Jump to content

Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Helmuth Fink, last discussion of him

"And he has lived through two world wars. Den Ersten voller Enthusiasmus, Stolz - als Mitglied des Bahrenfelder Freicorps. The first full of enthusiasm, pride - as a member of Bahrenfelder irregulars. Den Zweiten voller Verzweiflung, Angst. The Second despair, fear. Doch darüber spricht Helmuth Fink nicht gerne. But Helmuth Fink does not like to talk about it. Darüber, wie er gleich am ersten Tag eingezogen wird. About how he'll be drafted on the first day."- paragraph 4, sentence 8 here [1]. If it helps any, it said he was member of Bahrenfelder Freikorps. He was drafted. In World War II he was captured by Russians and in the Urals had to do forced labor. Just to add some additional notes that i forgot to add from the previous discussion of Helmuth Fink.

Theres plenty of info to show that he is an era veteran. This was the first discussion of Helmuth Fink back in March here [2], just read the whole discussion. I know it all matters when he enlisted wheter it was before or after armistice date, but i mean come on, this is last shot of him making it. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about fitting anyone or everyone in who might be a veteran. There actually needs to be reliable evidence that they actually belong in this article. In Helmut Fink's case this is still lacking. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, Nick, this person has a negative attitude towards your efforts for some reason and for what it is worth, many era vets have been included with far less compelling evidence than we have for Herr Fink (Jim Lincoln, Bob Taggart....). Yet at the same time, many other genuine vets have been overlooked or improperly classified until after their death (Campany, Stair, Krichevsky....). The presence of "DerbyCountyinNZ" on a high horse regarding the issue of Herr Fink would be OK if similar cases had been handled in a consistent manner but the previous terms for inclusion as a vet appear to have been somewhat arbitrary. In defense of DerbyCountyinNZ, however, supporting a football team that perpetually underperforms may well cause one to look at things in a negative light. 208.104.52.232 (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)J271

..as a member of Bahrenfelder irregulars: the key word for me is irregular. The Freikorps was a militia, not a section of the regular armed forces. It is not our job to help him to "make it" onto this list. It is our job to make sure that anyone on this list (or submitted as possible members of this list) has suitable references showing beyond reasonable doubt that they belong on the list. No one doubts that Herr Fink lived through both World Wars. The Bahrenfelder Freikorps is merely the militia that was formed in Bahrenfeld in Hamburg. The Freikorps were irregular militia before about 1918, and a paramilitary force after about that time. Unless proof can be found that shows that he was a member of the regular forces, then he would not be eligible for this list. Also, from what I can see, all the claims of him being in the Freikorps comes not from any documented evidence, but from his own word. I am not doubting his word, but it does not count as reliable from the point of view of Wikipedia. If any evidence (rather than hearsay) is found to indicate that Herr Fink was involved in the regular military, then I would be quite happy to include him - but I have been unable to find any. As far as I am aware (and I am quite happy to be corrected on this issue), no members of a Freikorps has been counted as a veteran, or an era-veteran. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
There has been consistency with regards to contributors trying to swing all-and-sundry onto this list over the years, however one has to wonder wether this is more to do with wanting to make a contribution (which I do sympathise with) rather than actually seeing sense on the subject. We already enjoyed great freedom as far as Wikipedia is concerned by being able to 'define' what counts as a veteran, seeing as there is no internationally recognsied accord about that across all participants of WWI - but persistent attempts at sliding people in as era vets is galling. It was meant for people that had joined after the armistice but before the ToV, or had been given campaign medals (british wwi war medal is 1914-1920 for instance), basically people that it wouldn't make sense to leave off a list if they themselves had already been acknolwedged as a veteran by their own government. It is not meant to (bizzarely) identify Brazillian field marshals as era veterans, or volunteers into a para-miitary organisation *after* Germany had already lost the war and had been banned from having its own army. Honestly, you may as well pretend that this person was an antecedant of the Nazi party because he is in the Freikorps as much as that he was a WW1 era vetaran because he was a member of the Freikorps. See how little sense it makes now? (For the record although it is in the archives anyway I've never been that keen on some of the people that were in era-veterans). Oh and if some of the people on the list have seemed inconsistent that is because it is often consensous, and that can be capricious if you have people more interested in swining these people on than not RichyBoy (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

you make some good points, and clearly Herr Fink is not a WW1 vet and is arguably an era vet. However, if Jim Lincoln made the list, anyone can. 208.104.52.232 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)J271

