II Romanov. He fought at the end of the First World War with the Bolsheviks. He spent WWII in captivity, and afterwards settled in Lubuskie. Now that he is nearing death (old age that is), he has returned to his home land. There are two other people over 100 that live in the house with him.

It would be interesting to find out if he is the oldest living Polish person, and what exactly his captivity in WWII was, e.g. was he a Polish Jew and therefore pushed into a local 'Ghetto' as they were called, or was he transported to one of the camps?

This reference rather suggests to me that he is a veteran of the Russian Revolution, rather than one of the First World War: do we have any evidence that he was in the Imperial Russian Army prior to that? Thoughts anyone? SRwiki 05:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Józef Piotrowski

Regarding http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Piotrowski and http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weteran:

I saw him on the discussion list a while ago. Apparantly he was a professional organ player. But the article makes no reference to WWI. He never smoked, and seldom drinks. This was sourced from the Polish longevity list. It seems very doubtful he was in WWI: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategoria:Polscy_rekordzi%C5%9Bci_d%C5%82ugowieczno%C5%9Bci.

Signed by RichyBoy (been an admirer of the work on this page for a long while now, will sort out wiki account sometime).

I guess no mention of an exact date of death for him in the Polish article about him either, my dear friend? Extremely sexy 12:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the Wiki article was translated from the article I found on a Polish news site and done by this group's contributor Young, and the Polish one is no different. The Polish Wiki article just states he died in the 4th quarter of 2005, but this appears to be contested, and indeed there is nothing on the web. We either find out in September when he is to turn 120, or, more likely, the rumours are true. The Polish article says he is in care of the "brothers of Franciscans" at Świsłoczy, Wołkowysk (Belarus to me and you). My Polish isn't good enough to be very accurate about these things though. This however is probably the reason why people are finding info sparse if they are only looking for Polish news, so a proper look at the Belarus aged is needed (including 'fake' claims, as the Polish article might be claiming the early birth date, because he was Polish, whilst it may have been disproven elsewhere). Also, his name may be slightly changed from his Belarusian one to the one of Poland.

In any event, that doesn't change the question of WWI (although it seems unlikely), and, if we look at a recent article here, this could imply that he is dead anyway or at least the claim has been rubbished.

- RichyBoy

Thanks for the information: very much appreciated. Extremely sexy 13:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

New tables & help, please

Being responsible for most of the information for the UK & Ireland for 1999-2006 over the past year I put it into the same table format as the Surviving Veterans page a couple of weeks ago. These were changed back with a comment that if there were going to be tables then everyone should have them. I have now put time and effort into giving all the pages the same 'look and feel' which, I think, makes them a bit easier to read and allows for a little background on each of the vets to be given. Some vets have also been moved for consistency across the different pages. I probably should have asked first but it is easier to get forgiveness than ask permission, and if people are not happy they can be changed back easily. There are some additions too, however, so, please, make sure that these are not lost.

I would be grateful for any information (including dates of death) on the following individuals. All are verified WWI vets.....

Reported alive end of 1998: UK & Ireland

Name Reported Death External References
Thomas J Alexander, Sergeant, Royal Sussex Regiment
J.E.L. Baines,Gloucestershire Regiment
Herbert Birks, 28th London Regiment: Artist’s Rifles
Lawrence Blyth, 28th London Regiment: Artist’s Rifles October 2001 Last NZ veteran
James Burns, Private, Royal Irish Rifles (living in Northern Ireland)
William Calvert, Royal Irish Rifles (living in Northern Ireland) Interview
G. Cooper, Gordon Highlanders
Albert Coss, King’s Royal Rifle Corps
Clara Emmingham, QMAAC
Ronald Fraser, Royal Field Artillery
Horace Gaffron, Private, 1/4th Gordon Highlanders (living in the USA)
Archibald Leslie Gracie, Lieutenant, 2nd King’s Royal Rifle Corps
Jack Hind, Suffolk Regiment
John Laurie, Private, Army Service Corps
Thomas Linton, Sapper, Royal Engineers
George Maher, Private, 2nd King’s Own Royal Lancaster Regiment (living in Australia)
Thomas McDowell, Royal Irish Regiment
Alice McKinnon, Queen Alexandra’s Imperial Military Nursing Service Reserve
James Moir, Royal Navy (living in Scotland)
Charles Ross, Private, Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders
Samuel Shingler, Royal Navy
Ernest A T Stevens, Private, 5th Middlesex Regiment (living in Canada) Picture

Canada Veterans Week 1998

Robert Thompson, Black Watch
George P Tyers, Corporal, King’s Royal Rifle Corps
Robert Urquhart, Private, King’s Own Scottish Borderers & Scottish Rifles
J.C.W. Wallace, Royal Horse Light Infantry

Canada

Name Reported Death External References
Henri Allain D. O. D. October 14, 2001 Age 104 Biography
Frederick Connett Biography
Frederick Evans Biography
Walter Loudon Possibly 1999; D. O. D. January 20,1999 Age 99 Source: [2] Lists most dates of death going back to mid or early 1990s to date. [User Redpepper 1952] 17:00 April 12, 2007

LastName=loudon&FirstName=walter&Year=&Age=&Rank=&Unit=&PeriodOfService=&LegionBranch=&City=&Province=&CreationDate=&IssuePublished=&WebPublishingDate=&WebPublishingStatus=Show&submit=Start+Search

Biography

In memorium reference 1999

Lawrence Morton Biography
Percy Perdue Biography
Harry Routhier D. O. D. July 12,2000 Age 100 Video interview 18th May 1999

Biography

Thomas Spear Video interview

Biography

Stephan Thorlakson D.O. D. January 5, 2001 Age 103 Biography

Article about a trip a number of these made in November 1998 (published Feb 1999) Interview

Link page for the above biographies: Biographies Italy

Name Reported Death External References
Victor Pierre Paul Cordiano (living in Canada) Biography

Reported alive end of 1999:

UK & Ireland

Name Reported Death External References
Harold Kitchens, Ordinary Seaman, Royal Navy (living in Singapore)

Reported alive 2001:

UK & Ireland

Name Reported Death External References
Andrew Bowie, 1st Queens Own Cameron Highlanders (living in Australia)

Canada

Name Reported Death External References
Gordon Boyd

Thanks in anticipation. (unsigned comment)

Many thanks for your great efforts, man. Extremely sexy 00:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind but I've tabulated all of this to make it easier to edit and fill in - RichyBoy

Also, from this page here:

In November 1998 a list entitled "The Last Survivors" was published in the Daily Telegraph of 318 names of veterans of WWI all in their 90s or past their century, and subsequently an addenda of a further 29 names. I kept this list of names and have recorded, when I have seen it published, the dates of their deaths and any photographs or references to them. Number 11 on the list (in alphabetical order) is Alice M. Baker, aged 100 at the time, whose death I sadly recorded on March 6th when I saw it published in the Telegraph. However, she was not the only woman recorded on that list, it included - Mrs Margaret Jane Cranfield, 101, QMAAC served in France - Mrs Clara Emmingham, 99, QMAAC, served in Ripon - Mrs Evelyn Stanley, 100, WRAC, Royal Horse Artillery (I wonder what her function was) - Bessie Bacon, 99, Royal Flying Corps, RAF Uxbridge - Alice McKinnon, 104, QAIMNS®, Etaples, France and, not recorded in the list, but picked up later, Winifred Deacon, 101, F.A.N.Y., Ambulance Driver in France. I wonder how many others the list failed to pick up? - RichyBoy

Andrew Bowie, 3rd October 1897 - 26th August 2002. Horrace 'Jock' Gaffron, 20th October 1896 - 15th April 2000 if thats what you wanted to know man. if it is im sure ive heard more of those names before so will look further for you. Webbmyster 16:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their prompt responses. Have updated the relevant pages with the details of Messrs Gaffron and Bowie. I look forward to more information in due course. (unsigned comment)

Russell Coffey

The following link has an interview and a number of photographs conducted with Russell Coffey, which was published on Friday 6th April, to celebrate his 90th anniversary at volunteering. It can be found here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.97.107 (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

The pictures over here. Extremely sexy 15:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a great article, commemorating a man who enlisted 90 years ago. It must be beyond surreal for Mr. Coffey, to look back on something he did as a young man 90 years after the fact. Unbelievable! In addition, this is the first place where I've seen an article ask the public's help in locating any other surviving Veterans of WWI. Hopefully there will be some other efforts by other media outlets to assist in this cause. Though the chances are slim, it would be wonderful if there are other veterans still out there in the US and the world that we do not know about. Perhaps even this effort could help out with some of the unverified cases on the board as well. All in all, a great article. Thanks for posting the link. --Brianmccollum 17:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletorious intent

Another attempt to have an article on WW1 veterans deleted, has just emerged (yes, I know we've been there before, but the proposer of the motion obviously doesn't). This one concerns the "Died in 1999" page. If anybody wishes to vote, here is the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Veterans_of_the_First_World_War_who_died_in_1999

Josias Bunsen 23:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So sad. What difference does it make to these people if this article is here? How can you be that opposed to a Wikipedia article recognizing some of the last veterans of WWI who have passed away and go as far as to propose that it be removed? I encourage everyone on this discussion page to go and vote to KEEP the article here. --Brianmccollum 17:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

To be fair the wikipedia isn't here to serve as a in-memorial, it's an encylcopedia. I voted for a keep and I put my reasons why on that page. The 'Veterans of the First World War who died in xxxx' lists are generally concise (albeit sometimes not entirely complete) and without tribute and provide reference and context to a subject which is in general encyclopedic. Personally I'd like to see the lists kick off from November 11th 1998 onwards when many newspapers made much of the few veterans that still survived at that time. Once the last veteran has sadly passed on then I think people will have a much stronger claim as to the relevancy of these lists. I think the long term future of this page and indeed the lists will be something along the lines of "Last notable veterans of WW1", which would include along the lines of: Last surviving veteran of each military unit (eg, Black Watch, a certain Battalion or division), Last surviving rank of each country, veterans that died with notable distinctions (Last victoria cross veteran), maybe veterans that held certain age records (like oldest ever veteran) and things on this ilk. RichyBoy 19:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I voted for deletion! Dawid (unsigned comment)

Why on earth would you do that? Extremely sexy 13:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

B.C. dating

Why is the main list now listing persons with B.C. dates? In red? Someone, please, fix. R Young {yakłtalk} 02:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well: I will have a look at it in due course. Extremely sexy 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Philip Mayne 1899-2007

Dear all, Philip Mayne has passed on, apparently on April 9:

http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/20070410-Vale-Philip-Mayne-the-worlds-oldest-columnist.html

R Young {yakłtalk} 04:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Violet Bolaise, Wilfred Baker and Bob Taggart

Any word on Violet Bolaise? R Young {yakłtalk} 04:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Morning, I am still waiting for Dennis Goodwin to get back to me: I wrote to him about a month ago, so I expect he is still digging around, thanks. SRwiki 08:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Morning again, the post has just arrived and Dennis Goodwin has replied, with a couple of points:

1. Violet Bolaise was not a WW1 veteran, and has recently died, he hasn't given me an actual date;

I'd still like to know when she died, and when she enlisted! OK, but that moves the UK from '9' max to 7 (along with Philip Mayne's death). Italy now leads with 9 (inc. two living in France). R Young {yakłtalk} 23:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Wilfred Baker enlisted December 1918, and so is not a WW1 vet;

3. He has also noted that Bob Taggart might be cited as a WW1 vet at some point, but like Wilfred Baker he enlisted with the navy immediately after WW1.

If no-one objects I will remove Wilfred Baker from the 2007 deaths, and Violet Bolaise from the main page in the next day or so, thanks. SRwiki 11:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I did it already. Cheers, David. (unsigned comment)

I'd prefer their deaths to remain and asterisked (i.e. 'enlisted Dec. 1918'). Note in the USA people like Julio Ereneta and Maurice Starkey are listed. Also, it's only a good idea because the Treaty of Versailles was in mid-1919. R Young {yakłtalk} 23:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If she died then why is she still in the living section? (unsigned comment)

I don't think so. Extremely sexy 13:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Nineteen down in fifteen weeks

It's quite disturbing: 19 veterans down in the first 15 weeks of 2007, leaving only 32 verified veterans. I'm still hoping that somebody like Henry Allingham can make it to the Cenotaph next November though for the 90th anniversary. I'm not wishing to be at all morbid, but I've just calculated the mean and mode of those that have died since 1st January 2006 - the mode is 106 (being the most common age), the mean is just a smidgen over 107. Statistically, this will go up a bit as the very youngest veterans are now making this kind of age, and the less veterans there are the less probable it is they will follow the trend as they become statistical anamolies, obviously that's of no comfort to anyone, except to give a bit of hope that some of these veterans can still be here in 2010 (8 veterans since the start of 2006 reached 110 or more, so I would have thought a few of the younger ones by the stats will make it that far as well). RichyBoy 17:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

There is a very good chance that at least 2-3 veterans will still be alive at the start of 2009. I would say there's a 60% chance at least one veteran will reach 2010. However, would we be disappointed if they turned out to be Italian and German and Australian? The real issue is not the total number remaining but we each want representation...the USA and France are perilously close to losing here. France has TWO 109-year-olds, one anonymous 108-year-old, a 108-year-old Italian veteran, and a 107-year-old. The USA hasn't had a find since December (Harry Richard Landis) and now just three veterans left.

Also, it's not just nationality, it's what they did. If the last vets are all non-combat who never saw action, it's just not the same. Henry Allingham was actually at the Battle of Jutland! That's what we want, someone who was there and saw the war from the front. In the USA, Frank Buckles remains the lone living memory, as the other two were in training. R Young {yakłtalk} 23:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all slightly jingoist when it comes to it, who wouldn't want to see one of their home nation be amongst the very last few. I think I would be happy enough though knowing there was a combat veteran amongst them no matter what side they served. You're right about the veteran, the classical image in most peoples mind will be that of an individual that saw combat action, I think there will be a certain lack of fulfillment if the last veteran hadn't seen genuine combat. 87.194.97.107 12:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing by nation issue

Greetings,

On some of the other pages, someone has moved Pawel Parniak from 'Poland' to Austria-Hungary (and a Hungarian entry as well). This remains an issue: how do we list these people by nation? What is John Babcock? An American or Canadian? He is a Canadian veteran and an American citizen. I'd prefer to list by place of death because one only dies once, whereas Lazare Ponticelli served two nations. If so, I think Pawel should be moved back to Poland. R Young {yakłtalk} 23:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to see someone like Babcock be listed as American/Canadian in the Canadian category. If he is listed as an American, it would complicate things a bit. Ponticelli, who served in both the French and Italian armies, can remain in the French category. (wikipedia guy)

These pages are about veterans of WWI, and it is surely more logical to list them by the nations of whose forces they are veterans of, rather than where they ended up living/dying 90 years later. Lazare Ponticelli did indeed serve two nations, but he appears to be the only veteran of the 1,068 listed to have done so. If all vets were to be shifted to their country of death (which was previously done partially and inconsistently across the pages) we would then have Italian vets in Brazil, Poles who fought for the Habsburgs in the UK, Russians and Belgians in the USA, Jamaicans in Cuba, etc., and matters would get very confusing.

