Jump to content

Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Suspicious?

Is anyone else concerned that the, apparently experienced, user who changed the title of this article seems to have created their account to edit this article and only one other ( An )? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 11:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Indef blocked as a sock of a banned user, they were clearly only editing that other article to get around the semi-protection. Hut 8.5 12:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I've move-protected the article too - any admin can unprotect it if there's a consensus for a new name -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Which, at this stage, is scarcely likely; Green's death would moot the whole thing.  Ravenswing  14:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Florence Green

With all due respect to Florence Greene, the life she led and the service she gave, these articles are for soldiers. She was a waitress. While I understand her inclusion may be a result of political correctness and semantics (a "veteran"), she should not be included on this list. Leave it for the real veterans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.4.63 (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, the article is not for soldiers, it is for veterans, as it says in both the title and the opening sentence. And I think we really have to use the accepted definition of the word, not your personal redefinition - the article is for all surviving people who took part in WW I in whatever capacity -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and going on independent sources (which is the Wikipedia way), she appears to be generally considered a war/military veteran - see the sources given at Florence Green -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, now. Are you claiming that Frank Buckles, a sixteen year old boy who drove ambulances, was a "soldier?" That Claude Choules, a fourteen year old boy doing a cadet stint, was a "soldier?" Oh, no, no such claim was made. And why was that? Because, of course, they were males, and "politically correct" teabaggers - most of whom are civvie chickenhawks who've never been closer to live firing than their TV remotes - would never think to question the service of a male. Were you genuinely interested in paying "all due respect" to a woman who wore the uniform of her country, you never would have uttered a word.  Ravenswing  11:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has no relevance merely for the fact that Florence Green was a veteran and this page is about veterans. However I must point out to you that Florence Green's position as a waitress was not her choice. The reason why people generally are so prejudiced against the idea of female veterans is because females had, for the most part, their contribution ignored, and you did not get female soldiers like we did today. Let's not show any unjustified prejudice against anyone, it's totally unfair and simply wrong. burbridge92 (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I recently saw an article that now lists Claude Choules as the last World War I "serviceman" (or serviceperson) so maybe we could add that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Last serviceman is ok, but not person, as that excludes Florence Green, and if no one else is found to be alive, and Mr. Choules happens to be the next to go - Florence Green would be the last WWI veteran in the world - like it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.204.248.86 (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC) I think you must get an idea of where these people served; was it at the front line, exposed to combat? all soldiers are given jobs, some are medics some are cooks. It matters where they have seen service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonken (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I consider Florence Green to be a Service-Person since she didn't serve on the front lines, in my opinion in order to be a Service-Person you need to serve on the front lines in some capacity (although not necessarily in active combat- I did consider Frank Buckles to be a Service-Person) otherwise you would have no distinction between a Service-Person and an overall veteran. My grandfather served as a chef during World War II but was also a combat veteran for part of the war so it is possible to be both but Florence Green was not (but she is still a "veteran"). Although I guess now that Claude Choules has passed away it isn't as important of an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirected to Last surviving veteran of World War I

With only one qualifying entry, this does not warrant a list. Doubly so, when the above mentioned article with a more concise title already exists, it is then obviously a redundant WP:POVFORK appropriate for deletion, however redirection has been settled upon as a best compromise]]FascistCommandantToBeLookedUpTo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

Please read the very lengthy discussions above and in the archives, and do not redirect this page against consensus - if you can get a new consensus to redirect it, that will be fine, but your bold change has now been reverted and you must not edit war to put it back -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and the redirect page Last surviving veteran of World War I is one you just created, to direct to Florence Green -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Blocked as another sockpuppet. Hut 8.5 21:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Full-protected

Article is now full-protected, as SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk · contribs) is now blatantly busting autoconfirmed to edit the article. All users will need to use the {{Request edit}} to request edits to the article. Sorry, folks. –MuZemike 23:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Quite alright. Too many sticky hands out there, and when all is said and done, the only remaining edit TO be made would come upon Green's death. At that point, the list becomes moot.  Ravenswing  23:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I brought it down to 24 hours (as til August is a bit long anyways, stupid protection interface); however, it should go right back to semi-protection once it expires tomorrow. –MuZemike 23:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
24 hours is pointless - his MO is to come back every few weeks with a new autoconfirmed account -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
This article should be fully protected until 1 of 5 things occur:
  1. Either Kowalski or Green dies.
  2. A new veteran who fulfills the criteria for inclusion is found.
  3. There is consensus that Kowalski does not meet the criteria for an era veteran.
  4. There is consensus to change the criteria for era veterans such that Kowalski no longer meets it.
  5. There is consensus that era veterans are not to be included at all in this article.
DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
That logic seems sound. However, indefinite full protection seems to run contrary to the very nature of this project. We've dealt with persistant vandals before (i.e. Muhammad, Virgin Killer). I think the best solution is to let the current full protection run its course, and then simply WP:RBI. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Well it is all a bit of a shame; I've never been an advocate of every inclusion on this list but as this is still living memory I think that consensus should be respected, the history of this page will in time be a history itself as for many years the lazy popular press of the UK have just copied and pasted from here too often now. Not that it's a justification, but those that think they know about WWI history should be wary about crying synthesis until they've read a book or three on the whole horrible history. RichyBoy (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

And again

It's just been part-blanked again, so I've fully protected it for a month -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: If anyone wants to make legitimate edits, please use {{Edit protected}}. I have this page watchlisted and will see any requests myself anyway -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Jozef Kowalski Evidence

Are we definitely aware that Jozef Kowalski is still alive? I discussed previously whether other supposed unverified war veterans (cases like Andy Rasch and Kashi Ram Rai) should be included on this page with the unverified veterans table added again, but it was pointed out that there was little information online with regards to these individuals to suggest that they were still alive, and it would create an awkwardness in including them on the page as there would be a need to find such information.

