Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Russia

http://pobediteli.ru/

Is the default "life" or "death"?

I think this is a point that may warrant a general discussion. It is sometimes very difficult to verify whether a WW 1 veteran listed in the article is in fact still among the living. This applies to former soldiers like Pawel Parniak (who, if still alive, would possibly be older than Mercado del Toro), but also to Stephen Butcher, the elusive UK soldier who was twice on the list and got twice deleted (see discussion point Butcher). The problem appears to be that in some cases the last documented information about this person is a newspaper article mentioning him / her in a list of surviving veterans, but that the world then, at some stage, forgot about them or was unable to trace them. The question is: if no _documented_ evidence for the death of a veteran exists - should the person in question be counted as dead or alive? (By "documented" I mean something more than our personal beliefs!) --Josias Bunsen 23:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you there should be clarity. Extremely sexy 00:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Josias,

One, I highly doubt Pawel Parniak's death would go unreported (considering the age claim), plus I have contacts for him. However, I doubt whether he was really born in 1890 although he is probably over 110. I estimate he was more likely born about 1895. That said, I'd rather go with 1890? because that's the best information we have.

Also, Bart, please ditch the 'Extremely sexy' nickname. It is inappropriate for the subject matter (and leads to confusion...are you hitting on someone?).

Finally, in regards to Butcher, I'm glad you raised the issue, and now we have a fuller explanation and can be certain that he is dead (rather than just 'assume' that some anonymous editor knew what happened). → R Young {^yakł_talk} 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So what new nickname would you propose? Extremely sexy 19:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert - thank you for this. Pawel Parniak - I'm glad I was wrong on that and that you have contacts to him. Butcher however, may be more typical for the type of case that worries me - veterans that are mentioned by a newspaper in its 2004 list of surviving veterans, but are no longer mentioned in the 2006 list of the same paper. Can we therefore automatically assume that they are dead or should we rather not exclude the possibility that the journalists in question had been unable to locate them? (In the case of Butcher, the line that kept recurring was "One other veteran, Stephen Butcher, is believed to be still alive. Little is known about him.")

Incidentally, I'm happy to let the Butcher case rest - in the hope that we may, as time goes by, be able to unearth more information about his precise death date and place of residence. It is at least good to see that he is now mentioned in the "died in 2005" category - so, not forgotten. --Josias Bunsen 20:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

'Add period of service' compromise

Greetings,

If nothing else, this current debate has stirred new ideas. I think we need a 'period of service' column. For one, suppose someone is claimed to be 'last Somme survivor' (as happened erroneously recently). If we had a list noting periods of service, it would be easier to track.

Consider the ultimate extreme: we have, on the one hand, a man from Pennsylvania who served 'one hour' on Nov 11 1918 (considerably less time than Robley Rex did). Technically a WWI veteran according to some. And I wouldn't argue with that. But, if one of the foci here is history, then we want to know who are the remaining 'nuggets'--which veterans have first-hand remembrances from what time, place, etc.

And the ultimate in the other direction may be Mr. Maurice Floquet of France. Consider: some have said that there are no more 'combat-wounded' veterans, but Mr. Floquet was wounded in action three times, incurring life-threatening injuries (it was said that in one instance, a German soldier saved his life). Mr Floquet joined...not in 1919, not in 1918, not in 1917...but in 1914. Mr. Floquet fought at the Somme, at Chemin des Dames, etc. Incredibly, he is still alive at 111 years old. I don't think any other veteran left can say they were all of these: joined in 1914; combat veteran; combat-wounded veteran; veteran of the trenches.

A few others bear mentioning. We know that Mr Allingham is the last Jutland survivor and the last founding member of the RAF. Mr Harry Patch is the 'last Tommy,' last British infantryman. And Robert Meier of Germany, 109, actually fought in the trenches on the German side. Antonio Pierro, at 110, though a driver of supplies, did fight in the Meuse-Argonne offensive. But for several of the 60+ remaining veterans, we know next to nothing...what did the Italian veterans see in combat? Did they serve on the front lines vs. the Austrians? Also, I think the loss of Alfred Alfredson, last survivor of the '1914 Christmas truce,' was an historic loss, and we only have a very few remaining veterans who actually fought on the front lines. While people like Philip Mayne, royal engineer, are important, I do think everyone can agree that these people and this list is significant mainly due to the rarity/uniqueness of the remaining 'living connections' to the past. We simply don't know all the stories, and so if Mr Floquet were to pass away, can we say there is another 1914 veteran left? → R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We can raise the level of debate by positively focusing on those who really deserve mention, rather than trying to scuttle those whose service was more ordinary. For example, here is Mr Floquet, whose odds of survival to become France's oldest verified man ever are exceedlingly extraordinary, considering his several brushes with death in WWI:

http://tf1.lci.fr/infos/multimedia/2005/0,,3275214,00.html

Let's not also forget that there may still be unknown/unreported veterans out there. I just discovered another one this week for earlier this year(William Lutz, had died in March 2006).

→ R Young {^yakł_talk}

Maurice Starkey

Greetings,

This newspaper article confirms that Maurice Starkey reached age 104, AND it lists him as having served in 1918. NO information suggesting that he enrolled in 1919 has yet been located.

Cases should be deleted one at a time, not as a batch. Maybe this case is worth saving.

http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15688571&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6

For centenarian, haircut is old hat Mercury Staff Report, Mercury Staff Report12/04/2005 Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly ROYERSFORD -- Any of us who make it to 104 years old might not ask for much more of a birthday present than making it to our 104th birthday.

Having done that Saturday, the only other thing Maurice Starkey asked for was a haircut.

Advertisement

And that’s what he got Saturday morning at the Washington Street Salon.

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Accompanied by his nephew, Clinton Starkey, with whom he now lives, both men chatted with a Mercury photographer as the elder Starkey got his ears lowered.

One of an ever-dwindling number of living World War I veterans, Mr. Starkey joined the service in 1918 for a very basic reason -- he was hungry and "say what you want about the U.S. Navy, they do feed you every day."

Part of the fledgling U.S. submarine corps, Starkey served on two 12-man submarines, K-3 and K-4, that patrolled the coastline keeping an eye out for the Kaiser’s fleet.

Starkey never did see France.

But he did see much of the United States.

A desire to see the country spurred Starkey to work for railroads and to hop freight trains and ride the rails for several years.

Married twice, Mr. Starkey settled in California for a time.

While there, he became a chef and had the opportunity to cook for several major celebrities of his time.

His cooking career included working at a hotel owned by cowboy movie star and entrepreneur Gene Autry, as well as for the large entourage that accompanied Howard Hughes into the restaurant where Starkey worked.

A resident of Royersford since 1967, Starkey has held jobs at Diamond Glass and Royersford Machine Co.

Saturday, he walked into the salon under his own speed and, just in case you were wondering, the haircut looks just fine.

©The Mercury 2006

I visited and interviewed Maurice Starkey in April of this year. He is a delightful gentleman. During the visit, I had the opportunity to examine his discharge papers, and I can state with authority that he enlisted in July, 1919. According the rules of this article, he should be moved to the "World War I era Veteran" column. AEF Doughboy 19:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Felix Bustos busted?

Greetings,

Searching for Felix Bustos, I found his WWII papers...

U.S. World War II Army Enlistment Records, 1938-1946 Record about Felix Bustos Name: Felix Bustos Birth Year: 1903 Race: White, citizen

Enlistment Date: 11 Apr 1942 Branch Code: Branch Immaterial - Warrant Officers, USA Grade: Private Grade Code: Private Term of Enlistment: Enlistment for the duration of the War or other emergency, plus six months, subject to the discretion of the President or otherwise according to law Component: Selectees (Enlisted Men) Source: Civil Life

Education: Grammar school Civil Occupation: Automobile Serviceman Marital Status: Single, without dependents Height: 64 Weight: 129

However, this doesn't prove he didn't serve in WWI. Going back further, Felix is listed as age '17' in Jan 1920, suggesting he was born in 1902 as claimed. Also, if he did serve, he must have been back by Jan 1 1920. Again, this doesn't prove he did not serve in WWI, but I have found no evidence that he did.

1920 United States Federal Census Record about Felix Bustos Name: Felix Bustos Age: 17 years Estimated birth year: abt 1903 Birthplace: Colorado Race: White Home in 1920: Cucharas, Huerfano, Colorado Sex: Male Marital status: Single Relation to Head of House: Son Able to read: Yes Able to Write: Yes Mother's Birth Place: Colorado Father's Birth Place: Colorado Image: 218

Image Source: Year: 1920; Census Place: Cucharas, Huerfano, Colorado; Roll: T625_165; Page: 1A; Enumeration District: 85; Image: 218.

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 15:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stillman Hiram Munger

For Stillman Hiram Munger, I found the 1930 census which lists him as 27 years old. It also states that he is NOT a veteran. I would thus favor his removal. Before we do, however, I wonder if anyone knows where this claim came from in the first place? That question, in particular, has not been answered. 1930 United States Federal Census Record about Stillman H Munger Name: Stillman H Munger Age: 27 Estimated birth year: abt 1903 Birthplace: Massachusetts Relation to head-of-house: Head Spouse's Name: Elizabeth C Munger Race: White Home in 1930: Springfield, Hampden, Massachusetts Image source: Year: 1930; Census Place: Springfield, Hampden, Massachusetts; Roll: 910; Page: 5B; Enumeration District: 48; Image: 54.0. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This may be a source of the case, but it does not give a birthdate, indicating that someone out there has additional info. Also note it does refer to him as a WWI veteran...whether he was even a veteran at all (or just a 'veteran' of the freemasons) is debatable.

However, I disagreed with the '1919' comments because, in reality, we don't know 'when' this man joined the service, if ever.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:pDnlqidAXSkJ:www.amc-music.com/awards.htm+Stillman%2BMunger%2Bveteran&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

Stillman Munger Honored

In November, World War I veteran Stillman Munger of Ludlow, Mass. celebrated his 100th birthday—and his confirmed status as the nation's oldest music student. The one-time foreman in Igor Sikorsky's helicopter plant has taken regular keyboard lessons since 1996 at Falcetti Music in Springfield. AMC and the Lowrey Organ Company joined the Falcetti family in honoring Munger with a birthday bash and a Lowrey "Century" model organ.

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cries & Whispers Sunday, December 04, 2005

USA's oldest music student

Stillman Munger turned 103 a week ago Friday, and as he continues to take organ lessons in the "Play Forever" program at Falcetti Music, he's seemingly taking the idea literally. When he was honored for his 100th birthday at Falcetti's weekend-long Organ Extravaganza musicians' workshops two years ago, the Ludlow resident stayed right through to the end of the event's Saturday night dance. The World War I-era veteran was back at this year's extravaganza, three weeks ago in Burlington.

"This is the first year he didn't dance," said Sam Falcetti, who runs the family business. "He attended all the workshops and concerts, all the events."

More than 200 elder students attended, but Stillman is uncontested as the oldest music student in the United States. He took up organ lessons in 1994. His other life interests have included antique clock repair and motorcycle racing. He celebrated his birthday at home with three generations of descendants.

The above confirms he reached age 103, and the wording 'World War I-era' likely reflects that on Wikipedia, not the other way around. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I interviewed Stillman Munger in July, 2003 at his home in Massachusetts. I can verify that he served in the United States Navy and enlisted in 1919. By the standards of this board, he should be listed in the "World War I-era Veterans" category.AEF Doughboy 01:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me like your standards are 'arbitrary.' None of these alleged interviews are published anywhere, so this is 'original research'. If you've done an interview, you should include documentary evidence and post it to a 'third-party' website. Also, the 1930 census lists Mr Munger as 'not a veteran' so I question whether he really enlisted in 1919.131.96.70.158 18:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Census-takers, like journalists and gerontology researchers, sometimes make mistakes. I have seen Munger's discharge papers, his navy uniform, and 87-year-old photographs of him in that uniform. (I have seen all the same for Maurice Starkey, as well.) There is nothing arbitrary about that. What is arbitrary is when someone ardently advocates for keeping certain people on the list despite strong evidence against their having served, while simultaneously disparaging other veterans' verified claims of service despite having no evidence that they didn't. Did I say arbitrary? I meant hypocritical.

I really shouldn't have to remind a self-proclaimed gerontology researcher that the point of all this is accuracy, should I?AEF Doughboy 19:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Any chance you could post your interviews with Maurice Starkey and Stillman Munger? The interviews sound like a remarkable experience and they would make for a wonderful read.--Brianmccollum 15:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

'Combat' veteran

Folks,

I like the way the article layout the way it is now, and there's an explanation of who did what for each veteran. But I suggest that we could make a 'combat veteran list,' either separately, or by * those cases that are confirmed to have fought in WWI.

Because, we see some arguing that the criteria for WWI veteran 'cutoff' is the Armistice...well there's that man from Pennsylvania, who served one hour on a train before being sent home...honorable, yes, but clearly he has no actual memory of the war front itself, or faced actual bullets or bombs. So, not to dismiss those who valiantly volunteered only to find their services unneeded, but to make 'purists' happy why don't we give extra recognition to those who actually served in combat? And, I think giving extra recognition is better than 'taking away' from recognition of others. Finally, when we see reports like this one:

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17249239&method=full&siteid=62484&headline=the-tommy-of-the-trenches--name_page.html

It is moving what Harry had to go through, but these stories always seem to forget the other ones. Henry Allingham, notably, served mainly in the 'RAF' but he has first-hand memory of the trenches, shot at or not:

Henry got a taste of the trenches when he was sent to clear the fields of German booby traps. He pauses, then says: "I fell down a deep hole which was full of bits of bodies - legs, arms, ears, rotten flesh... and rats. It was night-time and I scrambled around, not knowing what I was touching and too scared to imagine it. I thank God that I scrambled out alive when it finally got light."

Also, this IS an English Wikipedia, but there seems to always been a forgetting of the horrors that others have been through. Maurice Floquet of France, for example, was seriously wounded in combat...yet we rarely, if ever, see any mention of him in the English or American press. Indeed, if we really are to honor those that have fallen, wouldn't it be better to pull back from the nationalistic worldview that precipitated the crisis in the first place, to realize that 'we're all human' and the stories of others need to be told as well. Indeed, what was really historic for me is to see that Germany's oldest man, age 109, still has his WWI uniform...and while the Germans were 'wrong' for the invasion, this was at a time when Britain had colonized nearly half the world...the sun 'never set' on the British Empire...yet this was 'right' because we are fed 'victor's history.' So, once again we are left that the best way to tell real history is to hear real survivors tell it, and that it's best to hear various viewpoints from all sides. And while many tend to think of the French and Brits as doing the 'dirty work,' then the U.S. comes in, let's take a moment to remember that the Americans lost what, 118,000 men, and that we still have 'combat heroes' like Antonio Pierro, 110, an actual survivor of the Meuse-Argonne offensive. Finally, we have people like Moses Hardy, who only saw '39 days' in actual combat (out of one year total service), but combat nonetheless, he could easily have been gassed to death. We can debate the merits of dates or whatever and no list will really ever be totally fair...if someone was driving the supply truck, instead of being shot at at the front lines, maybe it wasn't as dangerous, yet it was still a vital job and the truck could have been bombed or blown up. So, we can debate forever about who is the 'most courageous' but I think that it's best to tell the veteran's stories and let the readers decide for themselves. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is, truthfully, a matter of AGE. If there were millions of men who served at the front, like it or not, it is NOT simply their service that makes them important now. Had they died 50 years ago, likely no one would have noticed outside the family and local obituary. NO, it is their AGE and their relative RARITY that makes them newsworthy. Also, this RARITY can come and when that point is reached is hard to say. For example, we had 10 living German WWI veterans listed, and not ONE of them had an article. Quite frankly, it was partly because we already had articles on Arno Wagner (1894-2004) and Hermann Dörnemann (1893-2005). But it's 2006, those two have passed on, and I feel that it's time for the next example.

And, wouldn't you know it, it just so happens that the OLDEST living German WWI veteran, Robert Meier, is ALSO a combat veteran...and having served in France, in the infantry, makes his an interesting counterfoil to all these stories from the 'Allied' side. Villain, or just one person that was part of a system that lost? You decide. But given this man's continued vitality at 109, and his penchant for military history (wearing a WWI helmet for his 109th birthday photo? The audacity!) makes Robert a prime candidate to be noticed. He is certainly one unique individual, to say the least. His being Germany's oldest man for 15 months now makes him more than ephemeral. So, enjoy the pic and if anyone is up for adding a photo, let me know.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 13:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=4287169769&idx=16

Shouldn't we seperate the names of those who did not see action from those who did, and place them in a diferent area of the article. As they didn't see action, they don't really count as veterans, but we should keep them under the title of People who would have seen action, or something like that.

Jean-Paul 12:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Speak!

I prefer to call all who served in the military and are retired from it as 'veterans'. Note you can even be a 'peacetime' veteran. I think the proper word for those who saw combat is 'combat veteran.' And, rather than break up this article list...WHICH, if you don't realize, is really about AGE, not veteran status...then the point of the article is lost...the point being, who will be the last living WWI veteran? I suggest making a separate list of confirmed living WWI combat veterans, perhaps on the same page (at the bottom) or start another one. Note that for many, we don't know if they actually served or not. Thus, it would be a disservice to tear up the list when we don't even know, for example, if there are living WWI veterans from Russia, or if those who served in Poland really did, etc. Thus, an extra 'confirmed combat veteran' list would be a good idea...give something extra, rather than take away.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 15:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Newcombe/Newman UK veterans

Whilst, again, I don't doubt the info posted, as Newcombe was quite ill anyway, is there ANY online source to back it up? If not, it's not too much problem, as when it comes to the 11th November, there'll be some kind of proof one way or another with the survivors & the totals etc.

Well, I do doubt the info presented, and I believe we have another case of vandalism here. For anybody not familiar with the problem: User 82.12.157.30 deleted the names of Harry Newcombe and John Newman from the list of British veterans. In the wiki biography of Harry Newcombe, the following line started to appear: "Newcombe lived in Worthing until he passed away, after a long fight against illness, in early 2006."

Given the fact that the anonymous user was unable to provide an exact death date, and given the fact that Joe Churcher, the Political Correspondent of the Press Association (PA) was able to state on 27 June 2006, in his article "Veterans who still survive" that Harry Newcombe was still alive, it appears to me that the information provided by anonymous user is less than correct. I have therefore returned the article to its original position. Happy to reconsider if anonymous provides an exact date and source (as I have now done). Josias Bunsen 20:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote to the journalist who wrote all articles about him when he was still alive, and she confirmed he had died. Extremely sexy 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So, Bart, when exactly did he die? And what about Mr Newman? Josias Bunsen 12:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

She thinks in April, since she telephoned a member of his family in May after having heard a rumour about him having died, who responded he already had died 5 weeks before, but they didn't want any fuss anymore about him since he already had been featured several times when he was still alive, hence. P.S.: I consider the other guy's reported death earlier this year as well to be true also since Mr. Harbourart is a renowned source, and I noticed he reinstated their deaths. Extremely sexy 14:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Josias, if Peter (Harbourart) is confirming they're dead, then that's as good as online proof. He's in touch with all the living survivors in the UK (or their families). With some of the lesser known veterans, you really are going to have to accept that the news won't always cover their death, I'm afraid. Bart & Peter are reliable sources, and I think we can take it for granted both men are dead & that the Wikipedia page about him is indeed correct by saying he died "early 2006.", no? Seems that Joe Churcher needs to get better sources, me thinks.

I cannot agree more with you, and thanks for calling me "a reliable source" too, along with Peter: I'm flattered. Extremely sexy 21:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Pawel Parniak birthdate

Who keeps changing Pawel's birthdate to "1899"? Whether Pawel was born in 1890 or not, to simply make up a fake birthdate is worse than reporting his age as "1890?" Pawel claims to be born in 1890, but his age is not verified. No where has anyone stated where a birth claim of 1899 came from. Simply to make up false data is not what Wikipedia should be about. 131.96.70.164 23:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

==User 172.216.73.143== Recently, User 172.216.73.143 has vandalized the page, deleting known living WWI vets such as Jean Grelaud, Maurice Floquet, Stephen Butcher, Charlotte Winters, etc. If anyone sees "edits" by this person, please revert.131.96.18.141 19:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

General point

What happened to Reuben Law? He is the subject of the CNN article "WWI veterans remember their service" dated November 11, 2003. I don't see his name on the current list, nor the list of those passing in 2003, 2004, or 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans of the First World War who died in 2005

Bart Versieck 02:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Can we please make sure that every deleted entry goes into one of the "veterans who died in..." articles. Or, if they don't fit into those categories, provide an explanation on why you deleted them. For example, why did Jacob Robb (United States) disappear?? Josias Bunsen 17:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe this has been corrected, Josias. Bart Versieck 22:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

On a related point: What happened to Pawel Parniak (Poland) who was allegedly born in 1890? He has disappeared from the list but does not appear on the list of veterans who died in 2005.

Well, the problem with him is the authenticity of his age, as you know. Bart Versieck 21:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Parniak's age is debateable, but is his veteran status in question?Acctorp 23:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Bart Versieck 21:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone link veteran articles FROM this page? For example, we see an article on Ernest Pusey, but no Wikification. Also, Australian WWI vet that just died...131.96.15.42 21:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You mean William Evan Allan, and your wish is my command, man. Bart Versieck 21:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Some citizens of one nationality fought under a different country's forces. What is the general convention for this wiki? Should these individuals be listed under their country of service, citizenship, or both? Acctorp 20:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it's under their country of service, f.e. Gerald Myer Jerry Lewis, who lived in the U.S.A. and had been a citizen over there since many years, is listed as a Canadian, because he fought for Canada in WWI, although he did fight for the U.S.A. too, but then in WWII, so for some other as well, and for a few still living ones applies exactly the same. Bart Versieck 21:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Presently some individuals are listed twice or under nationality instead of solely under country of service. So, for example, should we move Saci Ben Hocine Mahdi, Syd Lucas, and Teofilo Gillarduzzi respectively into France, UK, and Austria-Hungary columns? Acctorp 23:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, so yes. Bart Versieck 22:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Acctorp, we run the risk of forgetting these veterans. Note the British press forgets that 2 UK WWI veterans still live in Australia, while Australia forgets that 2 UK WWI veterans live in Australia. The result is they are ignored in the press of both nations.

Certainly, a little cross-referencing and even listing twice would be in order. For example, we saw a photo of Justin Tuveri, 107, of France in the news. However, he is listed under Italy as "Giustino." Most readers won't be able to make these connections. They should be listed twice with references. Ryoung122 06:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I suggest that individuals listed twice each explicitly state nationality &/or residence as well as what flag they served under, to avoid confusion. Acctorp 02:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I note that Pawel Parniak (Poland) has disappeared yet again from the list but does not appear on the list of veterans who died in 2005. Can someone comment? Frankwomble 01:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Some people take it upon themselves that "if they're not on the GRG list, they should be deleted." But as one of the contributors to the GRG list, I can say that the qualifications for the "surviving WWI veterans" list is to be a WWI veteran and still living...regardless of whether one is 110 or 115 years old. So, these deleters need to lay off.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

An anon seems to be deleting A LOT of people from these lists. 57.66.51.165 15:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC) (Skittle)

I note that Pawel Parniak (Poland) has disappeared yet AGAIN from the list but does not appear on the list of veterans who died in 2006. Same is true of Rigby (UK) and Krueger (US). Can someone comment?Frankwomble 22:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Qualification as a World War I Veteran

It appears that Robley Rex is not a World War I veteran, but rather a World War I-era veteran. According to the article at this link, http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/13149176.htm he enlisted in the Army in 1919 and did not serve within the time frame required to qualify for the World War I Victory Medal.