As of today, Helmuth Fink has been added to the list as an era veteran. Can anyone explain why this happened? New evidence? Change in interpretation of current evidence? Thanks. 208.104.52.232 (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)J271

That is Nick acting unilaterally. There is no evidence that he was an era veteran from waht I can see. The first reference merely confirms his age, which no one is disputing. The second merely mentions that he was in the Freikorps, but as per the discussion here, this does not prove that he was an era veteran, the Freikorps is not counted as part of the military at that period in time, as it was a militia rather than part of the regular army. Until Nick can provide more concrete evidence that he was an era veteran, I am removing his additions, sorry Nick. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Nick, can I remind you of the criteria for inclusion: Veterans, for this purpose, are defined as people who were members of the armed forces of one of the combatant nations up to and including the date of the Armistice. and 'Era-veterans: Listed here are those who joined the armed services after the Armistice date, but before the Treaty of Versailles; or where there is debate on their join-date; or whose military service is sometimes viewed as outside the scope of WWI, but are considered WWI-era vets by the press or by their respective governments; or who served in a related conflict.. The Freikorps were not counted as part of the German armed forces, and the newspaper report/German government have not said that he was a WWI-era vet. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Steve, Ive added people to the surviving veterans of the spanish civil war page and u havent tooken them off. Everyone always has to keep such a close eye on this page. It wont hurt anything if he has gone on. Ive added stuff to other pages that seems right to me and nobody has had a complaint unless its u, derby, canadian paul etc. Fink is a peer of these final living veterans. He joined near the armistice date. That is what should count. 1918 seems correct. To me it seems incredibly redicuilous if one person goes on the list. Its like you and others would sacrifice their lives to makes Helmuth FInk not make the list. Its not a big deal at all and he deserves to go on. Its biased if he is excluded because Jim Lincoln, Bob Taggart, and several others have been on the list for quite some time before some administrator took them off of the list. But for Helmuth Fink, it doesnt even take half an hour till administrator hops right on to this page and takes him off. ITS ONE PERSON, 108 yearo ld Helmut Fink, he would fit right on in on this page. But apparently, he will never get on ever in history of life. *sigh*--Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick, a few points:
  1. The actions and decisions by editors of other wikipedia pages have no bearing on this one. While there is some attempt made at cross-page consistency, it's different people on a different article. If wikipedia were run by the rules of the most permissive page, it would be entirely unusable.
  2. Similarly, the people like Taggart and Lincoln that have slipped unnoticed in the past are not justification either. Editors generally have lives outside WP and are not paid to do what they do here. As a result, things do slip by.
  3. 'It wouldn't hurt to have him on' is not justification for circumventing the stated parameters on the page. If he doesn't meet the criteria, he doesn't meet the criteria. The subject has been debated at length in the past. You're welcome to re-open the discussion, but other editors are also welcome to disagree with you on those grounds.
  4. The speed at which edits are made to a page is in no way evidence that editors here are picking on Fink vs others. From what I've seen of the editors on this article, they are generally pretty quick to clean up all edits, regardless of subject, when they spot them. Generally, with edits that don't meet the page specs, I don't even see the original edit in my watchlist because someone has already reverted or modified it. That goes for any erroneous edit. Barring out-an-out abuse, that is generally the sign of good editing on a page.