I've researched Kowalski's situation online, particularly I've searched through Polish news websites to look for information on Kowalski. I haven't been able to find anything that hasn't dated back a few years. This has lead me to ask the question of his continued inclusion on this page, are we sure? Can anyone find anything fairly recent to verify that he is still alive?Burbridge92 (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I typed his name into Google and quickly found this, which is dated February of this year. Our article also cites sources to document a claim that he celebrated his 110th birthday (in 2010). Given that his birthdays are generating news coverage I suspect his death would as well. The main problem with the two cases you mention isn't that they may be dead but that there is little evidence they ever fought in the First World War in the first place. Hut 8.5 23:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Strangely enough I hadn't found that. Thanks for the confirmation. Also, with regards to the other cases I mentioned, am I wrong in thinking that there was an unverified claimant table on this page at one stage? I do believe it featured Douglas Edward Terrey. In all honesty I agree that unconfirmed cases shouldn't be included, it's just the general consensus that was gathered before was that there was very little information to suggest that the claimants were still alive, due to their not getting media attention for their supposed work in the first place.Burbridge92 (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
There used to be such a section, yes [1] (though the two people in it are dead now). The cases which were included did have newspaper reports supporting their claims, and the claims made were fairly minor (Terrey claimed to have delivered messages around Southampton, for instance). Hut 8.5 09:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Which brings me to my next point: That all of the wikipedia's should follow the same pattern with regards to veteran claimants. I know for a fact that Kashi Ram Rai is listed on the Simple English version of wikipedia in the table for World War I veterans, even though he is an unconfirmed veteran of the conflict. Other users claim that the wiki is subjected to it's own rules, but it should still contain factual information and not speculation.Burbridge92 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
As you've realised the English Wikipedia doesn't have jurisdiction over any other language or version, and any consensus here has no validity across other projects. Hut 8.5 17:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. As flawed as the logic is, a consensus is needed.Burbridge92 (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


Type his name on Youtube and you'll also see a video from February which has Kowalski speaking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zz pot (talk • contribs) 03:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

But that was 4 (almost 5) months ago at his age their is a chance that he could have passed away since (but at the same time we have no proof of that) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe it is Wikipedia policy to presume a person to be living in the absence of definitive proof of their death. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
That's for determining whether certain rules apply to the article, not for deciding whether someone can be included in a list of elderly people. Hut 8.5 19:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Removing Kowalski because there's no proof he's still alive violates BLP. To remove him from this list there either has to be a (reliable) source indicating he has died or there needs to be consensus that he does not qualify as veteran for the purposes of this article. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
His last update was from February. Why are we so eager to remove him? It appears to be original research saying that he is the last WWI era veteran. It MUST be changed to WWI era-veterans again. We have no proof confirming he is the last. Kowalski needs to stay. He hasn't had an update for a year between his 109th and 110th birthday.
If you can't find an update for Kowalski, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist :-)

This is just yesterday's update: http://www.kurier-w.pl/?p=7303

Same for Florence Green - no update since FEBRUARY. Are we going to remove her too? This is rediculous. Unverified supercentenarians remain on List of living supercentenarians unless they have not had a source confirming that they are living within the past year. It seems absurd to remove Kowalski now after keeping him on this page for YEARS. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Although what proof do we have that Florence Green is the last "veteran" of the war, don't forget that she wasn't even discovered as a veteran until early 2010 so who's not to say that there are not others out there that we don't know of. We also know that Florence Green was alive as of the death of Claude Choules in early May since it was mentioned in several articles. Although if we have no proof that either of them died then we must assume living although I can bet that Florence Green's death will be heavily covered as the last known overall veteran of the conflict so we won't even have to worry about missing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I am saying that there are reliable sources confirming Florence Green is the last link to the Great War, such as The Daily Mail or ABC News. There are NONE stating Mr. Kowalski being the last WWI-era veteran. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, we cannot know for certain that Florence Green is the last link to the Great War, there is a difference between the "last surviving veteran of the First World War" and the "last CONFIRMED veteran of the First World War". There are at least three others who claim to have fought in the First World War, but they have yet to provide legitimate evidence for their claims. However their claims have not been refuted. Of course, we have little information on these individuals as a result, and this, aswell as the fact that their contribution has not been verified, is why we overlook these individuals (Kashi Ram Rai is a prime example, in fact he is included on the Simple English Wiki's version of this page).Burbridge92 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that several of the individuals that are commenting on this topic need to re-read what the topic is about, as the comments seem to be heading out-of-context. I never asserted that "we should assume Jozef Kowalski is dead because there hasn't been any recent mentions of him in the media". I was merely questioning what we knew about Kowalski due to the fact that I, having searched for information on him, hadn't been able to find anything for the past five years or so, and wanted to ensure that someone editing this page was knowledgeable about the situation and on top of things (due to the logic that Andy Rasch and Kashi Ram Rai can't be included on the page for the same reason). Hut 8.5 demonstrated that we are informed, therefore the topic is a non-issue.Burbridge92 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill Tapia

Uncle Bill "Tappy" Tapia born January 1, 1908 is an American musician, born in Honolulu, Hawaii, of Portuguese parents. At age 10, Tapia was already a professional musician playing "Stars and Stripes Forever" for World War I troops in Hawaii. Should this individual be mentioned on this page in some manner? TFBCT1 (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless he was enlisted in the armed forces, which seems highly unlikely, then No. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
He's not a veteran, either combat or otherwise, so he shouldn't be included on this page for that reason.Burbridge92 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A moment of reflection

This article as a time capsule. Mortality, and those last to see the "War to End All Wars". SamuelRiv (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely if there's to be a time capsule then it should be correct, in which case Florence Green's name needs to be included somehow. She is the last surviving veteran afterall, and as such is eligible for the UK section. Burbridge92 (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
She wasn't discovered as veteran until early 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
That's beside the point. The time capsule is still inaccurate regardless of when she was discovered, after all, she still existed back then. SAULGNRFAN (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for politicizing a spiritual stoic moment. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy Rasch