Extract from U.S. Army Regulation 600-8-22, Military Awards, dated 25 February 1995. Paragraph 5–18. World War I Victory Medal a. The World War I Victory Medal was established by War Department General Orders 48, 1919. The medal is awarded for service between 6 April 1917 and 11 November 1918 or with either of the following expeditions: (1) American Expeditionary Forces in European Russia between 12 November 1918 and 5 August 1919. (2) American Expeditionary Forces Siberia between 23 November 1918 and 1 April 1920. Frankwomble 15:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

When an individual is added to this list, is there any requirement to confirm or verify his/her service record? What evidence is extant regarding the service record of each veteran? I raise this issue due to a recent entry on the Victoria Cross forum that calls into question the WWI veteran status of Felix Bustos, Tex Little, and Stillman Munger. Frankwomble 14:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• This is a good point to make, but one has to acknowledge that these veterans would not have been serving in the American Expeditionary Forces in European Russia & Siberia if not for World War I. I think, given that these forces were explicitly deployed because of World War I that people who served in these forces should be included on this list, but marked appropriately if they did not also serve during the time of active combat during World War I.jkm 18:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The war ended in 1918 - thus only soldiers who were in the armies of the nations participating in the war prior to this date can qualify as "World War I Veteran". Look, the US soldiers stationed in Germany after WWII do not qualify as WWII veterans - EVEN IF they were stationed there explicitly due to WWII. The soldiers fighting in the Korean war are not WWII veterans - they are Korean War Veterans - EVEN IF the Korean War was a direct result of WWII.

As it is I frown at including soldiers who didn't actually leave training before the end of the war. In my mind you need to be a soldier in the armed forces of a nation participating in the war, during the war. If you are still in training - well, then you are technically not a soldier yet. Think about it - that would make every single American recruit an Afghanistan War and Iraq War veteran - which I'm sure the people serving in the actual theatres would disagree with.

It's not about disrespecting or being cruel to some people on the list - it's about adopting a meaningful definition of the term "Veteran" so they can be honored according to merit. Widening the definition to include people who fought in conflicts after the war or who were still in training when the war ended and equating them to the soldiers who died or fought in the war is... simply wrong! Gardar Rurak 21:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are being far too specific about dates. Did WWII start Sept 1 1939 (Euro-centric view?) Or did it begin with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931? And when did WWII end? Aug 14 1945? Sept 2 1945? But didn't the USSR declare war on Sept 8 1945? Technically, aren't Russia and Japan still in a state of war, not having signed a peace treaty? Can't the same be said for the Korean War?

Also, war is a machine-like process. Just because the Armistice was declared on Nov 11 1918 doesn't mean all the fighting stopped on that day. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 20:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the US Veterans Administration, the definition of a US veteran is a person who served in the Armed Forces of the United States on active military duty, and was discharged from the service under honorable conditions, and who served on active duty for reasons other than training, or while serving on duty for training, incurred a disability recognized by the Department of Defense or by the Department of Veterans Affairs. In other words, you must have completed training in order to be considered a veteran unless disabled during training. Regarding dates of service for the various war periods, the VA says at their web site (http://www1.va.gov/opa/is1/index.asp): "Certain VA benefits require wartime service. Under the law, the VA recognizes these war periods: Mexican Border Period: May 9, 1916, through April 5, 1917, for veterans who served in Mexico, on its borders or in adjacent waters. World War I: April 6, 1917, through Nov. 11, 1918; for veterans who served in Russia, April 6, 1917, through April 1, 1920; extended through July 1, 1921, for veterans who had at least one day of service between April 6, 1917, and Nov. 11, 1918. World War II: Dec. 7, 1941, through Dec. 31, 1946. Korean War: June 27, 1950, through Jan. 31, 1955. Vietnam War: Aug. 5, 1964 (Feb. 28, 1961, for veterans who served “in country” before Aug. 5, 1964), through May 7, 1975. Gulf War: Aug. 2, 1990, through a date to be set by law or Presidential Proclamation." Note that the periods designated by law for wartime service extend considerably beyond the actual end of fighting in each war. Veterans of the two World Wars are war veterans regardless of where they served due to full mobilization and the global nature of the conflicts. World War I veterans didn't have to deploy overseas to be considered veterans of the conflict. World War II veterans who served at least one year in the continental United States qualify for both the World War II Victory Medal and the American Campaign Medal. Frankwomble 13:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

By this definition, Emiliano Mercado Del Toro is not a WWI veteran because he did not serve on active duty! I think people can be stricter if they wish but the point of the article is to inform people of who is still out there and might be a WWI veteran. Did we verify every case? NO. This is a 'best effort' scenario. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

One more comment: If we understand the history of war and delayed effects, the main Treaty of Versailles was not signed until mid-1919. Thus, the U.S. continued to recruit and send in occupation soldiers. From the Wikipedia WWI article:

A formal state of war between the two sides persisted for another seven months until it was finally ended by the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919 with Germany, and the following treaties with Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and The Ottoman Empire signed at St. Germain, Trianon, Neuilly and Sèvres respectively. However, the latter treaty with the Ottoman Empire was followed by strife (the Turkish Independence War) and a final peace treaty was signed between the Allied Powers and the country that would shortly become the Republic of Turkey, at Lausanne on July 24, 1923.

Some war memorials date the end of the war as being when the Versailles treaty was signed in 1919; by contrast, most commemorations of the war’s end concentrate on the armistice of November 11, 1918. Legally the last formal peace treaties were not signed until 1923.

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 13:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Another point people forget is the main purpose of this article: it's about history, not necessarily bravery. Suppose a WWI veteran was killed in action? Or received a lot of medals but died 50 years ago? Its folly to think that those who are still living must necessarily be the 'most brave' or to think that 'last surviving veteran' is an 'honor' that requires the passage of a litmus test of bravery. No, this is about history. It's about remembering the 'last Sommme survivor' or the 'last survivor of the Battle of the Marne.' But, like oral history, the 'dominos' or 'chips' sometimes fall elsewhere. So Emiliano never made it out of training camp, or another man served just one hour on the train. They didn't quit...they were told to go home. They were honorably discharged. We shouldn't disparage them simply because Germany 'surrendered' early. And indeed, looking back it is a surprise how soon Germany capitulated, which is one of the root causes of WWII (they wanted a second go-around at it). Looking back, we might see some history. Many of the American WWI training camps were set up hastily and shut down after the war effort ended. Even a WWI veteran who never left the states can have a story to tell. Finally, the current 'youngest' known WWI veteran claimant is a 'mere 103'. You know, individually that person might not be worthy an a separate encyclopedia article, but a member of a list here seems reasonable. For veterans like Henry Allingham, Leon Roger Weil, etc who served in combat and have made a presence felt in the media, separate articles have been dedicated to them. Much more than what we see others getting.

And if anyone wants to delete the Tex Little article, feel free to do so. The main purpose of my starting that article was so I could attach the 2004 news article that made the claim in the first place--just in case. When the article was created, articles such as "Surviving Veterans of WWI" didn't exist yet. But I think we should leave him on the 2006 deaths list unless someone can come up with convincing evidence that his service was after 1919. And since 'WWII veteran status' includes 1946, why shouldn't WWI veteran status include 1919? It was the continued recruitment of US soldiers that put pressure on Germany to sign the treaty. You think Germany would have signed if the US had stopped and sent all its troops home on Nov 11 1918? I think not. So think about it.

Regards Robert Young → R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The Graph

The graph on the decline of the veterans may be in principle a good idea (if somewhat ghoulish), but I think we just have too little information to come up with one right now. For instance, the indication that less than 10 veterans died in 2000 is very difficult to accept - I believe we simply don't have enough information about all the veterans who died in 2000, and therefore only few of them are mentioned on the '2000' page. The assertion that "by 2006, all of them will be gone" is exceedingly speculative, and, I believe, not a very convincing guesstimate either. There is a fair chance that there will be at least one WW1 veteran who was born in 1900 and lives until 2010 (personally, I think there may well be veterans who will live to see the centenary of the outbreak of the war). Josias Bunsen 17:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Karol Marek dead

http://www.tarnow.pl/media/radio_maks/aktualnosci_full.php?fn=200502071702 => well, this page is blank (and otherwish in Polish), so tell me when exactly he died, please? Bart Versieck 10:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My question is why Merlyn Krueger was deleted very often and these days again. Had he never been a veteran or died he in some times? When he would be still alive and a vet his repeated decline is a very sad circumstance. Michael Streich 18. January 2006

http://www.passagesmb.com/obituary_details.cfm?ObitID=103335 Tony Skabar (Austria-Hungary) died on December 17th 2005.

Present data in a table?

The current grouping - Veterans by country - is mixed with both country of residence (eg Australia section) and country represented (eg Austria-Hungary). I propose to replace the list with the following table in 3 days, if no-one objects - Rye1967 00:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Benefits of using a table:

• Easier to read
• Easier to compare DOB etc
• Avoids need for duplicating some entries, making totals easier to calculate

It has one disadvantage, cannot quickly see a list of all veterans who served for a particular force. I could change the grouping to country represented instead of country of residence if that is more important, but either way, one of the country lists will be slower to see - alternatively, the table could be presented in both groupings.

Table improvements welcome.

Very good in my honest opinion, but what's Robert Young's view in this matter? Bart Versieck 12:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets ask him, what is his user-name? -Rye1967 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Found it, I've asked him - Rye1967 05:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, we'll await his personal opinion. Bart Versieck 12:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed table moved into article, removed from here for readability reasons - Rye1967 05:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Butcher

Does the deletion of Stephen Butcher mean that he is dead? Does anyone know when he died? Michael Streich, 23.02.2006

I am a bit concerned about the deletion of Butcher. We know that he celebrated his 100th birthday in February 2004, so he would today be 102 years old - which does not strike me as utterly unrealistic. http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2004/0402/0004022003.asp All the same, I do notice that he is not often mentioned in news articles listing WW1 veterans. On the other hand, the person who deleted him from the list of surviving WW 1 veterans did not have the courtesy to transfer his name to any of the other lists (such as "Veterans who died in 2006 / 2005 / 2004"), so what exactly did become of him? Josias Bunsen 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with you. Extremely sexy 16:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm! One is given to wondering whether Mr Bart Versieck (the author of the above message, dated 16:30, 4 August 2006) would have the kindness to explain what he meant by "extremely sexy" in this context. Josias Bunsen 22:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just a nickname, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 23:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Right! I have added Mr Butcher to the list of WW 1 veterans for the UK. I do believe that the above link makes the case for him. I would also refer you to the article "First World War 90th Anniversary: The Survivors" in the Birmingham Post, 4 August 2004. If anybody wishes to delete him, would they kindly provide another source that would justify this, and would they also add Stephen Butcher to one of the categories mentioned above ("died in 2004 / 2005 / 2006..."). --Josias Bunsen 19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I deleted Stephen Butcher quite a while ago. I did not put him on a "died in 2005" not as I wasn't courteous, but, as I do not know (and still do not know) the exact date of his passing. I did mention when I did the edit, however, that he was no longer with us, but you have to go back some while to find the edit history. Either way, he died in 2005 and that's as much as I know thus far. I will remove him again, and refer to this comment. Regards, Richard J

Would it be too much of a bother to tell us where your knowledge about his death comes from? Or do we just have to take your word for it? --Josias Bunsen 23:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Josias, I find your attitude quite appalling and makes me wonder why I should even bother replying. However, for the benefit of everyone else, his name is listed in the 2005 deaths in the FRC in London. As an actual death certificate cannot be bought until Jan 2007 (ie 2 years after - for admin reasons), that is why I cannot give you his full deathdate. His name also appeared in the Family Notices - Deaths - of his local paper. However, neither are online references, so I'm afraid I cannot provide a link, but I can assure you he is dead. I trust that for many of you that will be enough, and you will bear with me whilst I do a full date. Bear in mind, it was only about a month or two ago that I could finally give you Norman Robinson's death date from 2004! In any case, he's dead, and Josias, for now, you are just going to HAVE to accept that, until I can scan a certificate or find an online link to it. Richard J

That's enough for me, and I definitely do believe you, but are you Richard from the site that has disappeared, sadly, dealing with World War I Veterans, who met several British WW I veterans, and, if so, could you provoede me with a link to your website, my dear friend? Extremely sexy 10:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Bart, no, that's Peter, actually, who is Harbourart on that forum. I am/was Richard J. Peter(Harbourart)'s website is http://www.harbourart.co.uk/photo/html/vets/vets1.htm.

Also, re. Butcher. Dennis Goodwin has confirmed that those names who are listed as surviving that we have currently, are indeed alive and he was not aware of any more now. Whilst he did not confirm Butcher's death per se, he would surely have mentioned if he was still alive. Dennis Goodwin, Josias, in case you don't know, is the man who runs the British World War One Veterans Association. Now, that's a reputable source if ever there was one.

As a small aside, Bart, I am concerned, that although most of the forum members have found their way here, Mateusz from Poland hasn't. I do someone from Poland could confirm the current whereabouts of their remaining soldiers. Certainly, little has been heard about Solinski recently...

Ah, okay then, and thanks for the information, but Peter is here as well you mean, my dear friend?

Richard alias Peter, I am heartbroken to hear that you don't like my attitude. It's funny what ticks people off – take me for example, I get ever so slightly miffed about folks who go around deleting veterans without providing a source. However, I note that you have provided us with a reference now. However vague the mention of "Mr Butcher's local paper" may be, it does show that you have learnt your lesson – I had no doubt you would. --Josias Bunsen 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Josias, I am heartbroken to hear that you get wound up over piffling matters. I am not Peter, and never have been, and suggest you read my reply to Bart again. Once more you feel the need to be snide. Butcher's local paper being vague? Well, if you must know it's the Portsmouth News, but remember there are people from here who are not British, and may get confused about locality - especially when you consider there's a Portsmouth in the US, too. I put local paper for everyone's easiness, but no, you have to be rude again. I don't have to justify myself to you anyway. I certainly don't feel "I've been taught a lesson". At least I'm researching (and continuing to do so) as much as I can about these 68 men to make sure this page is accurate, rather than sitting back & picking faults at everyone. For everyone else, I trust you will be patient whilst I can get a certificate or link, which as I said will be some time. Although with people like Josias here, I don't know why I should bother. Richard (not Peter!) J

I hope Peter will read this discussion too. Extremely sexy 14:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

State funeral for last British WWI veteran?

There is a movement in the UK to give their last WWI veteran a state funeral. Some veterans have indicated that they and/or their families would not welcome the intrusion a state funeral would bring. Also, a state funeral is usually reserved for heads of state or persons of "national significance." One alternate idea is to hold a memorial service honoring the generation that fought in the war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4919818.stm

--JMD4LSU 21:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the significant problems is going to be accurately identifying the actual "last veteran."Frankwomble 16:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems decided now that the last "known" veteran will get a state funeral - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1807599,00.html Frankwomble - I agree, it may be a huge problem to find out who the last one actually is. It's a fallacy to believe that the number of 'known' veterans can only go in the downward direction. The wiki list is probably one of the best efforts at establishing the "known" surviving WW 1 veterans; but even here it is possible, that candidates have to be included that had hitherto been neglected (see the case of Stephen Butcher). On the problems of defining the "last" veteran, see also http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1664649,00.html --Josias Bunsen 20:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Roberts, William (Bill) UK

Can anyone offer a citation for Bill Roberts' reported death on 30 April 06? I have so far failed to find any mention of it in the on-line British press sources such as the BBC and the Telegraph. Thanks. Frankwomble 16:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• the Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-2163708,00.html
• the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2006/05/05/db0502.xml Acctorp 23:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Victoria Cross forum status

Hope this is not too far OT - but does anyone know what happened to the Victoria Cross message forum regarding World War I surviving soldiers? I can no longer get the page to open. Has it been closed for some reason? Thanks. Frankwomble 16:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

George Ward

Does anyone know the status of George Ward of Fayetteville, NC? He was alive as of 2004 at the age of 103 or 104. If he's still with us, he may be the most decorated surviving WWI vet, as he received the Distinguished Service Cross. I can't find an obit or a SSDI entry. Acctorp 23:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell us what more you know about Mr. Ward, Acctorp? Can you direct us to any articles about him?

There were no George Ward's listed in the SSDI dying in North Carolina in 2004, 2005, or 2006 that could possibly be a WWI veteran. I would say there's a good chance he's still alive, as the SSDI records 95% of all deaths in the U.S. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 14:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Robley H. Rex

Can anybody confirm that he made it to 105 last Thursday, May 4th, please, dear fellow Wikipedians?

I just found it myself at [1], and he is still smiling: good sign.

An article on Robley Rex states:

The Associated Press State & Local Wire

August 18, 2004, Wednesday, BC cycle

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 333 words

HEADLINE: VFW gives medal to 103-year-old veteran of WWI

DATELINE: CINCINNATI

BODY: Robley Rex served in World War I, came home to work as a postal employee and ordained Methodist minister and still volunteers at a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in Louisville, Ky.

At age 103, Rex isn't slowing down.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars honored him on Tuesday at its national convention with a medal recognizing his lifetime of service.

"He's eating this up," said Martha Allen, one of a group of women who brought Rex to Cincinnati to attend the convention. "He's a sweetheart. Nobody deserves it more."

He hobbled down an aisle at the Sabin Cincinnati Convention Center during the VFW convention Tuesday, smiling and nodding to the veterans who reached out to shake his hand and pat his back.

"I guess I'm one of a kind," said Rex, a resident of the Louisville suburb of Okolona and a lifetime member of Okolona VFW Post 8639.

He left the Army in 1922 to return to the Louisville area. He is the only known World War I veteran surviving in Kentucky, according to the Kentucky Department of Veterans Affairs.

Rex served with the Army's 28th Infantry Division as a buck private near the war's end in 1918. He remained with the unit in Germany after the armistice was signed, mostly doing administrative work for an intelligence company.

"I was no big hero," Rex said. "I did my duty."

The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates that fewer than 200 survivors remain from service in World War I. Fewer than 4 million of the 16 million who served in World War II are alive, the department estimates.

Rex's wife, Grace, has died. They had no children.

Three days a week, Rex hitches a ride with a friend to the VA Hospital in Louisville, where he serves as a volunteer dropping off samples at the hospital lab, delivering paperwork and walking from room to room to talk to veterans of later wars. He has logged more than 13,000 hours of volunteer work since 1986, his friends say.

"I try to cheer the boys up, and I guess I usually do," Rex said.

GRAPHIC: AP Photo

LOAD-DATE: August 19, 2004

OK, so where's the proof he joined in 1919? this says '1918.' And I don't know if he got to France after Nov 11, but he still went, didn't he. And the Kentucky Dept of Veterans Affairs considers him to be a WWI veteran.

131.96.14.89 18:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright 2005 Associated Press All Rights Reserved

The Associated Press State & Local Wire

August 20, 2005, Saturday, BC cycle

SECTION: State and Regional

LENGTH: 633 words

HEADLINE: World War I vet to be honored

DATELINE: LOUISVILLE, Ky.

BODY: A 104-year-old Louisville man, believed to be the state's only living World War I veteran, will be honored for his volunteer work at a ceremony later this week.

Robley Rex now uses a walker, but stays active three days a week delivering mail, hospital records and blood specimens at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center. He has logged about 13,600 volunteer hours over the past 19 years at the VA hospital in Louisville.

On Wednesday in Salt Lake City, the Veterans of Foreign Wars will recognize him as the National Volunteer of the Year.

"Robley Rex should be one of the people that other vets should be coming to see," said Joe Davis, a national VFW spokesman. Instead, "he's going out to see other vets and put a smile on their faces and sit and talk stories. He kind of proves that you can still serve long after you take off your uniform."

Up until last year, Rex still mowed the grass at his home in Okolona and would take the hospital stairs instead of the elevator.

"When he first got that walker, he carried it," said Mary Jane Crowder, acting chief of voluntary services at the VA hospital.

Rex was born in 1901, in Christian County.

"I was happy," he recalled of his childhood. "I was never abused or mistreated. And when I was corrected, they (his parents) acted like, 'Oh! We're sure gon' whip the hide off of you!' But I soon learned that they didn't mean to hurt me none."

Because of his parents, Rex said, "at an early time in life, I knew the difference between right and wrong."

Those lessons, he said, have helped him throughout his life.

"My momma taught me not to smoke and not to drink, and I haven't done it yet," he said. "I believe it helps. I see my friends come in the beer joint at four in the afternoon and drink until two in the morning, and I don't believe that that is conducive to good health."

An ordained Methodist minister, Rex said another reason for his success is that "God has taken care of me."

Rex enlisted at 18 and was sent to Europe.

"When we landed in France, they had about a thousand of us lined up. They said, 'Who can handle a typewriter?' And God lifted my hand," he said. "And they said 'Step out!' The other guys went off to be shot. I went in to keep a chair warm."

Returning to Kentucky in 1922, Rex eventually worked as a mail clerk for the U.S. Postal Service. He looked up a piano player named Grace who had entertained the troops at Camp Taylor in Louisville before the war. She'd played traditional gospel songs such as "The Old Rugged Cross" and "Amazing Grace," he said.

"She was still single, so we corrected that," he said.

Rex said he has lived so long because he married the right woman. She died in 1992. The couple didn't have any children.

The only family Rex has is nephew Gordon Foster and his family, who live near Lewisburg, about 30 miles west of Bowling Green. Foster said his uncle "has got his own thing going on, and it keeps him alive."

Rex takes care of himself. A neighbor cooks for him sometimes, but mostly he eats out, he said. He doesn't drive anymore and relies on friends to drive him around. He has been the state commander of Kentucky's WWI veterans and treasurer and a minister for the local Disabled American Veterans chapter.

Besides his volunteer work, he is chaplain for VFW Post 8639, and he prepares taxes for some of his closest friends. As a service officer for the VFW, DAV, and American Legion, Rex helped families wade through the bureaucracy of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Volunteering, he said, helps keep him going.

"It gives me a feeling of importance," he said. "I feel like I may not have lived in vain if I may have assisted some person during the day."

---

Information from: The Courier-Journal, http://www.courier-journal.com

LOAD-DATE: August 21, 2005

It has long been firmly established that Robley Rex is NOT a WWI veteran. The VA does not regard him as a WWI veteran, since he enlisted in 1919, well after the Armistice. This has been a settled matter on this board for months now. I don't know why Robert Young has taken it upon himself to upset the apple cart, but he clearly has no new evidence to the contrary. His only citation is an old newspaper clipping that relies upon Rex's own word that he is a WWI veteran. As many other articles and sources have established, Rex's word is unreliable. Prior to a couple of years ago, he acknowledged that he did not enlist until well after the Armistice. Yes, Robert, it is sad that the ranks of America's WWI veterans are dwindling down, but it is just plain wrong to try bolstering those ranks with people who did not serve in WWI. It cheapens the status of those who did (like the recently discovered Oren Peterson), so please stop changing what we have long established as the standard here. Robley Rex belongs in the "WWI-era" column. He should stay there.

Note: http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0311/gallery.wwi.vets/content.2.html

Note: http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/11/09/loc_ky-oldestvet.html

1. I already disavowed changing it, so your accusation is silly. However, I changed it back since if you're going to accuse me of doing something, I might as well be guilty, right?

2. It really may be false to claim that Robley is 'validated' but it's also false to claim that the 1919 date is proven, when nothing more than newspaper report is offered. Robley said he enlisted in "May 1918" on the phone. Whether he did or not, that's what he claims. So, technically he should be listed in 'unverified claims' unless you can produce a 1919 enlistment record. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 02:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

(→Living in the USA - 14 veterans - (It has already been established here that Robley Rex is NOT a WWI vet. Despite his recent claims otherwise, he actually enlisted no earlier than 1919))

Actually, it has NOT been established WHEN Robley Rex enlisted. Until/unless someone can post a 1919 enlistment paper, the above statement is FALSE. "Unverified" and "established" don't mean the same thing. "Unverified" means there's not enough evidence to prove or disprove the claim.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"However, I changed it back since if you're going to accuse me of doing something, I might as well be guilty, right?" That's some fine logic there, Robert. So if someone falsely accuses you of robbing a bank, you should then go out and Rob the bank? Good luck using that defense in court.

As has been previously stated, Robley Rex has only started claiming recently that he enlisted in 1918, and as far as I can tell he's only told one newspaper reporter this (and, as you claim, you). Prior to that, he told people, for the record, that he enlisted after the war ended. No one who had really served in the war would ever claim to have enlisted afterward; however, as we have seen here time and again, sometimes people who did not serve in the war do claim to have done so, for various reasons -- confusion, regret that they didn't actually get to serve, a desire for attention, etc. Rex would have been 17 years old in 1918, and would have had to lie about his age to enlist; he never claimed to have done so. (This is always a major part of the story of those who did enlist underage, since it wasn't always so easy to get away with lying about your age -- Frank Buckles has said he had to go to several recruiting stations before one would take him.) What Rex HAS claimed is that he served three years, and that he was discharged in 1922. 1922 - 3 = 1919. As has been said before, Rex's status on this board has been an established matter for months. Why on earth do you want to validate false claims of service in WWI, Robert? What possible purpose does that serve, other than boosting the U.S.'s totals? Perhaps we should start listing YOU as a WWI vet, too. Just call yourself up, tell yourself you enlisted in May 1918, and we can add your name to the list.