In short, it seems you are arguing in support of reverting to a prior less-than-optimal level of editing on the page, which seems a little odd and counter-intuitive to me. aremisasling (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick, a few points from me as well (!)
  1. The surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War is not on my watchlist - it's not an area which I have an interest. Perhaps I should look there and see if there are any veterans who shouldn't be on there... (only kidding, I have no interest in the SCW list)
  2. As aremisasling says - what happens on other wikipedia pages has no bearing on what happens here. If you were to act this way on other pages on my watchlist, I would react in the same way there
  3. It wont hurt anything if he has gone on - if it has not been established that he meets the criteria for inclusion on this page, then I would say that it would be inaccurate information. Heavens knows there are enough detractors of Wikipedia who argue that it is unreliable - if the editors knowingly put unreliable information on pages, then that will not help the encyclopedia, it will harm it. This is not a competition to see how many people we can put on this page.
  4. Herr Fink may be a peer of the veterans listed on this page, but being around at the time isn't enough. The criteria for inclusion are clearly stated on the article page, and I have reposted them here - joining near the Armistice isn't what counts - it is whether he was recognised as a member of the German Armed Forces - and as has been mentioned, the Freikorps are not counted as part of the Garman Armed Forces.
  5. No one here would 'sacrifice their lives' to keep him off the list - I actually feel using this phrase is entirely inappropriate in a conversation about this subject - I know of at least 5 members of my family who really sacrificed their lives (in WW1) - and you bandy the phrase around so disrespectively. We are not trying to keep him off the list - we are merely saying that there is insufficient evidence for his inclusion.
  6. He deserves to go on - not a valid argument for inclusion - we need evidence that he was serving in a recognised part of the Armed forces. Also, the only citation to mention it shows no source of their information - and would appear to be sourced by comments by Herr Fink himself. Without other evidence, he does not deserve to go on the list.
  7. Just because Jim Lincoln et al were on the list for some time before being removed does not mean they were right to be included in the first place.
  8. If you are so keen for Herr Fink to be included, then find some evidence that he was serving in the Armed forces at a time which would enable him to be added - and not in the Freikorps - even the article quoted above shows that he was an irregular - in other words, not part of the regular Army. Perhaps you should travel to Germany and look up the official documents? I wouldn't bother myself, as the evidence (i.e. his own word that he was an irregular) would make it unlikely to actually find anything, and so it would be a waste of my time and money.
It seems to me that you are trying your hardest to get someone on this list. I don't know why you are so intent to squeeze someone (anyone) on here. However, whatever your motives, unless you can find better evidence than you have already presented, Herr Fink has not been shown as being a veteran or an era-veteran, and so will not be put on this page. If, however, you find other evidence which shows that rather than being an irregular he was in fact part of the German Army, then I would have no objection to his inclusion. However, I have searched long and hard, and been unable to find any such evidence. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The surviving world war i vets page turns 4 today!

If you go back to the history, and go to earliest, it says August 27, 2005. WOOHOO!--Nick Ornstein (talk) 10:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and on that first edit there were almost 100 on the list, now we have just 3, plus 1 unverified and 1 era veteran :( -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What do we do when the last veteran dies?

Having read the featured list demotion, I'm left wondering — what do we do with this page when the last veteran dies? Given that this was a good enough list to be featured, we surely shouldn't get rid of the whole thing. What if we turned it into a list of the last surviving veterans by country? A double list would be useful — each country's last living national veteran, and each country's last living resident veteran. Having a pair of tables would be useful for those who want to know the identity of the last veteran living in a country; for example, it would be able to demonstrate that the last veteran living in Australia was actually British. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There's already a list of last veterans by country. Czolgolz (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