Fox News mentions Andy Rasch as a veteran of World War I and II. [2] Another article states a local television station verified his service as a WWI veteran. [3] He states he does not care about his lack of recognition, but it seems that more should be known about this man. If this claim has not been definitively debunked, should he be included as a surviving WWI veteran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.114.187 (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Check the talk archives for previous claims about Mr. Rasch. No record of his service in World War I has been found. The photograph of him in the article about centenarians where his service ribbons are displayed does not show any indication of US Navy service. Clearly, though, US Army Reserve service ribbons can be seen. I have searched U.S. Census records for any mention of Andrew (Andy) Rasch. All hits turn up negative for this gent. If the Veterans' Administration has verified his service in World War I, I would personally like to see that documentation. Personally, my opinion is that Mr. Rasch is exaggerating his claim of service in World War I. --Spacini (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Up until Douglas Terrey died in june 2010 the article had a section for unverified WW1 veterans: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I&oldid=370815675 The criteria to be included there was: "These are claims that were included in the press, but have not been verified by a government-sanctioned body or actual records located. To be a claim there must be at least a citation." The reason Andy wasn't included before is that the only mention of him was in a blog - there were doubts he even existed. Now we have mentions of him being alive + his claim in regular media, so the unverified WW1 category must be reinserted. Here is some live footage from Mr Rasch's recent birthday: http://www.todaysthv.com/news/watercooler/175992/70/The-Centenarian-Man-turns-110 Hepcat65 (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
No, we don't have to reinsert it. Were Rasch to have his own article, mention of the dispute would be pertinent there, but this article is List of surviving veterans of World War I, not List of rumored claims of .... Ravenswing 11:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Noone *has* to do anything here, it's all volonteer work to supply information for everyone who might be interested in a subject. This article has a several year long history where a consensus has been built on how to handle claims and verified information. Claims that are backed by a reliable source like a newspaper has been included before, other claims found in self published books and blogs hasn't been considered important enough to be included. Whether the subject has their own article has never been any consideration for inclusion among the unverified (WW1 era claimant Alex Imich has an article, but isn't included here since news articles never mentions his possible war service, they talk about other things he has done later in life). The name of the article is neither "list of surviving veterans from WW1 era wars" - but a long standing consensus has been built giving Mr Kowalski a place in the list. Mr Rash's claim may or may not be verified at some point, I don't know - but he deserves a place in the unverified list until then. He is included among the unverified supercentenarians in the List of living supercentenarians. Hepcat65 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
The logic that no one has to do anything because Wikipedia is run by volunteers is absurd. There are rules and regulations on Wikipedia in the form of guidelines, the same as for any other website. Andrew Rasch should be included under the rules of this article which do state that unverified veterans can be included if there is a media sources to suggest that they did participate in the war. If anyone opposes this then the rules which this page have abided by previously need to be changed by consensus. SAULGNRFAN (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy Rasch is a confirmed WW1 combat Veteran. He was confirmed by the United States Veterans Administration. On his 110 Birthday he gave overwhelming evidence to prove it to the news media including his world war one military papers. His military Awards and a picture of his ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence for your claim in the form of references. Making a statement won't cut it on here without proof. SAULGNRFAN (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
And I'm rather surprised that you think a picture of a ship is evidence he served on it. Hut 8.5 09:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Unverified: fine. But I am working with the National World War I Museum in Kansas City to determine if Mr. Rasch's service claim really is legitimate. His claim has been "out there" too long to have gone unofficially noted by even one of the many Great War research groups; it is time we put this debate to rest. If official U.S. records exist, they will be scanned and made available for everyone to see. Stay tuned. --Spacini (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

For proof you need contact KSAZ Fox 10&KUTP MY45 511 W.Adams Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 phone number 1-602-257 1234 ask For Verification of the Andy Rash Story. Also can contact Department of Veterans Affairs 810 Vermont Ave. Nw 20420; www.va.gov ask for verification of Service of Andy Rash be specific and state for the years of 1917 and 1918. If you have any other problems with verification post them here . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:V requires that statements be attributed to a reliable published source. If something hasn't been published we can't use it, and that includes editors contacting media outlets. Hut 8.5 17:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am 99% certain that this man is a World War 1 Veteran. If you want to hold out for the last 1% under the assumption that a 110 year old man is an expert in aging paper to make it look like it came from the World war One era and can use photo shop to an extent it can fool the experts so be it. The question you have to ask yourself is why would he go to all the trouble to do this when he has so little time left in life? Maximum male proven life span 115 years and he is 110 right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether you are 99% sure he is a veteran is irrelevant. Whatever motivation someone might have for claiming to be a WWI veteran are irrelevant. To be a verified veteran there must be proof acceptable to a recognised authority. For wikipedia to accept this that information must be available in a reliable published source. Until then he remains unverified. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I would add that we do have plenty of sources which describe Frank Buckles as the last American veteran or Claude Choules as the last combatant, and claims that Rasch is an American combatant contradict these. Exaggerated claims of extreme age are unfortunately quite common and even if Rasch does have a piece of paper verifying his service (a claim which isn't made in either source cited) then that doesn't mean much. Even Shirali Muslimov, who claimed to have lived to the age of 168 (!!) had an official piece of paper which said that was his age. Hut 8.5 19:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If you read the resources connected to this man you will see on the second paragraph of the second story "Joined the Navy and has the documentation to prove it". This man showed the news crew his World War One discharge papers. That is why the called him a World War one veteran. If you would have called the phone number provided to you you would have found that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Again phone numbers are not acceptable as sources here. I don't think the National Centenarian Awareness Project is a particularly reliable source, especially for a claim as remarkable as this, and even they claim that Frank Buckles is the last American veteran in a separate part of their website.[4] Hut 8.5 18:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday I received word from Jonathan Casey, Museum Archivist of the National WWI Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, that Andy Rasch's service claim was investigated by the Museum three years ago. His manager at the time was working with the U.S. National Archives & Records Administration (NARA) Personnel Records Center to verify both Frank Buckles and Andy Rasch. NARA has no records of any kind to verify Mr. Rasch's service; however, his WWII service records were verified. Mr. Buckles was, of course, nationally recognized upon his death as the last surviving U.S. veteran of WWI and was honored at the National WWI Museum in May 2008 (where I was fortunate enough to meet him). I am firmly of the opinion that Mr. Rasch is exaggerating his WWI service claim and should be removed from the unverified list. It is a gross miscarriage of scholarship to include him in the article until NARA or another official U.S. government organization can show proof of his service aboard the Oklahoma during WWI. Personally, I refuse to believe his claim until such documents are published. --Spacini (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Me neither. Truly, this is a straightforward thing. Is he on the crew list? No? Then all this is is hot air put forth by a very old man. Ravenswing 18:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, remove him. Including him contradicts the numerous sources which explicitly identify Buckles as the last American veteran, I doubt a surviving veteran would go largely unnoticed by the media. Of the sources cited [5] is a local news organisation which doesn't claim that his service has been verified in any way, [6] says that "The station verified his service with the Veterans Administration", but I suppose this could just be confirmation that he served in WWII, and even that source says "Mr. Buckles is recognized as the last surviving WWI veteran". Hut 8.5 19:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If you believe this then must say the World War 1 Discharge papers he has in his personal possession are phony. Do you have proof his personal papers are phony? You must remember the government had a great fire that burned up many records of war veterans of the Spanish American War, Punitive expedition, World War 1. This disaster happened in the 1970's before many records were microfilmed. How do you explain his World War one navy uniform? You think he bought one of those at a flea market just to trick us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not for us to prove a negative. Show us the papers, have them verified by the US Government or by an independent authority such as Jonathan Casey, and we will believe you. We have been round this one many many times before - show the evidence. By the way I have my great grandfather's WWI Military Medal but that doesn't make me a veteran.... We have also been round the Florence Green issue as well and the consensus is that she is a veteran. Mithrandir1967 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Casey allegedly had a unidentified manager look for records of Andy 3 years ago and was unsuccessful. Did he contact Andy personally at his home and personally view his evidence? No he did not. Unless you go directly to the source and view the evidence personally you have not thoroughly investigated his claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