That's a good one: you're so funny. Extremely sexy 13:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional female British World War I veterans living?

In an 18 April 2006 article in the Guardian Unlimited the veterans minister, Don Touhig, stated that there may be other female veterans of WWI alive in the UK. Does anyone know who they are? Here's the quote from him: "Inevitably, the numbers of surviving veterans of world war one will dwindle, but the numbers of those known to us do go up as well as down," he said. "For example, the announcement of the death of our last-known female veteran has prompted claims that there are two others still alive." Here's the link to the article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1756215,00.html Frankwomble 14:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

None for Russia

I find that surprising.... Rich Farmbrough 09:29 8 June 2006 (UTC).

Well, they did pull out of the war earlier, and with all the chaos of the revolution there simply may not be any records. Czolgolz 12:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that we don't speak or read Russian here. There may very well be a Russian claimant out there that we don't know about. I don't think we have found the last unknown WWI veteran just yet. The US has continued to produce more claims. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well... between the Russian Revolution, WWII and Stalins purges there may very well not be any left. I mean WWII cost Russia some 3 million men and the purges some 10-20 million people. The average lifespan in Russia isn't that great and wasn't during the Soviet era either. Just saying - I wouldn't be surprised if there are none left. Gardar Rurak 05:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Should so-called "World War I-era" veterans be included here or not?

Following the repeat changes by this IP, I have requested a temp block on the IP. I am aware that inclusion of the 3 USA vet names involved (Stillman, Munger, Robley) have been debated earlier this year, but a conclusion needs to be arrived at here on this talk page instead of just unilaterally, and repeatedly, removing them.--Rye1967 19:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Rye, Despite my entry above regarding the Veteran's Administration definition of a US veteran, I feel strongly that it is far more desirable to include the World War I-era veterans than to remove them from this article. Same goes for those who were still in training when the war ended. Frankwomble 18:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Counting three "World War I ERA" veterans as actual World War I veterans is shamefully dishonest. This list is not an accounting of "World War I ERA" veterans -- it is a list of Wolrd War I veterans, period. A World War I veteran is someone who served in the armed forces during World War I, a conflict which ended with an armistice on November 11, 1918. A man who enlisted in 1919 did not serve in World War I. What's more, since he enlisted after the war was over, he did not even enlist with the intention of serving in the war. "World War I ERA" veterans do not receive a World War I pension from the Department of Veterans Affairs; no one, except a few cranks on this board, considers them to be the equivalent of World War I veterans. No other nation on this list includes "World War I ERA veterans" on their rolls; why should they be included on the U.S. list? It comes across as an embarrassing attempt to pad our numbers. If the purpose of this page is to keep an ACCURATE census of living World War I veterans worldwide -- and that's what I thought it was, anyway -- then these three men should be removed from the list permanently. If not, then heck, let's put Merlyn Krueger back up there, too. Hey, he SAID he was a World War I veteran, didn't he?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.88.20 (talk • contribs) 20:03, June 14 2006

1. How can it be dishonest if there's disclosure? 2. There is not one agreed-upon definition of WWI veteran. Some countries, such as France, required six months' military service...and Italy 3 months (although both have been relaxing the rules lately, and we have the names of some of those exluded). 3. This is not a 'census.' It's a running tab that changes with each update and passing. 4. Your definition of 'when the war was over' is, in fact, Ameri-centric biased. The war in Russia and Turkey continued...in fact the last peace treaty was signed in 1923. So, I think 1919 was a fair compromise. 5. The people on this board are not 'cranks'...you are in fact the one that until now did not want to discuss this, and also refused to use your name, sign up for an ID, etc. If everyone else agrees to delete, then OK...but it shouldn't be for one person to decide arbitrarily without considering the various points first. 6. You STILL don't understand war... I guess the war in Iraq ended in 2003 too. Occupation soldiers are always needed to keep peace afterward. Moreover, the Treaty of Paris was not signed until 1919, so technically there was a 'state of war' until the treaty was signed.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 09:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well why don't we agree a defintion of a veteran, include that defn in the article, and use it to decide who is included. Those who do not fit the definition, could be included in an 'Others' section towards the end of the article. I'll start.--Rye1967 05:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To whoever entered the anonymous NOTE above, the VA disagrees with your definition of a US World War I veteran. Your complaint about including World War I-era veterans vice only World War I veterans is already addressed in the second paragraph of the article header and the notes on each veteran. Your ad hominem attack about 'a few cranks on this board' is uncalled for. Frankwomble 13:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to follow USA Vets Assoc rules in this article, especially since the article includes veterans from other countries, if it makes sense not to do so. Do you know why the VA takes its approach? --Rye1967 18:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "World War I era" veterans should be listed in a separate section of this article (or, better yet, in an entirely different article). The VA does not consider "World War I era" veterans to be the same as "World War I" veterans. So-called "World War I era" veterans do not qualify for World War I veteran benefits. Clearly, the VA recognizes a distinction between actual World War I veterans and "World War I era" veterans; we should too. Frankly, I think the term "World War I era veteran" is meaningless -- a Union soldier who enlisted in 1866 and served in the South during Reconstruction is not considered to be a Civil War veteran. In fact, he is not even considered to be a "Civil War era" veteran, since there is no such thing. So why are we trying to fudge the matter here? To boost our numbers? Unlike some other modern wars, we actually have a universally agreed-upon date to mark the end of World War I: November 11, 1918. Intellectual honesty and historical accuracy dictate that soldiers who did not enlist until after that date should not be considered World War I veterans. And since this article is about actual World War I veterans, they do not belong here. Their presence on the list corrupts its integrity; they should be removed. It's as simple as that.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.88.20 (talk • contribs) 08:33, June 15 2006

Just for keepers, I do hold two degrees in history...and I graduated summa cum laude, thank you. Now, you just said it...'Reconstruction.' So, the Yankees didn't go straight home in 1865, did they? Hmmm...but unlike WWI, the surrender terms were signed in 1865, not? Yet in WWI, the main peace treaty was signed in 1919...was it not. It's not as 'simple as that'. And, the US government includes those who served in Russia 1918-1920 as WWI veterans. So, it's not so simple, is it? → R Young {^yakł_talk} 09:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The comment below, that history is an art and not a science, is absurd on the face and only makes it seem like you're trying desperately to rationalize. It also makes me want to speak up and be heard, when I was previously content to just sit this one out. History is, in fact, about accuracy, first and foremost, and while that's often difficult to discern, in this case it is not. Everyone knows that World War I ended with an armistice at 11 a.m. (GMT) on November 11, 1918. That's it, end of story. This is universally acknowledged and agreed-upon by historians (including myself) throughout the known world, as well as the VA, which, as many others have written here, only considers those who served between April 1917 and November 11, 1918 to be actual World War I veterans. Them, and only them. The term "World War I era veretan" is an informal descriptor, not an official designation. Soldiers who enlisted after VJ-Day and served in the army of occupation in Japan or Germany are not considered to be World War II veterans, or World War II era veterans. They are simply veterans. This does not make their contribution to our country's defense any less honorable. But they are not World War II veterans, and to call them such is to corrupt the title and demean the contribution of actual World War II veterans.

The same is true for World War I. What's more, from what I've read, these men (with the possible exception of Rex, who seems to be enjoying all the attention) don't even claim to be actual World War I veterans. So why are some of you so eager to keep them on the list? Is it, as some have written here, to boost our numbers? Isn't it enough to honor those who actually did serve in World War I and are still with us? Why do we need to keep these other three names? Don't you think it sullies the list -- and the accomplishments of the other 17 men and women -- to lump them all togather? This is not about demeaning those three men. But they didn't enlist to serve in a war. They enlisted long after the armistice. If a shooting war had broken out again in 1919, that would have been a different story. But it didn't. No one really expected it to, since Germany was in chaos after November 11. These men did not think they would be fghting in a war when they enlisted, and theyt were correct. So if historians worldwide, the VA, and these men themselves don't consider them to be World War I veterans, why on earth should we?

As for men who were still in training when the war ended: I say they should stay on the list. By the standards I just delineated, they belong. They enlisted during wartime, with the intention of serving in a war. They could not have known, when they enlisted, that the war would end before they saw service. The VA considers them to be WWI vets, and that's good enough for me.

And as for Siberian veterans, I personally think they should be included, since they were engaged in armed conflict -- and there were casualties over there -- but the point is moot. Are there any still alive? Does anyone know of any? If you do, please post them here.

Finally, regarding the matter of voting, while it might seem a fair solution, who exactly are we to rule on this? A motley assembly of interested parties who just happen to know about the existence of this article? Let us not forget that other people -- high school students, enthusiasts, curious individuals everywhere -- will read this article and take what we post here as truth. Do we really want to mislead all of them? That said, I will vote if it's the only way to make this page more accurate, which seems to be the case. Sincerely, BHM

A gentle reminder to everyone that the SUBJECT of this debate is the changes, if any, to be made to the opening para, and the impact of those changes on the contents of the list. If remarks deal with opinions on the subject, rather than opinions of the other contributors, or opinons on the merit their contributions, it will help keep the discussion civil. If you disagree with the proposal, it would help me prepare something for voting if there are alternative proposals. --Rye1967 09:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Rye, please put me down as voting that the three veterans in question (and any others who enlisted after 11 November 1918) should be removed from the list or, failing that, put into a different category. I also believe you should expand the voting period beyong a week, as many interested parties do not, I am sure, check in weekly. I am about to leave on holiday, and would appreciate my vote being tallied now. Thank you.

151.205.139.110Charles G.K. Strathman

Glad to see the Imperial is too busy on 'holiday' to be bothered to actually vote. Jeeves, fetch me my cricket gear. In accordance with the Wiki rules, his vote should not count unless he casts it himself, not to have others vote for him. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 18:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I am casting my own vote, right here, right now. I vote that the "World War I era" veterans be removed from the list, or, failing that, relegated to a different category.

151.205.139.110Charles G.K. Strathman

With no disrespect to veterans, I vote only those who served before the Armistice be listed. It will be a moot point in a few years anyway. Czolgolz 14:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of a veteran

Veterans, for the purposes of this article, are 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 armstice that ended the war on Nov 11, 1918. Other World-War I era veterans are listed seperately. This includes those that .... --Rye1967 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, if "World War I era" veterans are to be listed in this article at all, it should be in a separate section, and their numbers should not be counted for the final tally. Who will edit the article to incorporate these changes, and when?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.88.20 (talk • contribs) 08:37, June 15 2006

We need to wait for 4 days to give everyone an opportunity to have their say, then because this is a contentious issue we will need to have a vote on a proposed change. That will take a few days. If the vote is in favour, I will make the change. May seem like a long time, but the alternative revert war has taken a long time anyhow. It would help clarity if you would auto-sign your comments using four tildas (like this: ~~~~) -- Rye1967 18:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a vote is fair. But it doesn't mean one side is right and the other is wrong. It just means that's the prevailing opinion. Because history is an art, not a science. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 09:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Rye, when exactly will this vote be conducted, and how? How will people be able to vote, and where, and how much time will they have to do so? If you could please post detailed instructions, I'm sure we'd all be grateful. For my part, I hope the period in which to vote will be a long one -- say, a week or so -- since some of us are not able to check in here more than once a week. Thanks! BHM

Ive not organised a vote before, or even participated in very many, but I have seen some and I plan to follow the same line. I will check if there are some [[WP:|policies]] or guidelines I should follow, and I will provide a link to a sample previous vote for newbies. I will initiate the vote on Tuesday 20, here on this talk page. People will probably vote by adding a YEA or NEA comment to a list, preferrably a signed comment. Yes, I think the period should be a week, I will make the end-date clear when I init the vote.--Rye1967 09:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So when will you do just that? Extremely sexy 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

June 20th has passed without organising this vote. Extremely sexy 13:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

June 21st as well: please, initate. Extremely sexy 22:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mister "Rye1967", where are you now, please, my dear friend? Extremely sexy 10:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I asked exactly the same question at your "discussion page", and I hope you will answer soon, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 10:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In regards to this issue of how to define a veteran of WWI, I come down in favour of 1919 being a fairer demarcation point. Why? Primarily because those making decisions related to this issue on this have chosen that path. As has been demonstrated by Ryoung, several states have recognised veterans who served in some capacity through 1919, and even 1920, as being World War I veterans, and promoting that. Whether that is for their own ends is really irrelevant, as representatives of the State in some form or another, their recognition once bestowed should be respected.

And that leads to the other issue, how do other countries define their veterans, and whether they qualify as World War I veterans? I would be particularly interested in how Russians define and demarcate between World War I and the Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War - inter-related entities all of them, and also the Greek & Turkish perspectives on World War I and how it relates to the Greco-Turkish conflict, 1919-1922, and the Turkish Revolution - that prevented, as Ryoung points out, the conclusive signing of a peace treaty between the Allies and the new Turkish Republic. and even the Polish-Soviet War between 1919-1921 and the Japanese intervention in Russia during the same years. I'd be interested to know how all these countries recognise their veterans from those conflicts and whether, and how, they differentiate them all and if they recognise the distinct boundaries some are trying to impose here. Ultimately I feel that each countries own definition of what constitutes a veteran from that era should be recognised with this article, and its the nature of the inter-related conflicts that make that something of a tough situation.

Stating that World War I finished conclusively at 11am on 11/11/1918 is all very well, but that seems to me to be a highly Anglo-Centric and convenient viewing of the situation that has good grounds to be challenged - especially given the fact the Treaty of Versailles was not signed until mid 1919. Given all the above, I do support Ryoung's suggestion of distinguishing combat veterans from other veterans - this is a good idea, and to take it a step further, it could be extended to providing, where appropriate, more brief notes on where and when said person list served. jkm 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the definition that Rye posted at the beginning of this topic. Everything else that has been brought up on the matter is, in my opinion (and I am a professor of history, specialising in, among other things, the Great War) simply a matter of obfuscation. Like BHM and perhaps some others, I was content to remain silent and invisible until some of the more absurd arguments began to surface. Eurocentrism? Turkey and Bulgaria? A 20-year-old article about some deceased veteran in Wisconsin? This is all piffle, smoke-and-mirrors. The matter itself is straightforward in a way that few things are in history. The war ended with the armistice. The armistice took effect at 1100 GMT on 11 November 1918. After about November 15 or so, there was never any doubt that Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were defeated. No one thought for a second that peace treaty might not happen. In fact, the allied nations were so certain of this that they inflicted upon Germany many severe and brutal terms. They never would or could have done so had they believed, for a moment, that Germany might somehow avoid signing the treaty. If you read any American newspaper articles from November 15, 1918 onward, you quickly come to understand that even then they realised the war was over. Anyone who would have enlisted in late 1918 or 1919 would have known as much, too. As for Turkey and Bulgaria -- no member of the AEF was ever sent anywhere but the western front. That argument holds no more water than does a sieve.

So much for that topic. As has been stated here, at least two of the three veterans involved have never claimed to be World War I veterans. After reading the remarks about Mr. Rex, I did a quick study of online articles about him, and he seems quite eager to claim what is not rightfully his. No article states that he enlisted in late 1918 -- they all say 1919 or 1920. (One does not quote a date, but says he was born in 1901 and enlisted at 18.) He himself, though, is fond of remarking that when he arrived in Europe he volunteered for the typing pool while the other soldiers "marches off to be shot." Unless his centenarian memory is muddled -- and it may well be -- he knows quite well that no American soldiers in western Europe were marching off to be shot in 1919 or, more likely, 1920. I'm not saying that Mr. Rex is a dishonourable cad. In fact, I rather feel sorry for him. It's not his fault he was born too late for the war. My guess is that he feels bad that he missed the big show and wants to place himself in it so he can garner the attention he is now receiving. Nevertheless, he doesn't belong on this list. His presence there, as others have said, detracts from the achievement of those who did serve in the war.

As for further stratifying this list into those who served in combat and those who didn't, such a suggestion, coming from those who stridently insist upon keeping the three non-Great War vets on the list, bears the rank odour of hypocrisy. You want to keep three men who didn't even enlist until after hostilities were certainly finished, but exclude (or banish to some other list) men who joined to fight and who, through no fault of their own, were stationed stateside or did not make it out of training before the armistice. Ridiculous! And who, precisely, is going to have fiat to determine who is and who isn't a combat veteran? Who is going to do all that research? And why should any of us believe that someone will make such changes when, confronted with irrefutable evidence that three of these men were not Great War veterans, some here insist upon keeping them on this list anyway?

Finally, I refer all of you to the title of this article. It is "surviving veterans of World War I." It is not "Surviving Veterans of the World War I era." If you are going to insist upon stretching the rules to ridiculous lengths just to keep your personal favourites on even though they don't belong, at least have the honour to change the title in the interests of veracity. I hope, though, that you will rather change the contents itself. I check this page often, as a man who is interested in the subject. I would like to rely upon the notion that what I read here is factually accurate. When a name is in doubt or contention, it should be removed forthwith.

151.205.139.110Charles G.K. Strathman

Ok, I see another Brit has thrown down another gauntlet. I suppose you feel you 'pilloried me from pip to post." Using words like 'obfuscation, smoke and mirrors' is, in fact, hypocrisy. I cited real, factual sources, you chose to spout opinions. First, a 20-year article is important because it suggests that those who claimed the year 1919 for 'WWI veterans' did so long before the idea of attention as the 'last living veteran' emerged. Apparently you failed to make that obvious connection. Next, was it not the Brits and ANZACS that suffered at Gallipolli? Was it not the issue of Turkey that surfaced in the Crimean War? Was it not Bulgaria that took the 'Axis' side in WWII? As a historian, your dismissal of Turkey and Bulgaria raises the issue of just what history you actually teach. Also, you missed the entire point completely...I agreed that 'combat' veteran status largely ended on Nov 11 1918, but that we have included (even the majority of the Brits) non-combat veterans who were either in training, used for non-combat support services, etc. Did veteran pay end on Nov 11 1918? Did all veterans return on Nov 11 1918? Did US recruitment end on Nov 11 1918? Was the treaty of Versailles signed on Nov 11 1918? No, No, No, No. Ok then. If we want to establish this as just a list of combat veterans, then I could go for Nov 11 1918. But since it is not, and the USA defines WWI veterans to include at least those with service in 1919 and even to 1920 for those in Russia, then it really is regrettable that as I've cited sources and facts, you and your ilk continue to sputter name-calling, or using phrases like 'increasingly desperate.' If citing sources and facts is 'increasingly desperate,' well then, I'll continue to cite sources as you continue to spin and distort the facts. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Rye, in spite of Mr. or Ms. R. Young's plea for my disenfranchisement, I hope you will count my vote, as detasiled elsewhere on this page. (I vote AGAINST listing the so-called "World War I era" veterans alongside the actual Great War veterans.) When do you expect to complete the voting process?

151.205.139.110Charles G.K. Strathman

• Surely a veteran should be someone who was active & involved before Armistice. I dont see that anyone who did not see active service until after Armistice is a vet of WWI. So 1919 shouldnt be included. So if its not too late I say AGAINST inclduing WWI era alongside actual WW vets. Marcus22 14:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I too vote against having world war l 'era' soldiers on the list. Could someone please let us know what the result of the vote was? :)

Might I ask a few questions:

1. Did the Revolutionary War end in 1781, or 1783?

2. Did WWII begin in 1939? For China, it started in 1931...

3. Did Iraq War II end in 2003? Mission accomplished?

No one knew in Nov 1918 if the "Armistice" would hold.

If the GOAL of this message board is to REMEMBER the WAR VETERANS, then I think all of you who are pooh-poohing 1919 enlistees are forgetting that:

A. The Treaty of Versailles, again, was signed in 1919 B. In some areas, such as Turkey, fighting continued well after 1919 C. The recruitment campaign in the U.S. for 1919 was begun in 1917 and the 1919 campaign was a continuation D. Some US government agencies count "WWI era" veterans as WWI veterans. E. By listing them separate, a reader is free to choose their own interpretation. F. By listing the "near misses," so to speak, we can be more sure that we've gotten all the real cases, too. That's why I track persons aged 108-109 even though I only list persons 110+. It just makes sense to employ a margin of error. G. If there are other WWI-era vets, we haven't seen any in the news. Their number is likely quite small. H. As we have seen, with WWI vets as well, media attention favors certain nations and time periods. Go back to the 1999 list, all UK and France. Should we even have a 1999 list?

By the way, the voting was concluded long ago, and tacking on other votes many months after the fact smacks of "sour grapes".

Sincerely, Robert Young → R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Case for 1919

If we're going to have a vote, we should have a 'campaign' first. And since the 'easy' answer is to say that World War I ended with the Armistice, obviously it would be a good idea to show evidence to the contrary, in support of the broader definition of a 'WWI veteran.'

For starters:

http://dva.state.wi.us/News_Releases/WWI_veteran's_remains_to_be_interred.pdf

Here we see a veteran who died in 1973 and served 1919-1920 is not just being counted as a WWI veteran by the state of Wisconsin, but being recognized as representative of other WWI veterans. Considering this aspect (no need to claim that he's still alive in 2006), it should be evident that in the USA at least, many people who served in 1919 and even in 1920 were considered to be a "WWI veteran" long before the issue of the 'last' veteran came up. This is fact, not something I wrote. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 17:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

However, using a broader definition is respectful not just to those who served 1919-1920, but to those who enlisted earlier. Moses Hardy, enlisted 1918, returned to USA 1919. Antonio Pierro, enlisted May 1918, returned to USA May 1919. While Antonio Pierro's papers cited that 'combat' ended Nov 11 1918, they also cited that he was a 'veteran' until May 15 1919. Thus, I think this issue could be resolved equitably by simply adding a column that describes some as 'combat' veterans and others as non-combat. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 17:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Versailles, 1919

We see that the major treaty of the Western front was not signed until June 1919. http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/vercontents.html

The USA had to maintain a military prescence to ensure the signature of the treaty. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 17:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1stimeline8.htm

Here we see that the treaties with Bulgaria and the Ottoman empires were not signed until 1920. Also note that several events happened after Nov 11 1918. Notably, the treaties with Germany, Austria, and Bulgaria were signed in 1919, and that with the Ottoman Empire in 1920. This is fact, not opinion. It's also fact that the USA continued to recruit veterans for its temporary war training camps in 1919, in part because of the uncertainty of the 'surrender' in Germany and the problems in Russia. These are facts, not make-believe. Hey, in WWII the main treaty was signed Sept 2 1945 and is considered by most to mark the official 'end' of the war. the Nov 11 1918 date is the official end of the fighting, but not the official 'end' of the state of war.

1919 • January 18: Start of Paris peace negotiations. • June 21: The German High Seas Fleet is scuttled at Scapa Flow. • June 28th: The Treaty of Versailles is signed by Germany and the Allies. • September 10: The Treaty of St Germain en Laye is signed by Austria and the Allies. • November 27: The Treaty of Neuilly is signed by Bulgaria and the Allies.

1920 • June 4: The Treaty of Trianon is signed by Hungary and the Allies. • August 10: The Treaty of Sévres is signed by the former Ottoman Empire and the Allies.

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 17:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments under the previous article. These arguments are completely specious. Stating that the war ended on 11 November 1918 is not merely "easy"; it is, in fact, correct. No one's discharge papers -- either in the U.S. or the U.K. -- refer to them as a "veteran." If you have seen any, as I have, then you know this to be the case. While I admit it is very interesting to observe the author's increasingly dramatic contortions as he or she attempts to justify the inclusion of these three vets, we cannot make decisions based upon entertainment value. We must use logic, and reason, and the facts. And the facts dictate that a Great War veteran is one who served in the Great War, which ended with the armistice. This is a matter of universal assent among historians. I don't know why the author, Mr. or Ms. R. Young, goes to such comic lengths to try and assert otherwise, but it makes me wonder if he or she is more than just a casual observer. Perhaps one of these men is a relative?