When the last veteran dies, this page will no longer be required. There is already a page showing the last veteran living for each country (List of last surviving World War I veterans by country). As for the "which veteran in a country was which nationality" idea, I personally don't think this would be a useful list to have, as I can't imahine many people wanting to know that! I can't imagine anyone saying something along the lines of "I live in Austria, I wonder which country's World War 1 veteran was the last one to die in Austria?" - I can however imagine someone thinking "I live in Austria. Who was the last veteran of World War 1 from Austria?". -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty obvious; the page goes away.  RGTraynor  17:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, having had time to think about it, I think the solution will probably to have it redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country - or have a simple message saying that there are no surviving veterans of World War I, and then have the link to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country as an option for readers to click on. I think deleting it would be wrong - but having a redirect to LolsWWUvbc would be my recommendation - if someone is looking for the surviving ones, then they would be redirected to the nearest equivalent page - and that page could have a message at the top of the page saying something along the lines of On 99 Month 2099, Name was the last veteran of World War I to die. and then the list showing the last veteran by country. I don't like thinking about it, but we need to think about what we should do when it does happen - hopefully it'll be a long way off yet, but the odds aren't too good, going by the last few years. Actually, I'm going to start a specific discussion below about this, with my proposal. Please feel free to contribute! I will also leave a message at the other article's talk page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyway we can have the last veteran per country, but also keep the list of who died each year since 1999. I understand a lot of names are missing from the 1999-2005 years, but it does provide some good information. Looking over this list, it can be determined that for one example - Lloyd Brown was the last U.S. Navy man. (PershinBoy)162.114.40.34 (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for what to do when the final veteran of WW1 dies

My proposal is:

Please comment or leave your poll decision below:

Discussion

  • Unless anyone has any objections, I will leave this discussion as it is for a few weeks, and then I will start a new discussion with the various options suggested. Then we can have a poll on the suggestions, and try to come up with a concensus. Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far, there have been some very good suggestions... keep them coming! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In favour of the proposal

  • Proposer: -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am in favor. The 'veterans who died in X year' pages will still be available, I don't think we need anything else. Czolgolz (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm in favour. I also think we should edit the "Last Veterans by Country" page to add the last veterans living in a country, if this differs from the last veteran serving a country. For example, Claude Choules would be the last veteran for the UK, with a note saying he was living in Australia at the time of his death. After that there would be an entry saying "UK (resident)", or something like that, and it would list Harry Patch as the last British veteran actually living in Britain. This would also make a big difference for Russia, as it seems that the last several Russian veterans were living in other countries. Andrew76 (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This is probably the best option, though I don't see anything wrong with deleting the article either (if there's nothing in scope it's no longer a valid topic for an article). Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Against the proposal

I agree with this. A "last 100" list is a simple concept and consistent with other lists such as "oldest 100 people", etc.208.104.52.232 (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)J271

  1. The last verified Allied and Central Powers veterans.
  2. The last Allied and Central Powers combat veterans (if different to above).
  3. The last unverified and/or WWI-era Allied and Central Powers veterans (if different to above).

It could also detail last veterans by branch of service but NOT by country as that is covered by List of last surviving World War I veterans by country. I also see no point in having a list of the last (pick a number) veterans as the complications of who would qualify would make it particularly messy. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I agree with DerbyCountyinNZ - I don't think there should be a Last nn veterans - apart from what you say, Derby, there is the question of how we choose the value of nn. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Choosing the number to have isn't a difficult issue. On the other hand, we have had debates in the past on which countries to represent on the list of last veteran by country page - present, or past? We've settled on the past, but listing those who were the last from present countries is still important and relevant. Furthermore, I don't think the list encapsulates the 'last veterans' well as it will not list people such as Henry Allingham who played such a large part in spreading public knowledge about WWI as the numbers of veterans dwindled. The lists of veteran deaths by year I feel are also not appropriate: The chances are some veterans will make it to 2010 - and maybe beyond and while we could list those who died after 2010 on the same list, you'd still have to click back to see some of the earlier, but perhaps more relevant lists. This way would also enable us to use the notes column to highlight the last people from each force, last decorated veteran etc. I think it's a very flexible option. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have it with the last veterans to serve in certain areas such as the last western front veteran, last seaman, airman etc. but i'm not sure whether we should have a list for each country or just an overall list. Webbmyster (talk) 12:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I think I would sooner have an article than a list. "The last veterans of WWI" whereby you have a couple of sentances (1 paragraph maximum) for each veteran and a link to their article, and of course liberal referencing to the 'died in' pages for further reading. This way you get to include the notable rather than a long list of dubious value, although you would certainly include those who died last for their nation that have an exisiting article - those that don't you can refer to the exisiting list of deaths by country. RichyBoy (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The only thing a 'List of Last nn Veterans' does is provide a vehicle for perpetual debate over who was/wasn't an veteran, what their official age was, etc. The structure under List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009, (...2010), etc. already seems like an appropriate place to move the biographical information on this page. If this 'List of Last nn Veterans' stands up by itself, so be it, create it now (with the living veterans 'tied' for first) I'm tempted to say its all premature, but agree with planning for a redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country, to avoid fervent editing when these veterans era does pass.Cander0000 (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am for having two list mentioned above - The 'veterans who died in X year' 1999-20?? page, and I'm in favour of the "Last Veterans by Country" page (PershinBoy)162.114.40.34 (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Savage