While I don't disagree that Mr. Rasch shouldn't be included as a living veteran of WW1 given the lack of documentation (rules are rules after all), it does make me speculate upon the difficulties of the next generation that attempts to do the same thing with the last of the WW2 veterans. I can imagine the debates over 9 year olds in the battle of Berlin carrying panzerfausts having been nominally "drafted" into the Volksgrenadier to help ward off the Soviets - but without any surviving paperwork to prove such. Just think, these debates might not cease until after 2050, well over 100 years after the end of that war. (Mekozak (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC))

There is evidence to prove that the uniformed Hitler youth fought in the Battle of Berlin. A few were as young as age 12 I dont believe any 9 year old children were in those units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a photo on page 2307 of the book "History of the Second World War" published by Barrie Pitt that shows a picture of what is identified as a ten year old boy in uniform. He looks like a baby. The fact that this ten year old is in uniform makes be believe very seriously that the Nazis were capable of using even younger kids if the need suited them. A sub ten year old passing ammunition in an urban fight, even if not in uniform, deserves to be considered more a soldier than even a Florence Green type (or any male service type behind the lines) by putting themselves in harms way to support their fighting forces. And that is what I am sure will come as the last remaining WW2 veterans die off. (Mekozak (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC))

Continued speculation regarding possible WWII veterans is not relevant to this thread or even to this article. As noted in the template at the top of the page "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Quite aside from that while there were (hrm) paramilitary organizations that were not part of the Heer placing children in uniform a generation later, is Mekozak or anyone else seriously suggesting that this was the case in World War I, the putative subject of this article? No, they are not ... for the simple reason that it didn't happen. We can all think of many wars that operated under different rules than WWI. They are not, here, pertinent. Ravenswing 00:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know where Andy Rasch lives? I'd like to write him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.23.72.45 (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy lives in Phoenix Arizona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Florence Green

Should an individual who served as a waitress in England during the last two month of World War I be considered a verified veteran? As a woman in a non-medical field, she had no chance of being placed in a war zone, and her job was not a recognized military speciality nor was it a critical wartime function. Furthermore, the WRAF is listed as an auxiliary organization and does not meet the definition of a true military organization. WRAF members appear no different than USO personnel or wartime female factory workers. Just because the UK government considers her a WWI veteran does not mean she should be accepted without qualification as a veteran on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.114.187 (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The requirement is clearly stated in the lede "Veterans, for this purpose, are defined as people who were members of the armed forces...". Florence Green meets that requirement. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Claude Choules was the last surviving WWI veteran. Florence Green is not a WWI veteran because she was not in the armed forces. She was in an auxiliary organization that was created specifically to free up men to fill the actual armed forces. She is no more a veteran than Rosie the Riveter or a man who stayed stateside to run a family farm. At least those jobs actually contributed to the war effort, unlike waitressing. Veteran status is worthy of debate (e.g. Mary Edwards Walker, Buffalo Bill, and merchant seamen during WWII), so it is fair to question whether she qualifies as a true veteran. It seems an insult to Allingham, Patch, Choules, Buckles and other actual veterans that a 17-year-old waitress who never left the UK is given the same designation as them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.114.187 (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC) — 71.226.114.187 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This has been discussed and discussed again, both about Green, and earlier veterans who served in non-combat roles far from the front (such as the United States). It was the consensus that Ms. Green WAS in the military and IS a veteran. If she was a man who slung hash in the same barracks we would not be debating this. Unlike 'Rosie the Riveter', Green was in the military. Czolgolz (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Exactly; this, like the previous attempts to denigrate Green's service, never would have happened were she a man. Seriously, now. Are you claiming that Frank Buckles, a sixteen year old boy who drove ambulances, was a "soldier?" That Claude Choules, a fourteen year old boy doing a cadet stint, was a "soldier?" Oh, no, no such claim was made. And why was that? Because, of course, they were males, and the civvie chickenhawks who've never been---------------------- closer to live firing than their TV remotes would never think to question the service of a male.

That the British government considers the membership of uniformed personnel in their military services to, well, constitute military service is exactly the determining factor, because - as Wikipedia requires - it reflects fact, rather than opinion. That's no insult to the likes of messires Allingham, Patch, Buckles, Choules, Ponticelli and all the rest. The insult comes when civvies take it upon themselves to claim that war veterans weren't "real" veterans because their service wasn't manly enough. Ravenswing 18:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

She is a veteran because she was enlisted during war time. Does not matter that her "service" to her country was wiping down tables. Andy Rasch is the last combat veteran which should be confirmed to everyone's satisfaction very soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, the organization she "enlisted" into does not meet the definition of a miltary organization, and therefore, she should not be considered a veteran. If the UK awarded every WRAF member a Victoria Cross, it would not change the fact that the WRAF (and Ms. Green's "unit", in particular) was a pseudo-military organization filling civilian jobs so that men could serve in the actual armed forces. The male/female arguments here are all political correct nonsense that do not refute that central point. The fact that a government feels someone fits their criteria to be declared a veteran does not mean that the rest of the world should suspend reason and common sense. If 50 years from now, the US government declares all of today's Hooters girls veterans because they raised morale around military bases, does that mean only a misogynistic shirker would dare question that decision? At the very least, the only fair thing to do is put an asterisk by Ms. Green's name and be done with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.114.187 (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The Women's Royal Air Force was, according to that article, a branch of the Royal Air Force, which is most definitely a military organisation. Like it or not Green was a member of the armed forces of one of the combatant countries at the time of the armistice. The fact that there was never any possibility of her seeing combat does not mean she is not a veteran. The article already notes where and how Green served and anyone who wants more details can check her article. Hut 8.5 20:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
"Definition of a military organization?" Whose definition would that be, exactly? The Women's Royal Air Force was a uniformed service, with military ranks, under military discipline, and under the authority of a recognized national government. That's good enough for the United Kingdom, and that's good enough for the provisions of the Geneva Convention, and that's good enough for Wikipedia. Whether it's good enough to suit your amour propre is neither here nor there. And of course this is a male/female thing - you don't question the service of Frank Buckles, a teenage ambulance driver who never came close to combat. In any event, your opinion has been noted. Ravenswing 02:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
The question here is not the proximity to combat or the military specialty. Frank Buckles served in the US Army, not an ad hoc pseudo-military expedient intended to free up able-bodied men to serve in the actual armed forces. Denigrating the true military service of Mr. Buckles or Claude Choules, who served in the Royal Navy, does not bolster Ms. Green's case. The definition of a military organization can vary, but it does not include a temporary corps of civilians filling civilian jobs. Uniforms and ranks mean nothing if the stated purpose of your organization is to simply fill civilian positions until the men come home from war. This contention that Ms. Green is the last surviving WWI veteran appeases those with a politically correct ax to grind, and Wikipedia should not continue to propagate this fantasy. Full disclosure of her disputable veteran claim should be included in this article so readers can draw their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.114.187 (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no dispute except by you. You are in fact wasting everybody's time by continuing with this. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
No one else, except anyone with common sense would dispute this.