That said, I think it makes a lot of sense to list the surviving vets by the countries in which they live, as it ensures that no-one is missed and makes keeping track easier. 86.141.57.30 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Bruce

At this point I really don't think it matters. The way we have them listed seems fine to me. The chart is pretty easy to read. I understand your point...... List them in the country served, and not where they live, but if we change it that way, others will complain they like it better the old way. The bottom line: I think we are smart enough to look at these charts and figure who they fought for, and where they live. This isn't an extensive list. The rate we are going, there will only be two dozen left by June. 209.247.21.167 05:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC) (PershinBoy)

Hermann Solveen

Sad news: Solveen already died in 2006 apparently. We don't know the exact date (yet), but we hope to find it out. Statistician 11.04.2007 20:49 (CET)

I've got a letter from his daugther: he died 28.02.2006. He was enlisted at 17, was heavily wounded and served in both World Wars. Statistician 19.04.2007 20:49 (CET)

Okay: thanks for finding this out for us, so he already died just 8 days after turning 107. Extremely sexy 11:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is a bit worrying that Solveen was dead for over A YEAR without anyone knowing! It makes me wonder how many of the other German veterans are actually alive. Also, proves that as the Guardian article had him "alive", we really do need some kind of citation & proof that these guys are still alive & what their war service is. Virtually every single other veteran is accounted for somewhere, apart from the Germans. 86.144.224.79 13:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC) RDJN

Such things happen. For the remaining four we have a "life sign" from December 2006 or later. Sadly I've got a email that Albin Kaiser died - I hope we can find out the exact date. Statistician 20.04.2007 01:36 (CET)

Fog lifting on Harry Richard Landis, search for unknown WWI vets

Greetings,

It seems the momentum has finally carried forward to a story recognizing Mr. Landis in the light of his being one of the last WWI vets, but he doesn't seem much interested in it...perhaps why he wasn't discovered until December.

Notably, however, is the comment:

The VA may have tracked down one other vet in the last few days, spokesman Phil Budahn says, "but we haven't yet verified that information."

Also, it seems that Mr. Landis is still doing well (and is married; his wife is 99). So, even as we dropped another one today (Hermann Solveen, who actually died in 2006), let's not forget there may be more than the '31' listed here. Also, the anonymous French WWI vet is still alive, according to my source, and there may be 2-3 more German vets not yet recognized. Polish lists may not be complete, either. However, I wouldn't expect more than about 6-12 more worldwide to be discovered. The UK data is probably complete. The Italian data is mostly complete but I've been told the possibility still exists for someone who served less than 3 months to have been unreported. R Young {yakłtalk} 06:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting piece, but just one small point - where is the proof for Solveen? There's nothing at all to confirm it except the above comment saying he had died in 2006? You seem to have blithely accepted that as proof, but have been more stringent on others? (unsigned comment)

Our two German correspondents are very reliable indeed. Extremely sexy 13:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

Here is the first photo of Harry Richard Landis.


Based on the article, it seems Mr. Landis battled the 1918 influenza outbreak, not German troops. But although he devalues such a contribution, it was still important to the war effort and for saving lives, not taking them.

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070414/NEWS/704140455/1039

R Young {yakłtalk} 07:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Warsaw (1920)

Is this a WWI-era war? If so, as of August 15th, 2006, there were still 6 veterans alive. Each year, on this day, all surviving ones are invitated to the ceremony in Warsaw, and meet the president. (unsigned comment)

Perhaps there could be a separate list of military veterans who are over 100 and were not involved in WWI or WWII? DerbyCountyinNZ 00:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You may start it. Extremely sexy 11:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Stanislaw Wojcheck

Someone is addding too much information on him. Please consider creating an article and Wikilinking to it! This page is supposed to be mainly a summary. 131.96.70.164 02:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is he? Cannot find him in the article. Don't you mean Wycech? (unsigned comment)
I suppose he does. Extremely sexy 12:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Alberto Agazzi 1899-2007

Greetings,

Alberto Agazzi of Italy, 108, WWI veteran, passed away Apr 12 2007:

http://pcquotidiano.liberta.it/asp/default.asp?IDG=704131004

There is a photo. This leaves six Italian WWI vets remaining.

I'm too busy to do the updates.R Young {yakłtalk} 20:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But there is the "8th April" date on 2007 veteran deaths, so who's right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.10.108.113 (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

I was told "Apr 12" by Giovanni Alunni of Italy. R Young {yakłtalk} 09:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jim Lincoln

Why has his entry been deleted? Did he die (is his name on the deaths list somewhere then?), he just wasn't a WWI vet, or is this a vandalism act? (unsigned comment)

Probably people are too stupid to see the value of tracking a false case down to 'disprove' it. Whatever. R Young {yakłtalk} 09:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I readded him (till some proof comes). (unsigned comment)

Orin Peterson

Well: is there any proof for him being definitely still alive currently, and is he a WWI or WWI-era veteran, dear people? Extremely sexy 13:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

He was alive late last year. I sent Orin a letter, and his nephew responded with a really nice letter. However, from the letter it is made clear he joined after 11-11-1918 (sometime in 1919). Hope this helps. 209.244.188.174 06:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC) (PershinBoy)
I guess you did get my e-mail reactions. Extremely sexy 09:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring people until they die

Greetings, Alberto Agazzi of Italy was 108, covered in the Italian media with photos, and had been reported earlier. Yet no one bothered to make an article on him.

One 'interesting' thing about the gradual drawing down of the 'surviving veterans of WWI' list is how much of the attention is focused on a few 'stars' like Henry Allingham, Maurice Floquet, or Ernest Pusey. Only in the absence of the 'bright light' of Ernest Pusey did the Florida media 'discover' Harry Richard Landis. One has to wonder who else is still being overlooked.

Also, a credit to Italian male longevity (Italy is known for having a higher male-female ratio of centenarians than average) has begun to shed light on the little-reported fact that there was, in fact, an Italian front with Austria-Hungary, something the mainly UK-French-USA media doesn't pay attention to at all. Shamefully, Antonio Pierro and Giovanni Frau both made it to supercentenarian status, and were both WWI vets, yet hardly anyone asked about their military service (instead they were the 'oldest man in Italy'). Note that Italian male longevity only seems to confer a 'slight' advantage, and more on the order of average maximum, not total maximum. So, even though Italy has had the WWI-vet lead for most of the past few years (and currently has 8, including the two in France--the UK is second with seven), we could easily see a 'collapse' like the USA did (from 13 to 3 in just a few months). It would also be interesting if we knew a little more about the German WWI vets. And, as Germany had among the highest conscription rates and, since it lost, the most 'shame,' it remains the last, best chance for finding more WWI vets. Not surprisingly, Mr. Remmert is the only WWI vet in the world 'discovered' this year. But, as said earlier, we haven't had a lot of reports of the underage German WWI vets. So, just like the last Confederate widow did not emerge until the death of the presumed titleholder, so it may take the passings of the 'war heroes' who served 6 months+ before the emergence of those who served only ephemerally, as in the U.S. True, the USA had far fewer participants than Germany, France, or the UK, and the USA's large numbers may have been due to greater local media attention than anything else. That advantage has now dissipated.

One of the most difficult aspects of planning is how to balance overestimating with underestimating. Though this 'book' is down to the last few chapters, we still don't know how this story will end. Which makes it all the more intriguing.

Sincerely, Robert Young R Young {yakłtalk} 07:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I added an article, extremely interesting too, about Delfino Borroni, but, because of the table format, I wasn't sure how to put it in, so I included it as a link. I do wish someone who is a full member & has the time, reads the article & either links it to Borroni or makes an article about him. His sotry is more fascinating than some of the "stars" Mr Young lists above. At least Borroni FOUGHT in World War I, which is not the case for many survivors now. If someone could do that Borroni article, it'd be for the benefit of all & much appreciated. 86.144.224.79 10:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC) RDJN

I think some of it might come down to simple language barrier...at least here, US/UK vets get the most attention because few people who write these articles speak Polish/Italian, etc. Czolgolz 13:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

More than this I think that information and stories and the discovery of veterans is something that requires real-world footwork. Most of us are more than capable of searching the web for news and tid-bits and editing a wiki page after the event, and that does bias towards English somewhat. RichyBoy 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources nonexistant?

Er, do you mean "nonexistent'?R Young {yakłtalk} 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Each person on this list needs to be sourced, not only that they actually exist, and that they are still alive, but that they served in WWI. Corvus cornix 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We have basically the most reliable data in the world. Also, you misunderstand the concept of sliding-scale validation. As more of the veterans on the list die, greater attention is focused on those remaining, increasing the chances that any frauds or errors will be weeded out. For example, Hermann Solveen died Feb 28 2006 but was not removed until over a year later. However, the chances of this happening again are now less, as most of the cases have been re-checked (which is why we found out about Solveen). So, the job was done BEFORE your comment came, thank you.R Young {yakłtalk} 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that is an entirely fair comment, as most of these cases have been verified or are accepted by the governments of the countries involved. But here goes;

Fist off I don’t see how we could be reasonably expected to prove they are alive (what are we going to do? Knock on their door every day) so I think it is OK to assume they are alive until we hear otherwise.

Secondly I am sure that every case on this list has been poured over in some detail on these discussion pages.

But I suppose if you want citations then we need to get them

Here is a list of the currently citationless Vets – I haven’t had time to do the era and unverified, I have put a citation against a few of them – but I don’t know how to do them properly on the main page so If some-one could help me out that would be much appreciated. Also we need people to go on a citation hunt for the others

In Aus Choules, Claude Stanley

Lucas, Sydney (Syd)

John Campbell Last WWI veteran dies - National - smh.com.au (one of many that note him as the last digger after the death of the last combat digger.)

William Young.: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,5-2005510479,00.html and it draws from Britain’s Last Tommies, by Richard Van Emden, Pen and Sword Books

In UK

Harry patch http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5090664.stm

Bill stone http://www.hmsnewfoundland.org.uk/williamstone.htm

In France

Ponticelli, De Cazenave and Tuveri http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3208,36-708425@51-709148,0.html (and I am sure thousands of other articles)

Lagaurnadie, Louis

In Germany

Kästner, Erich

Remmert, Wilhelm

All the German and UK veterans are listed in the Guardian article already linked to Henry Allingham, and this could be used as a “blanket” citation for all of them having been (a) veterans and (b) alive at that date.

In Italy

Bertolami, Carmelo

Carta, Giovanni Antonio

Chiarello, Francesco Domenico

Costanzo, Pasquale

Serioli, Battista

In USA

Babcock, John F http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/remembranceday/

Landis, Harry Richard (I am sure I have seen an interview with him somewhere?)http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/04/last_navy_and_woman_wwi_vets_die_only_three_remain/

Sorry if this is a bit scrappy and only a first sweep but I need to go out now Thanks SRwiki 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking citations in terms of being verified or in depth articles? For all the British veterans have been verified by Dennis Goodwin & the British Royal Legion & there is no doubt they are all WWI veterans of some form or another.

However, SRWiki, the German list you mention in that Guardian article came straight from Wikipedia, so it's dangerous to use that as a blanket citation for them. Fair point SRwiki 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, Claude Choules http://www.uwa.edu.au/media/statements/media_statements_2006/february/world_war_i_veteran_at_uwa_art_show_opening

Syd Lucas http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Veteran-of-two-armies-to-ride-in-Chevy/2005/04/20/1113854258522.html (and picture too)

I haven't got time at present to do the others, sorry.

Can someone who knows how to work the table format please, please PLEASE spare a little time, adding these citations in to the columns & giving some of these "lesser known veterans" their dues - Lucas, Choules, Borroni - they all deserve as much attention & insight as (the albeit incredible) Henry Allingham etc.

RDJN 86.144.224.79 22:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Of the "citationless" vets it look like we have found some good citations for the UK, Aus and French vets (except Laguarnadie) But I haven't been able to find any for the German and Italian vets - almost certainly due to my feeble knowledge of these languages) and I would agree with the previous user, could some one who nows what they are doing put these onto the main pages as references. I don't know how to do it. Thanks SRwiki 07:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that there are a misunderstanding about the sources: Not only websources count. A lot of information wie get and got about our german veterans are not from the net so we can't put a link on the page - but our information false because they aren't in the internet? No!
Or think this way: Where got the sources in the internet got / get there information from???
A other point is that there are in germany no official lists of Veterans like in other countries so it is more difficult to find them. We now that it was unusual for a german man at this time not to fight in WWI so it is very presumably that men old enough are veterans but we don't easily count them but read articels about them in newspapers or get with them in contact to confirm there status. Yesterday I send two letters to known veterans to find out more abour there service (with a third - Künstler - I was in contact some weeks ago and a fourth lives near my town so I hope I can visit him) and four letters to maybe veterans to find out if they served.
Statistician 21.04.2007 11:31 (CET)

So why has the Franz Künstler article been removed? (unsigned comment)

Good question, especially since unreasoned deletions of articles that barely existed are against Wikipedia policy. Extremely sexy 19:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
According to the deletion log, the first time the article was deleted was because "apparent hoax - Kunstler exists and was born in Soost in 1900, but no record of any military service was found" and the second time because "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous AfD that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be nominated for AfD instead."

In other words, it was first deleted because it was perceived to be a hoax. The second time was because the article didn't explain enough (at least to the deleter) why it was notable. Not expressing an opinion or anything (I never even saw the article) but that's why. Canadian Paul 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am still hoping all those deleted articles will be put back in order to give me a chance to get them sourced anyway. Extremely sexy 10:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that as more veterans die, the remaining ones become more important, and subject to extra sifting. I will double-check to see if any additional information can be found on Louis Legaurnadie.R Young {yakłtalk} 05:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

John Campbell Ross - dead?

Removed from the main list, into the died in 2007 list, but no obvious mention in the Australian press that I can find - or am I just too early to respond to this? (unsigned comment)

That anonymous user supposedly thinks he is funny. Extremely sexy 23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Italian veteran biographies

Greetings all, As no-one seems to want to, I've updated the Italian biographies myself. As I am not a Wiki member, I can't start a page about them, but I do hope that the snapshot of information is of some interest, and can form the basics of a Wiki page for them, as each citation given is more in-depth than what I have already put. The only one I can't find any real detail for is Costanzo, I'm afraid.

What is particulary interesting about them is that the majority of them actually FOUGHT in the war. Only Bertolami never saw action, but at least he was there.

Also, one is a Sardinian, as opposed to an Italian (worth a mention I think, à la Taggart being a Scot, but British as well), and one fought in WW2 as well. All little snapshots of history.

I know this elagonates the page somewhat, but at least these guys have their rightful information, there's enough information for a Wiki page, it still looks pretty neat & hopefully, makes the page an even better reference tool.

So now it's up to the Germans to step to the plate & fill the last bits of information in as searching for Remmert & Kastner drew a complete blank, and then everybody, in one form or another, has a bit of information on which we can all glean.

I spent a bit of time on this, so I hope it is to the general approval of everyone & I hope it won't be deleted or reverted straightaway.

RDJN 86.144.224.79 11:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work! Why not simply join wiki, you've certainly invested a lot of time. Czolgolz 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

yeh nice one man. i've put the details into the starting of a page for a couple of the italian veterans but i'm no good at doing all the bits at the bottom so if someone could do that it'd be appreciated. Webbmyster 15:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure enough, as I feared, within a short time, a lot of information has already disappeared from Carta & Serioli's biographies. The other pages are fine, though, and what I hoped. But the disappearing info, that's why I don't bother signing up with Wiki as it appears people just delete other peoples hard work. What a shame. Surely if a page is not going to be created for Carta & Serioli, it is better to keep ALL the information in, rather than just pick & choose? Ah well, I can only hope one of the amendees still has all the information & is going to update it later as I haven't got the time & inclination to sit down & do it all over again. I would've hoped the sources & linked articles would've least been kept... RDJN 86.144.224.79 21:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That was me. I was copying and pasting your information into articles, but two of them didn't seem to work. If it was my fault, then I'm sorry. If you get round to adding the Carta and Serioli stuff to the main page again, then I'll gladly put them into articles, and I'll try to be more careful this time. Again, my apologies. 87.194.248.174 20:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Captain celery

Well: user "Mel Etitis" has deleted a lot of new articles about WWI veterans, mostly from the USA, but also Franz Künstler, and this without further ado, let alone some reasoning behind it, which is absolutely against policy. Extremely sexy 21:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the Künstler one, so that's quite irritating. I still think the Italian two were my fault, but at least that was an accident. 87.194.248.174 03:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Captain celery

A couple of Italian articles and a Polish one have been deleted as well: I will kill that man (figuratively speaking). Extremely sexy 13:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added the two links again for Carta & Serioli. 86.144.224.79 09:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC) RDJN

Let's hope he won't also delete them though. Extremely sexy 13:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If the articles show enough notability, then you won't have a problem. - fchd 15:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Well: other similar articles written not that long ago weren't deleted, so that's definitely not the point at all, dear Richard. Extremely sexy 15:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Well then, perhaps you need to have some dialogue with both the original admin who deleted the first version, or Mel Etitis to discover the real reason why the article is gone, and what you can do to recover and develop it. Two other points, please do not refer to me as "dear" - you do not know me and use of such a term is inappropriate, and please, please watch yourself in regards to editing other people's comments. You've been temporarily blocked only a few days ago, and are back to your old tricks again this afternoon. It doesn't matter if they seem ungrammatical to you, please just leave them. You'll save yourself lots of hassle in the long run. - fchd 15:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

i've managed to do one more bio will hopefully have time to do the other tomorrow. Webbmyster 14:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's great, man. Extremely sexy 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

It seems that one reason why the Italian WWI vet biographies were deleted is that no one bothered to put confirming documentary links to the pages. I suggest someone attempt to re-start the articles as before, but with links (including "Surviving Veterans of WWI"). Also note, one might try to link to commentary from Italian newspapers and/or the World's Oldest People webgroup.