151.205.139.110Charles G.K. Strathman

P.S. Speaking of 'increasing desperation,' what a silly charge this is. The closest relation I have to these 3-4 cases is seeing their names in a newspaper. And I do think the fair and equitable solution is NOT to delete but to add...add a separate list of 'confirmed combat veterans' that only includes the veterans who actually served in combat. A separate list, perhaps not separated by nation but for the entire world. After all, the oldest living veteran, Emiliano Mercado Del Toro, 114, was in training when the war ended...thus, by some people's definitions he shouldn't be a WWI veteran, because he wasn't in combat. So, for the 'strict constructionists' why not have them strictly construct their table, listed separately. I do believe Mr. Del Toro falls into the broader definitions of who is a WWI veteran. Ok, enough.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 18:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, we see name-calling and distortions, and no facts, from people such as the illustrious Dr. Strathman. Then a questioning of gender identity, as if that has any relevance. 'Increasingly dramatic contortions'? What, simply finding facts and posting them? Funny that I should Google "World War I+ended" and the FIRST result, should say:

World War I Ended With the Treaty of VersaillesWorld War I Ended With the Treaty of Versailles June 28, 1919 World War I (1914-1918) was finally over. This first global conflict had claimed from 9 ... www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/jb/jazz/ww1_1 - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Hmmm...so, actually I am in the majority. Being rude and uncivil won't change that. Until the Korean conflict, wars were generally regarded as having ended with the treaty of surrender. The 'Great War' was no different.

INTERESTINGLY, I did post an article that claimed that Mr Robley Rex enlisted in 1918...yet Mr Strathman here uncivilly goes to change the main-page date to '1919 or 1920.' Look, we don't know for certain when Mr Robley Rex enlisted. And I'm not saying that he should be kept on the list at all costs. What I am saying is that:

A. He is considered to be a World War I veteran by some authorities, including the U.S. state of Kentucky B. The Wikipedia list need not reflect every official list...the 'official' French list has 7 veterans, not 8 (though they recently amended their list, rather than Wikipedia, by adding 2 of the 3 disputed-status French cases). Rather, the Wikipedia list was intended, from the beginning, to list anyone who might have a serious claim to be a WWI veteran. In fact, many of these claims are NOT vetted (checked for factual accuracy). We DID drop Mr Merlyn Krueger...I should note I was the one that first noticed his claim, and suggested it should be investigated as well. I'm sorry that you misapprehend the Icarian idea that if you put a case in the spotlight and it melts, well then we can get rid of it. But wait until it melts first. Mr Kreuger turned out to be born in 1917! Thus he was not even a veteran, at least for the time period claimed. Mr Robley Rex WAS a veteran, and did go overseas to Europe. However, no one has yet established WHEN he enlisted or departed for Europe. As for the other two, we don't have enough information. As I stated, I didn't add them and those who claimed they enlisted in 1919, haven't provided ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER on this BOARD. Rather, those who didn't like them resorted to, first, uncivil deletions without citing evidence or cause, and done anonymously. And sorry if you didn't like the truth, perhaps you should read this book and get back to me:

http://www.globalinfo.nl/ezimagecatalogue/catalogue/variations/276-400x400.jpg

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,424896,00.html

Talk about selective memory, as the deaths of upwards of 20 million Indians (validated by census checks) is pushed aside and largely forgotten. 'History' is what we're told to believe, not what actually happened. Often, current events of the day can and will be seen in a different light 50 years later.

"When the part played by the British Empire in the 19th century is regarded by the historian 50 years hence, the unnecessary deaths of millions of Indians would be its principal and most notorious monument." Who now remembers the Madrasis?

So, if the 'victors' (after all, what does the name 'Victoria' imply) can re-write history so as to delete the memory of upwards of 20 millions at the hands of British imperialism, surely they can continue that path of self-righteous dominance to re-write history the way they should see fit. You know, I generally have liked the Brits, I have been to England. However, what I dislike is the way they think that because they wrote it or said it, it must be the truth and the only truth and the only way to look at an issue.

Again, is the highest mountain on Earth really Mount Everest?

http://english.people.com.cn/200605/24/eng20060524_268230.html

"Documentary evidence"? Perhaps Mr. or Ms. R. Young is unfamiliar with the old maxim "you can't prove a negative." In other words: They should not be on the list unless someone can prove they belong there, not vice versa. In all his or her verbal flaling, Mr. or Ms. Young has not presented any proof that any of these three men joined the service prior to 11 November 1918. There is plenty of proof to the contrary, including their own statements. The VA considers everyone who has served in any branch of the military at any time to be a veteran. However, they do NOT consider anyone who joined up after 11 November 1918 to be a World War I veteran. Mr. or Ms. R. Young knows this, and cannot contest it, but he or she insists upon trying to obfuscate the issue. (And he or she hates it when I use big words like that -- sorry!) This is an article about Surviving veterans of World War I, not all veterans everywhere. Stop trying to change the subject, MR. or Ms. Young!

151.205.139.110Charles G.K. Strathman

Once again, Mr or Mrs Stratham pretends not to know the situation. First of all, a citation that some considered 1919 to be the end of the war is in fact a 'positive'--positive proof for 1919, not the other way around. Certainly I was aware of 'you can't prove a negative' which is why, under Mr Bustos, I noted that there was no evidence for his WWI service. On the other hand, Ms Stratham failed to acknowledge that in the case of Mr Robley Rex, at the very least, we have circumstantial evidence that supports his service in not just 1919 but even late 1918 (although we lack an exact date...the newspaper source did say 1918...this does not prove 1918, but it does count as a source).

Second, Mr Stratham seems to completely ignore the more solid part of my argument, namely that many of these other cases for other nations either have no proof of service, no proof of still living, or simply debatable-status claims: is a 'nurse' during WWI a 'WWI veteran'? Is an 'engineeer' of the period really a soldier, and a war veteran? Or have we simply gone out and gathered just about anyone with the flimsiest of 'evidence'? I say the latter. And while I admit that is the case for at least three of these cases (Mungar, Bustos, Maurice?), it also applies to cases from other nations. No, in fact the service of many listed here have been 'documented' not with documents but with the word of either locals from that nation or at most, newspaper clippings. Even for the best-validated cases, we often still have 'validation by proxy' (having to rely on a 'trusted authority' rather than actual documents). But no, I'm not going to 'get even' by turning the spotlight on the other questionable adds. I'll simply let this go to a vote and if enough people don't like these American cases which, as I mentioned, I didn't add, then fine...but that doesn't make the Polish list, for example, validated, nor does it explain why a 'royal engineer' should count as a 'war veteran.'

And by the way, I don't hate 'big words.' I hate people who use them simply to try to inflate their own egos. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Definition of 'veteran', who is included? Call for Votes

Apolgies, real life, and the world cup, intervened and I have not been able to get back to this until today. I have read through the comments in the debate as carefully as I can and produced a list of options. I have not read the part of the debate titled 'Xenophobia...' etc because it is founded as a debate on personal correpondence. It has taken enough time to dissect the 'mandated' debate section. After the options, I have attempted to summarise points made which are not mentioned directly in the options, as info for the voters. I've tried to take all your suggestions, or whatever is implied by your comments, into account in building the options. If you feel that there are more possible options, too late, you should have explictly spelled them out before now. Save it for later. Sorry its so damn long and complicated, but I feel the need to spell everything out so as to minimise further debate The vote is only the prevailing opinion of those who voted, for the purposes of deciding the contents of the article and not necessarily the right answer

If for some reason i do not close off after the end-date, then someone else should feel free to do it by counting the votes, posting the result, and taking the majority action.

• list of policies/guidelines (please add)
• Examples: Talk:Republic_of_Ireland#Poll:_Ireland_article_titles

Voting rules:

• Only votes FOR your preferred options will be counted. Votes against will not be counted.
• You may vote FOR more than one option.
• Only votes made here will count, votes made earlier during the debate, however persistent, do not count. If that was to be the case it would open the results of the votes to all sorts of claims?
• However, I can make the voting period longer.
• Selected outcome is the option which has the most number of votes, that option will be applied to the article.
• If there is a tie, we can rip our hair out ... and decide among yourselves what you want to do
• If I got your point wrong in the point summary, bring it up in comments, if you wish, but not in the votes.
• No debating in the voting section, if you want to continue, do it in the comments section further below.
• Vote by entering * SUPPORT --~~~~ on a blank line. This adds your IP/name and timestamp automatically.
• The LAST DAY for voting is JULY 9. Votes after this date will not be counted.

Status Quo (1 vote)

This means no change to the intro para, no re-definition of inclusion rules, and therefore, regular revert-wars about whether the names in the lists are really veterans or not. This means that we ignore Armistice day, Nov 11, 1918 and include other informally-defined "World War I-Era" vets who joined the armed forces after that date in the standard lists. No cut-off criteria specified. Specifially, this means that Stillman, Munger and Robley stay on the list as they currently are.

SUPPORT:

SUPPORT--Frankwomble 10:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

System-wide Nov 11, 1918 cut-off date, additional list of 'Other veterans' (8 votes) SELECTED

Use the following new defn in the opening para:

Veterans, for the purposes of this article, 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 armstice that ended the war on Nov 11, 1918. Other World-War I era veterans are listed seperately. For some countries, this may vary from the policy in use.

If there is debate, the entry in these - the existing - tables should include a link to evidence of a join date on or before Nov 11, 1918. While this evidence does not exist, the name should be moved to the 'Others' section. People in training at the cut-off date are to be included in the veterans list.

The 'Others' section would be titled Other World War I-Era Veterans and would have the following intro para:

Listed here are those that joined the armed services after the Armistice date, or where there is debate on their join-date but for some reason are considered WWI-era vets by some authority.

The reasons, and the authority, should be given in a 'Notes' column. Specifically, Stillman, Munger and Robely all go in the 'Other' table. Overall totals both with and without the 'Others' list to be included

SUPPORT:

SUPPORT (Having read just this, nothing else - this sounds eminently sensible to me) jkm 11:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

SUPPORT Frankwomble 10:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SUPPORT 66.65.116.139 14:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)RGB

• SUPPORT (except that this should apply to everyone, not just those named here, which is 'stacking the deck' and unfair)→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SUPPORT 24.190.136.24BHM

SUPPORT 69.114.88.71 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Charles G.K. Strathman

SUPPORT 68.175.86.113 01:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)AR

SUPPORT 24.193.69.48 16:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Roger Warren

USA-only Nov 11, 1918 cut-off date, additional list of 'Other USA veterans' (5 votes)

No change to the intro para, but the following sentence to be added at the start of the USA list

Veterans, for the purposes of this section, have been agreed to be those that were members of the United States armed forces, up to and including the date of the armstice that ended the war on Nov 11, 1918. Other World-War I era USA veterans are listed seperately. For some cases, this may vary from the policy in use by the USA Veterans Administration.

If there is debate, the entry the existing USA table should include a link to evidence of a join date on or before Nov 11, 1918. While this evidence does not exist, the name should be moved to the 'Others' section. People in training at the cut-off date are to be included in the veterans list.

The 'Others' section would be titled Other USA World War I-Era Veterans and would have the following intro para:

Listed here are those that joined the USA armed services after the Armistice date, or where there is debate on their join-date but for some reason are considered WWI-era vets by some authority.

The reasons, and the authority, should be given in a 'Notes' column. Specifically, Stillman, Munger and Robely all go in the 'Other USA vets' table. Overall totals both with and without the 'Others' list to be included

SUPPORT:

SUPPORT (Again, sounds a sensible compromise to me) jkm 11:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

SUPPORT Frankwomble 10:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SUPPORT 66.65.116.139 14:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)RGB

SUPPORT 24.190.136.24BHM

SUPPORT 69.114.88.71 17:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Charles G.K. Strathman

USA-only Nov 11, 1918 cut-off, but no list of 'Other USA veterans' (0 votes)

No change to the intro para, but the following sentence to be added at the start of the USA list

Veterans, for the purposes of this section, have been agreed to be those that were members of the United States armed forces, up to and including the date of the armstice that ended the war on Nov 11, 1918. For some cases, this may vary from the policy in use by the USA Veterans Administration.

If there is debate, the entry the existing USA table should include a link to evidence of a join date on or before Nov 11, 1918. While this evidence does not exist, the name should not be in the article. People in training at the cut-off date are to be included in the veterans list. Specifically, Stillman, Munger and Robely would not be in the article

SUPPORT:

Same as 4, no 'Others' but system-wide defn instead of USA-only (0 votes)

SUPPORT:

Same as options 2-5, but forces membership cut-off date of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany signed June 28, 1919 (2 votes)

If you vote for this, you need to also vote for one of 2-5

SUPPORT:

SUPPORT→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SUPPORT Extremely sexy 09:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Same as 2-6, but use a seperate article for the 'Others' instead of just a seperate table in the current article (0 votes)

If you vote for this, you also need to vote for one of 2-5

SUPPORT:

Instead, make a distinction between 'combat vets' and non-combat' vets (1 vote)

Make this distinction as a new column in the existing table, or as an additonal table in the existing page. Combat vets are those that saw combat on the battlefield [needs more defn to avoid arguments]. Stillman, Munger and Robely (and Emiliano Mercardo Del Toro) would be considered non-combat vets.

SUPPORT:

SUPPORT (In principle - not mandatory, but certainly encouraged if sources can be provided) jkm 12:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Each countries own definition should be recognised, documented and used (3 votes)

SUPPORT:

SUPPORT (A country's own position, if known, should be respected) jkm 12:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

SUPPORT → R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

SUPPORT Extremely sexy 09:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Change article title to be 'Surviving veterans of the World War I Era' (0 votes)

This allows us to continue to include Stillman, Munger and Robley, and any others we want

SUPPORT:

Reasons for the options, plus other points made, some contradictory:

• Armistice Nov 11, 1918 is the commonly understood and pretty univeral cut-off date for World War I for historians and the USA VA.
• Those who enlisted after this date did not serve in the war, and did not intend to serve in the war
• We should only include USA people who received a pension and WWI benefits from the Dept of Veterans Affairs
• The lists here for no other nation follows the 'WWI-era' vets policy, why shold the USA list.
• We want to be accurate - we are being read by other researches, media, students who will take our article as truth.
• The initial purpose of the list was to track all the world-wide claims so as to refute media reports that the last Vet had

Died, therefore include everyone who has a reasonable chance of being one:

• Different countries have different definitions of the end-date, so we cannot use just one definition
• Use of Nov 11, 1918 is Ameri-centric - Turkey/Russia were at war until last peace treaty in 1923
• The 'Era' defn is meaningless when applied to the USA Civil war or WWII
• The US govt includes those serving in Russia 1918-1920 as WWI vets
• A War-ending date is meaningless when applied to some wars eg 'War of 1812'
• We must not try to artificially boost numbers by fudging the defn of a vet
• Two of the 3 names under debate don't claim to be WWI vets. Robely does seem to enjoy the attention"
• We shold follow, historias, the VA, and the men themselves - Nov 11, 1918
• People in traing at Nov 11, 1918 are considered VETS by the USA VA
• Siberian (meaning Russian) vets should be included, if anyone can find any to add.
• Our proposal is applying a higher standard to the US lists than to the lists from other countries
• Some others on the list, eg Pawel Parniak, do not have any documentation, we are taking his word.
• Nov 11, 1918 was Western front end, eastern front (Italy, Turkey, etc) ended at various other dates
• The 1919 Peace Treaty was the main end-date
• We have to consider the impact of the following conflicts on the end-dates in various countries apart from the USA:
  • polish-sovite war, russian revolution, russian civil war, greco-turkish coflict
• Using Nov 11, 1918 is 1918 is Amero/Anglo centric
• WWI is more straightfwd than other wars in that there is an accepted end-date of Armistice day
• By nov 15, 1918, german, austria-hungary, ottoman empire were clearly defeated, without waiting for peace treaty. USA media

From the period considered the war to be over:

• The AEF were only sent to western front, not Turkey/Bulgaria so we do not need to consider those countries in selecting a date for USA forces
• Rex Robley is claiming what is not his, media reports say he enlisted in 1919/1920, none say 1918
• A 20-year old article supports the 1919 date
• You cannot dismiss turkey/Bulgaria impact because the Brits/anzacs suffered at Gallipolli, Turkey surfaced in the Crimean War, Bulgaria in WWII was related
• USA Combat vet status ended in 1918, there were non-combats in training, non-combats in support services etc so the combat distinction is unhelpful
• Nov 11, 1918 is supported because Veteran pay ended nov 11, 1918.
• Nov 11, 1918 is not supported because when did vets return home from war, when did US recruitment end?
• The USA VA defines WWI vets to include service in 1919, even 1920 for those in Russia
• Evidence for 1919: http://dva.state.wi.us/News_Releases/WWI_veteran's_remains_to_be_interred.pdf. Vet served 1919-1920

Considered so by Wisconsin and considered representative of other WWI vets:

• Using 1919 is respectful to those who serverd after 1918.
• Using 1919 is dis-respectfuly to those who served before Nov 11, 1918
• Anthony Pierro papers say he was a vet until may 15, 1919
• several events happened after Nov 11, 1918, eg treaties of Germany, Austria, Bulgaria 1919, Ottoman empire 1920
• The USA recruited for temproary war traiing camps in 1919 due to Russia ongoing and concerns about Germany
• http://history.acusd.edu/gen/text/versaillestreaty/vercontents.html info on treaty of Versailles, 1919, Soldiers were needed to ensure signature of the treaty.
• http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1stimeline8.htm Article on signing of Bulgaria/Ottoman empires in 1920
• Discharge papers do not refer to them as a veteran so they are no evidence for a date
• If we use the combat-vets as distinction, Emiliano Mercardo del Toro wasn't in compbat, only training
• Google result 1 for "World War I ended" is "Treary of Versailles"
• All wars until Korea ended with treaty of surrender
• The Rex robley enlistment date is not known, date to Europe not known but US state of kentucky consider him a WWI vet. He did go to Europe
• All people on the WP list are not vetted for factual accuracy
• They should be on the list until we can prove that they shouldn't
• They should not be on the list until we can prove that they should
• The VA can rule on the issue
• VA considers those joined before 11 Nov, 1918 to be a vet, not those afterwards
• Robley circumstantial eveidence for 1918
• Should nurses, engineers be considered combat or non-combat
• The level of documentation for nations varies, could be word of mouth, newspaper clippings

COMMENTS:

• Off y'all go. I'm not voting, unless there is a tie --Rye1967 03:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for setting this whole process up Rye. Took quite a bit of work, obviously. In regards to your suggestions, I like the idea of including an addtional section to explicitly recognise veterans who may have some claim to being World War I Veterans, or World War I-Era Veterans - depending on how their own country recognises their claim.

As regards to World War I-Era, if that section is eventually added, one thing that needs to be attached to that is a list of the World War I-Era conflicts/situations that are applicable to being included in that addendum. Russian Civil War, Greco-Turkish War, Polish-Soviet War etc. etc. Not sure of what the definitive list is, but it is an exploration of this subject that I definitely have an interest in - as many of these conflicts are not really widely known to have even taken place. How many people would be aware that the US sent troops into Siberia immediately after World War I to be a part of the Russian Civil War? I would suggest less than 1% of Americans would be aware of this, and even less in most other countries - but does that lack of general recognition mean that veterans who served in these campaigns should be forgotten and basically dismissed because their service didn't happen to coincide with a conflict that we conveniently and narrow-mindedly confine to certain dates? I don't think so, and honestly I think that approach is highly discriminatory.

Having said all that, you ask the question of whether this article should be renamed World War I-Era Veterans. Interesting question that, I have an open mind on it - it does make sense, however, as a first step towards proper recognition of these veterans adding the `Others' Section for Veterans who's status is in some dispute, seems like a sensible first step and maybe renaming of the article could be considered again in future, in a few months, when the purpose of this article is properly defined and agreed upon. jkm 12:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Rye, I applaud your efforts for turning this debate into a 'democracy' with all points considered and voted on, rather than the name-calling route as some have chosen. However, it does seem that those who want to delete Rex, Starkey (not Stillman), and Munger have 'stacked the deck' unfairly, q.v., for Mr Starkey I provided a newspaper article supporting the claim to have joined in 1918, while those who claim he joined in 1919 (so as to exclude him) have not. Thus, even if the 'stricter' standard of using Nov 11 1918 is used, that does not and should not mean that these cases are automatically deleted. I will say that by using an online search index I was able to locate Mr Robley Rex's phone number, and I asked him "What year did he join the military" and he said '1918' and 'what month' and he said 'May 1918.' Thus, Mr Rex claims to be not just a 'World War I-era' veteran but a World War I veteran. That is not to say that Mr Rex's claim is validated...although the Kentucky Department of Veterans Affairs recognizes him as such, which is more than has been done, for example, the German cases, whose names are listed based on 'trust' of a correspondent or colleague rather than actual documents being sent to anyone. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what I am saying is that there are two separate issues: 1. what are the rules? (i.e. should we use Nov 1918 or July 1919 as cutoff, or some other point?) and 2. who qualifies according to the rules? I already pointed out that in the cases of Maurice Starkey and Robley Rex, there is a claim to service in 1918. However, with Stillman Hiram Munger no dates have been cited, only an article that calls him a 'WWI veteran'. We don't really know when he joined. Those pushing the '1919' date haven't cited any sources. Where did the 'Starkey joined in 1919' comment start from? So far no one has volunteered any information on that. Also, the case for Felix Bustos looks weak...I would suggest, therefore, to modify the vote to eliminate bias (i.e. naming certain persons) and instead simply establish ground rules that everyone will agree on, so as to not have revert/edit wars (better to have an Armistice here LOL). Already option 2 is an early lead and I think it would be a good choice, option 1 is not good...we don't want to fight this to the last man, do we? Also, by including an 'others' list within the article, we would achieve the plurality of allowing the dominant position first place, but including room for alternative viewpoints. In reality, however, this may be a moot fight...consider that Mr Rex and Mr Starkey could be included in the main list (as cited as having joined in 1918) and Mr Bustos and Mr Munger could be listed as 'questionable claims'. To be fair, the USA is being held to a higher standard, we don't see near the documentation produced yet for many of the others, save the UK and France. Personally, I also think that the 'died in 2006' and earlier lists could be re-combed...another can of worms. Julio Ereneta, joined in 1919...died in 2005. Should he be listed? When did 'Tex' Little really join? On the other hand, do we really know if the Polish and Russian veterans are real? The answer is no.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 23:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You make an excellent point here, and pose a question that has troubled me from the beginning: What is the extant evidence, documentary or otherwise, regarding the World War I service of each veteran on this list? Frankwomble 20:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

George Ward/William B. Lutz

Does anyone out there have any evidence that George Ward -- whether he is currently alive or deceased -- served in World War I? And what is the evidence that William Lutz served in World War I? I can't find any documentation of any kind regarding either of these two men. Does anyone out there have any? Anyone know where and when they served?

Mr Lutz died earlier this year...see the 2006 deaths list. The obituary came from the Berkshire MA Eagle.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 21:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• George Ward was profiled in the 1 April 2004 Fayetteville Observer (NC): 'Despite his youth, George Ward was a hero'. Excerpts below:

“He is modest to a fault.”

That was the hometown assessment of 18-year-old George Ward of Fayetteville, who may have been the youngest soldier to win the Distinguished Service Cross for bravery in action during the Great War of 1914-18, now known as World War I.

. . .

Ward's citation read: “When his company was halted by enemy machine gun fire, Pvt. Ward rushed the hostile position and killed one gunner with his bayonet. He bayoneted three of these and took the other prisoner. Pvt. Ward was severely wounded in this action.

So, in addition to possibly being the youngest soldier to earn the Distinguished Service Cross in WWI, he may also be the last surviving! Acctorp 19:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I submitted a query to the military desk at the Fayetteville Observer regarding George Ward. I received an email from Mr. Roy Park there. His response on 1 June: "Couldnt find him (Ward) in (Fayetteville) Observer obit lists for last two years...if he died and had a obit in Observer, it would have been headlined and I can't recall it, but i certainly could have missd (it)...I wrote a column about him a couple of years ago but assumed he was long gone!" I will post any further answers from Mr. Park here. Frankwomble 20:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I spoke with Mr. Park this summer, and he explained to me that his piece about George Ward was a "time capsule" piece based upon an article that had appeared in his newspaper shortly after Mr. Ward returned home from the war. In other words, he never met George Ward, certainly never interviewed him, and has absolutely no reason to believe that he is, in fact still alive. I think we can now (sadly) put that piece of business to rest.