I was reading this article http://www.durhamtimes.co.uk/news/1703940.107yearold_celebrates_birthday/ and it mentions he recieved his call up papers weeks BEFORE the end of the war but did not serve. As he was called up before the armistice then he must be a veteran as we've had people on here who only got on a train on Nov. 11th! Webbmyster (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

He may have received his papers before the end of the war - but that does not mean that he took the King's Shilling. I think we'd need some evidence that he actually joined the army, as the newspaper does not make it clear whether he actually joined up or not. I can't find any other mention of Mr Savage, so I can't verify this information elsewhere. As such, I don't think there is enough evidence to add him to this list. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the newspaper article does make it clear: "Mr Savage received his call-up papers just weeks before the end of the First World War and so did not serve." Therefore, not a veteran. Frankwomble (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Veterans who were in training but did not serve generally do not regard them selves as veterans yet they would be classed as veterans on this page. This may be worth further research as Mr. Savage could have been in training at the end of the war and therefore a veteran, but would not consider himself one so would not make any claims.....208.104.52.232 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)J271

After you received your papers, how long was it before you actually joined? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.102.62 (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

According the Harry Patch's autobiography, he recieved call up papers then had to a report somewhere to register the next day and then the week after that he was away at basic training, so if that was how it was for everyone then we could have another name for the list! Webbmyster (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that Mr Patch received his call up papers when the war was very much in full swing, as it were. Mr Savage received his when the end of hostilities was in sight. There would have been no mad rush to get him to sign on the dotted line. I can't find any military records for him (although as many of them were destroyed in WW2, that's not so surprising). Without knowing which regiment (if any) he served in, I can't even search the WW1 Campaign Medals list at the British National Archives (although even if he did actually join up, he probably wouldn't hvae served long enough to qualify for a medal). I have yet to find any articles (other than the above) that mention him - and with only one reference which seems to indicate that he never served, he cannot be counted as a veteran or era-veteran. So, without further evidence, he would not qualify for this page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth bearing in mind that the newspaper article is nearly two years old and there is a sporting chance that Mr Savage is no longer with us anyway.Brucexyz (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Savage is still alive and is, I believe, the current second oldest man in Britain having been born in September 1900. 72.255.38.164 (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)J271

Have you any evidence to support that he is still alive? I can't find evidence one way or another after 2007 - the one article mentioned above. Have you any evidence that he is currently the second oldest man in Britain? Anyway, we aren't talking about his age, but about whether he actually served in the armed forces, and at the moment there is no evidence whatsoever that he did and there is one article which would seem to indicate that he didn't. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, here is the link for the evidence regarding Mr. Savage: http://oldestinbritain.webs.com/oldestlivingbritons.htm Not sure exactly how current it is, but it does report the deaths of Allingham, Patch and Bob Taggart and it also lists Joseph Savage as being born 9/17/1900 and still living as of 9/1/2009. Still worth spening more time on as perhaps Mr. Savage was in training on 11/11/1918 and did not regard himself as serving.....208.104.52.232 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)J271

Thanks for that - it would certainly seem to indicate that as far as the website in concerned Mr Savage is still alive. However, the last report they link to is the same newspaper report as above. I have looked for mentions of him serving (or even being in training), but searches have found nothing. Perhaps [he] was in training isn't enough to qualify for this list! We need to have a positive reference to his being in the forces (whether in training or in active service) before the Armistice was signed (for veteran) or the Treaty of Versailles (for era-veteran) to enable us to add him to this page - and as I say, I have been unable to find anything along these lines. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 06:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not my goal to add him to the page; the goal is to get his circumstances fully researched so that he is accounted for correctly whether that means inclusion or exclusion from the list. There are so few possible (as defined by age) living veterans left in the world, that it should now be possible to assign enough time to each case to research it more thoroughly. 208.104.52.232 (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)J271