I do think that these cases would survive deletion if everything were put out at once, so perhaps we should start with one case (oldest first?) and make sure it's done well.R Young {yakłtalk} 05:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

One more note: since we have article source links for Alberto Agazzi, if someone wants to bother creating an article, it likely will withstand "deletion"--especially if the article link is listed as a 'reference.'R Young {yakłtalk} 06:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Great work on sourcing

I'm really impressed with the work that has been expended on getting these people sourced. Well done. Corvus cornix 22:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am too: definitely a marvellous job. Extremely sexy 09:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Greetings,

While it's important not to make 'blanket' articles for everyone (especially when little or no information is gleaned from them), it seems clear in this case that someone with an anti-age, anti-veteran bias is going around deleting articles WITHOUT giving people the opportunity to vote on them. The key here is for someone to petition a higher-up administrator (sysop) to investigate these deletions. Clearly, it's against Wikipedia policy to delete articles without a vote, unless they're clear vanity, vandalism, or the like. Also, the deleter doesn't seem to understand the difference between an ordinary 107-year-old and a 107-year-old WWI veteran (whose life becomes history).

R Young {yakłtalk} 05:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that! ChrisW 08:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And I third that. Extremely sexy 16:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Louis Lagarnaudie of France

Greetings,

Louis Lagarnaudie was mentioned as far back as 2004. I have found an 'update' that he was still living on Nov. 15, 2005:

http://www.victoriacross.net/forum_topic.asp?tid=677

Subject: WW 1 Surviving Soldiers 9 René Riffaud M 106 331 19/12/1898 15/11/2005 39 047 10 Louis Lagarnaudie M 106 151 17/06/1899 15/11/2005 38 867 Here are the two French WWI veterans still alive forgotten bt the French Adminstration (ONAC) who communicate for only 6 Instead of 8 ! Laurent Toussaint

Clearly we need an update more recent than that. I will do more checking....

I found an update from Sept 24 2006, although his name was spelled "Largardonie"....R Young {yakłtalk} 06:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted him or his kin by letter, so we can make sure he is still with us? If so, maybe they could share some info on him to add to the bio. (PersinBoy) 209.247.21.167 09:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

One cannot call them every month to ask if they are still alive. So patience is needed for these cases. (unsigned comment)

This is true, but the last report Mr. Young found was dated Sept. 2006. That isn't every month. In addition we need a bio on him, or he is subject to rejection by Wikipedia. (PersinBoy) 209.244.188.174 03:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. Many of those listed (since 1999) don't have bios. Bio's aren't required, only sourcing. In this case, my French correspondent has not informed me of his passing (yet we have updates such as the death of Raymond Guay on Jan. 2, 2007). Thus we can 'infer' that Mr. Lagaurnadie was still alive as of early 2007. 68.211.77.10 16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Any native speaker willing to improve this: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_World_War_1_veterans_are_still_alive?

But can you do this without registration? Extremely sexy 16:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Introductory text

I've not 'properly' read the introductory text to the article for a while. I think the sentance on Emiliano needs a slight clarification as I don't think that it is apparent that he was a veteran of WW1, especially to those that are new to the subject. Therefore I would prefer the introductory text to say "WW1 veteran and Puerto Rico resident Emiliano Mercado del Toro, who died aged ...... etc etc" . Any comments? RichyBoy 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But the title of the article does assume this obviously, does it not? Extremely sexy 19:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not obvious to me; I like the suggestion. Note that the sentence referencing Allingham points out that he's a "British Veteran" while the sentence referencing del Toro doesn't even identify the country he served, much less the war. Perhaps replacing both with something like "Upon the death of U.S. World War I veteran (and oldest known surviving veteran of any war) Emiliano Marcado del Toro (21 August 1891 - 24 January 2007), British veteran Henry Allingham became the oldest surviving veteran of World War I." DHLister 21:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay: go ahead. Extremely sexy 21:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this re-wording at all. First, it devalues Emiliano Mercado Del Toro's record of '115' by putting him on a mere par with 110-year-olds. As others have mentioned, if we want to do an 'oldest living WWI veteran', then let's do it...Antonio Todde in 2002? Giovanni Frau in 2003? But the mis-match of Allingham with Del Toro (and the attempt to clean it up by slipping in Antonio Pierro) misses the point. R Young {yakłtalk} 06:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Following the deaths of Puerto Rican Emiliano Mercado del Toro (21 August 1891 - 24 January 2007), a U.S. veteran and the oldest recorded veteran from any conflict, and American Antonio Pierro, 110-year-old Briton Henry Allingham became the oldest surviving veteran of World War I."

If the purpose is to show progression of the oldest veteran, rather than a note to the oldest ever WW1 veteran and then the oldest living WW1 veteran (which is what I thought it was) then really a succession table should be put in. RichyBoy 13:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does Antonio Pierro have to be mentioned? Webbmyster 18:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

He was the oldest veteran after del Toro died. However, I think it would get sloppy to mention every oldest veteran. Del Toro warrents mention, since he is likely to be the oldest veteran ever from this war. Czolgolz 19:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

yeh sorry i didn't mean it in a nasty way just think if we're gonna mention one we should realy do others but then we can't realy do that as we only have it back to the late 1990's. Webbmyster 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is far enough, considering further back they wouldn't be really the 'last survivors' anyway. R Young {yakłtalk} 06:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the article looks a whole lot cleaner and sensible now. RichyBoy 09:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you: it's fine now. Extremely sexy 10:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Citationless vets update

Afternoon All just thought I would update the Citationless vets list by my reckoning it is down to the following

1 Frenchman Lagarnaudie, Louis I tried using the Victoria cross forum link above but I just get a bunch of links to elsewhere – what am I doing wrong

Three Germans Christmann, Rudolf He has a link but it doesn’t seem to go anywhere useful

Kästner, Erich

Remmert, Wilhelm, Is it just me or does anyone else find it weird that there appears to be nothing for this man. Don’t the German papers report on birthdays of oldest people etc?

I guess we really need some-one who can speak German to try and track down some info on these men.

So just ask Thomas Breining and Michael Streich. Extremely sexy 15:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

2 Italians Bertolami, Carmelo

Costanzo, Pasquale

There are a couple of other Italian vets who have citations on their wiki pages – could it be possible to include them here as well?

I have managed to fish out citations for all the citationless WW1 era vets, so if someone who knows what they are doing could do the honours I would as ever be very grateful

Aarne Arvonen http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/thisweek/01092000.html

Lennart Ronnback http://www.vasabladet.fi/story.aspx?storyID=581819

Bob Taggart http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17307521&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=bob-the-elder--name_page.html

Hiram Munger Stillman http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cocoon/vhp/bib/loc.natlib.afc2001001.03747

SRwiki 14:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The link for Christmann doesn't work because you need to subscribe to the "Rheinpfalz" newspaper. But he is mentioned there in January 2007. (ChrisW)


Hello unknown wiki-user and all!

You wrote "Don’t the German papers report on birthdays of oldest people etc?" They do but nomaly you didn't find the articels in the internet. What do you think from wich source we know from them? - Papers all over germany! Then we can try to contact them. So I found out that remmert is a veteran and the death of Hermann Solveen. As I mentioned befor I wrote letters to the families of the last remaining german veterans and some old german male from wich we didn't if they fought. So there are only two remaining cases - I think that they aren't but without investigate I can't be sure. There is the possibility that we lose sight of a german male born 1901 and this one served in WWI... but this possibility isn't to big.

I have some new information about to veterans (I talked to there sons) and I hope you didn't delete same without good reasons - that you can't find this information in the internet isn't a good reason!!!!
-Wilhelm Remmert went to war with 17 and first served in russia, than in france. -Erich Kästner was conscribed in July 1918 and fought at the western front at the "Sonder Batailon Hauck" (special battalion Hauck). He remember to be a part of one of the last parades of the german emperor. He also served in WW II.

If you have some questions about german veterans you can ask me - you'll find me on the "wolrd oldes people"-list in yahoo - I work with Thomas Breining but he gave me the responsibility to look afer our german veterans.

Statistician 07.05.2007 16:49 (CET)

Good job, man! (ChrisW)

John Campbell Ross

I've found a digitalized copy of his enlistment papers, etc. at the National Archive of Australia. It can be found here: http://naa12.naa.gov.au/Scripts/Imagine.asp?B=11474492&I=1&SE=1 RichyBoy 23:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Great find, man. Extremely sexy 15:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Józef Kowalski

Józef Kowalski is veteran Polish-Soviet War. August 15th, 20 06, there were still 6 veterans alive. Recently died Józef Kos and Zenon Jankowski (27 august 1905-6 april 2007). May 2007 - four still living veterans Polish-Soviet War

  1. Józef Kowalski (b. 1900)
  2. Stanisław Wycech (b.1902)
  3. ?
  4. ?
  5. Józef Kos 1900-2007
  6. Zenon Jankowski 1905-2007

What proof is there for this case? Why not citation/mention on Wikipedia? Did he serve after 1918?R Young {yakłtalk} 00:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have long had my doubts about the status of Kowalski, as the citation does not really read as world war 1 to me, (I mentioned this in the previous note about kowalski about 10 articles before this one, but no-one else expressed an opinion so I left him where he was) so I would suggest he is properly considered as an era veteran. Thoughts anyone? SRwiki 16:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of difficulties with awarding veteran status to individuals which fought in the war from what was an occupied territory. Here are some reasons why:

1. Big chunks of what was then the three-partitoning empires was occupied by the Central Powers, none of these empires therefore had 'recognised' armies at that time.
2. The Polish Military Organisation did exist but didn't really become active against Germany until 1917, it was primarily concerned with covert operations against Russia (but later turned their attention to Germany after the 1917 Revolution). In any event, it's a para-military organisation.
3. Towards the last few months of the war before Armistice the PMO helped liberate land held by the Germans (although I understand that there was little fighting, more of an escort service to fleeing Germans).
4. The 'Fourteen Points' of Woodrow Wilson meant that the re-establishment of an independent Polish state was a goal of the war - this cause some resentment to the Bolsheviks, as they had ceded Poland to the Central Powers after the 1917 Russian Revolution, Poland may have welcomed the Russians back in with open arms but for this (the PMO wouldn't have done of course). This can make admitting fighting with the Russians against the Central Powers a thing that Polish people may find hard to admit to, considering just a year later they fought against them for their independence.
5. I wouldn't want to put words into anyone's mouth but I think that the Polish view of WWI was that of a struggle for independence against the Central Powers and then the Russians/Bolsheviks. I am not sure if they would dissambiguate these events from resiting the Central Powers to resisting the Bolsheviks. They don't talk about the end of WWI, they always seem to talk in terms of the German withdrawal, if you see what I'm trying to get at here - you would have to make them say it is part of WWI, it isn't their way of thinking of it.

However I think it boils down to this:

A veteran is somebody that survived through to the Armistice and was enlisted/drafted/commissioned etc into a legal fighting force (army, navy etc) before that point in time. A Polish person that fought with the PMO isn't a veteran by this definition, they were para-military fighting for their freedom (akin to the French underground in WWII). So neither of the Polish veterans qualify as a true WWI veterans(one of them being a freedom fighter), just WWI-era because they no doubt fought the Bolsheviks before the Treaty of Versailles.

That's my view anyway, I'm not an expert in the Polish equation as it is a very big subject area - and it's never going to be easy deciding if someone is a veteran when they didn't serve in a legal entity. RichyBoy 23:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Is that correct for Józef Kowalski be considered on the Allies list? Since he fought for the Bolsheviks? I know at the time the United States did not recognize them as a government, but what about France and the others. (PersinBoy)

No, I think both he and Stanisław fought the Bolsheviks. Kowalski appears to have no legitimate claim to have fought in WW1 if he only fought the Bolsheviks, this happened after the Armistice and was a territorial dispute after Wilson Woodrow's Fourteen Points had guaranteed the re-establishment of the Polish state. Stanisław actually has some kind of claim, as he was in a Polish Military Organisation 'Legion' which was against Germany and he mentions this in an interview in one of his references. In my view neither of them could be considered WW1 veterans, I appreciate that they performed venerable service for their freedoms - but it's like counting a freedom fighter in WWII as a army veteran - it just isn't done. So we can unofficially recognise these as people that fought in battles shaped by WW1, especially as we are down to the last handful, but I doubt they would ever be officially recognised.

Bottom line is we need somebody who speaks proper Polish to clarify a few points, but as none of the three Polish had armies etc after being occupied by the Central Powers it is difficult to see how they could ever be called WW1 veterans, by the normal definitions of a veteran anyway. RichyBoy 09:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Are we heading towards moving him to WW1 era List? As we don't appear to have any real evidence to the contrary SRwiki 07:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr Anton Bohdal

Somebody has added anonymously Dr Anton Bohdal as a Central Powers veteran. I'm not saying they are wrong, but considering the history of most individuals has been discussed here for the last couple of years it is a bit rich to add somebody to the main page, anonymously, without adding a citation. If there is a genuine citation this is really good news at finding a previously undiscovered veteran. If there is no genuine citation it really needs to be discussed here first with the acknowledged experts (not me I hasten to add) but people like Young who have a lot of knowledge in this area. Good work if it's true though. RichyBoy 23:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, several sorces say he exists and is still alive, but I can't find anything that lists him as a veteran. http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4287169769&idx=125 Czolgolz 03:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Morning all, I found this http://www.astgasse.at/archiv/2000.shtml which appears to be the website of his school, all it appears to say, is that he was talking to the pupils about what being a schoolboy was like during WW1, not being a soldier (I am relying on google translator for this - my knowledge of German is non-existent) SRwiki 07:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who added him but the funny thing is that is was thinking about if he is a veteran and wrote theses days a letter for him - I must only send it it him. I hope I can get an answer but until we haven't any prove he shouldn't be counted. Statistician 09.05.2007 11:38 (CET)

I have taken the liberty of moving him to Unverified Section, but I hope you get a reply to your letter SRwiki 12:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was a hoax, he was removed off the unverified list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.229.28 (talk • contribs)

Greetings,

Dr. Bohdal may not be a hoax. He was removed because there is no source citation, and the user was anonymous. It could be an overzealous teenager assuming that Dr. Bohdal is a veteran. There is still a possibility, though, that he served. The point is, he shouldn't be added unless/until we have at the very least someone to 'vouch' for him (i.e. an expert from Austria). So far this has not happened. Note also someone attempted to add Boris Efimov. It is true that teenagers are often overzealous in presuming things. We should not assume one way or another. We should wait until we have a reason to believe one way or the other that these men are or are not veterans. Simply being 106 does not make one a WWI veteran.R Young {yakłtalk} 05:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that whoever is pushing the Bodhal claim can't give a reason for it?72.152.100.81 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In the posted link isn't any WWI-Veteran-claim so why is he put to the claim-page? Without a claim there isn't any reason to put him one the page so please don't put him without any claim again on the page. An no, he is not the oldest livin man in austria - teh oldest ist born 1899 and the name isn't pupblic.
Statistician 27.05.2007 03:59 (CET)

Aarne Arvonen

Greetings,

He's the second-oldest man on the entire page. I question why those who served in the Finnish Civil War in 1918 aren't counted as WWI veterans. We don't call it a "WORLD WAR" for nothing. The U.S. border skirmish with Mexico was counted as part of WWI, why not Finland?R Young {yakłtalk} 00:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The clue is in the title, the 'Finnish CIVIL WAR'. The turmoil inside of Finland may have been caused by the Russian Revolution in 1917, however it was a civil war in its entirety; White Guard versus Red Guard, it wasn't a country versus the Central Powers or the Alliance.