Regarding William Lutz, does anyone have any evidence, other than his obituary, that he actually served in World War I? I can't tell you how many obituaries I've seen that erroneously claimed the deceased served in WWI based solely upon his age. Anyone here remember Mr. Arthur Warmington? If someone knows something about Mr. Lutz, please share.AEF Doughboy 04:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the below comments:

20:30, 22 September 2006 86.138.180.81 (Talk) (Re-formated and removed the top paragraph into it's PROPER place after more idiotic editing by Robert Young.)

One, it was Bart who made the formatting errors. Two, you misspelled 'formatted.' Three, if I revert a lot of changes to fix nine things and one gets messed up, you should fix the one and not take that as a pretext to name-calling. Fourth, name-calling only belittles the person making the charge, not the person called the name.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What so-called "formatting errors" of mine are you referring to this time, huh, dear Robert? Extremely sexy 10:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User 86 is the one who called it a 'formatting error' (below).

- + + Whilst, again, I don't doubt the info posted, as Newcombe was quite ill anyway, is there ANY online source to back it up? - + Whilst, again, I don't doubt the info posted, as Newcombe was quite ill anyway, is there ANY online source to back it up? + If not, it's not too much problem, as when it comes to the 11th November, there'll be some kind of proof one way or another with the survivors & the totals etc. - + - + If not, it's not too much problem, as when it comes to the 11th November, there'll be some kind of proof one way or another with the survivors & the totals etc.

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert, it was not the format that was the problem, it's the fact that you felt the need to put your George Ward paragraph TWICE at the top of the page, when it's better served in the George Ward discussion.

Why? I know you like your publicity, and perhaps rightly so for some of the work you do, and once at the top of the page after being moved, far enough, maybe an oversight, but TWICE ?!?! C'mon, fella, have some sense!!

By the way, Bart does a fine job tidying up here after a lot of vandalism. Lay easy on him, eh, Mr. Young?

Thanks for the moral support, dear friend. Extremely sexy 23:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

World War I Era Conflicts / Conflicts Contemporaneous & Inter-Related with World War I

Given the discussion about veteran status and how some veterans are recognised as World War I veterans by authorities even though they may not have explicitly served during the time readily understood as being defined as World War I, with the main reason being they were involved in some campaign - ala the US Expeditions to Russia for instance, that co-relates closely to World War I. I'd like to know all the conflicts of that era that involved foreign troops in some capacity.

Looking through the main Wikipedia page for World War I in fact gives links to all of these conflicts here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_I#Main_articles

Those conflicts listed are (I've provided the Wikipedia dates of these conflicts):

First Balkan War (October 8th, 1912 - May 18th, 1913)

Second Balkan War (June 19th, 1913 - August 9th, 1913)

Maritz Rebellion (South Africa) (September 1914 - July 1915)

Easter Rising (Ireland) (April 24th - 30th, 1916)

Russian Revolution (February 1917 - November 1917)

Russian Civil War (May 1918 - October 1922: Japanese withdrawal)

North Russia Campaign (May 1918 - July 1919)

Wielkopolska Uprising (Poland) (December 27th, 1918 - February 16th, 1919)

Polish-Soviet War (February 1919 - March 18th, 1921)

Turkish War of Independence (May 19th, 1919 - October 29th, 1923)

(This includes the Turkish-Armenian War, the Greco-Turkish War and the Franco-Turkish War)

These 2 aren't listed as contemporaneous conflicts, but I can't figure out why - may have to be edited for inclusion.

Irish War of Independence (January 1919 - July 1921)

Irish Civil War (June 28th, 1922 - May 24th, 1923)

The Treaty of Lausanne, that tied up most of the fraying loose ends of World War I was finally signed with the new Turkish Government, and the Entente powers, on July 24th, 1923, effectively signalling an end to the messy situations that had sparked up over the past 10 years which included and were centred on World War I.

There is much debate about the exact dates that some of the above conflicts should be dated for, and I don't pretend to know if the dates above are indeed completely faithful to history, but, all the above conflicts involved the interference, politically and especially militarily, of foreign powers sticking their noses and their troops in - not always where they were wanted. As previous arguments raging on this page show, veterans who may have served in one of these confrontations - but somehow actually missed serving at all in the generally recognised period of World War I, may have some difficulty being able to explain that difference - or even be aware there is a difference - and this seems to be the basis of many of the arguments upon who should be included in this list.

I really don't know how many veterans from these conflicts are still around, at a guess I'd say a handful - does anyone know if there are any Japanese still around who served time in Russia during the Russian Civil War? I would highly doubt it, but I guess its possible.

If there is an inclusion of an others list below the main listings on the page because of uncertainty over the veracity of any claim being made on there, if appropriate, reference could be made to which of these conflicts it is thought that the veteran actually served. Any expansion of the main list to include all remaining veterans of these conflicts in the others section would be quite a task, (and I'm not asking anyong to do it, but it may be worth doing for its own reasons?), but really probably not needed.

I just believe wider knowledge of these World War I Era conflicts can possibly aid better understanding of how to assess any claims being made about World War I veteran status - maybe an old vet remembers serving in some conflict at the time - which he's certain must have been World War I - but maybe the evidence doesn't back that up - maybe its merely because the conflict he is remembering is one of the above?

For instance - Foreign Countries Involved In The Russian Civil War: Czechs, Japanese, Americans, Canadians, Poles, Serbs, Romanians, Italians, British, French. Obivously this is one area where we already have conflict, but are there any non-American vets from foreign incursions during the Russian Civil War? Does anyone know? jkm 17:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim Lincoln

Just my opinion, Jim Lincoln looks like another Merlyn Kreuger:

The Register-Guard The Register-Guard, Oregon - Jun 28, 2006 When Jim Lincoln is looking for excitement these days, it's off to the Horsehead tavern. And if you're inclined to shrug your shoulders ...

155.41.160.64 20:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, his claims do seem suspicious. Born on a wagon trail in Alaska? Survived the San francisco earthquake? WWI vet, research scientist at several universities, painter, poet...not impossible, but seems a bit too good to be true. And why has no one ever heard of him before?

I think people are added to this list too quickly. There seems to be a presumption that every newspaper reporter always has their facts straight, which, as a former newspaper reporter who has seen the sausage made, so to speak, I can tell you is often not the case. None of these articles are fact-checked, of course -- newspaper articles rarely are -- and this kind of detail is easy to miss. This list has hosted many a false claim in the past, and treated them all as certified fact -- remember Merlyn Krueger? Arthur Warmington? And, just recently, Felix Bustos? I think there should be a separate category to house cases that have not yet been proven or disproven, like Mr. Lincoln's, or the late Mr. Lutz's, George Ward's, etc. That way we'll know for sure that those who are listed are really WWI vets, and it will encourage us to investigate those questionable claims. Fair enough?

Definitely so, and I do agree fully. Extremely sexy 19:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not fair enough. The best way to catch a liar is to put the spotlight on them...then we'll see just how 'real' they are. Arthur Warmington was a mistake add, who added I do not know...Merlyn Kreuger was a liar, and it was BECAUSE he was on this list that people investigated...Mr Lutz is already dead, I don't think we really need to 'dig' him up, the claim seems reasonable (age 106). Felix Bustos was apparently a reporter error...he is in fact 104 and a WWII veteran...notable, but not WWI. Finally, Mr Lincoln's case needs more scrutiny, but to 'delete' him from the list would just make people forget about it and let the claim continue unscrutinized. It was, in fact, the deaths of everyone else that led to the unmasking of 'Confederate veteran' Walter Williams...said to be 117, actually 105 years old...in 1959. 128.197.130.21 23:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

One more point, the real problem is that we can investigate USA claims, but when Pawel Parniak says he's 116 and a WWI veteran, who can check that? In fact, all of the Polish claims could be fake, for all I know. Who speaks Polish? Are Polish WWI registries online? Once again, we shouldn't be holding the USA to a higher standard than everyone else. Everyone listed here is a 'candidate' to be the last living WWI veteran...if a faker is on the list, they will inevitably be exposed as the real ones die off first...128.197.130.21 23:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The standard just proposed is not nearly good enough for this article. What if a "faker" is never exposed? It's easy enough to investigate claims when they are made, and has been done here many times. Why should someone who is making a fairly outlandish claim -- that he is 108 years old and a veteran of WWI -- be given the presumption of truth without any corroborating evidence? (And no, one article in a small-town newspaper is not sufficient in and of itself to serve as "corrobortaing evidence." As a previos poster noted, newspapers articles are written by ordinary, fallible human beings. It was just such a reporter who bolstered Merlyn Krueger's false claim to be 110.) True, many who claim to be WWI veterans actually are, but to include the "fakers" in their ranks is to cheapen the title "WWI veteran" and corrupt the whole list. If we're just willing to list anyone who claims to be a WWI veteran here, without even trying to check their story out, then hey, I'd like to be listed, too. Who are you to say I'm not a WWI veteran?

I don't understand how anyone can reasonably make the argument that we make this article stronger by NOT doing due diligence and checking the names out. The Gerontology Research Group does not list people who merely claim to be supercentenarians -- they actually research and verify claims BEFORE they include them on their list. Why should this list be held to a lower standard? And where, exactly, is the harm in listing yet unproven cases in a different category until they are proven? They'll still be on the page, and their presence on that list will encourage people out there to either prove or disprove those claims.

The previous poster contradicts himself by stating, in the same post, that we need not investigate Mr. Lutz's claim since he is dead, and that the exposure of Walter Williams as a fraud proves the system works. Mr. Williams' claim was not disproven until well AFTER his death. If the previous poster's standard of "well, hey, he's dead, so we'll just put him in the 'yes" category and leave it at that," had held the day back then, we'd still believe Mr. Williams was the last living Civil War veteran. So which is it: Should we leave the dead alone, or expose the "fakers" whenever we find them, eve if it's posthumously?

Finally, the giant flaws in the "we can't verify other countries' claims, so why should we try to verify our own?" argument are so obvious I scarcely need to list them here. If you are arrested and charged with robbery, it is not a workable defense to claim that other people have committed robbery, too, and haven't been caught. It is incumbent upon all of us who contribute to this article, and who care about it, to uphold the highest standards we can, wherever and whenever we can. If we are able to uphold higher standards for the U.S. part of the list than we are for the rest of it, then that is what we must do. The point, in the end, is to be as historically accurate as possible, not to adhere to the rule of the lowest common denominator. So, yes, I think the proposal to have a separate category for questionable cases is quite fair, and I think we should do it ASAP. Who can make this happen?

As I wrote in a different section, a close colleague of mine visited and interviewed Jim Lincoln twice last month, and she (and I) are strongly of the opinion that he is NOT a World War I veteran. He cannot name his unit, cannot say where he served other than "in France," claims to have served in both wars (and also that he was in the OSS!), and conflates the two wars when talking. He makes many other highly dubious claims, including that he befriended Hemingway in Paris during the war, at a time when Hemingway was actually in Italy, driving an ambulance; that he worked for years in hopsitals as a research biologist depite the fact that he never graduated from college; and that he left his papers to Queens College in New York (which claims it doesn't have them). He says he went through basic training at Camp Upton in Yaphank, NY, despite the fact that he enlisted "either in Seattle or Portland," whence he would almost certainly have been sent to Camp Lewis in Washington, or somewhere else on the west coast. He also claims to have been a Marine, when Camp Upton was an army camp. I believe Lincoln may well be 108 years old, but I strongly doubt that he served in World War I. I believe his name should be removed immediately. AEF Doughboy 19:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

WWI-era disclaimers

Greetings, it is not my intention to make this 'my article,' but we have seen time and again anonymous users such as User 24 attempt to insert text, without reference to back it up, and unwilling to compromise anything from their position. Despite User 24 calling my position a 'minority view,' actually the position I favor is doing quite well...including 'WWI-era veterants' within the article but in an 'other' list. That doesn't sound like we need such an exclusive and one-sided statement as 'this article deals exclusively with WWI veterans'...especailly after proceeding to dictate who is or is not a WWI veteran. Certainly the Robley Rex suppporters claim him to be a WWI veteran, having joined in 'May 1918' (he says). The 'disclaimer' is one-sided and contrary to the spirit of not deciding until after July 9, when the votes are in and a decision is made. 155.41.112.1 22:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Concerning Robley Rex, where can I find a credible claim (media, etc.) that he joined in 1919? Everything I can find sites a mid-1918 join date. According to the Courier-Journal he was serving in Europe during the war. Can someone point me the way to where I can find something to back up the assertion that he joined after the armistice? Acctorp 21:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Acctorp, an article in the Lexington (Kentucky) Herald-Leader I cited above under 'Qualification as a World War I Veteran' stated that Robley Rex enlisted in 1919 and, if I remember correctly, discussed him being a 'World War I era' veteran. The hyperlink is dead now, but you might be able to contact the paper directly and get a copy of the article. I posted that entry on 1 Dec 2005. Frankwomble 14:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

August Bischof

Whilst I don't doubt that he is dead, I can't see a source for it on the "died in 2006" page. Is there a source online at all? Not querying it, more curious, I suppose.

http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2106344292 Extremely sexy 23:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bart. How very interesting.

It's my pleasure. Extremely sexy 12:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

William Olin

Is there any evidence to back up this Olin claim? There seems to be a bit of journalistic licence in that report, to put it mildly. There's not much evidence in his favour on Ancestry.com. If he is, great, always good to have a new WWI vet, but, as with Jim Lincoln, I'd much rather have it confirmed by someone with authority & not just accept everything as hearsay. I'm not disputing he's 102, as that's confirmed in another record, just if his war service is what he says it is.

I spoke with the managing editor at the newspaper that published the piece on William Olin, as well as with a stepdaughter of William Olin's, and they both say the same thing: William Olin is NOT a veteran of World War I. In fact, according to the stepdaughter, who is very close to her stepfather, "he makes stuff up." He never actually served in the military, but has claimed, at different times, to have served in all four branches!

This episode underscores an important point that others have made here before: Just because something appears in a newspaper (or on a website, etc.), doesn't mean it's true. As a former reporter, I can vouch for this. Mr. Olin's stepdaughter informed me that the article's author, Linda Schweitzer (who is a freelancer, not a staff reporter) called her and spoke with her BEFORE the article was published, that she (the stepdaugher, whose name I will refarain from using in order to protect her privacy) told Schweitzer that Olin was most certainly NOT a World War I veteran, and that Schweitzer submitted the article anyway. Some people, it seems, like a good story so much that they refuse to kill it even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is entirely fabricated.

Therefore, I recommend strongly that Mr. Olin's name be removed from the list immediately. Furthermore, given that there are so few World War I veterans remaining that someone is aware of almost all of them, it is highly unlikely that someone brand new and heretofore unheard of will emerge out of the woodwork; therefore, I also recommend that before a new name be posted to the list, it be discussed first in this section. Once we are all aware of the existence of a claim, I am quite sure we will be able to validate or invalidate it quickly. Given that chances are very good that such a claim will be false, I don't think it's responsible to post it as a fait accompli before it's been investigated.

Finally, a close colleague of mine visited and interviewed Jim Lincoln twice last month, and she (and I) are strongly of the opinion that he is also NOT a World War I veteran. He cannot name his unit, cannot say where he served other than "in France," claims to have served in both wars (and also that he was in the OSS!), and conflates the two wars when talking. He makes many other highly dubious claims, including that he befriended Hemingway in Paris during the war, at a time when Hemingway was actually in Italy, driving an ambulance; that he worked for years in hopsitals as a research biologist depite the fact that he never graduated from college; and that he left his papers to Queens College in New York (which claims it doesn't have them). He says he went through basic training at Camp Upton in Yaphank, NY, despite the fact that he enlisted "either in Seattle or Portland," whence he would almost certainly have been sent to Camp Lewis in Washington, or somewhere else on the west coast. He also claims to have been a Marine, when Camp Upton was an army camp. I believe Lincoln may well be 108 years old, but I strongly doubt that he served in World War I. I believe his name should be removed immediately.AEF Doughboy 19:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, we have anti-American bias. First off, 'disputed' means 'disputed by evidence,' NOT disputed by your personal opinion. For example, Felix Bustos was listed in the 1930 census as not a veteran (and the family admitted he served in WWII, not WWI). Simply you not liking the case is NOT a citation or reason for formal dispute. 131.96.70.164 17:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We are revisiting an old problem regarding Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Olin, to wit: What is the extant evidence that an individual on this list is actually a World War I veteran? Statements by the veteran, his family, or newspaper reporters certainly seem inadequate and insufficient as proof. Adequate documentary evidence for US veterans might include such things as: records from state archives like draft registration cards and the World War I service card, A.G.O. Form 724-1; Veterans Administration records (applicable only if a veteran applied for benefits); discharge certificates; pay records; unit rosters; award citations.

It seems obvious that we need another category for this article: "Pending." Newly discovered individuals claiming WWI veteran status could be listed under that heading until adequate proof is presented. The statements made above by AEF Doughboy about Olin and Lincoln certainly militate strongly against their claims as WWI veterans, especially in the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary. The burden of adequate proof of veteran status lies with the claimant. It doesn't seem desirable to add a person to this list as a veteran just because his name appeared in a newspaper article. Frankwomble 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

However, we have a problem of holding the USA to higher standards (and thereby introducing bias). For every nation listed, we simply 'assume' the cases are real. Some are backed up by the government (i.e. France) but Poland, for example, has mere claimants.

Instead of making a 'pending' list, perhaps a list of 'unvalidated' claims, if we want to do it that way.

I do find it ironic that the person 'debunking' the Olin and Lincoln cases:

A. claims that news reports are not reliable, but is a former reporter (so since news reports aren't reliable, why should we believe a reporter?)

B. 'No original research'...evidence found on these cases should be presented, at a minimum, on a discussion board or website and include documentary evidence, not just 'hearsay.' For example, "I found a census match on Ancestry.com' that lists Person X as not a veteran in 1930." Not "I talked to Joe Bob and I think he's lying."

C. Robley Rex himself said on the phone that he enlisted 'May 1918.' So if we just go by hearsay, why is he not listed as a WWI vet? Rex's wife is buried in a military cemetery, and the state of Kentucky VA lists him as a WWI vet.

D. I thought we were going to use the end-table for disputed cases, instead of deleting them completely.

131.96.70.164 00:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Frank -- I think having a "Pending" category makes perfect sense. It's a good way of keeping those names out there and encouraging others to investigate their claims.

As for anonymous poster 131 (aka Robert Young -- your writing style is too distinct for you to remain anonymous here), I never said news reports are all unreliable. Reporters, like researchers, are fallible -- some take great pains to insure accuracy, while others are far less vigilant. Therefore, a newspaper profile should not be regarded as absolute proof that someone is a World War I veteran. Mr. Starkey's profile said he served in the war, when his discharge papers clearly state otherwise.

Also, Robert, why don't you give the whole "anti-American bias" thing a rest already? Do you see my ID? Do you really think I have an anti-American bias? If you really want to prove your patriotism, why don't you help validate claims instead of just attacking anyone who questions them?AEF Doughboy 01:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Unvalidated claims

For the purposes of fairness, I made a separate 'unvalidated' section. From the remaining lists, I think almost everyone agrees that the cases from Canada, France, Italy, the UK, etc are validated. However, for Poland, we don't even know if these people are still alive. Pawel's claim to 116 is not verified, and he has no WWI papers. Thus, to be fair, IF undocumented US claims shouldn't be included in the main list, neither should Polish ones. IF someone has another case they'd like to discuss, we can discuss it.

For Starkey and Robley Rex, there is no disputing their service, only the time began. This is different from the three American and four Polish cases (whose service is not established).131.96.70.164 00:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Polish veterans

If someone can document any of the Polish claims, we could rehabilitate them to the main list. It does appear that one may be dead and at least one doesn't have records, what about the other two?131.96.70.158 18:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't translate Polish, but this is an article on Jozefa Kosa. If someone can translate it, we can see if he is still a WWI vet. [2] It might say nothing about him at all and maybe that he likes baked beans(!), but let's see if anyone can help. As for Parniak, still alive [3]

What about this man who claimed 118 in 2005? Is he still alive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Piotrowski

68.19.49.79 09:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

With some information being shared on two of the three remaining Polish veterans, does someone want to re-instate them to the main list? I think Pawel Parniak should remain on the unverified list as his WWI service is not documented, but claimed.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thomas Nelson, Sr.

Does anyone know whether or not Mr. Thomas Nelson, Sr., age 111, currently residing in Texas, formerly of Louisiana, served in the military before, during or after World War I? Can anyone provide any further biographical information on Mr. Nelson -- where he was born, where he lives now, etc.? Finally, can anyone post links to any articles about Mr. Nelson? Any information would be appreciated.

Well, let's look at what Ancestry says:- There are 13 Draft Cards for WWI for a Thomas Nelson, of Louisiana 6 of which fit into the age category. There are other bits & pieces of information that can then be found from there, providing that is the correct info. Have you got any more details - middle name, initial, date of birth etc. to help us so we can help you?

Why speculate? It was never mentioned anywhere that he is a WWI veteran. He runs a candy store. However, Silas Simmons is a closer candidate, based on what he said about 'loading ammunition' during WWI (at the shipyards).68.19.49.79 09:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why speculate? Because he's in the right age range, and if there's a chance he served we sould check it out. What's this about him running a candy store?

Thomas Nelson spent most of his life running a candy store. He doesn't strike me as someone who would have served. He is African-American. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

"Doesn't strike you?" Keep in mind the draft was in full force at the time, it didn't matter what you did. Czolgolz 13:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- that kind of speculation is bizarre. If you had the opportunity to meet and talk with him, Robert, why didn't you just ask him if he'd served? What is it about running a candy store that makes someone unlikely to be called up for the draft? Does he have a draft card on file?

One would think that if he served, the news article would have mentioned it. But I find your statements hypocritical vis-a-vis the Silas Simmons comment.68.158.231.109 07:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Silas Simmons?

Who is Silas Simmons?

Silas Simmons was born Oct 14 1895, according to his WWI draft card:

Name: Silas Joseph Simmons City: Philadelphia County: Philadelphia State: Pennsylvania BirthPlace: Delaware Birth Date: 14 Oct 1895 Race: African Roll: 1907647 DraftBoard: 27

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/08/16/Neighborhoodtimes/A_senior_among_seniors.shtml

Note: During both World War I and World War II, he loaded live ammunition for U.S. troops onto ships bound for Europe.

He is not on the GRG list because the 1900 census lists him as born in '1897' (which would make him 'only' 108, instead of 110 as claimed). However, it's possible the census in this case is incorrect. In any case, he was still alive a month ago, has a WWI draft card, and participated in an activity which was directly related to the war effort. Whether he is a 'veteran' or not, I don't know if he was drafted. But considering some 'veterans' on the current list were little more than telephone operators and ROTC students, Silas's efforts were a tangible contribution to the war. He was also a Negro league ballplayer.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 12:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a discussion of the relative merits of peoples' service. It's merely a question of service. A veteran is someone who served in the armed forces; it's irrelevant where he or she served and what exactly they did. Do we know whether Mr. Simmons loaded ships as a civilian or as a serviceman? Where did he load them? Where does he live now? Has anyone interviewed him?

So, people, which way do you want it? Asking about Thomas Nelson (no evidence at all) is acceptable, but not Silas Simmons (draft card, newspaper mentions war)?68.158.231.109 07:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of all this squabbling? It's not bringing us any closer to possibly identifying one or more heretofore unknown World War I veterans. Robert, if you or anyone else have any more information on Thomas Nelson, Silas Simmons, or both, please share it. And if anyone has actually spoken with either of these men, please let us all know. (I'd do it myself if I had a clue where to get in touch with them.) Time is running out; these are not young men. Let's do all that we can to recognize them while they're still living. AEF Doughboy 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have contact info. on Silas and I plan to call tomorrow. As for Thomas Nelson, read this story:

http://www.panews.com/features/local_story_189200405.html?keyword=secondarystory

Again, no details at all about war service. 131.96.70.164 00:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, per a phone conversation this week, I've been told that Silas Simmons was a civilian employee when he was loading ammunition during WWI. So, not a veteran officially but definitely a helper for the war cause. Also, according to the 1900 census, Simmons was born in '1897.' Due to the census also saying 'Nov 1897,' I would tend to think that is not accurate and Simmon's claim to Oct 14 1895 seems plausible. However, likely true and proven true are not the same thing. Hence, we can only say that Simmons is at least 108 years old.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert, please bear in mind, that many a birthdate was "fudged" when it came to the draft card, for a whole multitude of reasons. I cover research for old Indianapolis 500 drivers, and probably about 30% if that of the age given in the draft card turns out to be correct when it came to the information on the SSDI or their grave. Not saying 1895 is wrong, but just something to be aware of.