I'm not sure where you think we can research? Without knowing the regiment he was in (if he joined up at all), we can't really track down records from the National Archives. If he was awarded compaign medals (which I think is unlikely), there are 47 possibles, some of which I could rule out as they were NCOs or Officers, which he wouldn't have been, I think. There are no references to his service records available at Ancestry - as mentioned above, that could indicate he never joined up, or that his records are part of the 60% of records that were destroyed during the Blitz in WW2. There are no further news reports that I could find online - a search in the local libraries where he lives might give more, but I'm a long way from there! I did various Google searches using the details in the Durham Times article (like the fact that he was an ARP warden, that he was Chief Environmental Officer for Durham County Council, being a river inspector for the Wear and Tees). The Durham Times online site only has the one article about him. Unless you can think of other sources of information that I haven't tried yet, I don't think there are any! As far as I am concerned, the search for this particular individual is over. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Receiving call up papers is different from actually signing up, or even being in training. I don't know if there was a time limit for signing up, but this mentions a man who reported the following day (though that was in 1916). Records will simply not survive for someone who signed up in 1918 and did not serve. I think if he had actually signed up, the article would've said. That he was called up to serve a few weeks before the end of the war, it could be inferred that he didn't sign up before the end of the war (if he had, it surely would have been mentioned?). He is alive - I contacted his family recently. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain my late grandfather received his call-up papers but was then refused service due to him being blind in one eye. --1810paul (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain my late grandfather received his call-up papers but was then refused service due to him being blind in one eye. --1810paul (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

He would need to have a proper citation of being in the army to join the "unverified" list, being "called up" isn't enough. If he was drafted to the Training Reserve then yes, he should go on the list [1]. His call-up papers would have specified the date for his "service with the Colours", that's the day you present yourself to the specified recruitment office and this was usually 2-3 weeks after the issue date. Conscription was officially disbanded on the 11th Novemeber 1918, and anyone that was a reservist was automatically dismissed who had yet to be called up. If he was to present on or after 11th Novemeber end of story, if he presented before then we would need to establish if he was drafted to the Training Reserve, he may have had an exemption for all we know. We won't be able to track this down as even he did get to the Training Reserve he wouldn't necessarily know the regiment at that point either. I think we have to take this as a prima-facie no.
[1] You no longer had to attest after the Military Service Act made everyone a reservist (conscription), the "true" call-up is being drafted to the Training Reserve. RichyBoy (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well Mr. Savage turns 109 (touchwood) on the 17th and hopefully they'll be a newspaper report with a bit more a clue in it. Webbmyster (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"He received his call-up papers just weeks before the end of the First World War but ended up not serving because of the delay in getting them to him." [3] - I think that closes the matter. SiameseTurtle (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I also think it is now very unlikely that any more veterans willbe discovered. 208.104.52.232 (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)J271

ah well thats done then, probably wouldn't have mattered anyway as most people who write on here are as miserable as anything and unless its stone dead evidence put on a plate in front of them then they don't want to know, thanks for investigating on the date as i'm sure no one else would've! Webbmyster (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this on-line encyclopedia would be a much better place for a long and rambling list of people whom happen to have lived to 109 and must be a veteran because they lived in Europe. RichyBoy (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't tell if you're (RichyBoy) being sarcastic or not, but many people were not able to fight because they were unfit (injured, poor eyesight etc), or in a reserved occupation. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