I know absolutely nothing of the Mexico border skirmish though so I don't know what type of parallel you are trying to draw. It's difficult as we all know that so much happened for years afterwards as a direct result of warfare. RichyBoy 09:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Civil war is different then wars fought by nations.

The Mexican conflict isn't counted either. It was used as an example of a war that happened at the same time, but wasn't part of the main conflict. Czolgolz 15:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert, please don't get me wrong because you do a great job for grg but I think sometimes you are overacting. Please speak to a historician which is familer with WWI - it is a question for historical and political science.
I can only aswer what I wrote on my discussionpage on this task: We'd this discussion befor. The finish civil war ist the resulat of WWI not a part of it. The revolution in russia 1917 is befor the end of war and also a result of WWI (like the finish civil war) but not a part of it. The germans send lenin to russia because they want to end the war with russia - and it functioned. With the same logic you must count the veterans of the russian revolultion as WWI-Veterans...
Something to think about: If someone in the finish civil war fought after 11.11.1918 but not befor he ist an era-veteran and when the fought befor he is a WWI-Veteran? This isn't consecent.
And once again: Can you name one historician which say that the finish civil war was part of WWI and not only a result of it???
Statistician 09.05.2007 11:44 (CET)

I don't mean to be rude, but I have two degrees in history, so actually I am an historian. As someone already pointed out, Germany was funding one side and Russia the other, and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was not signed until March 3, 1918:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk

And actually YES, Mexican border conflict persons counted as WWI veterans by the U.S. Note Samuel Goldberg, for example. R Young {yakłtalk} 15:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We are back at the problem of just when a war ends. Is it the cessation of hostilities or the signing of the formal treaty. The Armistice between Russia and the Central Powers was on Dec 3 1917, which I would guess is when the fighting stops. The Finnish civil war begins Jan 27th 1918, which is after the Armistice but before the signing of a formal treaty. I think that most people would argue that a war ends when the shooting stops. If you consider the case of the Korean War, the Armistice was signed 27 June 1953. But a formal peace treaty is yet to be signed and my question is does that mean the Korean War is still going on? In my opinion the real answer is no. There is also the amusing case of Berwick-on-Tweed a small town on the English Scottish Border, which was left out of the treaty that ended Britains involvement in the Russian Civil War, so in World War 2 it found itself in the position of still technically being at war with Russia, from one war and yet allied with it in another - This story may be apocryphal (though a peace treaty was signed in the 60's)but it does show the possible problems around using the signing of a peace treaty date, as the war end date. SRwiki 16:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note the closeness of the dates: Dec 3 1917, Germany and Lenin agree to a cease-fire; Dec 6 1917, Finland declares independence:

The bourgeoisie rule did not want to be under the influence of Lenin and the Bolsheviks and claimed Finland independent on December 6th, 1917, with the consent of Lenin.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/penelope/e/Studies/History/The%20Finnish%20Civil%20War.htmR Young {yakłtalk} 10:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Robert, I don't know if you read what I wrote. With the same logic you put the Finsih Civil War to WWI you can put other conflicts like the Russian Revolution to WWI.
You say you are a historician: Can you name any academic source that put the Finish Civil War to WWI?
Statistician 10.05.2007 1:13 (CET)

In fact the Russian revolution is really a part of WWI. It is inextricably tied together. The huge losses of Russian conscripts to Germany weakened the czar and led directly to Civil War.

Note that we also have Russian meddling in Poland (and thus a dispute about whether Polish veterans should count as WWI veterans).

However, there are a few differences:

1. We don't have any identifiable Russian Civil War vets.

2. In Finland, we had Germany financing one side as a bulwark against the Bolsheviks. We also had in the war for Finnish independence a defined front against Russian forces. Thus, it can be seen as a German "front." In Russia, we don't see this. Russia was too big for Germany to seriously consider conquering (although Hitler tried in 1941) and we see the German lines around the Polish border. Note that we have other sub-wars: as I mentioned, the French-Indian War/Seven Year's War, or even smaller conflicts like the War of Jenkin's Ear.

3. There were actual German troops in Finland on the "white" side:

Also, the Finnish ambassador of Berlin (on his own initiative, much against the wishes of Mannerheim) invited German troops to enter Finland to help the whites. Germany sent troops, in hope of gaining influence in northern Europe.

Note also that the United States considered American soldiers sent to Russia and even Siberia as part of the "American Expeditionary Forces" as WWI veterans.

So, are you now telling me that an American soldier stationed in Murmansk is a WWI veteran, but not a Finnish soldier in Finland?

Is the civil war in Iraq part of the "War on Terror"? What about the war in Somalia? Hmmm....

The bottom line: strict constructionists would like to separate the Finnish Civil War. However,just as some say that "Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda" we see the other side, Al-Qaeda in Iraq. I think we all need to stop being so nationalistic and start thinking with a more global perspective.

R Young {yakłtalk} 11:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I suppose I must be a strict constructionist, even though I fully recognise that wars have causes, consquences and side issues. But here are my reasons for arguing it is not a part of WW1 (caused by undoubtedly, but part of? No) Firstly Chronology:

1, Russian - Central Powers Armistice 3 Dec

2, Finnish Independence declared 6 Dec

3, Finnish War Starts 27th Jan, and yes Russian Troops are involved in a very minor capacity. But there are no German national troops involved.

4, Treaty of Brest litovsk signed 3 March, and Russia withdraws it troops.

5, German national troops get involved in the war 5th March.

It's all pretty messy but it looks as though Russian and German troops never actually faced each other during this conflict. If so can it be considered as part of the Eastern Front of WW1?

Secondly the war took place entirely within the borders of a newly independent country, with largely native troops. I can think of a close parallel in the Angolan War (though no parallel is ever perfect). But in Angola you had the MPLA being given extensive technical help by Cuba, fighting UNITA, who where given similar assistance by South Africa - Who even had troops on the ground at some times. But I don't think any one considers the Angolan war to have been anything other than a civil war. in fact I doubt if there have actually been many Civil Wars that have not had some outside influence meddling somewhere

Thirdly, I can't help feeling that we should work within what is the reasonably accepted history of events and it isn't really for us to write new things into the chronology of World War 1 and judging by this note from the Library of Congress http://countrystudies.us/finland/15.htm It appears as though the current settled consensus is that it was a civil war, and not a part of WW1. Now don't get me wrong here. I accept that some piece of paper, or photograph could come to light that changes this consensus and we could then act accordingly.

On a couple of other points, I always assumed that the Mexican border vets where considered to be vets because they were in uniform during the WW1. Also I dont think we have ever considered the murmansk vets as World War 1 regardless of what the US veterans association says, as we had to come up with a common definition of what a vet is. SRwiki 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Mr. Young, I think you comparing appels with pears if ou comapre it with the war on terror.
2. You still didn't refered a academic source for your assumption that the Finish Civil War ist part of WWI - the facts seem to speak against your position.
3. In konw a proverb "Only great men acknowledge mistakes." With about it. 4. Finish solders shoulf count as WWI-veterans if they foght a fight of WWI and not if the fight a fight during WWI that was not part of it.
5. To think global is good but it didn't change facts.
Statistician 10.05.2007, 22:34 (CET)

Greetings,

History is an art, not a science. I think there is a lot of small-minded thinking and liliputian argumentation being made here. History is not 'what actually happened,' it is an interpretation of what actually happened. Often, what makes an event 'historical' is subjective. For example, the murder of Emmett Till is historical because we choose to make it so, while many deaths that remain forgotten are not. Yet a forgotten event could be re-written into the record later. This is especially true with tracking 'last Confederate widows' or 'last veterans of conflict X'.

Might I ask:

1. This war was originally called the "Great War," not WWI. History later re-interpreted this war as "World War I." Thus, who is or is not a "World War I" veteran is in itself a matter of re-interpretation.

2. When the first shots were fired between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, and someone was killed, no one said "OK this is the first casualty of WWI." Later, as the conflict grew into a larger war, we re-interpret the original conflict into the larger one.

3. Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. The Western interpretation of WWII starting in 1939 is standard in the West, but no in Chinese thought.

4. George W Bush said "Mission accomplished" on May 1 2003. Technically, the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein was soundly defeated. We are now re-interpreting the 'civil war' afterwards as part of the same conflict.

5. The "Finnish Civil War" is also open to interpretation. Note that Finland had been a part of the Russian empire and had just recently declared independence.

6. The Vietnam and Korean "wars" weren't really "wars" either, they were "police actions" and "conflicts."

7. The USSR declared war on Japan on Sept 8 1945, yet we see the West view Sept 2 1945 as the traditional date for the war's end.

8. The spirit of this entire page is to honor those "who were there" and participated in these historic events. I find it reprehensible that now, after denying Finland, Poland is next. Also, trying to separate "military" from "para-military" is again stupid-think. Were those killed at Lexington and Concord not "Revolutionary War" veterans? Who is the U.S. fighting in Iraq? An organized army? I think not.R Young {yakłtalk} 09:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it is reprehensible to point out that one of the two polish has no citations to prove he fought during the normally accepted dates of the war. I think you miss the point somewhat as well about this debate - all of us are well aware that these people fought in events related to the war and this is why the page lists as many people as we can who fought but wouldn't normally be called WW1 veterans, there is no way they should miss out on recognition. However, 'veteran' for the purposes of this list has a definition which has been discussed before here, and it is responsible of the contributors to check that people fall inside this criteria - and sometimes this means rigorous debate. I tell you what I would be happy with though - the horses mouth. If we ask these guys "did you fight in WW1" and they say yes, then that is good enough for me. If they say no, well they should be era-vets, by their own words. RichyBoy 09:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, but then we have Merlyn "WWI vet" Kreuger! Also, in reality the reason the Canadian commemoration of their 'last' veteran didn't work out is because, as John Babcock himself said, "I would have felt more of a veteran if I had gotten to France." Harry Richard Landis "mopped floors in Missouri." They were technically veterans but they didn't feel like they were unless they were in combat.

In Poland, you had combat, but technically there is was not government-run military, although there were para-military militia units.

Remember, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." In the grand scheme of things, do you realize that MOST of the Las Vegas casinos are OUTSIDE the Las Vegas city limits? It is good to be 'technical' but there also comes a time when we need to be 'practical.' We shouldn't deny Kowalski 'veteran' status unless he is a liar. If he in fact did serve with a Polish para-military group, whether fighting Germany or Russia, it should count.

Finally, everyone is free to disagree but I see a fine distinction between an Irishman who rebelled against the Brits in 1916 and those in the Finnish Civil War. In the former, there might have been German financial support, but not German troops. In the latter, we see German troops (just like we see British troops in Iraq today). In fact, Germany had more troops in Finland than the Brits do in Iraq right now. Finally, demographically holding Finland would be a strategic bulwark against the "Allies," and, actually we would count US veterans in Murmansk or Siberia if there were any. Samuel Gooseberry in 2004, Warren Hileman, etc. Look at the map again. Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey had the interior lines; Britain-France-Russia had the exterior. Murmansk and Archangel were used as supply depots for the Allied war efforts.

I think the 'real' reason that Finland is not included by many is because who wants to identify with the 'bad guys/losing side'?

R Young {yakłtalk} 10:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

When I say from the horses mouth, I meant for the cases where it has already been reasonably established that they were at least 'era' veterans. I also have no issue at all with what side these people fought on - I'm interested in all their stories and I certainly couldn't be judgemental, who am I to be that anyway! Myself, I have a fairly 'traditional' view of what being a veteran means, which is why I question some of them, but it is wonderful that all participants have been identified on this page as veterans, no matter what the view. People will always sub-categorise veterans to be whatever they want them to mean, some people only care about combat veterans for instance. RichyBoy 10:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert, yes, history isn't a science a physics but that don't make you point Right. You write a lot of words to confirm but you this miss the academic source for you point of view. Without academic sources this discussion didn't make any sense - so please show us one.
Statistician 12.05.2007 01:48 (CET)

Small minded and Lilliputian I may be, but where is your evidence that the Finnish War is considered part of WW1, I don't mean your opinion, like Statistician, all I am asking you do is to cite some reliable academic sources. SRwiki 07:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about Holyoke University?

Documents Relating to World War IFirst World War.com - A multimedia history of World War One ... The Finnish Civil War · Lansing's Memorandum of the Cabinet Meeting, March 20, 1917 ... www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ww1.htm - 53k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this


FAST-FIN-1 Finnish Institutions PapersThe Finnish Civil War divided the country in two immediately after it had ... Some 40000 Russian soldiers still remained in Finland due to World War I.1 If ... www.uta.fi/FAST/FIN/HIST/ss-vict.html - 29k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

What, then, explains the Red defeat and the White victory? On the one hand, Germany's considerable aid to the Whites (war material and an aid expeditionary force of around 15,000 men),

Again, I ask: Is Iraq in 2007 a 'sovereign state' as alleged by the U.S.? Did the war 'end' in 2003?

Also, I think both of you are missing the real point. Let me state this again. Decisions on who is or wo is not a WWI veteran are arbitrary at best, not the same for everyone. France and Italy required their 'WWI veterans' to be combat veterans who served at least 3 months. The USA, on the other hand, adopted a broad definition that included even those serving in Siberia until Jan 1 1920. In other words, had the U.S. sent soldiers to Finland, they would be counted under the U.S. definition as WWI vets. U.S. soldiers sent to guard the Mexican border in 1917-1918 are counted as WWI vets ( border conflict vets if before Apr 6 1917). Yet for the same of the most fair system, we decided earlier, and I think everyone agreed, to count French and Italian vets who served 'less than 3 months'.

So, might I ask, hypothetically: if a German was recruited in 1918 and sent to Finland and is now 106 years old, is he a veteran or not?

Again, we see France not wanting to count Syria. Yet consider the reasons: France was taking Syria from the Ottoman empire (colonialism). On the Western front, France='good guys' (hometown heroes). On the Eastern front, France=colonial occupiers. The same with the British in Iraq.

Look, some of those you count as WWI 'veterans'...such as 'wireless telegraph operators'--were much further away from the action than Finland, where there were two homegrown sides and two foreign-element sides.

If you choose to stick your fingers in your ear and say "I don't want to hear it," well then fine. Let me know and I won't waste my time. Otherwise, your failure to understand history is not my concern.R Young {yakłtalk} 13:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the two citations you have listed (and that is all I was after in my previous note)

1, The first footnote for the FAST FIN citation states: "The First World War did not have immediate effects on Finland because Finns did not fight in it, and Finland was not a scene of fighting. However, more than 100,000 Russian soldiers altogether were stationed in Finland to prevent a German incursion into Russia through Finland"

2, Lansing's memorandum, makes no mention of Finland, Finnish, Russia, Russian etc So I am struggling to see what this adds to a discussion on the Finnish Civil War.

Neither of the citations appears to actually support your claim SRwiki 14:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I&action=edit&section=4 he was recruited to help building fortifications in Russia starting before March 1917. When discussing Aarne it is not only about whether Finnish Civil War was part of WWI. Would you consider him a veteran if he was recruited to wait on tables pivo for Russian soldiers and not to help build fortifications for them ? Later during the Finnish Civil War his side or the Reds was also fighting the Germans like PMOs in Poland. I am not sure I can see the difference. Please explain ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.111.229 (talk • contribs) I am still waiting for a comment. If someone who never saw Europe before armistice can be regarded as a WW1 vet, I cannot understand why not Aarne who did something to support Russian war effort cannot ?