RDJ

Silas Simmons is dead. http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/31/Southpinellas/Oldest_ex_baseball_pl.shtml

RIP. Richard J

More French veterans?

Greetings,

I've been told by a reliable French source that there are two more French WWI veterans not yet revealed. Bear in mind the French government requires a certain minimum (3 months) service to count as a 'poilu.' However, there are still French WWI veterans left not on the list that served at least 1 day. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This report comes from a different source, so I can't verify if Charles Brunier is one of the two anonymous veterans. However, he is listed as still living and a WWI veteran on French Wikipedia. He was known to have turned 105 earlier this year. From source #2:

According to the media articles on his 104 birthday, he claimed that Henri Carrière's Papillon was based in his life and, most important to us, that he joined the Army at age 17 and was involved in a campaign in Syria during WWI. There are plenty of articles on the web telling this story in different languages.

He was born on May 31, 1901, he was alive as of his 105 birthday last May and I was unable to found an obituary. He even has a page in the French Wikipedia at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles Brunier 131.96.70.164 00:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought: should Brunier and Legournadie be 'unverified' veterans since they're not on the official lists? Granted, these cases are more likely to be true than Olin and Lincoln, but still...→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've been told that Charles Brunier is definitely alive and did serve in Syria in WWI. While France doesn't count that as a 'WWI' veteran, I believe the French definition is Franco-centric and exclusionary. The war against the Ottoman Empire was also real. As such, Brunier is a WWI veteran although not on the official French list. There are still, in addition, 2 more unidentified French WWI veterans, so the known total is 10, while the reported total is 8. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings,

I've been told the age of the anonymous French veterans are 106 and 107 years old, and at least one appeared in a local French newspaper. If any French readers out there can find them, it would be appreciated. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 10:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

With the passing of Maurice Floquet, news outlets are reporting that there are only '4' remaining French WWI veterans. However, the definition includes only combat veterans who served for 3 months or more. In reality, there are at least 8 remaining French WWI veterans, plus Justin Tuveri (fought for Italy, lives in France). 131.96.156.16 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings,

I find it quite disappointing that people who have little or no track record of finding or verifying cases continue to cast aspersions. Let's start with the appropriate place for the message. If you want to discuss the two anonymous French veterans, why post under "German" veterans? It's this type of silly inconsistency that is so annoying. Where is the RESPECT...when was the last time what I posted turned out to be wrong? From Moses Hardy death date to Ernest Pusey death date. Sure, there is no 100% guarantee of anything, but again the sources that are tracking the anonymous veterans produced Rene Riffaud, who was valid.

Second, might I ask: IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS LIST TO PROVIDE A BEST-EFFORT COUNT OF THE TRUE NUMBER OF SURVIVING WWI VETERANS? OR IS IT TO LIST ONLY THE BIG NAMES THAT EVERYONE HAS HEARD OF? AS A FORMER CENSUS WORKER, I WAS TOLD THAT IF YOU KNOCK ON THE DOOR AND SOMEONE IS THERE, COUNT THEM AS A PERSON EVEN IF THEY REFUSE TO GIVE YOU THEIR NAME. IF YOU SAW THEY WERE A WHITE FEMALE, PUT THAT TOO... LIKEWISE, THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE OF INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION FOR A SOLO 'WORLD'S OLDEST' TITLE...THIS IS AN ISSUE OF A VALID COUNT. AND I THINK NOT LISTING PEOPLE WE KNOW EXIST, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEIR NAME IS NOT PUBLIC, MISSES THE WHOLE POINT OF COUNTING IN THE FIRST PLACE. IF THE GOV'T OF JAPAN SAYS THEY HAVE 33 PERSONS AGED 110+, WHETHER WE HAVE THE NAMES OR NOT, WE HAVE THE COUNT. DO WE NOT.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Russian/Turkish/Austrian/Hungarian surviving veterans?

I have been following this discussion for some time now and have been wondering if there is anyone tracking surviving veterans in the former Russian Empire, the former Ottoman Empire and some of the other states of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. Jtscotto 13:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

To a degree, yes.

The last Austrian veteran (Bischof) and last Hungarian veteran (Molnar) both died this year. The last KNOWN (and please note the word known here, as this isn't certain) Turkish veteran died btwn late 2003/early 2005. The last KNOWN russian veteran was W. Surodo, who is believed to be no longer living (died 2005?)

But it's very difficult to confirm this one way or another.

I find it strange, on a similar note, that there are no known Japanese veterans alive, yet there are quite a few on the GRG list.

Does anyone know if there are any Japanese veterans. Robert? Anyone?

Richard J

I find it very hard to believe that there are not more Russian veterans around, especially given the sheer size of their armed forces during the war. Something tells me that after the last "known" veteran passes away, a Russian will come out of nowhere, or right out of a Dannon yogurt commercial, and claim that he is the last veteran.

I also noticed that there wasn't anyone tracking Japanese veterans.

Finally, on the subject of Austria-Hungary, do we know whether or not any veterans are residing in the states that make up the former Yugoslavia or former Czechoslovakia? Jtscotto 05:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Jtscotto, Russia? Quite possibly, I guess. Again, this is down to confirmed veterans. I don't have my notes in front of me here so apologies for spelling:- Yugoslavia : Naum Djordejvich was the last - he died between 1999-2003. Certainly no longer alive. I think the last Czech veteran died in the early part of this century. I also think I remember reading an article saying no more existed.

Italian veterans

Greetings,

I've been told by a reliable source that all 11 Italian veterans were confirmed alive as of Sept 21, 2006. Thus, it seems that Italy's larger-than-expected numbers continue to hold up. Bear in mind this has much to do with life expectancy, as Italian male life expectancy (esp. for 80+) remains among the highest in Europe.

France, meanwhile, has at least 10 remaining veterans (but two anonymous). The UK has 5 officially (but 3 in Australia and 1 in Canada means there's really 9). The U.S. total of 14 is likely still incomplete...if we include Robley Rex (who claims to have joined May 1918) that's 15. Given we had two U.S. veterans emerge in August 2006 on the same day, the chances are high that a few more U.S. veterans will be found. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the Italian info from the fellow who used to post on Victoria Cross Forum? I forget his name, but he was damn good.

Yes, and his name is Giovanni Alunni. Extremely sexy 21:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Two questions Robert? German veterans, Japanese veterans - what do you know about these? Some of the German veterans have very little information & the GRG covers Japanese super-wrinklies(!) so did any of them serve, do you know?

Thomas Breining, who is also a very capable German 105+ tracker, does that job really well for the German survivors. Extremely sexy 21:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Greetings,

Believe me, if I had the slightest hint of anyone serving in WWI not listed here, I would bring it up. At this point, I've been told of two anonymous French veterans. I don't know of any other veterans currently not listed, unless someone presumed dead is still living...for those looking for more information, I suggest you join 'World's Oldest People' on Yahoo webgroups...

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/

I do believe there may be more veterans unlisted, but they are not in the news because either they don't want to be bothered or because no one has brought them to anyone's attention. We found two 'new' veterans in August and one in September. I'm expecting more new cases, as in scraping the bottom of the barrel, on the order of one or two more a month. I think the last veteran will last at least until 2009. After that, I wouldn't speculate.

Thanks Robert Young → R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew this WWI veteran who lived up the street from me, who passed away about twenty years ago. I used to talk to him on my way home from high school. He was an American infantryman who served on the Western front. He told me that one time, while off the line for some reason, he met Portuguese troops who were serving on the Western front. Anybody check whether any Portuguese vets are still alive?

I guess the answer on the Portuguese vets is no? I will contact the Portuguese Consulate and make some inquiries.

Unverified Deaths

Greetings, we see Harold Gardner moved to the dead list, but no news article citation was given, and the editing was from an IP address. Can anyone confirm that Harold has really passed away, or is this a prank? → R Young {^yakł_talk} 07:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is an article in the local newspaper about Harold Gardner's death: http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061020/NEWS01/610200332&SearchID=73260450397677 Frankwomble 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

Well, I predicted that the last veteran would pass away in 2009 or later, they seem to drop in fits and starts. I thought Mr. Gardner would have made 108. Also, it's a shame that Homer Anderson, 108, didn't get national press attention...only an obit in the Palm Beach area...131.96.70.164 22:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Lloyd Brown

I interviewed Lloyd Brown at his home in Maryland on November 18, 2004. At that time, he told me he was born on October 7, 1899. I believe this to be accurate. Does anyone out there have any reason to believe otherwise? AEF Doughboy 19:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

News articles have stated in the past that his official birth year is 1901 but that he claimed to be 'two years older' to enlist, underage. This doesn't make sense the other way. Why would someone born in 1899 tell people he was born in 1901, when he had to be 18 to enlist? If he now thinks he's born in 1899, it's probably a mis-remembering of his age fudge.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 19:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also possible that later in life he wanted to fudge his age downward for some reason (for a job, perhaps -- he was a fireman after the war), invented the story about lying about his age to enlist, and has since come to believe it. Until we can definitively confirm one date, we should leave both options up there. Can you check census records? He was born in Ozark County, Missouri, near the town of Lutia (now known as Seadosha). His parents were named Claud and Bertie. He had seven brothers (one of who was named Floyd!) and two sisters. AEF Doughboy 20:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've checked the censuses & other records. In the 1910 census, Lloyd Brown, son of Claud & Birdie is listed in Big Creek, Ozark, MO, b c. 1903. Public records, however, say he was born on 7th October 1900.

Make of that what you will......

Richard J

The 1910 census is undoubtedly him. However, because the census was taken in April 1910, and his given age was 7 and his birthday is in May, it may signify a birth in 1902 if taken literally. Note the 'about 1903' is an estimate added by ancestry.com, not something in the original document.

1910 United States Federal Census about Lloyd Brown Name: Lloyd Brown Age in 1910: 7 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1903 Birthplace: Missouri Relation to Head of House: Son Father's name: Claud B Father's Birth Place: Missouri Mother's name: Birdie P Mother's Birth Place: Arkansas Home in 1910: Big Creek, Ozark, Missouri Marital Status: Single Race: White Gender: Male Neighbors: View others on page Household Members: Name Age Claud B Brown 39 Birdie P Brown 32 Homer T Brown 16 Orville T Brown 13 Ina R Brown 10 Lloyd Brown 7 Floyd B Brown 6 Clarence C Brown 3 Ada May Brown 1 2/12

View

Original Record

View Original Image
View blank form  

Save This Record

Attach this record to a person in your tree as a source record, or save for later evaluation. Save

Source Citation: Year: 1910; Census Place: Big Creek, Ozark, Missouri; Roll: T624_804; Page: 8A; Enumeration District: 133; Image: 421.

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, given that Lloyd's older sister was 10, this seems to rule out 1899 as a possibility. The census supports 1902; the newspapers 1901. 1900 seems possible but still a stretch...→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, his daughter, Nancy Espina, told me 1901 is correct, dear friends. Extremely sexy 14:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, everyone has gotten along quite nicely since the last edit war ended. Why do you insist on starting trouble again (user 68...you know who you are, and it's not hard to figure out, either). The FACTS of the matter are...news reports cite Lloyd Brown as born 1901. If we go by the census, he was born in 1902. 1899 is impossible since his older sister was born in 1899 or 1900 (i.e. age 10 in April 1910, she could have been born between Apr 1899 and Apr 1900). This also makes 1900 less than likely, and if Lloyd gets to '110' the 1910 census means that, barring an actual birth certificate, '1902' it is. Also, if we are to take a veterans' word for it, Robley Rex told me on the phone that he joined in 'May 1918' yet no one wants to give him the benefit of the doubt there.

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Violet Bolaise

This article http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1934438,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11 in the 29 Oct 06 on-line version of The Guardian (UK) mentions a British veteran not listed here: Violet Bolaise, age 106. It cites the source as the World War One Veterans Association. Does anyone know anything about her? Frankwomble 14:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at home, so can't check just yet, but looking at that report there is no mention of Gladys Powers (or significantly, John Newman, Harry Newcombe & Stephen Butcher, which confirms earlier mentions that they're no longer alive). As they include other overseas based UK veterans, are we to presume that Gladys Powers is dead or at least mark it up as a possible on the main page?

Richard J

Richard, we now do know officially that Harry Newcombe died last March 18th, Stephen Butcher died sometime last year and John Newman presumably sometime this year, but after the death of Alice Baker, Gladys Powers (living in Canada) was discovered along with another British female veteran survivor, who remained anonymous apparently, that is until now. Extremely sexy 16:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Bart, thanks, but the question is;- by her not being on this list published yesterday, are we to presume Gladys Powers is now dead or is it an oversight? Richard J

According to this news story, http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/532104.html only 3 veterans remain who are linked with Canada - Wilson, Clemett & Babcock. The last news story re. Powers is back in May. I am tempted to add Powers - Italic textprovisionallyItalic text to the "died 2006" list as she is not on the UK or Canadian veterans list, but will hold off to see if there is any mention over the next 2 weeks. Maybe there is some kind of compromise that could be put in the main page to mark a possible passing with no news? Richard J

Richard, I would stop the bandwagon. Historically, the news media has been very fickle in its reporting. Since the main Canada news reports only the three you mentioned (and never Gladys Powers, because she's British), it's highly possible that Gladys is still alive and was merely not noticed in the UK story. I would give it at least a year. With claims such as "George Johnson last WWI veteran" are we to assume that everyone on the list has died? Certainly not. Given Glady's status as a woman living in another country, it's very possible that she was overlooked. Moreover, has anyone searched the local Vancouver newspapers for a possible obituary?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.I guess if there is no coverage of her birthday in May, we'll have to see again, unless of course we hear something in the meantime. Richard J

I queried Tricia Leslie at the Abbotsford Times. (http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/) She wrote an article last May about Gladys Powers' 107th birthday. She responded via email that Ms. Powers is still very much alive. Frankwomble 20:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed, dear Frank. Extremely sexy 20:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

O.M. Peterson

O.M. Peterson (b. 27 Feb 1900) should be added to the list of surviving U.S. WWI veterans. Information per the VA Media Office, Chris Scheer. Peterson resides at the Spokane State Nursing Home, contact: Marv King (509) 344-5779. I spoke to King who confirmed that Peterson is in fact a WWI veteran, and alive.

I visited and interviewed Mr. Peterson (his full name is Orin Manfred Peterson) in Spokane in October, 2005. I can confirm that he is, indeed, a World War I veteran. He enlisted in the cavalry, was later transfered to an infantry unit, and did not ship out for France. His older brother was wounded, likely at Belleau Wood. O.M. Peterson also served in WWII -- says he was drafted! AEF Doughboy 20:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In terms of evidence, Orin Peterson's draft card is on Ancestry. Again, whilst I appreciate a draft card doesn't mean they served, there is something online to back both birthdate & war claims, I guess.

User 131.212.109.27

Greetings,

Does anyone want to confess to being this user? It's not me and it's very close to my IP, likely a user at Georgia State University.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

16:33, 13 November 2006 131.212.109.27 (Talk) (→Living in the USA - 15 veterans) (cur) (last) 16:19, 13 November 2006 131.212.109.27 (Talk) (→Living in the USA - 15 veterans) (cur) (last) 16:08, 13 November 2006 131.212.109.27 (Talk) (→World totals)

Just to note, this is my ISP address at GSU:131.96.156.16

I have no idea who user 131.212.100.27 is or where the information posted came from.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Munger, Stillman Hiram & Maurice Starkey

Could these two people be removed from World War 1 veterans? They both joined the army after the armistice so obviously they are not World War 1 veterans. The government also does not recognize them as being vets. Only some press articles mention them and these could be from tabloid and thus unreliable.

Please leave as-is. This was already discussed and voted on this summer. The decision was to keep them but as footnotes.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous French veterans

The only reference we have is to a yahoo group. Should this actually count? Czolgolz 00:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Afternoon All I am new to this but I have been following this page for a while now. With these two veterans we have two people of unknown name, and birthdate, who don't appear to be in the official French list. I can't see any way these claims can be verified. I think they should go into the unvalidated claims section - It is even possible that although they are anonymous to the Yahoo group, that they already known to this page and listed accordingly SRwiki 15:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings,

If you want to move them to 'unverified,' fine. But also consider that these two anonymous cases come from the same source as Rene Riffaud and Louis Jaffre. They are anonymous because they choose to be. I have heard that they wish to reveal their identity at a later date.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to be democratic about where these French veterans should be listed, so what do other people think? _____________________________________________________ I imagine that Mr. 1899 and Mr. 1900 exist, and wish to be anonymous. However, until we have a name, shouldn't we put them as "unverified". If were going to go this route, why not remove all names, and just keep tally by numbers or years. It would be the same thing. It looks rather dumb. Keep them, but not in the same list, until we can get a name. PershinBoy 20:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ernest Pusey death

I have it from a good source that Ernest Pusey died Nov 19. However, so far I haven't seen a press mention.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 02:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Afternoon All i found this: http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/16071846.htm which confirms his passingSRwiki 14:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Orin Peterson Is a World War 1-era Veteran

I Sent a letter to Mr Peterson, and received a response from his Nephew that visits him, and knows quite a lot about him. Mr. Peterson is blind, and is in bad health, but asked his Nephew to respond to my letter. Orin Peterson joined the Army in 1919 after the war the letter states. Until you have some proof - which you probably will not, as it doesn't exist, then he needs to be removed from the WWI Vets, and put into the WWI-era Vets. Also the two French Veterans, if they do not wish for anyone to know who they are, lets remove them, and after they die, put them in the year placement they died. PershinBoy ________________________________________________ I don't know about Mr. Peterson, but if he is a WWI-era vet, then OK, move him down. As to the French WWI vets, please note that this table is intended to reflect what we know, and we know there are two more, publicly identified or not. I have heard there is a plan to reveal their identity after the French gov't announces the death of the 'last' French WWI veteran. That is, if the 'big 4' poilus die first, then we will find out who the other two are...it would indeed make for a more gripping story. Again, these two come from the same source as Rene Riffaud, who was legitimate. Thus, I conclude there are two more and they should be listed, at least, as unverified...68.154.125.209 18:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ________________________________________________ Since we don't even have a name to go by (just the year of birth), I hope they will be put on the unverified list. Back to Mr. Peterson. In the letter it says that he indeed was drafted, but for WWII. As for WWI, this is what is stated - "he joined in 1919, WWI was over and he served all of his enlistment in the states." Chris from the VA media center stated he is a WWI veteran. What does he consider the cut off date? Nov. 1918 or July 1919? Again (for the third time) we have the so called..... hey I interviewed him back in 2004 and yep he says he joined in 1918 so lets put him on the main list. I admit just because his Nephew says he joined in 1919, doesn't make it a fact. I think it would be great that another WWI veteran has been found, but I think if someone will research it, you will find he is a World War I-era veteran. Post 11-11-1918. PershinBoy 15:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Canada's 3 surviving World War I veterans?

Gladys Powers? Isn't it John Babcock? See CBC official website. GoodDay 18:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But the tables are in who LIVES in a country. Gladys, a British veteran lives in Canada, and Babcock lives in the US, and can be found in that table. Cheers, Richard J

(unsigned comment above)68.154.125.209 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean, thanks for the clarification. PS- you should create an account. GoodDay 18:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What, a Wikipedia account? Tried it before, and it was a bit problematic. I'll stay as it is. Richard J

See Wikipedia:How to log in & Wikipedia: Username, for information. GoodDay 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Polish Veterans

Hi,just for everyone's clarification, I have added Kosa & Wycech to the main list as they enlisted in 1917. I admit I haven't got Polish records at hand, but numerous newspaper sources list 1917 as an enlistment date, and quite frankly, there is enough there to suggest they are genuine WWI veterans as opposed to say, for example, Violet Bolaise, or some of the German veterans, of whom almost nothing is known.

I suspect Parniak is a WWI veteran too, but just lying about his age, so someone may want to move him into the main category. Sorry about the tables but I found it very difficult when all I wanted to do was move a guy from one category to another.

I didn't want to move them and not explain why. Both were featured in a Polish WWI programme, so both are still alive (or were on the 11th November).

Please also note Wycech's birthdate, which genuinely, is 11th November 1902.

Thanks, Richard J (who has a Polish brother-in-law who helped with translation!)

Previous notes: If someone can document any of the Polish claims, we could rehabilitate them to the main list. It does appear that one may be dead and at least one doesn't have records, what about the other two?131.96.70.158 18:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't translate Polish, but this is an article on Jozefa Kosa. If someone can translate it, we can see if he is still a WWI vet. [4] It might say nothing about him at all and maybe that he likes baked beans(!), but let's see if anyone can help. As for Parniak, still alive [5]

What about this man who claimed 118 in 2005? Is he still alive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Piotrowski

68.19.49.79 09:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

With some information being shared on two of the three remaining Polish veterans, does someone want to re-instate them to the main list? I think Pawel Parniak should remain on the unverified list as his WWI service is not documented, but claimed.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Romanian Veteran

Morning All

There could be a problem with this veteran, my understanding is that Romania was officially out of the war by 7th May 1918 (and was pretty much occupied and out of the actual fighting, by the end of 1917), this raises a couple of possible problems: 1, The interval between his 15th birthday and the signing of the peace treaty is narrow. 2, Would the occupying powers have let a vanquished opponent to continue recruiting into their armed forces? I am not saying this entry is incorrect, I just think it may need a bit of further info.SRwiki 09:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC) _____________________________________________________ You make a very good point! Within the last several weeks, several names (and in two cases NO NAME) have been put into the main list. Until we have some solid information, lets keep them in the unverified, or WWI era section, or start a pending section. This is a really good site, and a lot of people are taking notice, and using.... the media and the VA and people from all over the world. Be careful before you put someones name in the main listing. This is the last time I will mention Mr. Peterson, but mark my word, he will end up in the WWI era section because he enlisted after the set cut off date of Nov. 11 PershinBoy 01:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Evening All, I took some time out this afternoon in my library, and Romania signed an armistice in December 1917, if we use the same criteria of Armistice date we use for the western front, then no Romanian veteran enlisting in 1918 should be counted as a veteran of WW1, so I have now changed my position, and would vote for a straightforward deletion of this candidate. Thoughts anyone? SRwiki 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Greetings,

That's not valid. First off, it was a preliminary armistice. Second, a three-way fight continued:

http://countrystudies.us/romania/18.htm

We see that by May 7, 1918, Romania had in effect surrendered to the Central Powers. However, as the tide turned, Romanians took up arms again, and war was re-declared Nov 8 1918. In effect, the war on the Romanian front wasn't over until around Dec 1918...considering the capital, Bucharest, was not re-taken until Nov 30:

Another possible reading of the weblink above is that the enemy actually being fought here is the pro-German government of Alexandru Marghiloman, who as far as I can tell was the leader sitting in Bucharest. I know that Romania re-declared war on Germany on 8th November, but where there any German soldiers in the vicinity to fight? or are the enemy troops referred to actually Romanian? Just a thought SRwiki 13:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

On November 8, Romania declared war on Germany and forced enemy troops from Walachia. The king returned to Bucharest on November 30, and Romanian units occupied most of Transylvania by December 1.

Hence, the real issues are: A. What force did this alleged WWI veteran sign up for? Who was he guarding or fighting against? B. What evidence is there of service?

Basically we need more information, but let's not mischaracterize the war as ending in 1917 in Romania, when clearly it did not.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, looking at this:

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/balkans/rumaniawwi.html

Considering there was an invasion of Romania at the time, the last-ditch signing of 15-year-olds seems possible, if not likely.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 09:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Some things we need to decide?

Morning All, There are a few unresolved issues floating round on this page, so can I propose a vote on the following:

1, The anonymous French Veterans are moved to the unverified section.

Yes-Rye1967 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes-User:Redpepper1952 15:18,14 December 2006

Just for clarification, here is some information on the French WWI veterans:

We (the 2 discovers of the two last French "poilus") hope that french governement celebrate the dead of the wrong last French WWI !

An d after we will release the name of the one or two leaving "poilus" !

Just to put on the face of the journalist and the governement their incompétences !