i wasn't just on about this man i meant it general. it just seems that there are plenty of people who contribute well to this list but then there are also others who just want to say no to everything and don't bother following up anything themselves unless it appears on this discussion page! and if you're refering to me being sarcastic im not i am grateful that you actually checked on the date, cheers mate. Webbmyster (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I am one of the editors you are referring to, but when someone puts someone on this talk page as a possible entry on the list, I thoroughly checked using all the resources available to me (admittedly limited if they are not British). The ones which I have said that I do not think appear to meet the criteria have either died (so wouldn't be on this page) or there is nowhere near enough evidence to include them (i.e. they were in a unit which was not part of the regular armed forces, or there is no proof that they were in the regular armed forces before the Treaty of Versailles). I am not asking for "stone dead evidence" - just enough (i.e. more than 1 reliable source of information) which confirms that the individual concerned was a member of the armed forces at the right time. That is the minimum required according to the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia - this is not a list that we strive to force people into - there is either enough evidence or there is not. The examples raised over the last few months are either obviously not meeting the criteria, or there is one source of information (based on what the individual has said themselves) with no other sources backing it up. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Savage died 11/9/09 aged 109. RIP. 208.104.52.232 (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)J271

New 110 year old (verified) WWI vet?

Here [4] is a page on Hilliard Hudson from the World's Oldest People, hosted by Yahoo. Hudson, who is a black male, was born on 23 February 1899 in Alabama. He is 125 years old and was verified by the Gerontology Research Group (GRG). Here is his draft registration card (you can find it on the external link):

      • "ALSO"*** HERE [5] on this link on ancestry.com, shows Hilliard Hudson's ORIGINAL Draft Record. REQUIRES LOGIN!!!
WWI Draft Registration Card (September 12 1918)
> Name: Hildred Hudson
> City: Not Stated
> County: Sumter
> State: Alabama
> Birth Date: 23 Feb 1899
> Race: Black
> Roll: 1509431

So....I was wondering if a drafted person can possibly get on the list. Thanks! --Nick Ornstein (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick. A couple of questions:
  1. I am waiting for the moderator of the Yahoo Group to confirm membership - but pending that, does the Yahoo Group (which wouldn't be a reliable source, by the way, unless they have references to reliable, verifiable sources) mention whether he actually served?
  2. Although the Ancestry Draft Registration Card would probably count as a reliable source (with access I could see the original), just because he received a DRC does not mean that he was accepted into the armed forces. The way it worked was that he would have reported to draft board (under the Conscription Act of 1917, he would have been inducted into the US Armed Forces immediately, sent for evaluation, and then either discharged or gone for training) (see Conscription_in_the_United_States#World_War_I). I think that we would need something more than the draft card to show that he actually served in the forces - for all we know, he could have been discharged at the Draft Board as not fit for service, or as a conscientious objector. Does Ancestry have his service records (for example, the UK arm of Ancestry has the 40% of WW1 service records that survived the bombing of London during the 2nd World War).
Basically, we would need either his service records from Ancestry (or something akin to the UK's Medal Roll, which is available in the British National Archives) or some other reliable sources confirming that he was actually put into the Army. Being drafted is not the same as serving.
Incidently, none of Google News Archive's hits refer to this Hilliard Hudson - I assume there must be mention of him in some newspapers offline? I wouldn't be able to get access to American newspapers or magazines (I'm in the UK) - perhaps you would be able to find some? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, GRG (also here) makes no mention of anything beyond his age and where he lived, so it might be acceptable as proof of age, but not for entry on this list -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I find it interesting that in this 2008 Tuscaloosa News Article there is no mention of war service. No mention is made at the Yahoo Group of any service - other than the draft, which I commented on above. If anyone can find any mention of his World War 1 service that'd be great (assuming that he got past the draft - I suspect that at such a late stage of the War, many call-ups were not acted upon) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I would think that in 1918, there was still enough institutional racism that a black man would probably not get called up to serve. That problem didn't really go away until after WW2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew76 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: This is a useful document find...to help prove that Hilliard Hudson was born Feb. 23, 1899. It doesn't mean that he was called up for service, however.