My thoughts are that supporting the war effort of a country doesn't really count, after all you could argue that pretty much any adult in any of the combatant countries were supporting the war effort (Think of all those munitions workers, transport workers, merchant seamen etc without whom the armies would have ground to a halt) reading the (admittedly sketchy) information we have on him it reads more like he was working on a contract to undertake a specific job, not recruited into the Russian Army.
We have a pretty good working definition of a vet, it's not perfect but it does at least have a simple yes/no test - "was this person a member of the armed forces of a combatant country up to which ever armistice applies to that country?" Some people have argued that this is too generous and that there really should be a "did they see combat test?" (A view I have some sympathy with, and I am a little bothered by the "still in training" group - BUT I do not intend to challenge their right to be here, as the generally settled opinion is that they should) and we have discussed this at great length in the past. But the real problem with the "did they see combat" test is that it is in the end, untestable and to some degree unfair -does an army truck driver count?, or a radio operator? How do we know what some-one actually did 90 years after the events in question?
Going back to Aarne Arnoven, we have no evidence he was in uniform, and therefore fails the basic yes/no test. Working as a civilian contractor is not enough to be considered a military veteran. If some-one can provide evidence that he actually enlisted with the Russian Army, then of course he would be considered a veteran. SRwiki 17:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Newly discovered WWI veteran

Greetings,

A family has contacted me claiming their aged relative is a WWI veteran. They claim they have documents. This may be a new case, so stay tuned.R Young {yakłtalk} 15:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

William Seegers (born Oct 24 1900) drafted by Germany in WWI (1917), moved to U.S. 1923. Now lives in California (USA!)R Young {yakłtalk} 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: this may be the first confirmed discovery since Wilhelm Remmert in February.R Young {yakłtalk} 16:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be in the unverified section until you get to see if documents are credible or not? (unsigned comment)

Excellent work! If I was to put a bet on where new veterans are likely to be found, I think it amongst people who emigrated after the war, so there might just be that last Russian or Turk out there somewhere SRwiki 18:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I see he's been added on to the list, but with no citation given & just a "dead" link to some Yahoo group. Is there any verified proof on this claim yet apart from family claims? (unsigned comment)

I already have more on him than what's been produced so far for the listed German veterans. Also, I don't consider Wikipedia's standards to be as high as needed elsewhere because errors can be quickly changed (unlike a book that goes to print). So far the best information we have is that this is a true story. If it turns out otherwise, I'll be the first to let you know. Stay tuned.R Young {yakłtalk} 10:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert, would you please share your source for the Seegers story? (unsigned comment)

I'm not going to 'scoop' myself. I will reveal the information as it becomes practical to do so. We also have to give the family time. Note the Harry Landis case first was discovered in December but not adequately covered until April. Did that make the case 'wrong' in December? As someone pointed out, we haven't gotten updates on several cases since 2006.R Young {yakłtalk} 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • In that case, I think even having him in the "Unverified" section is stretching a bit. No source, no verification = Original Research. - fchd 17:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No, we have to rely on some people at least. Trusting nobody won't get this project anywhere. (ChrisW)
That's not how Wikipedia works. All facts must be Verifiable and despite Ryoung122's obvious expertise in this area, his/her contributions are not exempt from that or any other policy. Even the commented out notice in the intro the page states "Only candidates with official records of service are considered for addition to the lists." Where are these official records for this veteran? - fchd 18:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Johnny-come-lately, first there is a link to the "World's Oldest People" webgroup which IS an 'outside source.'

Also, you may not have noticed but several German, Italian, and French veterans were only 'sourced' to experts and not news links. These experts are considered 'reliable' and have been working on this project, in some cases, for three years or more. That is quite different than some overenthusiastic teenager posting material on Dr. Anton Bodhal...who may very well be a WWI veteran. But so far the only 'source' has been "Marxus"--not an expert with a proven track record in the field, as for example Mr. Giovanni Alunni of Italy is. If Dr. Bodhal himself would like to state he is a WWI veteran, I would consider him a reliable source...as he is a doctor. However, an anonymous editor is not the same.

I currently have several documentary groups wanting to interview/film Mr. Steegers. I also could get a news story done. I've been in over 1,000 newspaper articles on six continents, including the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Might I ask: what about you? Are you saying that if I get quoted in a newspaper, it is Wiki-verifiable, but if I tell you directly, then it is not? Please stop trying to make generalized guidelines apply to rather unique situations. Given the short life expectancy of persons aged 105+, the need for quick information should be paramount. On the other hand, we must respect their need for privacy and not 'wear them out.' As noted previously, the death rate for American WWI vets in the past year has been higher than statistics would predict. Perhaps too many requests for interviews, autographs, etc. took their toll? I believe the health of the remaining vets comes first, then the 'paparazzi.' This is NOT a "Jim Lincoln" case. I "may" be meeting Mr. Steegers myself next week. Thus you need to give me time to work on this. R Young {yakłtalk} 22:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Then that is the perfect explanation for moving this person to the "unverified" section. When there is verifiable information, THEN he can be moved back to the main section. fchd 16:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Holding U.S. cases to a higher standard is discriminatory. I stated that I already have more documentation for Mr. Steegers than we have for Wilhelm Remmert, for example. Please take your crusade elsewhere. You don't build a house by tearing down what is under construction and then say, 'see, it's not finished.'R Young {yakłtalk} 16:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not holding American cases to any higher standard. Where there is no verifiable information or citations, ALL cases (e.g. Kästner, Remmert) should at least be moved to the Unverified section, otherwise there's no point in having that there at all. Also, I resent your implication that I'm either tearing anything down, or stating that it's not finished. The only "crusade" I'm on is to uphold the five pillars and the policies of Wikipedia. While your contribution to this area of knowledge is immense, the policies apply to you as much as anyone else. - fchd 16:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think R Young does outstanding work in his field. I even think that the no original research rule of wikipedia is fully bendable in the case of this rare kind of living history, this is definately encyclopedic knowledge with a wide-spread interest, and rather sadly it is a fast-moving subject =( Nevertheless an encyclopedia must be accurate and citable, the problem here is that the standards of 'approval' for want of a better word vary wildly from case to case. I can see that R Young is confident and I look forward to reading about another veteran, but to use his own words he has 'scooped himself' by failing to having him as unverified until citable. RichyBoy 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Let me say that I'm opposed to the idea of holding the WWI veterans list to the same standard as the "world's oldest person" list. There are differences:

1. the 'oldest people' list involves an 'oldest person' titleholder. The WWI veterans list does NOT include a 'titleholder'. In fact, the purposes are different: the purpose of the first is to identify the world's oldest person, erring on the side of caution. The purpose of the second is to make the list as exhaustive and inclusive as possible, without including obvious frauds (i.e. Merlyn Kreuger).

2. the list 'world's oldest person list' could conceivably include anyone on the planet (i.e. we all could live to be 'oldest' in theory). The WWI veterans list, however, is limited by both 'class' (i.e. military veterans) and cohort (i.e. only those who served 1914-1918 in specific nations). In other words, the list is already somewhat self-limiting.So, the standards must be tighter for the former.

3. While we have seen false veteran claims in the Civil War and other eras, these often involved claims to 117, 112, 109, etc. When a claim is put forth as 106 or 107, the scales of possibility tip in the favor of the younger age being believable.

4. Wikipedia is easier to correct than a book. Wikipedia is not paper. Also, the standard for Wikipedia is generally citability by a reliable source or reference, not 'verifiability' which is currently being debated right now.

5. Yes, you are being unfair to Americans. Many of the German and Italian cases and a few of the French have relied on reports from 'correspondents' with a track record of reliability for those nations. Note that some of these correspondents have been cited in the local newspaper (for example, Giovanni Alunni for Italy). Again, it seems silly to say that if its in the newspaper, its veriable, but if the same person tells World's Oldest People and the newspaper isn't interested, its not.

6. Some cases, like Pawel Parniak, weren't even vouched for by an expert correspondent. I realize the need for greater scrutiny as the number of remaining vets dwindles, but Germany still has four vets left. The time is approaching 'urgent' but not yet. I am 'withholding' the info. for Mr. Steegers temporarily because I am due to visit him first, and then I have several documentarians competing over an opportunity. You should appreciate that I gave you as much as I did already. Why? Because if I know of a case and I don't tell anyone, and everyone else did the same, we wouldn't have any cases at all.

Have a nice day.

Robert Young R Young {yakłtalk} 03:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, the "surviving veterans of WWI" page is first and foremost a list of the 'candidates' to be the 'last veteran' for each nation, or a specific purpose (i.e. last female American veteran). Thus, like candidates running for president, there is an ongoing 'vetting' process before the decision is made. All we really need to be sure of is that the last veteran is not a faker. Slowly we have been getting more information, particularly from Italy and Germany, over the past year. Even the last 'Austrian' veteran is not settled yet. The standards also vary by nation. It seems the Brits/Canadians/Australians have done the best to ensure that they have everyone vetted and included.

I will be leaving tomorrow.R Young {yakłtalk} 03:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I do think there is a case for expanding the Unverified cases list to include those vets who are still lacking a clear citation - such Laguarnadie, Remmert etc. As we are getting down to the last few veterans, it becomes more important to ensure those remaining are properly supported by evidence (as has been noted several times before) In the case of the Central Powers veterans we are down to the last half dozen or so. So I think in the case of the Central Powers we are already at the stage where the remaining claims should be supported by evidence. SRwiki 12:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dwight Wilson's death

Now that Dwight Wilson has died, will this trigger the Canadian state funeral? or will that honour be reserved for either Powers or Babcock. Does any-one know the answer. SRwiki 07:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Me again, I have done a little bit of digging, and it appears that Dwight Wilson is having a private funeral, and Babcock has also turned down the honour - on the reasonable grounds that he didn't actually fight and that he has lived in the USA for most of his life. So unless Canada decides to award the honour to Powers (and with no disrespect, somehow I can't really see that) I think they have missed their chance.

Britain considered a similar proposal a couple of years ago, but it didn't go anywhere as the then surviving veterans all said "no thanks" SRwiki 07:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

The answer is John Babcock or no one. This is the worst outcome possible for the Canadian supporters of a state funeral. First, the last veteran to have served with Canadian forces now lives in the U.S. And the last WWI veteran living in Canada served for the UK.

Please note that, while convenient for Wikipedia to list the veteran by nation of residence, so far we have seen no inclination to define a veteran who served another force and then moved as a veteran of the country moved to. France is not recognizing Justin Tuveri, and Canada has not recognized Gladys Powers. The U.S. has come the closest, noting John Babcock, but let's remember that, ultimately, a state or military funeral is about those who served with that state military apparatus. I would be shocked to see John Babcock given a state funeral in the U.S.

Note this is a tangled mess. John Babcock is an American and a WWI veteran but not really an "American WWI veteran."

Also note that I think Canada didn't "miss its opportunity;" rather, that opportunity was turned down. The families of Victor Clemett, Dwight Wilson, and John Babcock all turned down a potential offer of a state funeral. So, if no one wants one, no one will get one.

However, I do expect the death of John Babcock will bring some sort of commemoration, perhaps a flag being lowered to half-staff in Ottawa.

Finally, as fate would have it, this board has been uber-competitive and quite nationalistic over the past several years, as if we use these veteran-symbols as "chess-pieces" to re-validate our own nationalistic identity. It is the height of irony that the migrations and deaths have now left us with Canada's last veteran living in the U.S., two of the five last U.S. vets having served a foreign power, and France with the possibility of their last veteran being Italian. Australia, likewise, has three UK vets left and New Zealand's last veteran was also British.

Perhaps it would be best for us all to tone down the nationalism a bit and recognize that we are all human. If anything, the best thing to have come from these pages is the inclusiveness and international cooperation. While the U.S. media or British media have liked to quote only their own veterans as veterans, Wikipedia sees all WWI veterans as veterans.

Regards Robert Young R Young {yakłtalk} 11:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________Everything isn't cut and dry as we see. What if the last German Veteran ends up being the one found here in the USA. That would be interesting. However, like stated above, I think the main purpose here is to make sure we locate the last survivors (PersinBoy)

To answer your question, from the CBC news article about Wilson - "His death leaves John Babcock, who lives in Spokane, Wash., as the last surviving Canadian to have served in the 1914-18 war. In recent months, the families of First World War veterans have expressed hesitation about having a state funeral for the last soldier to die. Veterans Affairs is now considering holding a ceremony commemorating all First World War veterans collectively when Babcock dies." --Maelwys 17:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I still do hope Gladys Powers favours it. Extremely sexy 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Delfino Borroni

I've found this article which has not been previously linked here or on his wiki bio page: http://www3.varesenews.it/busto/articolo.php?id=12345

Of interest is the last paragraph - as a civillian in WW2 he was driving his car over the Ticino bridge when it was destroyed by an allied bombing raid and he spent 37 days in hospital! RichyBoy 23:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I will add it to his article now. Extremely sexy 21:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Dr. John Russell Coffey

As another example of Euro-centric double standards, why do we se "Dr. Anton Bodhal" but simply "John Russell Coffey" instead of "Dr. John Russell Coffey."

R Young {yakłtalk} 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because Bohdal is a medical doctor, whereas Coffey has a Phd. Outside of academia, I know of few if any Phd's that go so far as to demand to be called by the title "Doctor." Bill Cosby would be an example. Medical doctors, on the other hand, often (if not always) have the title included. I don't think this would be an example of a "Euro-centric double standard," rather just common sense, just as I doubt you were being U.S. centric when you transposed the two center letters of Bohdal's last name. Regarding the title of Dr., what is wikipedia's policy on the matter? --DHLister | Talk 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

An academic achievment which entitles you to a salutation allows the holder to choose if he/she wishes to be addressed that way, as far as I'm aware there are no exceptions in Western Europe. You don't have to put it on official documents for instance, such as passports. A biography page is well entitled to mention his fully-decorated name, but if John Coffey had no inclination to be called Dr then that is that. That doesn't mean I know what he wants, but I agree with DHLister, many of my friends can have their titled modified by Dr (through engineering/science) but they have no interest it, as a rule. In fact even my medical Dr friends don't wish to be called Dr outside of their professional capacity. RichyBoy 19:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Anton Bohdal is not a medical doctor, but earned his Doctor title (equivalent to Phd.) in spacial planning. Its right-out ridiculous to subscribe calling him by his Dr. title to Euro-centric double standards! In Switzerland, Austria and Germany people with a Doctor tile are just commonly called Dr., unless people specifically ask NOT to be called by their doctor-title. What is Euro-centric about that?? Who is downgrading Dr. Coffey in any ways?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.75.122 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the correction. I have yet to ferret out which dying braincell prompted me to believe Bohdal was a medical doctor, but when I do, I'll give it a piece of my mind ... wait a minute, it already is a piece of my mind. --DHLister | Talk 20:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Robert!
Why do you say euro-centric? Because you are often america-centric? I didn't mean to harm you but think about that. Your are prefering the american view (not all are thinking in the american way). I think about our user discussions and you referens "War on Terror". (Terror was a problem befor the 2000s, too - in germany we had problems with teror in 1970s, for example.)
As the unsigned user has written: It is usual to but the doctor-titel to the name in Germany, Austria and Switzerland - you can put it in your identification card or passport.
I didn't know befor that John Russell Coffey is a Dr. - so why I should I have put the titel on the page?
Perhaps the person who added him didn't know this, too, or didn't care about titles. So why you are discussion about euro-centric behaviour instead of adding his academic titel?
Statistician 19.05.2007 10:26 (CET)

I see from the emotional reaction that I must have hit a nerve. Deep down, most people over-react because the charge is partly correct. In particular, there is a German/Austrian tradition in the vein of Sigmund Freud to look up to Germans as intellectual experts; hence the title "Dr." Americans traditionally have been 'modest' in their usage of even earned titles. Notably, the U.S. Constitution forbids titles of nobility. Zsa Zsa Gabor's husband, on the other hand, is a fake titleholder. True, it's not just the German obsession with it...an element of Americana is obsessed with European royalty. The bottom line, though, is we should attempt to apply as fair of standards as possible. As for my fixing it, I don't have time for those type of edits.R Young {yakłtalk} 05:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bertolami Carmelo - A citation

Afternoon All I have ferreted out what appears to be a pretty good citation citation for Carmelo Bertolami: www.comune.novara-di-sicilia.me.it/data/browse.php?action=rd&id=347 it appears to be some sort of local community website, and has a picture of him as well. With the recent death of Constanzo Pasquale. This means that we now have citations for all the surviving Italian Vets (though in the case of a couple of them they are linked from their own Wiki Pages)

As always I would appreciate it if some-one who knows what they are doing could turn this into a link on the main page. Thanks SRwiki 13:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added it as a proper citation, and given it its proper title: "Active Grandfather of Nine Carmelo Bertolami is 105". I think it's a provinicial news/community site as you suggest RichyBoy 23:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I've now just properly cited all the Italian veterans living in Italy, I'll start on the others shortly as well so the page is consistent; nobody can ever argue about them never being cited again after I'm done. RichyBoy 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope you have more luck than I have! I have all but given up on Remmert, Kastner and Lagarnaudie. I also don't think that the current citations for Kowalski are valid either. SRwiki 08:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

In my years of research, I've found that sometimes patience is needed. Where to draw the line? For example: Gladys Hawley was cited in the British media for her 109th birthday, but not 110th. So, we assumed she died. But then she returned for her 111th. Wrong.