Don't worry so much about Green . The last combat veteran is Andy Rasch once the discharge papers from his World War One service are verified by everyone even the 1% ers that doubt everything. He will be the one that anyone cares about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

NO I talked to someone on the film crew who personally saw a Navy uniform from WW1 and discharge papers from WW1 produced by Andy Rasch for proof. I go by facts not wishes. Why dont you go see Mr Rasch for your self and put all doubts you have on his honesty to rest. Unless the T.V station is lying and broadcasted that lie to the nation . He is a legitimate WW1 Veteran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Which tb station aired the program, and what was the name of the program? That way others can check it out MilkStraw532 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
So what? I have a Korean War paratroopers' uniform hanging in my closet. That doesn't mean I served in the Korean War ... which, come to that, took place a few years before I was born. (The uniform, in fact, was my uncle's.) Frankly, I think a lot more of verifiable government records than I do about surplus uniforms or the gullibility of local yokel reporters chasing interesting stories, few of whom likely know what a legitimate WWI discharge paper looks like. Ravenswing 20:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My fox phoenix .com story covered by fox 10 news phoenix. Story filed October 5, 2011 Andy Rasch 110 birthday. Phone number for station 1-602-257-1234. Is in one of two references where they confirm his WW1 service. The confirmation was given because he had a WW1 sailors uniform and WW1 discharge papers as proof of service. Anyone who doubts his service should go to Phoenix talk to Andy and see his evidence themselves before trying to degrade this honored veteran.

I believe that makes it official, he is indeed a honored veteran. and really really old.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
No it does not make it official. Not only is a news item not "official" (that wiki determines that any news item is a WP:Reliable source (sic)), but (assuming when you say "my...story" you mean you had direct involement in its production) use of something you have published/produced yourself is also WP:OR and against wiki policy. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Try this [9]. Doesn't look 110 years old to me...DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Call the phone number if you are having trouble. The number is once again 1-602-257-1234. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be pointless, phoning someone verifies nothing. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Phoning the station and asking for proof of their story about his WW1 service might get a follow up story. The follow up story could answer all your questions. What is the harm in making a phone call? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone in the Phoenix area have any interest in this story? I would think that the local VFW or American Legion would take up his cause if there was any chance it was true. Hopefully, it is true and he outlives Florence Green so she won't be considered the last veteran of WWI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.114.187 (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it's bad taste to hope that one veteran dies before another, just so your 'favorite' is the last one. Czolgolz (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey they're both 110 years old, and one them has to die first. There's nothing wrong with rooting for the American to be the last one standing, especially when Green isn't really a veteran anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.114.187 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
You're cheering for a 110 year old woman to die because she served her country during a war. Take a deep breath, dude. Czolgolz (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You're being a hell of a lot kinder than I'd be. Only WP:CIVIL prevents me from saying what I think of a civvie who'd genuinely cheer for someone to die out of nothing more than chauvinism and misogyny. Ravenswing 04:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Amen. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Starting to look a bit spurious there ...

Huh. Just on a lark, I checked both veromi.net and spokeo.com for "Andrew Rasch" in Arizona generally, and in Phoenix, and the only hit is for an Andrew R. Rasch ... who's listed as being 81 years old. [10] DerbyCounty's comment about the guy not looking 110 years old sounds more pointed all the time. (Just having seen the clip for myself, I find I agree.)

So I have to ask this: what verifiable evidence exists that this guy is the age people claim he is, never mind being a WWI veteran? I note, for instance, that he does not appear on the GRG's list of verified living supercentenarians. [11] Without such evidence, with nothing more than a film clip from a credulous local TV station, I propose we delete him from the main article at once as a spurious claim, however much that Phoenix TV station was buffaloed. This is an insult to all true and legitimate veterans who proudly wore - and wear - the uniforms of their countries. Ravenswing 00:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I reached the same conclusion. Also, a search of the 1910, 1920, and 1930 U.S. Censuses come up negative. The closest entry is an Andrew Rasch who was born in 1900 and lived in Chicago during that era; however, subsequent records show that this Mr. Rasch died in 1967. Personally, I think we should let the GRG do its work before taking him off the list Genius In the Lamp (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

That is the wrong Andrew Rasch. If he was 81 that would mean he was born in 1930 and be way two young to even serve in WW2. He would have been 15 years old in 1945. Before you post something so ridiculous stop and think . You dont want to appear stupid in your post. Go to Arizona talk to him about his claim and view his proof in person before making a wild claim that he is a fake. That is what a true researcher would do to find out the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC) AS for census data there are plenty of people that dont fill out the governments census form .Some people just have no use for the government and do not want the government to know their business. Call any government agency related to the census and they will tell you that there has never been 100% compliance in the history of the country. I have never filled out one and neither has my father or grandfather. SO I guess I dont exist because I have never been in the census data system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Hello anonymous person above, you say to people to go and speak to Andy so he can show them his proof right? Firstly, have you seen this supposed proof? Secondly Wikipedia isn't about personal research so it wouldn't make a difference to this article. If you had any evidence that he was a veteran I'd assume you'd have given it by now. Grow up and stop having a go at someone whose done research. Cls14 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hm. At age 81 he'd have been too young to serve in WWII? Well, yes, unless he lied about his age - hmm, what a concept - he would have been, yes. I haven't seen any reliable sources affirming that he did serve in WWII either, come to that. As to people not wanting to give the government the time of day, somehow all those people cosy up very well when it comes to collecting their Social Security and Medicare, at which point they, well, disclose their age. In fact, one of the key elements in research into age claims is exactly this: is there record of retirements or petitioning for appropriate senior benefits at or around customary retirement age? Plainly, therefore, were Mr. Rasch as old as he claimed, he should have petitioned for Social Security in the late 1960s ... and this would be on file. No evidence has been proffered that it is. Were Mr. Rasch genuinely a serving sailor in WWI, he should be on the crew lists and in the Navy's records ... and this would be on file. No evidence has been proffered that he is.