Note that lhe youngest is just 106 YO ans have a lot of chance to be the last (but not the official last) hihihihihihi !

Again, this came from the persons that discovered Rene Riffaud and Louis Legaurnadie. Because the French media and national veterans organization failed to give credit, they are now withholding the last two names. I know for a fact that Rene Riffaud was mentioned long before the French government took credit.

Subject: 2 French WWI véterans Forgotten Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11

bart.versieck@scarlet.be, "Robert Young" <ryoung122@yahoo.com> 9 René Riffaud M 106

That's correct, I knew about it Nov 15, 2005 (so did Bart Versieck). Yet when did the French government find out?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4771974.stm

March 2006!

Now, with the researchers in dispute with the French government over source crediting, I do feel that there really are more veterans. However, if you want to do "unverified" as a compromise, be my guest. But don't be surprised when/if more French WWI veterans come to light. Looking at the French list, where are all the 1899/1900/1901 veterans? Clearly, there are more...→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 09:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

2, The Romanian veteran is moved to the unverified section. (- in light of my note above, i would vote for a deletion of this candidate SRwiki 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC))

But why not movement to the "WWI Era veterans" list instead? Extremely sexy 00:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

3, Orin Peterson is moved to the WW1 era section.

4, We instigate a policy, that from here on in all new entries, begin their life in the unverified section, and the evidence to put them into the main list is discussed on this page prior to moving onto the verified list.

Yes-Rye1967 18:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should give this vote a month, and then make any changes in the new year. I need to fess up here, I am not terribly IT literate, and editing the tables looks impossibly tricky to me, so rather than me make a mess of it I would appreciate it if some-one else could make the changesSRwiki 08:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think 1,2,3,4 are great ideas. PershinBoy 01:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of my proposal? Extremely sexy 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a possibility, and if he finally remains on the list, this is where I think he will end up. but I still feel this Romanian needs verifying, Under the treaty of Bucharest 1918, the Romanian army was largely demobilised. I just find it hard to believe under the circumstances, that they would be recruiting anyone, let alone 15 year old boys (I feel that any claims to having been a child soldier, need to be treated with care). Once again I am not saying it's impossible, but the more I read into this issue the less likely it looks. It would be very helpful if whoever put this candidate on the list would get involved with this discussion citing the evidence But I agree in the case of this Romanian we need to have a multi choice: A. stay where he is, B. Unverified, C. WW1 era, D. Delete SRwiki 07:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How about unverified? Claiming WWI-era is bunk. Even U.S. websites recognize Romania as actually involved until the end (Nov 1918):

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1112.html

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 09:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You make some fair points here, I hadn't realised that the war ended so messily on this front, but I am still wondering who was fighting who and why. Romania (surrendered May 1918) was sandwiched between Bulgaria (surrendered Sept 1918) and Austro Hungary (surrendered Oct 1918)so I would assume they where fighting each other, but on a technicality would this count as being part of World War 1, as all of these combatants where out of it by then, or is it some local, related, or near contemporaneous conflict? (I admit this is propably splitting hairs, but given the Balkans long history of kicking lumps out of each other, it is not an entirely ridiculous argument) Any way I agree with you that there is enough doubt around this issue to not have a straight deletion, but this candidate still needs some serious scrutiny. SRwiki 10:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________ I agree that the two un-named French Veterans probably do exist. I imagine there are several more veterans out there, but until we have a NAME, lets not put them in the verified list. However, if you would like to keep it like this, that is fine with me. If so, please put me down for - One Russian born in 1899 living in a small village by the Dvina River. PershinBoy 06:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what is your track record? Check out my profile...I am an authoritative source, including representative for Guinness World Records, the Gerontology Research Group, the Max Planck Institute, etc. Authoritative sources can "vouch" for a case...if it's wrong, it's like an earthquake expert predicting an earthquake that didn't happen.

I would be O.K. with moving these anonymous listings to the "unverified" list...but there should be a notation somewhere about them.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote aye to removing the two anonymous names from the list. There is absolutely no proof that these two chaps are veterans. In fact I would also vote to remove those people who joined the army after the armistice was signed. How can they be veterans if they joined the army after the war? The WW1 veterans list instead of getting shorter is getting longer which is laughable.

First of all, a motivation to "make the list" shorter is an improper motive. Second, the list gets longer because cases that were not discovered earlier are found. In reality, with each passing death, the relative uniqueness of the remaining survivors increases. This makes it more and more likely that, if there are any unidentified veterans left, they would be more likely to come out and be identified. In terms of recognition, this also happens with the "world's oldest person" (Maria Capovilla, Ramona Trinidad Iglesias-Jordan, Elizabeth Bolden, etc). To use another analogy, was Lance Bass always gay, or did he suddenly become gay this year? Just because we didn't know something earlier doesn't mean it didn't exist. Compare the list now and then add in the deceased in 2006 to figure out which direction the list is going in.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________ To Mr. Young above, I'm not questioning your record. You say they exist.... they exist. However, as you must know, Guinness World Records would not verify something, and have an article - The oldest man is 124 his name is- bleep - Sorry he doesn't want you to know anything about him, but take our word for for it, he is the oldest. PershinBoy 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this is not Guinness World Records, it's Wikipedia. Considering how often Wikipedia changes, I see it more as a proving ground than a "verified" list. Second, a claim of "124" has never been proven to occur, yet a 106 or 107-year-old man is totally believable. In fact, as someone pointed out, the remainin French veteran data is weighted toward the earlier years (1897 and 1898) instead of 1899-1901. The French data has not really scraped the bottom of the barrel yet. We haven't had all the "I joined at 15" or "I served for two weeks" cases identified yet. It's like a scientist predicting the existence of a moon and then seeing indirect evidence of its existence. But personally, the way I see it is this:

A. We don't have any official "Wikipedia WWI veterans" committee that decides whether a case is true or not. B. And while a vote serves as a surrogate, we're not often dealing with actual documents. De we have Orin Peterson's papers? How about the German veterans? C. In reality, the vast majority of these cases are "vouched" for---that is, an "expert" from Italy, Germany, France, etc. says that the case is true. As for me, I think Jesus said it best when he said "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country." In reality, we question the Romanian case because of the track record. Likewise, we keep the German cases because of a positive track record. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the anonymous French veterans, there is something that is niggling me. I assume these Vets are legitimate (but unverified). But why are they anonymous? If they are anonymous because they wish to remain so, then thats fine. But reading through the reasoning above it appears as though there names are being withheld by the researchers, so they can get one over on whichever branch of the French Civil service, deals with veterans affairs. If this is the case then I am deeply uncomfortable with this. I hope some-one can confirm, that the two Vets in question have consented to remain anonymous? SRwiki 09:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, the withholding of the names is, in fact, a vendetta against not getting credit. In 2005, the researchers discovered Rene Riffaud, but in March 2006 the French government and news took credit. True, these cases could also not exist. However, the track record for the French researcher is quite high. Adding the anonymous cases reflects our best estimate of how many WWI veterans in France there are, not necessarily how many are proven to exist beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Finally, I have been told that one of the two veterans was identified in a local French newspaper...but finding it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC) _____________________________________________________ A lot of useless talk to be frank. We should vote. Do we want people in the verified list with no released name. Either way the majority wants it, will be fine by me. I'm not satisfied about Mr. Peterson though. He goes in the WWI era, or Mr. Rex, Mr. Munger and Mr. Starkey need to go back into the main listing. Mr. Peterson is a nice man, but thats not how we get in the verified list. Why can he join in 1919 and be in the verified list, and Mr. Rex join in 1919, and be cast out of the list. PershinBoy 06:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's also note that the join dates for Mr. Rex and Mr. Peterson have not been definitively established. For Robley Rex, the "1919" date comes from a NEWSPAPER citation...not proof. Likewise, we don't have proof for Mr. Peterson yet. If you want to put him in the WWI era list based on the assertion that he joined in 1919, please remember that it's still possible he could have joined in 1918.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

George Francis

Does anyone know anything about a Mr. George Francis of Sacramento, CA, who turned 110 this year? Is it possible he served in WWI? He's old enough to have been drafted.

He may well be a veteran but, we need to be careful about making any claims on the basis of age. I have done a little bit of digging, and acording to the 1910 US census there where 5.5 million men aged 18-20 in the USA, so it is a reasonable guess to say there was at least 10-15 million in the draftable age group (If anything this is probably an underestimate) According to my atlas of world history, the USA mobilised about 3.8 million people, and it is in the nature of warfare that these would be overwhelmingly male. So this means that at best, any currently surviving male in the age group has a 1 in 3 chance of being a vet. Whilst I am no expert on this, my hunch is that there are very, very few native born vets still awaiting discovery in the US, as I believe the US keeps pretty good records of this sort of thing. SRwiki 08:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Polish veteran

http://miastolublin.pl/?m=news&d=17&nr=6626

http://www.dziennikwschodni.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061104/LUBLIN/61103046&CalDate=200611

Konstanty Jung, 105 years old, veteran?

Well, there's nothing there on any war service in the 1st World War, that's all I'll say...

Richard J

Violet Bolaise: Awaiting Verification

I have just received a reply from Dennis Goodwin, the Chairman of the British World War 1 veterans association. I asked him to check if the details we held where accurate and correct. He confirmed that our details where basically correct, but that it has now emerged that Violet Bolaise was born in 1901, and there is now a question over when she began her service. Dennis Goodwin is currently investigating, and will get back to me once he has confirmed her status. So I have moved her down into the unverified section. Just for the record Dennis Goodwin, is recognised as the point man for this by The Royal British Legion (the UK all veterans association), if his word is good enough for them, it's good enough for me, so I think he is a credible authority for the UK list.SRwiki 12:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a question. What did women like Violet do in the army during WW1?

Not entirely sure in this specific case, but in general women, where employed in a variety of support roles, serving as ground crew, engineers, army nursing staff, etc, I suspect this category would have been by far the most numerous.

Moses Hardy 1893-2006

Just to let you know, the family of Moses Hardy informed me that he died this morning. This is confirmed. Be my guest to update.

I hope the media will run the story...Mr Hardy was the last African-American veteran of WWI and oldest living combat veteran...he was also the oldest man in the U.S. (unless you count Puerto Rico). It seems we've lost quite a bit of the "supercentenarian towers"...George Johnson, 112; Maurice Floquet, 111; Ernest Pusey, 111; and now Moses Hardy, 113...

Sadly, Robert Young → R Young {^yakł_talk} 04:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Associated Press has published his obituary; I found it on Yahoo. It's the first article on the page.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061209/ap_on_re_us/deaths

JMD4LSU 15:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, dear friend. Extremely sexy 15:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________ I wish these last WWI veterans would receive more attention. Even when the oldest combat veteran, and last WWI African-American dies, very little notice is taken in the media.... Well, that seems to be the case here in the USA. I don't know about other countries. PershinBoy 03:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is quite sad that the WWI Vets, particularly in the U.S., receive so little media attention. There are precious few of these fine folks still around. Perhaps if some type of attention was given to them publicly by a Senator or someone in office, the media would give it far more attention. This quite possibly could result in other legit and verified (as well as unverified) surviving WWI vets coming out and being recognized both nationally in the U.S, and internatinally as well. --Brianmccollum 15:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Another U.S. WWI claim emerges

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/12/14/State/At_107___his_life_foc.shtml

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

At 107, his life focuses on her By ERIKA VIDAL Published December 14, 2006

---

ADVERTISEMENT

SUN CITY CENTER - Harry Landis gets up an hour before his wife each morning to make sure her medicine is ready. Eleanor is 99 and suffers from dementia.

Harry turned 107 on Tuesday. To him, his birthday was no different than any other day.

No cake. No candles. Just another day with Eleanor, his wife of 30 years.

"She's a wonderful person," Landis says, his blue eyes watery behind red-rimmed glasses. Their relationship means everything to him.

They share a small apartment in an assisted living facility.

Several times a week, a private companion, Donna Riley, comes to their second-floor apartment and helps them with everyday chores.

"I'm only there four hours a day," Riley said. "The rest of the time, he takes care of her. I think she's what keeps him going, honestly."

She said she's never seen a man pamper or worry about a woman so much.

Landis has a little trouble hearing, and his vision isn't what it used to be.

He uses a motorized wheelchair to get around, but his mind is quick and his memory is good.

Landis credits his longevity to a "strong resistance to disease."

Born in 1899 in Marion County, Mo., he enlisted in the Army during World War I, but the fighting ended before he saw combat.

Morning All, How sure are we of the validity of this citation? i.e does this count as a verified claim? or should this case go into unverified category until further evidence emerges? SRwiki 07:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this case is starting off good. Correct birthdate? Check. Correct place of birth? Check. In the WWI draft index? Check. We still need to find out what the join date was, however.

Harry Richard Landis Name: Harry Richard Landis City: Not Stated County: Marion State: Missouri Birth Date: 12 Dec 1899 Race: White Roll: 1683404 DraftBoard: 0 Age:

Occupation:

Nearest Relative:

Height/Build:

Color of Eyes/Hair:

Signature: View image

View

Original Record

View image 

Tip: View blank forms

Save This Record

Attach this record to a person in your tree as a source record, or save for later evaluation. Save

Source Citation: Registration Location: Marion County, Missouri; Roll: 1683404; Draft Board: 0.

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a Harry R Landis in the 1930 census, with the right age (30) in April 1930. He is also born in Missouri and listed as a WWI veteran in the 1930 census:

1930 United States Federal Census about Harry R Landis Name: Harry R Landis Home in 1930: Lorain, Lorain, Ohio Age: 30 Estimated birth year: abt 1900 Birthplace: Missouri Relation to Head of House: Roomer Race: White Occupation:

Education:

Military Service:

Rent/home value:

Age at first marriage:

Parents' birthplace: View image Neighbors: View others on page Household Members: Name Age Joseph D Obrien 37 Dorothy Obrien 30 Marshall Goldatin Harry R Landis 30

View

Original Record

View original image

View blank form  

Save This Record

Attach this record to a person in your tree as a source record, or save for later evaluation. Save

Source Citation: Year: 1930; Census Place: Lorain, Lorain, Ohio; Roll: 1830; Page: 5A; Enumeration District: 12; Image: 637.0.

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Today I was told by the reporter who wrote the story that Harry Landis joined in Oct 1918. This now makes three confirmations of his being a WWI veteran, albeit non-combat.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a minute, Robert. If Robley Rex's 1919 date is disputed due to a newspaper citation, then surely taking this reporters word that Landis joined in Oct 1918 is hardly "confirmation". Unless the reporter has seen & passed on documentation to prove the Oct 1918 date, you can hardly claim "confirmation" and wave it around for all to show yet still take a anti-media stance on people like Rex. FWIW, I agree Landis' case is more solid than Rex's but it's consistency here. Either ALL media sources are fine or NON. You can't pick & choose as to what fits best to your needs.

Greetings,

I disagree that my statement is hypocrisy. Newspaper citations are often in error, true. However, what I got was not a citation. I actually called and talked to the reporter, which is a more accurate form of communication (because they then double-check and reporters don't want to be wrong on the source). This is not conclusive proof, and I agree that it's not. Unless/until someone finds the enlistment record, it's not conclusive. However, I did note that Mr. Landis's birthdate (Dec 12 1899) checked out and the 1930 census clearly lists him as a "veteran" and in the "what war?" column, it says "WW" (i.e., WWI as there was no WWII yet).→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Two New German WWI Veterans

Are you disappointed, MS Redpepper, that two more German WWI vets emerged? So much for your predictions of all dead by the end of 2006.

It stands to reason that the news media tends to notice "oldest" people at 106 or 107. Therefore, as the Moses Hardy-Ernest Pusey-Maurice Floquet cases pass on (extreme outliers), the last crop of green, once 18-year-old recruits is emerging. So Germany is back to nine cases. The UK has '4' but if you add 3 in Australia, one in Canada, and possibly Violet Bolaise, that's 9 as well. Rest assured, France has at least 9 whether you chose to downgrade or not. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 18:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Mr. Young. You sure don't forget an old remark made more than a year ago.But frankly,I am not disappointed,I am amazed. I will be even more amazed if Mr.Del Toro makes it to January and through January.I have no ill will of course in regards to their long lives. But while we are at it and since you addressed me.. I take exception with the 2 unknown French WW 1 Vetrans being listed as verified when they are not. I voted to have them listed as unvalidated which is where I wish they would be placed until they are validated one way or another.

RedPepper, your edits keep getting reverted because you end up...how to a put this politely...turning the entire article into an unreadable mess...you merge the French with the Germans, the Germans with the British...you need to bone up on your editing techniques...such as signing your discussions with four tildes, so your name appears. Czolgolz 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Czolgolz, about me turning my article editing into a real mess.. merging French,German & British.. I believe the last time I did that trying to put the 2 French WW1 unknowns into the unvalidated column, I think that as I was trying that then..at the same time you were reverting it. We must have been going against each other. I did it right before that. Just forgot to change the world total. But every time, someone just changes it all back. So I have just given up on editing all that.There has been some talk and a vote about moving those 2 anonymous French WW 1 Veterans to the unvalidated column until they may become known.A lot of discussion and talk,but still nothing gets done or changed about that. Why? And please do not say it does not matter. It is a part of this whole set-up so to speak. And that matters.

Morning All, when I proposed that we decie a few things, I suggested a cut off date for discussion of end of December, Currently it appears as though moving the anonymous French and the Romanian Vet onto the unverified list is relatively uncontroversial, No-one has spoken up for Orin Peterson to remain on the WW1 vets list as opposed to WW1 era.

My next question is what evidence do we have for these two new German vets? There is something floating round in the back of mind, that whatever official body in Germany that is responsible for this, does not have very good records from WW1, so I am just wondering how new German vets get verified - can anyone enlighten me? Thanks SRwiki 08:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agre with redpepper on anonymous people. Also the world war I era soldiers such as Starkey should be written off the list unless it can be proven that they fought during the war. If the era soldiers are on this list I am pretty sure they are more 'era' soldiers who are still alive. So having those 3 chaps on this list era or not era does not make sense.

We discussed this ad nauseam back in June and July. Please see above under the heading "Definition of 'veteran', who is included? Call for Votes." Frankwomble 01:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________ It seems to me that some people are put on the WWI listing after one news article, or one VA rep. states (as in the case of Mr. Orin) we have another one. Mr. Orin says he is not, and his nephew says he is not - Yet he is on the listing. Someone is wrong, or they are looking at 11-11-1918 as the cut off date, or 6-28-1919 as the date or some other date. I have no problem with the WWI era list. I would like to know what the cut off date is though? I think of the WWI era vets as 11-12-1918 to 06-28-1919 for the USA. So if Mr. Starkey joined in July 1919, my personal opinion is remove him from even the Era listing. If were unsure if a person was even in the military, he needs to be in the unverified. If someone who is in "the know" about the french veterans, that is fine, but if we cannot state the name, then I feel the person is not identified, and therefore not verified. Nothing wrong with putting a footnote, and giving whoever knows the secret identity - credit.PershinBoy 06:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I strongly disagree with having such a firm cut-off date for World War I era veterans - reason being, the US Forces were serving in Siberia as a result of their World War I era deployment into 1921, were they not? I think its fair to say that any US veteran who did not serve during World War I, but was deployed to Siberia during 1918/19/20 can fairly claim to be a World War I era veteran. - and as such should be retained on that portion of the list if that is a verifiable claim. jkm 09:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And that is entirely POV. I'd go with what the nations define themselves as being official. RGTraynor 11:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is POV - of course - but (as pointed out immediately below), the POV of the US Military! If the POV of the US Military is to be ignored (as you are suggesting) just what POV does carry any weight when determining the Veteran claims of US servicemen and, for that matter, women? In fact, it would seem that there is no acceptable POV out there to rely on in that case - so how on Earth can this list be constructed at all? jkm 16:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not POV. As far as US veterans are concerned, those who deployed as part of American Expeditionary Forces Siberia are WWI veterans. Extract from U.S. Army Regulation 600-8-22, Military Awards, dated 25 February 1995. Paragraph 5–18. World War I Victory Medal a. The World War I Victory Medal was established by War Department General Orders 48, 1919. The medal is awarded for service between 6 April 1917 and 11 November 1918 or with either of the following expeditions: (1) American Expeditionary Forces in European Russia between 12 November 1918 and 5 August 1919. (2) American Expeditionary Forces Siberia between 23 November 1918 and 1 April 1920. Frankwomble 20:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________ Well, as you know all the 5,500 U.S. veterans that fought in European Russia are dead. As for Siberia I don't know, but if any of them are alive, I would not put them in the WWI-era cat. I would list them as a WWI vet as the VA considers them. In a way I agree no firm cut-off date should be given, but if your on the list after the 1919 treaty, we need an explaination as to why the person is listed. Well as someone else mentioned we have talked about this a lot and it has been voted on. I just hope it will be fine tuned a little. PershinBoy 07:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC) _____________________________________________________ Lets put Orin Peterson in the WWI-era cat. until we can get a somewhat firm join date. Orin and his Nephew say he joined after the war. However, Chris from the VA and the administrator from the rest home says he is a WWI vet. Since the date is unknown (day, month or year) why is he allowed to stay in the main list and the other three era vets. are banned. 209.240.206.213 04:16, 22 December 22, 2006 ______________________________________________________________________

Obituary Samuel Benedict Goldberg

Samuel Benedict Goldberg died at the age of 106 on December 10.2006. He was Rhode Island's last WW 1 Veteran. Yet, there has been no obituary on here of him. I have searched on the net for an obituary, in vain. A puzzling effort. If anyone can put his obituary on here, it would be fitting as it has been for the ones who have gone before. Redpepper 8:55PM December 30,2006

Hello, I already put his obituary at the 2006 deceased ones. Extremely sexy 11:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello too. I mean by obituary for Mr. Goldberg a full obituary, like the ones printed in newspapers. Redpepper. 14:10 December 31, 2006.

Is this one not enough for you? Extremely sexy 22:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this one is good enough for me. Thanks for the link. Just one question though:.snce you had seen his obituary, why didn't you just post it on here? Redpepper 20:45 December 31,2006

As I already mentioned, I put it on the correct page, "Redpepper". Extremely sexy 12:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made some changes

Good Morning, all, I have made a some changes in line with my suggestions (see some things we need to decide?) I have moved Orin Peterson to the WW1 era category, as this seems to be the direction the evidence points. I have moved the Romanian and the anonymous French Vet to the Unvalidated category - with a note on whats "missing" as it where. My understanding of the Unvalidated category, is that unvalidated does not mean false (though some of them, noticeably the 13 year old veteran almost certainly are)rather they do not have full verification, by a sanctioned body, and none of these cases would appear to have such a verification. One final note is that I would suggest we create some sort of "pending" category for new cases, and I received a bit of support for this: thoughts anyone? SRwiki 10:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Great job, man. Extremely sexy 14:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The page looks great! I probably missed this, but weren't there two anonymous French Vets? What happened to the other one? Anyway, nice with the reorganization. --Brianmccollum 18:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the other one died. Anyone site a source? Czolgolz 19:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Young mentioned his death the other day. Extremely sexy 23:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It was reported to me that the other one died in December 2006, aged 106. I have requested for a release of the name and birthdate as well as death date. If/when that becomes available, the update will be posted on the 2006 deaths list, as this person is no longer relevant to the living list. I was told his first name was "Raymond." Again, these cases come from the same source that produced several other cases, such as Rene Riffaud, Francois Jaffre and Louis Legournadie.

Sincerely,

Robert Young

→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

______________________________________________________

I think you have done a great job on the changes! I also think there should be a pending section, or at least a way to notify us that there may be another WWI vet. but at least keep him or her in a pending state until we can get some good source info., and not just someone saying he may be one, and listing it without anything to back it up. 209.240.206.201 06:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Why have 3 French vets been moved?

I am just wondering why 3 of the French vets, have suddenly moved into the unverified category? After much discussion, in December I thought we had come to a reasonable consensus, about who was listed where, and my understanding was that all 3 were recognised as vets in our definition rather than the stricter (and western front orientated) French definition. The moving of the Italian vet who is living in France suggests that who-ever has taken it upon themselves to do this, doesn't understand how the page is laid out. If this vet has been moved because he has not been verified by the French Government, then there is no reason why he would be, he is a veteran of the Italian army - people do move around. Can whoever has done this moving please explain their reasoning? thanks SRwiki 18:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In France, there are only three official WWI veterans.