Edna Parker was noted for her 109th birthday in 2002...but did not appear again until her 112th in 2005. Was she dead? No.

We searched high and low, yet Walter Heiman escaped attention until his death in March 2007.

With Remmert and Legaurnadie, we have at least a correspondent backing the claim...correspondents with a proven track record. With Kowalski, the age claim (107) is quite reasonable, not another Pawel Parniak. I think that, like it or not, patience is still needed. We know where these cases came from. We can ask the correspondents to send us, for example, a newspaper clipping or digital copy of the newspaper. Don't assume that all options are exhausted. Note that Maria Capovilla appeared in the Ecuadorean newspapers for several birthdays (such as 107th, 113th) that never made the 'international wire.' Yet when I went to Ecuador, there she was in the newspaper archives.R Young {yakłtalk} 05:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

France update

Greetings,

With the recent 109th birthday of Justin Tuveri, there are now three 109-year-old WWI vets in France. Also, I've been told that the 108-year-old anonymous veteran is still living.64.175.33.52 20:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I now have the birthdate and the first name of the anonymous French WWI veteran. I have already added the birthdate.64.175.33.52 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user, I know you wish to be helpful but I've had to undo the addition of this veterans name, it's against WP:Biographies_of_living_persons regarding private figures. Quite probably the date should be removed as well, he's already known to people like R Young anyway. RichyBoy 22:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC) ____________________ Question, I'm wondering if Mr. Young or someone that does know about him, does he have three or more months of service? I imagine the French government "now" knows about him, but just wondered if they would include him (give him a state funeral), if he happened to be the last veteran to fight for France. (PershinBoy)209.247.21.167 07:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem over that of other countries is the standard of proof is much higher than we would accept for Germany say. He's either been indentified and requested to remain anonymous, or identified himself but wished to remain anonymous. I would not like to speculate if the French government knows, they probably know if a veteran called "Mr X" served or if he served for more than 3 months, but they sill can't verify him unless he wishes to be verified with proof of who he is etc by coming forward. As far as I am aware R Young knows who he is from his French Contacts, but I don't think any other information regarding the war is really known about him. RichyBoy 09:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

From what I understand the indidivual veteran is not the one withholding his name, it's the French correspondent. France, like the USA, works a bit like a "Federal bureaucracy." Their list of veterans has been notoriously incomplete (remember the 'discovery' of Rene Riffaud?). Our French correspondents discovered Rene Riffaud and Louis Jaffre, only to have the French gov't take credit for the discovery months later. Note also there are different branches of the French government, and one hand does not know what the other is doing. Thus, the branch that deals with veterans apparently is not aware of Mr. X, but the branch that deals with centenarians is. So, that means I can confirm that Mr. X is listed in the French centenarians list currently as age 108. Also, I have been told that the name of Mr. X will be released 'eventually'--again either after he dies or after the last 'official' French veteran dies, whichever comes first. I added the name "Bernard" to discourage speculation that it is Naum Djorjevich...I have the list and the first name is Bernard.R Young {yakłtalk} 05:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Canadian State funeral note

Should this note be deleted? As it doesn't look like it will happen. SRwiki 08:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No I think it should stay it's something which lends to notability, government recognition that is. I'll add a sentance to it later explaining the doubtful status of it, and a reference to that effect. RichyBoy 08:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Italian veteran discovered

Greetings, Mr. Giovanni Alunni has reported the discovery of another Italian WWI veteran. As I argued in 2004, we should first focus on the 'oldest' veterans, then the 'last.' Only with the deaths in the last year of George Johnson, 112; Maurice Floquet, 111; Ernest Pusey, 111; Moses Hardy, 113; Emiliano Mercado Del Toro, 115; and Antonio Todde, 110 has the focus shifted from 'oldest' to 'last.' Mr. Allingham is all alone from 1896; his chances of being the last veteran are slim to none. Most likely, disappointing or not, the last veteran will be some underage kid who never served in combat and born in 1901 or later. Or just maybe someone from 1900. Given that we have three 109-year-olds in France but no veterans from 1900, I still think it is quite possible that more French WWI vets will be discovered. We will likely see a few more (maybe 1-3) from Italy, Germany, the US, France, and Poland.R Young {yakłtalk} 21:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What a strange comment all the above is - it starts off with a new veteran, exciting news & then a rant & a "dead" link to some group where you need to be a member to join.

And in the meantime, no name, no info about this new veteran - or is it another Mr X (anomoyous?)

Why can't all the plebs who aren't in this group see the new info about the new veteran or are we not worthy? (unsigned comment)

Well, you yourself are anonymous. Why don't you:

A. Sign up for a Wiki ID.

B. Sign up to be a member of the World's Oldest People webgroup (membership is FREE).

Also note, the link is not 'dead'. It would work if you were a group member.R Young {yakłtalk} 19:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/7889R Young {yakłtalk} 21:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Poland has a very small population, statistically speaking I'm not sure you should expect to find anyone else from there, especially as the PMO was a paramilitary and didn't have that many members. RichyBoy 23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________ I'm not so sure the two from Poland we have listed should be considered true WWI vets anyway. True stats can give us a certain idea of who may be the last, but a couple of those 108 year olds seem to be pretty tough birds. When you reach this age, it's hard to say how much longer this will last. Hopefully, we will find another 4 or 5, but by years end I imagine we will be down to less than 15 total. (PershinBoy)209.247.21.167 04:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Poland's population is quite large (about 40 million today) and it has been slow-growing over the years, and declined significantly during WWII. So, how many people resided in Poland in 1920? Even under occupation, it was quite large. Also, the reason we might find more Polish vets are two: one, the war there was 'total war' so it is likely a higher percentage of the population was involved. Two, due to the chaos, it is also likely that it would be difficult to identify all the veterans. This contrasts with places like Australia and the UK. The UK's records are solid; the chances of finding an undiscovered UK veteran are slim mainly due to the amount of work already done. Also, checking the UK stats, we see several '1900' veterans already, making it more likely that all the UK vets have been located--althought it's possible there may still be another one, if that person chooses to remain anonymous.R Young {yakłtalk} 05:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, I was thinking of the Czech Republic. RichyBoy 06:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No more information about him, Robert? Extremely sexy 01:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we now have information on him:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/7911

Enrico GARBUGLIA WWI veteran born 30/3/1900 Message List

Reply | Forward | Delete Message #7911 of 7915 < Prev | Next >

Greetings,

the veteran I have discovered is Enrico Garbuglia, born in Montecosaro (Macerata)on 30 march 1900 and living in Civitanova Marche (Macerata - central Italy) with his daughter. He is not in the government list of Cavalieri di Vittorio Veneto, having served for less than 6 months, but he did participate in the war events (in Italy and former Jugoslavia) in 1918. He can't speak anymore but is reported in relatively good conditions.

I have found only a quotation of Enrico Garbuglia in the web, inside an article dedicated to the oldest residents of the province of Macerata.

Best regards Giovanni Alunni

http://www.vivere.marche.it/modules.php? name=News&file=article&sid=10564&mode=nested

Macerata: compie 107 anni Teresa Brachetta di Passo di Treia

E' la "nonnina" della provincia di Macerata. Teresa Brachetta, di Passo di Treia, compie domani – venerdì 11 agosto – l'età di 107 anni. E' nata infatti nel lontano 1899 ed è l'unica persona ancora in vita nel territorio maceratese ad aver attraversato tre secoli.

Ha qualche acciacco, ma è ancora lucida e domani alle ore 18 parteciperà ad una messa di ringraziamento nella chiesa della Natività di Maria, celebrata dal parroco di Passo di Treia, don Natale Branchesi. Con lei ci saranno i figli, nipoti e pronipoti, amici di famiglia e amministratori locali. In rappresentanza del sindaco di Treia, Luigi Santalucia, impegnato in questi giorni in Cina con Ulderico Lambertucci, parteciperà l'assessore Sandro Marozzi.

Anche la Provincia di Macerata sarà presente alla celebrazione, con l'assessore ai Servizi sociali Alessandro Savi, a sottolineare il fatto che Teresa è proprio la "nonnina" dell'intera comunità provinciale. La segue a ruota un civitanovese, Enrico Garbuglia, nato il 30 marzo del 1900, che con i suoi 106 anni è fra gli uomini il più anziano.

Secondo i dati Istat, al primo gennaio di quest'anno erano in vita, nella provincia di Macerata, 56 centenari o ultracentenari. Nel Comune di Treia, oltre a Teresa Brachetta, risiedono altre due donne molto longeve: Maria Cingolani, che il 26 aprile ha compiuto 100 anni, e Maria Sterpi, che il 30 marzo ha spento 104 candeline. R Young {yakłtalk} 20:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ilquotidiano.it/articoli/index.cfm?ida=60064 It's the same syndicated article, but appearing on a more main stream news site. 10th August 2006 is the date of publication. RichyBoy 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Another U.S. veteran discovered?

Greetings, a well-placed source has informed me today that there may be another U.S. WWI veteran. This person has family contact information and says that the veteran has requested anonymity, due to the horrors of what he experienced in WWI. This makes it possible that there is another unidentified US combat veteran of WWI. I will try to work with this to see if the family and the vet might yet change his mind. Again, it will take some time to tease out the last veterans...in part because they may not want to be publicly identified.R Young {yakłtalk} 05:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Talking to my source today, this one is going to be tough to ferret out. But it does seem there is another one out there. I'll give updates if they become available.R Young {yakłtalk} 20:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Era-veterans page

we've discussed it and mentioned it many times before about a a seperate page for era-veterans and unless there is any objections i'll have a go at doing one? i think it would be something different as i wouldn't want to include people such as Dan Keating on this page but i do think he should be linked in some way, such as on a seperate page.Webbmyster 14:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like that idea. I think you are missing the point about "Era-veterans." They are veterans that SOME exclude but could be World War I veterans by someone's definition (for example, Julio Ereneta was a WWI veteran according to the US VA, even though he joined in 1919). For example, Floyd Matthews served before the Treaty of Versailles, which 'ended the war' according to some.

On my supers page, I have supercentenarians and then 'honorable mentions' (i.e. died at 108-109). But if I included everyone from 100 on up, then it wouldn't be a supers page, would it? Let's not forget that persons like Robley Rex actually went to France and served as 'occupation troops.'R Young {yakłtalk} 20:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

true, i just don't understand why dan keating can't get a mention as the finnish civil war had similar reasons to start to the fighting in ireland. Webbmyster 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

I think the main difference is that the Irish, for all their hatred of the English domination, saw themselves as still a part of the British Empire and loyal vs. Germany first. This is completely different than the Finnish situation, where one side had German troops and support and the other side had Russian troops and support. Second, the timing: when did Dan Keating serve? Both remaining Finnish vets served in 1918 or earlier.72.152.100.81 04:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

but we have british veterans (now dead) on here that only served in ireland at the same time as dan keating would have been playing a part but they're down as non combat ww1 vets.Webbmyster 14:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's Take a Breather, People

I'm concerned with the overly obsessive nature of some of these discussions. We've already had a user complain that the vets weren't dying fast enough. We've had complaints that the newly discovered vets weren't being revealed soon enough. Most of all, though, it seems that when a veteran hasn't died in a while, there's an effort to delete or demote someone, just to make the numbers go down. It becomes a game, "Ten Little Indians." Now, I'm all for keeping fakes like Merlyn Kreuger, William Olin, and Jim Lincoln out of the main list...but when we are dealing with issues like Kowalski...issues of national and language barriers, access to information, etc, I think we need to take it slow. As someone said, there will probably still be at least 10-15 veterans worldwide by the end of the year. It is not 'crunch time' yet. The best thing to do is to trace the source...who added the case...and find out why they added it, before deciding on demotion or deletion.R Young {yakłtalk} 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________ Who put the picture of "David Ball" on the header of this article. A handsome young man, but I don't see him in the list as one of the last WWI vets. REMOVE HIM. If we must have a picture lets have one of Harry Patch or someone of this active listing (PershinBoy)162.114.40.31 13:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

R Young the problem is that you are applying a double-standard. All you need to do is to read your very own words on Dr Anton Bohdal: Dr. Bohdal may not be a hoax. He was removed because there is no source citation, and the user was anonymous. We should wait until we have a reason to believe one way or the other that these men are or are not veterans.

I've checked out when Kowalski was added, which was on the 5th February this year: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I&oldid=105771602 and it was added by an anonymous user.

With your own logic he should become unverified for the time being - the citation has been discussed at length and it simply isn't clear. I'll probably get round to moving him later this weekend, I'll have another search for info first though. RichyBoy 18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but there is a difference. The Bodhal article link made ZERO mention at all of anything military. The Kowalski links mentioned military service.R Young {yakłtalk} 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I would wait with possibly deleting him until Thomas Breining and/or Stefan Jamin confirm(s) his status as a veteran or not though. Extremely sexy 09:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I will probably shut up about Kowalski after this, so bear with me while I lay out my reasoning. When this article was tagged as inadequately sourced, I decided to check the citations we had and dig out as many new ones as I could. I also decided not get too excited about those veterans who did not have citations, but where "vouched for" by one of the expert researchers who contribute to this page. In this context Kowalski stuck out.
Neither of the two citations actually mentioned WW1 service, I tried typing in "Kowalski" and assorted spellings and variants of "Wojna światowa jed" (which I think is Polish for World War 1)I have ploughed through dozens of Polish websites (there are more than you think because there was a Catholic Priest of the same name who was martyred in World War 2)and can find nothing to support WW1 Vet status. In fact the only citations for "our" Kowalski I have come across are the ones already listed. As I have noted before there is a problem with these two citations as far as possible World War 1 service goes they flatly contradict each other, one has him as an Austro-hungarian subject and the other as a Russian subject, but they both agree on him fighting the Bolsheveiks.
So in this case we have some-one added by an anonymous user(the track record of anonymous users has been poor), with two contradictory citations (This gets my alarm bells ringing), neither of which directly mentions World War 1 service. So my reasons for considering him to be a veteran of the Polish Soviet War (1919-1921) are. 1 we do not have a valid citation for WW1, but we have two citations relevant to the Polish Soviet War. 2 He was added anonymously, rather than by one of the researchers here whose word I would trust. When it comes to anonymous additions the current track record suggests they are either outright hoaxes, or the result of over-enthusiatic researchers thinking any male over 105 must have fought in WW1.
Finally just for the record, of the current 28 Vets on the list Kowalski is the only one I no longer think should be on the list as all the others are either "vouched for" or have valid citations. SRwiki 09:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I would not oppose the removal of Kowalski IF our Polish connections don't feel he is a WWI veteran. However, I might suggest keeping him listed in the 'claims' section for further investigation, since we don't even have a date of service yet.R Young {yakłtalk} 06:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Does Louis Lagarnaudie also have valid citations? I did not find a source on him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.255.1 (talk • contribs)

Mr. Lagarnaudie comes from our French correspondents.R Young {yakłtalk} 06:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I just saw a news report that said only three US veterans remain. 