    Frankly, this is the last I'm going to respond to any of the small horde of anonymous IPs concerning the threadbare merits of Mr. Rasch's claims, the more so in that they are so insistent on pushing these claims forward seemingly far more out of a wish to discredit Florence Green than out of disinterested research. I urge them to start with the links at WP:PILLAR to learn how Wikipedia works, what our standards of proof are, and how one writes articles. That a man has a WWI uniform hanging in a closet and talks up a good game means nothing. Ravenswing 20:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that there is not only no substantial evidence that Mr Rasch's claim is credible but some that indicates that it is in fact false, and before we get into an edit war, I support leaving him off the list until more reliable evidence is available. By "reliable" I mean more than "I talked to him so it's true". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I support that as well. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that has been proven is that none of you bothered to contact Andy Rasch or bothered to call the T.V. station and ask for proof of the story on his W.W.1 service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The lead paragraph is very good as it tells us who several of the "last" veterans were. BUT... as this war was mostly famous for it's horrible trenches, I feel the "last" person to have served in the trenches - as a combatant - should also be included in that lead paragraph. Perhaps someone who knows who that might have been could add them? OldSquiffyBat (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy Rasch is the last combat veteran of WW1. He served on a battleship. he is well documented in the Media as a WW1 veteran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The last person to have served in the trenches as a combatant was Harry Patch (died 2009). Frank Buckles served near the front lines but was an ambulance driver. Hut 8.5 17:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll add Harry Patch then. That would seem most appropriate. OldSquiffyBat (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Ravenswing 23:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


Alexander Imich

Can he be considered a WWI veteran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.4.97 (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus from previous discussions here, here and here is "no". DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 05:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Andy Rasch

Hi everyone, I've not been on this page for a while and I decided to start investigating Andrew Rasch for myself. It's very doubtful he's a WWI veteran, his own testimony damns him. Everybody who served in the US Navy was awarded a Victory Medal. In addition to the Victory Medal you were extremely likely to be awarded a clasp, the clasp system is somewhat complex and it depends what you were doing at the time. I went to the trouble of looking up the USS Oklahoma: if you saw active service between 25th of May 1918 and 13th August 1918 then you would have been awarded the Atlantic Fleet clasp. Also the Oklahoma was a training ship until 2nd March 1918, at which point a Captain Mark Bristol took command, they sailed to Ireland where they stayed in port before escorting transport ships in October of that year. It's likely he would have had to have enlisted at the start of the year, at latest, to have been trained and placed on that ship.

Although the photograph is very small I can't see the Victory Medal ribbon. It looks like he's actually sold the metal part of the medals and is either lying about 'the Navy not giving medals' to cover up the shame of selling them, or more than likely the reason he doesn't have a Victory Medal or retained the ribbon or the clasp is because he didn't have one in the first place.

The only medal I can really make out is on the top left and it looks like it's the Silver Star ribbon. The insignia is that of an Army Sergeant First Class so I suspect the bulk of the medals come from service in the Army. I would dearly love a better picture to examine these medals in detail. As far as I am aware the US Navy records are complete and are publically available; we would be able to find out when he was posted to the ship and when he left it easily enough. I rather think that is the point though - he isn't on them at the time stated otherwise he wouldn't have been overlooked.