• De Cazenave, Louis
• Grelaud, Jean
• Ponticelli, Lazarre

The other one do not have the right qualifications to be on this list... I didn't know where to put this other vet so I put them in the last part of the article

Paris75000 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, but I think you are using a different definition of a vet to the rest of us. As far as I can tell the official French definition accepts only those with more than 3 months service, on the Western Front. The definition we are using here, is service anywhere, for any length of time up to 11/11/1918. I suspect the official French definition, is for the purposes of who gets a war pension, rather than who is a veteran.

If you scroll through this discussion page, you will see we have discussed this in great detail

In the case of two of these Vets 1 served in Syria, and one for less than three months, so although not on the official list, are still veterans. The Third vet you moved is an ITALIAN, who just happens to now be living in France, he is never going to be classed as a French Veteran, because he was never in the French Army. But he is an undisputed Veteran of the Italian Army.SRwiki 07:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally I notice that Charles Brunier, was awarded service medals for World War 1, but was stripped of them when he was convicted of murder, so another reason he may not be on the official list is that it would be very embarassing for the French Government, if they ended up giving a full state funeral to a convicted murderer. SRwiki 08:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SRwiki"

Hi

I just made some modifications to show exactly what are the official and non official living WWI vets in France. I hope you will enjoy them (I think I striked the right balance)

Sincerily

Paris75000 09:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Tuveri be included as a veteran of Italian army?

Greetings,

There are several issues here. First, Tuveri moved to France and is a French citizen even though an Italian vet. There is also the issue of a Canadian living in the U.S., Brits living in Australia, etc.

That is a separate issue from the 'official' French government list. For one, I don't give much credit at all the the 'official' list. As someone mentioned, it seems designed to exclude (and thus to possibly save money by denying a pension). Second, the 'official' listmakers didn't do any research (but claimed credit for 'discovering' Rene Riffaud and Francois Jaffre, who appeared on the Wiki article months earlier). Third, the Italian list also doesn't include 'official' vets, either. I think the issue of 'verification' is one of existence and service, not government sanction. Fourth, the official lists changed the rules to include Rene Riffaud (and thus the rules don't seem so important as their marketing efforts). As noted, there is at least one anonymous French veteran not yet releaved. So, the French gov't may be embarrassed if the anonymous vet outlives the three 'official' veterans.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC) _____________________________________________________ Why is it that when we get the list in pretty good shape, someone comes along and does something totally off the wall. I was for removing the "unverified" French Vet. until a name was released. However, to remove a vet because he has not met the french requirements of so many months service is confusing and does not make sense. Please put them back in the list. As a person stated above, if you will read the comments of the other members you should understand why this is not the correct thing to do. (pershinboy) 209.240.206.201 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

Media reports have Charles Brunier joining in 1918, aged 17, and wounded in combat in Syria. However, I'm certain he will NOT get a state funeral. His military honors were stripped in 1923 (after being convicted of murder), why would they be restored now? Further, the French gov't only recognizes "Western front" veterans (a sort of Euro-centric bias, yes). Third, because he was wounded, Brunier served only two months (less than the three-month requirement). Let's not forget that the information on Brunier came from independent sources that were not aware of this Wiki article.

The bigger question is: if the French gov't gives a funeral for the 'last' veteran and then another one emerges, what then? As stated, there is at least one remaining anonymous veteran (alive this month). However my contact dropped contact Jan 16 so I can no longer vouch for the continued existence of this person. My contact did report, for example, Rene Riffaud months before the French gov't noticed, as well as Louis Jaffre.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hans Klöpper

Don't just delete a veteran with no explanation. Give a reason for the deletion.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I also added him to this year's deceased World War I Veterans list, but I didn't know his exact date of death at the time, hence. Extremely sexy 21:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems he died in 2006, not 'this years's list.' In any case, it seems the case is now resolved, but I think we should get more details about deleting someone presented as 'living' who are in fact not. Thanks.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry: "last year's list", but his death has only recently been known. Extremely sexy 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Death of Rene Riffaud

With the death of Rene there is a ever growing chance murderer Charles Brunier is up for a state funeral. Will he get it?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.23 (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Interesting Character Charles Brunier, as far as I can tell, he enlisted with the French Navy, towards the end of WWI, the war in Syria, was I believe actually fought in 1919, and was more of a land grab, in which France carved the nascent states of Syria and Lebanon, out of the defeated Ottoman Empire, jailed for murder on Devils Island, and more relevantly for the purposes of this discussion - stripped of his military honours. Claims to be the basis of Papillon, escapes from Devils Island, fights in WW2, is arrested, and sent back to Devils Island, but is finally pardoned for his role in WW2. It's quite a story, and I imagine there is a reasonable amount of paperwork to back this up.

But whether ever makes it onto the list, depends on whether the pardon, trumps the honors being stripped. My guess would be no. I really can't see a coffin carrying the body of a murderer, being paraded down the Champs d' Elysee.

One other thing that has occured to me, is that the French Navy was one of the biggest in the world at the time. I just wonder if in the focus on the Western front, some of these sailors may have been overlooked. SRwiki 08:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What you did above is a 'thought crime'. Killing someone in combat is NOT murder. It is self-protection.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Legally, and that is all that matters for the sake of this debate the answer is no. Being realistic, this is a rather hypothetical debate, as this will be a matter for the French government to decide. For myself I just can't see it. can you?SRwiki 07:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Right. The French Government has made a decision, and he in no way will be considered as the last, nor will they honor him. Can't blame them really.(PershinBoy)63.3.7.1 23:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Butcher

A while back, a poster here (I forget the name) attacked me for the "vandalism" of removing Stephen Butcher's name, from the living veterans list, even though he was deceased (and I had seen a local newspaper's obituarys section) and demanded proof.

Aside from confirmation from Dennis Goodwin, the UK veterans "guru" as it were, then I repeat below what is held at the London Births, Marriages & Deaths Index for 2005.

Stephen Graham Butcher b. 2 Jan 1904 d. Dec 2005, Portsmouth. (volume Bon-Col Deaths 2005 p 577, entry 4971e)

I hope that now satisfies as enough proof (as I can hardly make up all that information), and with the above information a death certificate can also be obtained should there be any need.

Very shortly, the online versions of these indexes will be updated for online verification as well.

Thanks, Richard J —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.144.160 (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

No: thank you, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Engh

M165.234.180.59 19:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Mathew Engh 1899 August American USA Resides in Grand Forks, North Dakota

This was posted in the Unverified section the other day incorrectly by the poster. Would someone be kind enough to format it the correct manner. Just seems to be an honest mistake. Does anyone else know anything about him or could find any further info? --Brianmccollum 04:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

This claim is too early to determine if its a claim or a hoax. The user who posted it appears to be an established Wikipedian...too bad no news citation was provided. However, the Jim Harrison case (1896?-2004) might be a hoax also...→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ancestry website reveals no Matthew Engh living in North Dakota or any history of a Matthew Engh. Me thinks it is a hoax........

I couldn't find anything either - no newspaper article, Ancestry listing, anything. There are 5 hits for Mattew Engh on Google but none of these could conceivably be a Vet. I would argue that this name shouldn't even be on the unvalidated list - as it doesn't even have a citiation SRwiki 09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

SRwiki why bother saying that? There are higher forces over here on this page. As long as they don't agree with you, Engh's name will remain on the list and people like Mr. Young will bash at you for wanting to make the list shorter

Re the above unsigned comment, the fact that you failed to sign is an indication that what you said is just 'sour grapes,' and without merit. The name is off the list and I didn't try to restore it, did I? So you were wrong. Excuse me for supporting a little investigation. Last I checked, cases like Robley Rex are STILL unresolved. We are still waiting for someone to produce his army draft papers...→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, I have been through US public records & the following Engh's live in Grand Forks, North Dakota: Adam Engh, aged 28; Clarence Engh aged, 35, Robert M Engh, 82, Tim D Engh 35 and that's it.

This is clearly a fake and I shall be deleting it as such. Otherwise people will accept any old nonsense written on the site.

Mr Young can bash away if he likes - but this entry has no substance behind it AT ALL

And so, I was right after all, because I had deleted him immediately, since there was no reference at all, and, moreover, it was indeed an addition by an anonymous user, not an established one, as claimed by Robert Young. Extremely sexy 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bart, you 'cry wolf,' writing 'vandalism' for every change you don't agree with...for example when someone deleted the redundant 'oldest woman' box from the Maria Capovilla page. Yet that was not vandalism, it was a difference of opinion.

Also, I never said it was a real case, I said we need to give time to investigate first...and a little investigation turned up no evidence of existence, so deleting was the proper recourse. That doesn't make me 'wrong' because I thought the case should be checked out thoroughly.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'ship' is sinking

Sad to hear that Robert Meier, seeming in good health, passed away. It does seem that, finally, a LOT of big names are falling in the last 12 months...Emiliano Mercado Del Toro (115), Moses Hardy (113), George Johnson (112), Maurice Floquet (111), Ernest Pusey (111). Even the USA, Italy, and Germany are finally seeing their numbers down to 8, 7, and 6...not good...→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 14:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sad yes, but considering the average age is now 107, not altogether unexpected. --Maelwys 14:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In this month, January up to today the 30th, 6 WW1 Veterans have passed away..that is exactly one every 5 days.. If this continues.. sadly,there comes a time....{User Redpepper1952} 13:00 30th January, 2007

But Meier is a sad exception, since he died not long after suffering a bad fall, otherwise he would have made 110. Extremely sexy 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a real tragedy for someone so old as Meier 109 yrs. to have a bad fall, Very serious, but at least he did not suffer long. (User Redpepper1952)19:14, January 30,2007

Konstanty Jung

1. 1 november 1901-
2. 105 years old
3. http://miastolublin.pl/?m=news&d=17&nr=6626
4. Surviving veteran? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.161.111 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Definitely 105, but there's nothing in that news report that signifies that he is a veteran of World War I (or indeed, any war). Not every man now alive over 100 fought in WWI after all...

Cheers, Richard J

Rudolf Seim

Can anyone backup his move to the 2007 deathlist and confirm his passing? I'd just like to know if it was done by a legit poster because there is no day of month or citation. I hope it is not the same person from the whole Matthew Engh nonsense. --Brianmccollum 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Engh came from "user 165...". This came from "User 87" and appears to be legitimate.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

I have been told by a German colleague that calls to a nursing home were made, but they wouldn't release the date. This is not confirmed but it seems likely that Mr. Seim must have died recently. Notably, he would have been named the oldest man in Germany on Jan 29 2007 if still living. → R Young {^yakł_talk} 00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That was I. I phoned the nursing home in the case of Mr. Velten, not Seim - sorry, I didn't say that clear. There was a little Note in a newspaper that he died a few days ago, We hope we can find the exact date out. Statistician 01.02.2007 10:59 (CET)

A poster on the Yahoo! Group Worlds_Oldest_People claims Rudlof Seim died on 09.01.2007 --Brianmccollum 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

We now have a source and a date for Rudolph Seim. Please stop deleting it.

For you people who think it is equivalent to Solinski: comparing apples and oranges simply won't do. We had someone tell us that Seim had died and a phone call was made. Now, someone found the obit in the newspaper. Far more than we saw people do with the Polish cases.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert, I must respectfully disagree on this point "Far more than we saw people do with the Polish cases" . I have made continued written enquiries about Solinski (previously, and recently again) to his local town asking for more information about him. I'm not sitting on my arse deleting Solinski & saying "I think he went in 2005", I'm trying to do something about it. I accept, and have done so from the start, Seim is dead, but please don't belittle other people's efforts simply because you don't like them.

I AM working on it & hope to produce the evidence one day to confirm it. Please give it time and please have some patience, and less of these little "asides", hmmmm?

Richard J

Has Gheorghe C. Panculescu died?

Afternoon All During an idle moment whilst pretending to work I Googled Gheorghe C. Panculescu and the following came up as a Wikipedia link:

General(r) Corp de Armata Gheorghe C. Panculescu(n.26 martie 1903-d.9ianuarie2007) decorat cu Ordinul Steaua Romaniei in grad de Mare Cavaler(1991) si multe ...

But the link doesn't seem to go anywhere Unfortunately my knowledge of Romanian is non-existent, so I couldn't plough through the Roimanian branch of Wikipedia to track it any further. but it does rather look as though he may have died on the 9th Jan. Has any-one else come across anything to corroborate this? Thanks SRwiki 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Who added this case in the first place? I would assume he died Jan 9 2007 unless someone else says otherwise. Also, with the claimed date of enlistment (May 1918) I think we should add him to the WWI vets who died in Jan 2007. Any objections?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... not certain. There's nothing in the Romanian press about this. All there is one (defunct) wikipedia page.

Not saying he's not dead, but I can't see why there's one rule for Panculescu & another for Solinski. Neither have any PROOF they are dead for certain, after all.

No one said that Solinksi was dead, no one offered a death date. They just said "we didn't see a birthday story this year." If you will, we can make a 'limbo' list for cases where deaths are unconfirmed.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 01:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

One more point: the article was written in Romanian, making it less likely to be a hoax. Also, the writer of the article was apparently unaware or didn't bother to edit the USA version, again making a motive of deception less likely.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

But where is this particular link though? Extremely sexy 16:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Naum Djordjevitch

In the France version of the Wiki you can find Naum Djordjevitch. Anybody knows if this claim is validated? Or is he dead? http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derniers_poilus#Encore_en_vie Statistician 02.02.2007 20:33 (CET)

According to some other sites, Djordjevitch died some time ago, around 1999, I believe.

Can you post one? Statistician 03.02.2007 14:32 (CET)

Antonio Pierro

Mr Pierro passed away this morning, Feb 8 2007. This is confirmed.

Please update accordingly.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn: exactly 1 or 2 weeks before turning 111, so another old man gone. Extremely sexy 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I believe Frank Buckles made it to France as well. I remember reading in an article this past Veterans' Day that he sailed over on the Carpathia, the ship that rescued the Titanic survivors. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Last living/dying Canadian veteran

The Canadian government recently announced (in reaction to an online petition) that when the last surviving Canadian WWI vet dies, he would be given a state funeral, as a way of honouring the memories and sacrifices of all the Canadians who fought in WWI. Should this be mentioned somewhere on the page, either in the header or in the Canada section right above that table? --Maelwys 16:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

What if Mr. Babcock ends up being the last? He was born in Canada. Did his training in Canada. However, not only has he spent most of his life in the USA. He is a United States citizen. Will this bother the Canadians? I Imagine he will wish to be buried in the USA. 209.240.206.209 11:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

He served in the Canadian military during WWI, so he'd be honoured on behalf of all the members of Canada's WWI military, regardless of where he lives now. Anyway, I didn't bring this here to discuss if it was right or wrong, just whether or not we should mention it on this page. --Maelwys 13:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I say place it on there in a brief sentence. It's an interesting tidbit that regular viewers who come across the page aren't going to learn about otherwise.--Brianmccollum 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an interesting tidbit, but does not belong on the main page. If so, we could probably add another 50 or 60 more interesting footnotes and so on. By the way, the three Canadian veterans say they are not interested in a state funeral. I guess they can be honored, but it sounds like all three want a private funeral... No it shouldn't be listed in the main section. 209.240.206.209 02:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles Brunier

The more I read round the case of Charles Brunier, the more some doubts start creeping in. It appears as though his claim to have served in Syria 1919 is undisputed. But how solid is the evidence that he was in the French Navy(?) prior to that? (i.e. During World War 1) The people who run the French dersiders site don't consider him to be a WW1 vet see the bottom of: http://pessimistcynicshistory.blogspot.com/2006/12/dying-world-war-i-veterans-watch.html I am not issuing a full challenge as it were, I suppose I just want some-one to point me at the relevant proof that's all. Thanks SRwiki 09:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if Frédéric Mathieu says so too. Extremely sexy 19:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If Frederic is right, then he would still be a WWI-era veteran. The war on the Eastern front really didn't end until 1923. It's only due to our Eurocentric bias that we see the 1918 date as the war's end. All those who fought at Gallipolli, I suppose, did not count.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 02:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am just wondering how the war dragged on into 1923 on the Eastern Front? Are we talking about the Russian Civil War In which both British and American troops where dispatched to assist the White Russian Forces. Or the dismemberment of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires? If so, I can't see how these could reasonably be considered as part of World War 1 SRwiki 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder, instead, why people defend the remembered 'status quo' instead of re-checking. What about this:

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1918p/lausanne.html

TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE JULY 24, 1923 THE CONVENTION RESPECTING THE REGIME OF THE STRAITS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS SIGNED AT LAUSANNE THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY, JAPAN, GREECE, ROUMANIA and the SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE,

of the one part,

and TURKEY,

of the other part; Being united in the desire to bring to a final close the state of war which has existed in the East since 1914,

AT THE TIME, IN 1923, THIS TREATY WAS VIEWED AS BRINGING "A FINAL CLOSE" TO THE "STATE OF WAR WHICH HAS EXISTED...SINCE 1914." FACT.

We remember history the way we want to, not the way it actually happened. Did the Wright brothers 'invent' the airplane? That's probably the biggest lie of the 20th century. But that's another story.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 08:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point, but to quote article 140 of the peace treaty: "Prizes made during the war between Turkey and the other Contracting Powers prior to the 30th October, 1918, shall give rise to no claim on either side. The same shall apply to seizures effected after that date, for violation of the Armistice, by the Powers who have occupied Constantinople." Note the presence of the word Armistice.

Looking at the Armistice of Mudros treaty signed 30th of Sept. 1918, amongst its provisions, the Ottoman Empire had to give up it's non-Turkic provinces (such as Iraq, Palestine, Syria, etc.) and allow its capital to be occupied by the victorious powers. This looks like a de-facto total surrender, and close of hostilities to my eyes.

There was also another treaty signed in 1920 carving out Kurdistan, - This was never enacted as the Ottoman empire finally collapsed, to be replaced with modern day Turkey, who signed the treaty of Lausanne, which appears to largely re-iterate the earlier Armistice treaty.

There is a fair question as to what constitutes the end of a war. Is it the de-facto - surrender, armistice, fighting stops, or the de-jure - signing of an official peace treaty (which by their nature are always signed some time after cessation of hostilities)? SRwiki 09:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Morning All I have read up on the Syrian Campaign and it was fought in 1919, but crucially it was fought against the short lived State of "Greater Syria" who had broken away from the Ottoman Empire sometime in 1918. This would mean that Charles Brunier did not fight the Ottoman Empire in any meaningful sense of the term. As far as I can see, we have no real evidence that Charles Brunier served in World War 1. I am coming round to the view that Frederic Mathieu, is right on this one, and that Charles Brunier, can be considered as a WW1 era veteran at very best. Thoughts anyone?SRwiki 11:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And if you look at this http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/world_war_i_and_the_early_mandat.php

amongst many other websites, the Chronology of the Syrian War doesn't match up with service in World War 1. "Greater Syria" only comes into being in July 1919, and fighting doesn't break out until Dec, so if Charles Brunier only served for less than three months, then he could have been in the French Army from Sept 1919 at the absolute earliest.

There is still a claim I stumbled across on a website a while ago that he enlisted in the navy at 17, I suppose it is possible that he joined up for a year, and then enlisted in the Army, But it doesn't seem very likely to me, plus I don't think any-one has found any credible evidence, to support this. Sorry to keep on banging on about Charles Brunier, but the more I look the less probable it seems he served in Word War1 SRwiki 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

All the articles claim he joined at age 17, and his service in Syria is confirmed. What is not confirmed is was that service in 1918 or 1919? Since he was born May 1901, to be 17 would have to be between May 1918 and May 1919. Thus he is at least a WWI-era veteran. At least one article says '1918' (but even then, was it before Nov 11 or not?)→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

One more comment: some people here are so anxious to delete anyone. You should let DEATH and not Wikipedia dictate who is the next to go. Get your endorphin fix elsewhere.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Is accusing me of some variant of necrophilia strictly necessary? I haven't suggested a deletion, I have merely noted that actual world war 1 service is unproven. SRwiki 07:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

salut seb, pour répondre a ta question sur louis lagaurnadie, cet ancien poilu n’a pas cumulé 3 mois de front. il est donc exclu de l’ONAC. Aujourd’hui, il n’ a plus aucun souvenir sur la grande guerre et ne s’est jamais considéré comme un ancien poilu. Il y a deux autres personnes comme lui qui sont exclus, un qui souhaiter rester anonyme et l’autre Charles brunier (né en 1901) a perdu toutes ses décorations car il a été condamné pour meurtre après la guerre, pourtant il avait été engagé en février 1918…

Rédigé par: alexis | le 05 février 2007 à 17:12

The above poster seems to be saying that Brunier joined in Feb 1918. Any translators want to comment?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 03:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Charles Brunier again

Morning all. If you scroll back up to the Charles Brunier discussion, you will see that I have been sitting in a corner jabbering away to myself for a while now. I am now suggesting that Charles Bruniers WW1 service record is not proven, as the chronology and details of the French military action in Syria don't match up to WW1 service. So I am proposing to move him either to the WW1 era category, or my own preference to the not validated section. But as you know, I always sound out the opinions of my fellow Wikipedians, before doing anything, so fire away. But can we have a clean fight, and if any one has got solid evidence one way or the other, please put it on the table SRwiki 09:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the notes for Charles Brunier have been reverted back to fighting against the Ottoman Empire. By my reading this is incorrect, the French action in Syria, was against the "rebel" (- for want of a better word) state of "Greater Syria" (Again for want of a better term)led by King Faisal - Not by Mehmet VI, the last Ottoman Sultan. I cannot really see how this action could be reasonably interpreted as being taken against the Ottoman Empire. SRwiki 08:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see Charles Brunier has re-appeared as a full Veteran as it where, can some one outline the reasons why he should be considered as a full WW1 veteran. I think I have provided some valid reasons for doubt. Largely based around the fact that the French Action in Syria, was in 1919, and in no meaningful sense against the Ottoman Empire, and therefore that the chronology of Charles Brunier's service did not really match the chronology of the First World War (other than a claim I stumbled across on the web that he was in the French navy prior to 1918: http://www.ruerude.com/2005/12/the_real_papill.html). If someone has any contradictory evidence, can they, please, put it up for discussion? SRwiki 09:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

SRWiki,

There is something to be said for patience. To assume or presume that we know the full answers, from now and forevermore, is not a good strategy for dealing with Wikipedia. Based on the weight of the evidence, I would say leave Brunier where he is. As your source above mentioned, he joined in 1918.

This one below:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:hlB0J5FTgjkJ:jolagier.blog.lemonde.fr/comments/feed/+Charles%2BBrunier%2B1918&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us

Says he joined in Feb 1918. The only '1919' comments I've seen have come from people posting to this message board. Also, the person who added Brunier back was not me, so obviously someone else thinks he should be there.

I don't see you giving any other case such scrutiny...unless you can come up with solid evidence that contradicts all the articles that say 1918, I say leave him where his is.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 13:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've given a few others a good look over, (Panelescu, Bolaise etc) but this case is the one, that didn't fall one way or the other to my satisfaction. But as a few things are coming out of net giving pre Nov 1918 dates, I will put my misgivings aside (They are largely about chronology and the likelihood of an underage teenager getting into an almost entirely conscript armed forces - my understanding is that France drafted at 18 by the end of WW1, as opposed to its historic 19) SRwiki 15:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Charles Brunier has died

Morning All

There is a fair amount of web-chatter in French regarding the death of Charles Brunier at the start of February, for instance there is an obituary at: http://chezmartine.canalblog.com/archives/2007/02/06/3918105.html dated 6th Feb. I have moved him to the 2007 deaths page. Thanks. SRwiki 08:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Using my schoolboy level French I have been able to narrow the date down to somewhere between 1st and 4th of Feb., so, can anyone narrow the date down any further? SRwiki 08:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey there, I just found http://www2.leparisien.com/search/resultat.html (in French). It shows that on January 29th, 2007, date of the news, Charles Burnier had passed away not long before... so, all in good faith, it seems that he died at the end of the month of January. Sincerily, Paris75000 10:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Merci. SRwiki 10:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It says "last Friday", so, that's January 26th, and I just corrected it accordingly as well. Extremely sexy 12:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC) According to the French Wikipedia, he died Jan 26 2007 => http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Brunier. → R Young {yakłtalk} 03:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still awaiting the standing ovation I deserve for this, people. Extremely sexy 22:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5