 Jive Dadson 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OK we have five veterans listed as living in USA, but Babcock is a Canadian Vet, and Steegers is a German vet. So that leaves 3 US vets. SRwiki 07:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the note from statistician, it looks as though his Polish correspondent does not have any evidence of WW1 service for Kowalski, so I have placed him in the unverified section, with a note that further evidence is required. Thanks SRwiki 08:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We actually know more than the news reports. I currently have three groups that are interested in interviewing Mr. Steegers. I am waiting to see if we can arrange an interview or two before the media circus descends on this man. My impression from my visit was...only 106...if this man went unnnoticed, surely there are still more out there. And in fact I've heard from a highly reputable source that there is a 4th US WWI veteran that doesn't want to be identified. But in addition to this, we find that newspapers often like "107th" birthday stories, as is the case with Mr. Garbuglia of Italy and Mr. Cambefort of France. So, it is likely that at least for the youngest veterans, if they are 105 or 106 now the news may not have been interested in them yet.R Young {yakłtalk} 23:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Another French WWI veteran discovered

Greetings,

Another French WWI veteran has been discovered. As I said earlier, with the French statistics skewed (3 living 109-year-olds, no one from 1900), it stands to reason that we are missing the 'bottom of the barrel' from the France list.

Perhaps more bewildering, however, is that our French correspondent chose to reveal this one (perhaps in response to Italy finding one?). There seems to be a little gamesmanship, as the anonymous 108-year-old remains anonymous. Given that there is only one known 108-year-old male in France, however, and I have the list, and have been told that it is the same person, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who it is. Thus I can say that this new case is not Mr. X.

One more comment, it is obvious from the join date (Aug 29 1918) that this man served 'less than 3 months' and so isn't on the 'official' lists, but would count by the American definition. Note also that poilus might translate better as 'combat veteran' and not 'veteran.'


RAYMOND CAMBEFORT, PENSIONNAIRE AUX MONGES, ÂGÉ DE 107 ANS, FUT ENGAGÉ VOLONTAIRE EN 1918 MAIS RESTE NON RECENSÉ

Castres : cet ancien combattant de 14-18 qui a été oublié

Exprimez-vous... Et vous, que pensez-vous de l'histoire extraordinaire de Raymond Cambefort ? Raymond Cambefort est un homme remarquable à plusieurs titres. Le plus étonnant, c'est qu'il a bel et bien participé à la guerre 1914-1918 mais son nom ne figure nulle part, ni comme ancien combattant et encore moins comme ancien « poilu ». Pensionnaire des Monges depuis maintenant trois ans, Raymond est né le 11 février 1900 à Toulouse et affiche ses 107 ans avec une formidable vitalité ! Durant sa vie professionnelle, qu'il a exercée principalement à Castres où il s'est installé entre les deux guerres, ce modeleur-mécanicien fut un inventeur de machines-outils absolument étonnant. Et puis, auparavant, il y eut sa « première » vie. Et c'est là que ce centenaire risquerait bien de défrayer la chronique : Raymond Cambefort fut en effet « engagé volontaire pour la durée de la guerre le 28 août 1918 au titre du premier groupe d'aviation (personnel non naviguant), arrivé au corps le 1er septembre 1918 », selon les termes de son livret militaire. Comme en atteste encore ce livret, il fut « renvoyé dans ses foyers le 4 novembre 1919 ». Raymond Cambefort est donc bien l'un des tout derniers anciens combattants de la Première guerre mondiale… même si, n'ayant pas connu le front, il ne peut pas être assimilé aux « poilus ». Quoi qu'il en soit, jusqu'à ce jour, Raymond, très discret sur cette période, est resté oublié du recensement des anciens combattants de 14-18 ! Pourtant, ils ne sont guère plus nombreux : deux précisément selon la comptabilité officielle de l'Office national des anciens combattants (ONAC). Citons pour les deux autres Louis De Cazenave en Haute Loire et Lazare Ponticelli dans le Val de Marne, tous deux nés en 1897 ! Même s'il n'a jamais couru après une forme de reconnaissance, l'« oubli » de la Nation qui a frappé Raymond est d'autant plus curieux qu'une fois démobilisé du 1er groupe d'aérostation de Pau le 4 novembre 1919, soit un an après l'Armistice, Raymond Cambefort a été rappelé à sa demande. Et ce n'est pas fini : il fut « rappelé en activité et mis en affectation spéciale le 28 août 1939 ». « J'ai toujours considéré, probablement avec raison, que mon parcours dans l'armée était un chemin de tricheur, si je peux m'exprimer ainsi, dit humblement Raymond. En fait, il s'est trouvé que l'armée m'a utilisé dans des postes où j'estime ne pas avoir été à ma place ». Raymond Cambefort, un sacré personnage qui méritait bien ce « devoir de mémoire ». Serge Boulbès

Blessé par balle au champ de tirs A 107 ans révolus, Raymond Cambefort est le doyen du centre hospitalier castrais. « Depuis son anniversaire, son moral fluctue un peu, précise Guy Delrieu, aide-soignant, devenu son ami et confident. Sinon, il est étonnant. Il fait preuve d'une vitalité formidable, circulant seul dans son fauteuil pour se rendre dans la salle à manger ou aux toilettes». « Vous m'excuserez de m'exprimer de façon désordonnée, je m'en étonne d'ailleurs moi-même », tempère Raymond. Pourtant, les souvenirs fusent. Son père Germain et son frère Gustave y sont pratiquement omniprésents. « Des hommes remarquables », insiste Raymond. L'admiration pour son frère aîné a d'ailleurs justifié son engagement : « Je me suis engagé quand il est mort à 21 ans en 1918, indique Raymond. J'ai été affecté à la fabrication d'avions, en bois, fils d'acier et toiles. J'y ai côtoyé le pilote Védrine. Il y a des dizaines et des dizaines d'années que je n'avais pas parlé de ça », ajoute le centenaire qui raconte aussi avoir été blessé, beaucoup plus tard, au champ de tirs. Un authentique ancien combattant. Malgré sa modestie.


RegardsR Young {yakłtalk} 23:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Polish veterans: a call for opinion and debate

Evening All, I just thought I would request peoples opinions on the proper status of the 2 Polish veterans. As there has been some debate about them on the Jozez Kowalski articles. So:

Is Kowalski a WW1 veteran? My opinion is no, as the citations I have seen suggest to me he is a veteran of the Polish War of Liberation. And I suggest we change him to being an "era" veteran.

Is Stanislaw Wychech a WW1 veteran? This one is far more tricky and I appreciate Richyboy's thoughts on this one. Personally I feel he just about squeezes over the line, but I fully understand the difficulties of giving paramilitaries veteran status.

So I want to formally open these questions up to a full debate. So opinions and thoughts anyone? Thanks SRwiki 18:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to highlight the Poles as questionable status when there are still others of the same status & not being discussed. I certainly feel Wycech is a WWI veteran of some description & actually FOUGHT during WWI, which should count for something, as opposed to say, Ross, Peterson etc. (unsigned comment)

1. From who is the unsigned comment? And: Wich cases do you meen with "same status & not being discussed".
2. If Kowalski didn't fight in WWI but in theLiberation-War, you're right: He would be a era-veteran. Because I didn't know the facts about his live I can't say if he fought in WWI.
3. I don't know the facts good enough about the "Polish Military Organisation" to I can't judge this case but for me it seems that Wychech fought during WWI. I think veteran-status didn't depend on if it was for a official army or for paramilitaries.
Statistician 10.05.2007, 22:34 (CET)

I don't think it is unfair to raise these questions, I spent a fair amount of time nailing down citations for many of the others, and have also been happy to accept cases when one of our experts here vouch for them. I have also raised questions on two of the Italian Veterans as they are citationless, and don't appear to have been vouched for. In the case of the Polish veterans their citations do not identify them as WW1 veterans. So I think it is fair to discuss them SRwiki 06:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I feel there is a danger of being too inclusive but also a danger of being too exclusive. Not including Polish veterans would be extremely unfair. Poland had existed as a separate nation for centuries if not millennia before it was divided up the partititons in the 18th century. Poland was divided up by Germany, Austria, and Russia, so in fact all three were the 'enemy.' I think the real problem here is that we are trying to fit WWI into 'boxes' such as 'good vs evil' and a dichtomous war. Instead, this war had multiple groups fighting each other, each with conflicting and intermingling allegiances and alliances. One of the biggest historical misinterpretations is to say something like the "Estonians were Nazis" because they opposed Stalin in WWWII.

Also, unlike France in WWII, where you had a "Vichy government" accede to German demands and an underground 'resistance', we don't see any Polish 'government' supporting Germany.

Those that want to get 'technical' are attempting to apply standards when in fact there is what is called "meta-data," or varying standards.

John Salling, alleged to be the "last Confederate veteran" by the US VA, in fact didn't even have a Confederate uniform and was an impostor. Yet 'officially' he is the last Civil War veteran. Truth need not get in the way.

R Young {yakłtalk} 09:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know what the Polish government has to say about these two individuals? Maybe they had no official recognition at the time, but if they are recognised now it would vastly strengthen their cases. RichyBoy 10:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense to Polish government but I think that they would be happy to claim these 2 as veterans whether it is the truth or not. It is a question of national pride.

I've been thinking about Stanislaw Wychech's case. The more I think about it the more I think he should be a veteran, for the following reason(s): When the Central Powers bailed out of Poland (basically, when the German supreme command collapsed, the Ober Ost), which was between October-November 1918, the Polish Military Organisation took an active part in the war at this point helping them on their way out, rather than covert subterfuge. As Stainslaw appears to have served during that time, and as the PMO became official after the end of the war, I think it is actually easy to say he is a proper veteran. My views on Kowalski still stand though, until some proper evidence comes to light. RichyBoy 11:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert, I'm sorry to say this but I think you missed the point of the discussion. Nobody wants to exclude polish veterans that fought in WWI für russia, germany or austria-hungarian. We ware dicussion about individual cases and I'm wondering that you as a criticel person are so fast in to say "They are WWI-veterans". We all want a equal standard for what ist a WWI-Veteran and about this is this discussion and not if polish veterans are veterans of WWI. So ig a polish man fought during WWI he is a WWI-Veteran, if he fought for poland after WWI he ist a era-veteran and not a WWI-veteran. It's verry simple. And as I wrote befor: I can say what I meen about standards but I can't judge this cases because I don't have enough information about them. Statistician 12.05.2007 01:48 (CET)

Having read through rough translations of the two citiations for Kowalski, the only thing we can say for sure is that he fought the Bolsheveiks, which would make him a veteran of the Polish Soviet war this began Feb 1919 see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Soviet_war . There is no information on what he was doing prior to that. Even the army served (which is given as Russian in his entry) may well be incorrect, as in one article he is born a subject of Emperor Franz Josef, and in the other as a subject of Tzar Nicholas, but with neither of them mentioning military service for either. By my reading of these two citiations, It is probable to me that he is in fact a veteran of the Polish Army, who fought against the Soviet Union in 1919. Now it could well be that my Polish translator program is wrong, and a lot of nuances get missed. But I can't see any unequivocal evidence that he was involved in WW1. SRwiki 09:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but I believe that Wikipedia represents 'best effort' not 'proven' beyond all doubt. It may seem hypocritical to some that I who favor 'validated' for the world's oldest people would say this, but I feel you all are missing a few points here. Let me make them first before you judge:

A. Uniqueness of the claim...research shows that the higher the age claimed, or alternately the further away from normal it is, the more likely it is to be false. To counter this, we have a 'sliding scale' that expects that the higher the age claimed, the more scrutiny it needs to be sure it is accurate. Thus we are concerned about Barry Bonds using steroids (and changing the historic record), but less so about a minor college athlete who isn't challenging anything. Mr. Kowalski's age claim of 107 does not yet stand out as unusual. However, as we have seen from your own challenges, the pressure to verify/re-check increases as the other cases begin to disappear.

B. Information in the context of availability: we don't have much in the way of Polish correspondents. In reality, your question says it all: did he serve in "1919" or 1918 or earlier? Yet we shouldn't be fighting to get the answer by arguing on the message board. Either contact a Polish correspondent or leave it alone. This also means there's a greater chance of missed cases where we don't have complete records.

C. Dates vs. forces served: I think there are two issues, dates served and forces served. Since there are two questions, there must be two answers. Let's stop combining the two.

The bottom line: I agree we need more information on this case, but let's be honest: the German cases are basically 'vouched-for' by faith (where are the citations?). We also know that France is holding one case back, and there may be other cases not yet discovered. Just today, someone found another German WWI veteran (died in March 2007). As Germany was desperate and recruited just about anyone they could get (seemingly) we should expect more finds.

If Kowalski is one of the last 10 veterans anywhere, I think we need to seriously consider the case. However, I don't feel we have reached that point yet, to have to make such a decision. This is not an 'endorsement' of Kowalski: I am suggesting that let's not judge before hearing both sides of the story. We need to ask the Polish correspondents to check first, then get back to us. R Young {yakłtalk} 12:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Robert! It's a good idea to make some contacts in Poland. Do you now where we contact him or if there is a official office were we can ask?
I know some persons from poland - perhabs I can ask them if somebody can me say where they shold ask...
I have a other question: We don't have veterans from British Raj (India), Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, Ottoman Empire and Serbia. Do you think we can get some information from the goverment? I know people speeking Greek or Turkish.
Statistician 13.05.2007 01:03 (CET)

No chance, but good luck with trying. Extremely sexy 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Turkey, Serbia/Montenegro, Bulgaria & Greece have none left - the last Turk died in 2003, and Djordevich was the last from the old Yugoslavia. There's a claim that a man-servant for an Indian prince fought in World War I (it was made during a Michael Palin travelogue), but personally I think it's very dubious indeed if that is the case. (unsigned comment)

Though the standard of living has increased in those nations, they are not up to par with those of the Western World. So chances of seeing war veterans from WWI are less so than in Western nations. (unsigned comment)

You have the name of the last Veteran of Turkey? There isn't anyone added on Veterans of the First World War who died in 2003. If you now others that are don't named, please post them. By the way: What shell we do with Kowalski?

This site here http://dersdesders.free.fr/ lists 'official' veterans including those last veterans who are not on this list anymore. The Turkish entry says: Le dernier soldat turc qui a participé à la bataille de Gallipoli (25 avril 1915 - 9 janvier 1916) est mort en avril 1998, il s'appellait Hüseyin Kaçmaz il était au 57e régiment.

Which translates as "The last Turkish soldier to fight in the Battle of Gallipoli (25th April 1915 - 9th January 1916) died in April 1998, his name is Hüseyin Kaçmaz and he served the 57e regiment. However I recall seeing something about 2003 somewhere as well. Also, (I should have checked before) it has the following to say on two other citationless vets:

Wilhelm Remmert (15-11-1899) : Il fut incorporé en 1917 et combattit en Russie, puis en France. He was conscripted in 1917 and fought in Russia, also in France.

Erich Kästner (10-03-1900) : il fut incorporé en juillet 1918 et combattit sur le front ouest au sein du "Sonder Batailon Hauck". Il est un des derniers soldats a avoir "paradé" devant l'Empereur d'Allemagne. Il servit également durant la Seconde Guerre. He was conscripted in July 1918 and fought in the Western Front admist the "Sonder Batailon Hauck". He is the last soldier to have paraded for the German Emperor. He also served in the second World War.

Somebody (maybe me) should email the person that runs that site and see were he got his citations from.