At the risk of seeming to be crude, which I don't mean, the longer he lives the more his age claims and service will come under scutiny, the real truth is probably just around the corner. RichyBoy (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually there are two clasps available for the Oklahoma, 25th May 1918 to 13th August 1918 (Atlantic Fleet) and 25th August 1918 to 11th November 1918 (Grand Fleet) RichyBoy (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again I ask did you contact the T.V. station that did the story on Andy Rasch. Did you contact Andy Personally and ask for a interview? A true researcher does not depend on fuzzy pictures and old government records that may be incomplete. When you do an investigation you start at the source of the claim. That source would be Andy Rasch and the T.V. crew that did the story. You go to the source of the story and use the information collected to track down to prove or disprove the information given. I have been doing research for 40 years and this is the proper way to do research. These internet clowns that live and die but what they can find on Google are not true researchers but posers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would dearly love that another veteran of WWI to be discovered and recognised, in any shape or form from a barracks waitress to an assembler of munitions or a front line Tommy or Central Powers soldier (the Russians have been notoriously shy in recognising this as a global war they got involved in and it has always been possible for undocumenteds in that region, along with Persia), in any recognisied capacity. I would not however put tenuous claims as a reason. Take Doug Terrey, he no doubt had tangible service in a way would we say connected, my great grandfather served in the Kings Royal Rifles which were based on Southampton Common, I've lived there all my life and in fact was bought up in Marchwood where Doug Terrey lived in later life (if not all of it) (as mentioned here before in the archive). He was not a verified veteran as he was not part of the armed services, one of us wrote and asked, the answer was no, but not completely final, unlike Florence Green, which was asked and has been verified, as a member of the armed forces. Terrey was not a veteran as such and never claimed it, in the same way that Florence Green was not in a theatre of war, he was unverified because the body involved said that the service he described was emminently possible but likely unrecorded. Mr Rasch's greatest claim is that he wasn't one of the hundreds of thousands that subscribed/drafted which forced the numbers game at the end of WWI. Barely anyone stood service on foreign soil from that number yet they all count as veterans as long as they did a certain number of days of training, Mr Rasch's service would and should count as more. We all appreciate that for some veterans that is not readily possible to verify, however I have checked again, all US Navy records for ships personnel are 100% intact and as far as they are aware correct, although I have yet to formally ask. Prima Facie it does not stack up, the medal testimony, the records, the fact that off-list experts (RYoung122 I think it is, no matter your opinion, has interviewed more centenarians past the age of 107 than the rest of us put together) and they don't believe so. You talk about research, well research is peer-reviewed from established sources. A peer review constitutes examining and verifying records. Show us the peer review, we will show you, with post-haste his entrance to verified (or even unverified veteran with reasonable published peer-reviewed sources). RichyBoy (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh and talking of 40 years of research, research would enable verbal testimony to add to written fact, Eg Henry Allingham and the Battle of Jutland. It does not say because you interviewed somebody that their opinion is worthy. Someone like Allingham is verified by fact, he was there, the records prove it, he talked in general terms that are demonstrative to the truth as such, his testimony is additive. Mr Rasch's contribution is not to be of the age of "fact checking" on the internet so we can bust this ribbon/medal nonsense in moments. RichyBoy (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
When I say nonsense I've sorted out medal stuff before; not for living claims sadly, but "great grandads medals" where relatives fondly talk of 1903 great grandad signing up under age at 15, and when I see the medals I see a 1914 Mons Star, yeah yeah, and US Victor medals which are blank (not possible! name, number, mostly both) Also there is a published book on the Oklahoma being a Perl Harbour victim, the book has description of every captain, every action, every event including a list of Spanish Flu victims on board. I've not got the book but I suspect it will be revealing regarding when the fire was. RichyBoy (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
What you're asking is completely and totally inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. Editors don't do original research, and if they do we can't use it in articles. We can't cite unpublished material such as phone calls as sources, this contradicts our policy on verifiability.
In addition the fact that one local media outlet once reported Rasch is a WWI veteran doesn't mean much. Many much more impressive media outlets have reported that other individuals are "the last American veteran" or "the last combatant". As noted above people who have expertise in this area have cast doubt on the claim that Rasch is a veteran. In order to put Rasch on this page we would need much better published reliable sources. These sources would have to be independent, a statement by Rasch that he is a veteran means very, very little. Hut 8.5 00:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Besides which, I'm sorry, 68.58.119.97, but you've been at it for months now, and you seem to have a hard time grasping some fundamental ways Wikipedia works. All claims must be verifiable, and all editors must be able to verify their accuracy. Wikipedia does not, will not, and cannot call up fakers to ask for their bonafides. If you are so heavily invested in Rasch's claims, you interview him, you do the legwork on those claims and you present the evidence here for us to verify. I assure you that if you come up with government records and links proving Rasch's service - and as much to the point, proving he's as old as he claims he is, because the GRG's own records don't - minds here can change in a hurry. If you do not, then you are wasting your time and ours. From where I sit, your only basis for supporting Rasch's claim is that the notion of a woman being the Last Veteran bugs the heck out of you. That's not good enough, not remotely good enough, for the rest of us. Ravenswing 20:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Send me 2,000 dollars and a plane ticket to Arizona and i can prove or disprove this claim by doing real research using the original source and the T.V interview. It would take me about 3 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Even if we decided to give you that much money we couldn't use your results because, yet again, we don't allow original research or citations to unpublished material, and it's far from clear that even if the TV interview corroborates these claims that it would constitute proof of Rasch's veteran status. Hut 8.5 17:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
This whole discussion is getting extremely tiresome. An anonymous single-issue editor who seems unwilling to or incable of understanding the way wikipedia works despite repeated clarifications from multiple users is not fulfilling the terms of use of this talk page. As it states at the top, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of surviving veterans of World War I article." it "...This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." which is what this has descended to. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I responded to a challenge by Rvenswing to find out the facts. I accept his challenge under the terms stated. In effect he can put his money to good use finding out the truth by a real researcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest we move on as this is going nowhere? There is no evidence and until someone comes up with evidence obtained in accordance with policy and subject to peer review, there is no point discussing it further. Mithrandir1967 (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Agreed; we're dealing with a SPA spammer, who has no basis for his assertions beyond that he wishes Very Hard It Would All Be True, and there's no reason to continue to do so. Ravenswing 02:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not a spammer at all. I am a true researcher willing to fly to Arizona to prove or disprove this claim. You of course will not put your money where your mouth is Ravenswing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.119.97 (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here offered to fund your researches. All they said was if you were to do this research, find out that you're correct, and have your research published in a reputable journal, then we'd happily change the article. Right now, all you're really doing is whining. Czolgolz (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
What do you think this is, SPA, an elementary school recess? Sorry, but none of us here are nine-year-olds, and playground taunts or challenges are unimpressive. Ravenswing 15:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is now treading the line of civility. I ask that everyone please step away from this conversation and simply let our unregistered user be ignored. If credible, verifiable information about Mr. Rasch is presented, I will be the first in line to apologize. Until then, let's all get back to reality and stop worrying about someone who obviously enjoys baiting this thread for the attention. Agreed? --Spacini (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Ditto Czolgolz (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Also agreed. Genius In the Lamp (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Current status of Kashi Rom Rai?

Previously, there was some discussion of Kashi Rom Rai. Is he still alive? The only information I can get by Googling is a couple of years old, and he doesn't appear on Wikipedia's list of living supercentenarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew76 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that he may have died because i have just looked on the list and i didn't see him on it. Tony (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, he was removed from the list because there's no proof he's a veteran. Hut 8.5 23:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I did a little more searching, and I found a supercentenarian-tracking website called "The 110 Club." They seem to be pretty skeptical of Mr. Rai. His age cannot be verified, and his claimed birthdate (January 1, 1900) sounds kinda fishy. He could easily be a phony. Andrew76 (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Andy Rasch

I was just wondering but what happened to Mr. Rasch, did he die? Tony (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As with the above, he was removed because there's no proof he's a veteran. There are plenty of recent discussions in the archives. Hut 8.5 23:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Never mind that the only evidence which has so far surfaced of Rasch's age suggested that he was decades younger than he's claimed. Ravenswing 23:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. On 10 December 2011 according to this link. Which should hopefully get rid of this bogus claim once and for all. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully we'll also get rid of disrespect for these old veterans and their life stories.. RIP, Mr Rash Hepcat65 (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
What disrespect for their claims? We don't accept them as veterans because there's no evidence that they were. We have no disrespect for them, and certainly no disrespect for any veterans. We just need verification before we can accept such claims. Burbridge92 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
His obituary claims he was born on October 8th, 1901 (making him 110), and claims service in WW1, WW2, and Korea. Of course, an obituary doesn't prove anything, but it might be considered a media claim. Andrew76 (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't say so. Such obituaries run with the text submitted by the paying customers - the family members - and are not subject to fact checking. Such fact checking could establish, for one, that the picture of the old man there is not that of a 110 year old man, and the picture of the young man (can we agree that it looks like, say, a 20 year old?) is not wearing men's clothing in the style of 1920. Ravenswing 04:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

He probably served in WW2 as a young man. clothing looks to be 1940s. He was probably in his late 80s at death. 141.189.113.1 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)J271

  • According to searches, the only Andrew Rasch resident in the state of Arizona was 81 years old, which means he would have enlisted at age 15. In any event, the DoD database has no record of any such person serving in WWII. Ravenswing 05:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of this list now?