RichyBoy 16:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


Some information about where they served are from me - as I worte befor: I sended some letters to them.
Statistician 24.05.2007 0:43 (CET)

That's good enough for me; I'll synthesise something citable before long. RichyBoy 23:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert, I wrote to a polish friend and ask about the two links for Józef Kowalski. He wrote me back: "there is not much on the matter. he was born as a subject of emperor Franz Joseph, at the end of WWI fought against bolsheviks. both articles are very short and couldn't find any more precise data on the matter at short notice. during WWII was imprisoned. can't find whether he was a prisoner of war, but it would be quite probable. will try to find out more tomorrow morning." Statistician 27.05.2007 04:02 (CET)

Hi guys! Who added this stupid sentence "Also known as Józefa Kowalskiego"? "Józefa Kowalskiego" is just a genitive for "Józef Kowalski" in Polish. I have removed that. Regards.

Who is a veteran and who is not?

I can’t help wondering whether in 60 years time there will be an equivalent page on Wikipedia entitled “Surviving Veterans of the Falklands War” and whether there will be an equivalent debate about who qualifies as a Falklands Veteran. To my mind a Falklands Veteran is someone who fought in the Falklands, in the southern ocean or in direct support of the operations. I do not think it could be said that all 250,000 in the armed services at the time would qualify – would, for example, the Academy Sergeant Major at Sandhurst in 1982 be classed as a Falklands Vet? Therefore can we really say that some one like Gladys Powers (delightful person that I am sure she is) is a WWI veteran? Mithrandir1967 19:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a prickley point...Take the case of my father...served in Ubon Thailand, 1966-1967 on an airbase that sent out planes on combat missions...the base was shelled more than once...he nearly died of dengue fever...and he was a file clerk. Is is a Vietnam Veteran or not? The VA says he is. I say if you were in the armed services at the time you were supporting the war effort...it's merely a matter of happenstance if you werent' sent to combat. It's noted in their articles if they never went overseas. Czolgolz 19:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed a prickly point but no less valid for that. Naturally when discussing WWI we are talking "total war" whereas we are not, when talking of the Falklands, but I would welcome the views of others. However from what you describe, I would say that your father was a Vietnam veteran just as those in the RAF on Ascension Island in 1982 would be. Mithrandir1967 21:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a many difficulties with the term veteran and the usage of such a phrase. Veterans are usually described as serving in the armed forces (or a Ministry of Defence equivalent) at some point during a conflict. However, in WW1 the French list requires 3 months of service, the Italians require 6 months, the Americans I think have the criteria of being a member of the armed forced up to the treaty of Versailles which is deep into 1919 (correct me if I'm wrong), where as the losing side (the Central Powers in the case of WW1) don't have a recognition system per se; they lost the war and are thus technically in shame, there is no recognition to be had. Personally when I left University in the 90s I worked for the MOD for a couple of year at Farnborough. The algorithims I helped develop are part of the modern warfare platform but I'm no veteran, even though in practice I've 'contributed' to modern warfare efforts.

People that develop armourments/munitions are contributing to warfare without themselves being in the combat zone. Where would you draw the line? The tax payer that subsidised the construction of the munitions? Arguably I would have contributed more to the effort than a soldier that finished training and was not posted overseas in the modern conflicts. This is why governments have to draw a line in the sand for the 'standard' that qualifies a person as a veteran - and why it often requires somebody to make a sustained contribution in the combat zone. Personally I feel this is somewhat harsh, in my view anyone that served in a armed force and was sent overseas is a veteran (note that within the classification of veteran there is a distinction between combat veteran and veteran) irrespective if they fired a weapon or sluiced the ablutions or spent 30 minutes on French soil in Calais before being sent home. But again, where is the line between combat and non-combat? A chef posted overseas that came under fire from enemy artillery? This is why I prefer the argument "overseas posting in any capacity, veteran". That however does not encompass all the combatants.

If the integrity of a national border was threatened by direct warfare (eg, somebody was invading you) then the defending nation's armed forces should all qualify for veteran status, those that were involved in the defence anyway, IMO. If a organised paramilitary such as the Polish Military Organisation later became a legal entity then people that served should also be veteran status, IMO.

Ultimately though the national papers will report veterans according to the local veterans association. This is likely to neglect any Central Powers veterans and sadly there are not many living survivors of WW1 by that criteria anyway and I think the lists should be changed to reflect this in some manner. I completely sympathise with R Young though and I'm glad he forces us to think long and hard about the individuals and what they did. He makes it tough to turn around and belittle someone because they were a barracks waitress and quite right too, but I think that we do need to all stand back and look at this list a bit more objectively (fwiw, I've not read Gladys Powers story I'm using this an example rather than a matter of fact). Re-classification needs to be done and needs to be done soon - there are possibly as little as 22 government recognised veterans worldwide and only 15 or so if you count those posted in a combat zone outside of training.

It may be that we reach a conclusion that the best standards of qualification happens to be the loosest (which would be America I think) as these standards are approved by at least one government and are therefore also more inclusive than the stricter regimes of France/Italy. The question won't go away though. In the case of the Allied Forces the last remaining veteran is a probable from the pool of people we already know, the last Central Powers veteran is going to be tougher to identify, and is only likely to be resolved when the last Germans who are 103 now (14 at conscription) have passed away.

I would also moderate my comment with another view, I personally can weigh in with a good argument and I like contributing to this page, I make a good hash of French, Italian and some Czech (can't do German though). However people like Statisician/R Young do get involved with the real people and do the real leg work, I'll never unearth a undiscovered veteran and I'll not interview one either. Their point of views are pretty much essential to this kind of debate. RichyBoy 23:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think there is a great misconception, and myself included originally, that war is all about fighting at the front. But we see that the majority of American WWI troops didn't even make it to the front. Yet for those that didn't, their presence was still felt: as Mr. Steegers told me himself, when the Americans entered the war, they were well-fed, well-equipped, had supplies, etc. The Germans were experiencing food and equipment shortages. Moreoever, the German morale sank especially in late 1918 as the Americans advanced. Thus it can be said that not only those who fought, but the fact that so many volunteered to sign up--the threat of reinforcement--turned the tide from stalemate to de facto German defeat. We must not forget that. I think the dividing line between non-veteran and veteran is fairly easy: if you were a member of a uniformed fighting service, even if you were not fighting, and you survived to discharge, you are a veteran. The sacrifice is not simply that you were in combat but that you took on the risk of possibly being sent into combat. I think in the future, that will be said about American soldiers at home base during the Iraq conflict.R Young {yakłtalk} 05:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

Please note that the American definition of who is or is not a veteran is partly based on pay: if you were paid to serve during the period of service, and survive, you are a veteran. End of story. Note that the US system was part of 'total war' and also that even for those who served in non-combat roles, there was the possibility at joining and/or recruitment of being assigned a combat role. Of course that is a bit more dicey with the women, who had no chance of serving. In any case, I don't think the Falklands War is nearly as significant. Note that the greatest interest in 'last veterans' have corresponded to real his demarkers, like the U.S. Civil War WWI. Wars like the Spanish-American War, Boer War, War of 1812, etc. often didn't have the same interest when it came to 'last veterans.' So, I don't think this will be a problem, really.R Young {yakłtalk} 05:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of stirring the pot once againg regarding the "Who is a veteran?" question: The modern definition of a US veteran is a former member of the Armed Forces of the United States (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard) who served on active duty and was discharged under conditions that were other than dishonorable. There is no minimum number of days a person must have served on active duty to be considered a veteran. However, periods of active duty for training, pursuant to an enlistment in The National Guard or Reserves, do not qualify an individual as a veteran. Thus, former or current members of the National Guard or Reserves are not considered to be veterans unless they had prior or subsequent service with an active component of the Armed Forces. Now...having said that...there certainly seems to be somewhat different criteria applied to World War I veterans as listed in this article. Those who were in training when the war ended are considered, (even by the Veterans Administration?), veterans of that conflict. In some cases, it's hard to buy the argument. Harold Gardner, who spent a few hours either on a train or in a train station on 11 November 1918, had a very interesting story to tell but was not a veteran by any stretch of the imagination. The $1 he was paid for his one day of service would be simply called travel pay today. Regarding the "deployed vice non-deployed" issue, that is moot for US veterans of the two world wars. Anyone who served honorably on active duty during the period(s) specified by the VA is a veteran of the conflict. World War II US veterans who served only in the continental United States (like my mother, a US Navy WAVE stationed at a communications station in Minneapolis), were awarded the American Campaign Medal and the World War II Victory Medal. However, for smaller conflicts like the 1991 Gulf War, you had to be deployed to the combat zone (or flying above it or sailing the waters adjacent to it) to be a Gulf War veterans. Others, like me, who were on active duty at that time but NOT deployed to the combat zone, are simply "Gulf War era" veterans. Frankwomble 20:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Womble, I'm going to say that you are, simply, flat-out wrong. First off, training for the National Guard is NOT the same as training for the Army. Second, with Mr. Gardner, when he got on that train, didn't know the war would be ending so soon. It is not simply the service but also the willingness to serve, to sacrifice for the greater good of one's nation (or some loftier goal) that is being honored. Mr. Gardner was recognized as a veteran by the U.S. press and the VA. End of story. He's also dead, and unlike some people who just can't leave Lincoln buried or who want to find all 578 UK veterans who died in 1998, there comes a point when its time to just let it go. I think the numbers of veterans from 1999 alone are enough to justify deleting that article. There is something that bothers me about saying "one of the last" when one is one of the last few hundred or thousand. Mr. Gardner, on the other hand, was the last known WWI veteran in the state of Pennsylvania. Being one of one is much more significant than being one of 500.R Young {yakłtalk} 20:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Young: I think you missed my point about the Guard and Reserve. I was merely quoting the VA's definition of a veteran. Another way to look at it is this: the modern definition of a US veteran might also be "a person who qualifies for federal veteran's benefits as determined by the VA." Guard and Reserve members who have not served at least one day on federal active duty other than for training do not qualify for such benefits. Regarding Mr. Gardner, I certainly was not trying to denegrate his service or willingness to serve. And although "recognized by the U.S. press" is not adequate proof of veteran status (witness Olin and Lincoln, for example), if the VA recognized him as a veteran, then that is certainly sufficient. Frankwomble 12:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Richy Boy wrotes "when the last Germans who are 103 now (14 at conscription) have passed away."
I said it befor: We are talking about the First WW not the Second. The nomrel age was 18, for war-volunteer 17 (under some circumstances late 16?), but nor 14 or 15!
2. What are the conclusions for our veteran-discussion?
Statistician 24.05.2007 0:41 (CET)

Under normal circumstances you are right; however we are all aware of legitimate stories of individuals that were so keen to join up they faked their age and so forth. In reality probably 1902 is the last data for a German veteran - 16 years old at the end of the war, as you say. My guestimate of someone signing on at 14 was caution on the side of a desperate army. Without a VA it is likely that Germany will be producing veterans when the rest of the world has all but run out. It's annoying sometimes, one of the few countries that kept a complete record (the UK) had half of it destroyed in a WW2 raid - if only other countries were so diligent in recording the data.

Conclusions though - it becomes apparant that Allied Powers veterans have met a criteria and it is only the Central Powers that lack one. At this moment in time they are all sound except Kowalski (that is, counting the anecdotal evidence of Statisician and R Young), there are several interviews with him but nobody establishes a link with WW1, just that he fought the bolsheviks (which by definition, give or take, is pretty much after the armistice). I think there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that his case hasn't been proved (yet) but enough to suggest it is unlikely to be. I think he should be moved to a WW1-era veteran until more data is uncovered. RichyBoy 00:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I second moving Kowalski to WW1 Era as that is where the evidence we currently have points to. Looking at the debate on the last German veterans I would be surprised if we find any WW1 vets of 1902 vintage. Germany wasn't running out of men, its army had not been destroyed in the field nor was it fighting on its own soil. I suppose a handful of 16 year olds might have enlisted young, but I would imagine it would be pretty difficult to do in the case of an entirely conscript army. - The same goes for France which has always conscripted at 19, so I would be surprised if any French claims emerge from after 1900 SRwiki 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

With Kowalski, I'd like to hear first from some Polish correspondents: who added him to the list in the first place? Note the "Bolshevik" revolution occurred in 1917, long before WWI ended. Did not the Germans fight the Bolsheviks as well...fought on the "Eastern front"? The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk did not happen until 1918. Again, we are setting double standards here.R Young {yakłtalk} 20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Again there is confusion over the citation. I've always thought it to mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielkopolska_Uprising_%281918%E2%80%931919%29 - The Greater Poland Uprising, the military insurrection of Poles against Germany and Prussia 1918-1919. I thought in general that Poland was occupied by Germany, it was Russia that moved in right at the very end as they attempted to annex bits and pieces - and that is what fighting the Bolsheviks meant. RichyBoy 10:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wilhelm Remmert

Dead! [3] 27 May 2007 !!!!

Yes, but using Wikipedia to document something on Wikipedia is a circular argument. That could simply be vandalism. Can you cite a news report?R Young {yakłtalk} 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As with Mr R Young, I don't think he should be moved *quite* yet.. unless the editor of that page has a reference or is a correspondent. Due to language difficulties, and the recent verification of living German vets, it shouldn't be an arbitary edit because someone found a link on wiki. The edit should be undone. RichyBoy 23:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a reference besides Wikipedia within the next couple of days, or the name needs to be put back on the list. He may very well have passed on, but we need something to verify (PershinBoy)209.247.21.167 04:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

My first German correspondent told me he could not verify the death of Wilhelm Remmert. The second is on vacation. Given that we've had false death reports even for Henry Allingham, I'd like to see something about this before we just 'go with it.'R Young {yakłtalk} 04:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Checking the German Wikipedia, the Remmert 'death date' came from an anonymous user with 0 contributions before or since. While it is certainly possible that Mr. Remmert died, it is also possible that a prankster added in a fake death date (which has happened before). I propose not moving Mr. Remmert to the 'deceased' page until we have confirmation from a reliable source, not an anonymous, unsourced Wikipedia edit from a one-time user.R Young {yakłtalk} 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


Morning all, I spent a bit of time digging round on some of the German Newspaper sites, and there are no obituaries or news reports. I know that the German newspapers don't seem to report much on their veterans, but surely the death of Germanys oldest man would have been reported somewhere, so my bet is this is a hoax. SRwiki 06:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

http://hp.knuddels.de/homepages/knuddels.de/hp/3/17-06-2004.html 107 Jahre & 193 Tage

Considering the Solveen fiasco, it seems that Germany is very slow with reporting deaths. There is now four other sites listing the day of death and the above is clearly an expert in the field, so let's just give the man the recognition he deserves in death, hey?

A forum isn't the correct source to validated such a think. I*m back and will do some resourches.
Statistician 09.06.2007, 09:50 (CET)

If got a call from his son - it's correct. Wilhelm Remmert died 27.05.2007. Statistician 11.06.2007, 02:57 (CET)

Good job, Statistician. Yet I was wondering if someone could make a bio Wiki page and add a death notice to the main Wiki page? Shouldn't 'oldest man in Germany' and one of last 4 German WWI veterans count for something?R Young {yakłtalk} 02:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Gladys Powers - an update

Morning All, just a little snippet from The Abbotsford Times, reporting on her 108th Birthday a couple of weeks ago http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/issues07/054207/community/054207co4.html Thanks SRwiki 07:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC) _________________________________________________________________________ Thanks for locating these articles, something about these vets. Make interesting reading. (PershinBoy)162.114.40.32 15:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Carta 1899-2007

Greetings,

Mr. Alunni is reporting the death of Giovanni Carta (born Dec 28 1899) on June 5 2007:

Greetings,

I am very sad to inform you that last night Giovanni Antonio Carta, borm 28 december 1899, and the youngest veteran officially recognized with the title of Cavaliere di Vittorio Veneto, passed away in his home in Mores, Sardinia. Regrads

Giovanni Alunni

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/8000

Someone please update. Thanks.R Young {yakłtalk} 00:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping that every remaining vet could be honored with a Wiki obit (we dropped below 50 worldwide in January 2007). Anyone want to write one for Mr. Carta?R Young {yakłtalk} 02:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I/Archive_2&oldid=1142441740"