A bit of an anti-climax - the last veteran only served as a waitress - but now they're all gone. There are no surivivors left. World War I-era veterans do not count as veterans. So delete? Or what?--Q-Jux Q-Jux Q-Jux (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country I suppose. Quite a moment. CMD (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we ought to redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country and merge the text at the beginning. Though I don't object to having Kowalski on the list alongside veterans it's a little pointless to have a list of surviving World War I veterans with no World War I veterans on it. Hut 8.5 15:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Nothing anti-climatic about it; there were quite a few veterans on this list, in its time, who did not serve in combat arms and never fired a shot. Indeed, it is a solemn moment, as the book finally closes on the Great War. I'm with CMD and Hut; time for a redirect. Ravenswing 15:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It's sad but once again time waits for no man (or woman). I'm happy with the proposed merge of the introduction text and a redirect. We might need to foot-note Mr Kowalski on that page for the time being though, being pragmatic he will evenutually end up on the "list of veterans that died in 2009-20xx". Maybe it is best he is referenced on the List of last surviving World War I veterans by country talk page so that this consensus era-veteran isn't left in limbo by the redirect. RichyBoy (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Mm, come to that, if we do that, we ought to footnote the other era veterans as well. That list runs from the official definitions prevalent in those countries, which - unlike the US and UK, for instance - exclude veterans from being "officially" WWI vets if they didn't have a certain amount of time-in-service. Ravenswing 16:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I suppose we could put Kowalski in a see also section in the target page. He is already listed in List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars. Hut 8.5 16:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This article should be renamed Last veterans of World War I with detail such as the current opening paragraph, perhaps expanded to include the various branches of service, and links/references to other appropriate articles such as List of last surviving World War I veterans by country. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 18:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
That would duplicate List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009–12 and a load of related articles for different years. Hut 8.5 18:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
No it wouldn't. This article would not be a list of all veterans from all countries who were the last 5/10/20/100, it would only be the last of each type of veteran e.g. (any veteran/combat veteran/veteran from the trenches/wounded veteran); (army/navy/air force/submariner); (Allies/Central Powers). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 19:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and performed the merge and redirect. Quite sad. I didn't include Mr Kowalski, but please do if you can put his entry in a good spot. Hut 8.5's idea to put him in a See also section seems appropriate. henrik•talk 19:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
... and I reverted it. We haven't had this discussion for even twelve hours yet, and consensus could go in another direction. Shall we at least let it go a full day or two? Ravenswing 19:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
There's no rush, but no reason to delay unnecessarily either. Consensus seems clear enough and neither you nor anyone else haven't made any substantial objections against a redirect per se. Unless there is anyone who objects on something other than procedural grounds, I don't see a compelling reason to wait for long. henrik•talk 21:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is not clear on what will happen to this article. I for one object to a redirect until consensus is clear, and that could take several days. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
We have had this discussion now for so many years, it’s getting tedious. There has been consensus that Józek Kowalski should be left where he is. Mr Kowalski has just celebrated his 112th birthday. For those who know anything about the study of human longevity, it won’t be long. Just wait a little while longer and the whole thing will be over soon. Cam46136 (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)cam46136
I stongly believe that this page should stay until Jozef Kowalski dies, I feel that my work here won't be complete (I have been following this page for the last 4 Years) until he dies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a silly question, but if this page were deleted, or replaced with a redirect then what would happen to the page history? I've been curious about this since I started watching this page several years ago. There's far more information in the older revisions than there is on the page itself at this point, and I'd hate to think all that information would simply get tossed out because none of them are still living. 162.115.236.104 (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's redirected, the page history remains intact and viewable if the redirect is viewed. If deleted, it's gone (except for admins). - The Bushranger One ping only 20:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should now add that Jozef Kowalski is the last surviving veteran with ANY World War I related service (and as I said up top keep the page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • What about taking this article and merging it with the article being discussed, rename it to "Last veterans of World War I" or something, then have a series of lists, including the last from each nation, the very last, the longest lived veterans, last veteran by rank, battle, etc. — AMK152 (t • c) 22:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has followed this page for maybe 5 or 6 years or more and has occasionally contributed bits of information ... I support keeping it in place until Jozef Kowalski passes. There has always been a format: verified, era and unverified. As far as I remember Jozef Kowalski has been on the list from a long time back when there were 50 or more people listed. I may be wrong however. Being consistent with the entire history of this page which has be a compilation of efforts of many people over the years ... I tend to think that leaving it as is until it concludes naturally makes the most sense.

Follow-up ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I&oldid=109555236 shows Jozef Kowalski as listed from at least 5 years ago. I see someone has adjusted the page to a new format that list Jozef Kowalski as the only remaining participant in a conflict relevant to WW 1. This seems ok to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.139.20.45 (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If the article is to be left as is, more or less, until Kowalski has been removed then it should at least be renamed as 1 person does not constitute a list. In fact there is really no need for a table now, the entry for Kowalski would be better as plain text. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No I think it should still be a table since it allows for an easier switch to the deaths page when he dies (since it will be in table format there like all of the other entries).
Nonsense. In case of death you can always copy table format from edit history PLUS you cannot just have some entries done in a certain way only for convenience of future edit work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.183.229.21 (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirecting to old page?

I am seeing a very odd behavior. When I visit the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surviving_veterans_of_WWI, I see a redirect to this page, but it is an old version, still showing Ms. Green. Does anyone else see this behavior? I should not that once I visit the correct page, the redirect goes to the right page. (You may have to clear your cache to see it.) Mgolden (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC).

It's working for me. Dunno what the problem could be. CMD (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Rasch

Any updates on his status? (I Dan tha Man I (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC))

  • Nope. Why would there be? He remains either a lying charlatan or the senile dupe of lying charlatans, paired with a credulous TV reporter who has a great future writing copy for supermarket weeklys.  Ravenswing  11:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I/Archive_11&oldid=1136953585"