Anyone that wants to join the World's Oldest People group must answer a simple question to prove they are not spam: "why do you want to join this group?" Unfortunately, many persons give nonspecific answers such as "because I like it" which does not prove that they are not spam.Ryoung122 13:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung122 13:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sad news

Hildred (Hilliard) Hudson passed away earlier this month at 110, although it states that he was 111. So there is no hope for him making the list. See his obituary here [6].--Nick Ornstein (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

He could make the list as a "Died in 2009" if his military service is verified.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • As mentioned above, although he received his draft papers, this does not guarantee that he actually joined up - being drafted is not the same as joining up: he could have turned up and been classified medically unfit for duty, or he could have said "I'm a conscientious objector". The draft card is just that: a card asking the draftee to attend, not a service record. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

After Last Veteran Dies Proposal

Why not just leave the lists and discussions as archives so that they can be upgraded if new information comes about.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • The problem with that would be that the page would just be a link to the archives - which wouldn't (in my opinion) look encyclopedic. Also, how do we sort it out - do we have a link to every version of the list? Do we have ones at specific times - and if so, how do we decide which versions are the ones we should link to. If the page is kept, the talk page will be in archives as they are already - this makes sense, as they are all kept together anyway. For the main article, there are so many versions (where someone was added, and later removed; when someone was removed, and later added) - there are no archives for articles, just the history of the page. Thank you for your suggestion though - it's not one that had been previously considered. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Merchant Seaman

I found this the other day and the gentleman is still around aged 107 and it says that he served in the Merchant Navy when he left school so assuming he left school at 16, or even 18, my thought are he sould be considered an Era-veteran, any thoughts? http://www.salfordadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/1024540_spritely_henry_is_105_years_young

  • Having read the article, it does not indicate when he joined the Merchant Navy; it does not specifically mention the First World War at all - and as he would have been 16 round about the signing of the Armistice, I don't think that he would have been involved with the war anyway. Good find, though :D 12:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

i didn't think he'd end up being a veteran as it probably wouldve mentioned it but what about an Era-veteran? by what date would he have had to join to be one? Webbmyster (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • To be an era-veteran, he needs to have joined one of the armed forces by the signing of the Treaty of Versailles (28 June 1919). However, as a rule, members of the Merchant Navy aren't counted as veterans, as they were not part of the armed forces. ALthough they suffered as a result of enemy action, they were not part of the nation's forces - and indeed many of them had little or no offensive or defensive weapons - hence the use of the convoy system in the Second World War, but it was no used much in the First World War, as the Admiralty believed that battleships would be the main attacker of convoys, whereas submarines were used instead. (see Convoy#World_War_I) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Frank Buckles in the news.

Frank Buckles appeared before Congress yesterday. He was supporting a bill to have an existing WW1 monument declared a national memorial. From what I heard on the morning news, the monument is currently privately owned and badly in need of upkeep. link Andrew76 (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC) (Currently it's evening on December 4th where I am.)

New claim?

Nasir Al-Hajry, a claimed 135 year old man partook in the Arabian Revolution, and the Arab Island wars during World War I. His family plan to contact the Guinness Book of World Records after seeing his identity card. You can read the article here [7]. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Well, he certainly claims that he took part in those: The man claims to have attended the Arabian Revolution against Turkish imperialism in 1916 and the Arab Island’s wars during the First World War (1914-1918). I think before we consider his claim, there needs to be some verification of his age - the List of the verified oldest people shows the current verified oldest ever person was Jeanne Calment who died aged 112122 years 164 days. This gentleman claims to not just be a year or two older than this, but a whole 2313 years older. Once we get verification of his age, then we can look at his military history - but I'll be honest and say that I'm sceptical. If it turns out that he's lying about his age, I'll assume (without any further independent evidence) that his other claims are false. If it turns out that he is telling the truth about his age, I'll be more inclined to research the other claims. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment lived to be 122 years old, for a difference of 13 (not 23) years. And while skepticism is in order for any claim longer than that; one need not throw out the baby with the bath water. If it could somehow be verified that he fought against The Ottomans during WW1 then he should be listed. 135 Muslim years would equal 130 Christian years; still an incredulous amount.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

For example, it is not known if Moses Hardy was born in 1893 or 1894; ther is no doubt that he was a WW1 vet though.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I normally like to take people at their word, but we have to be skeptical in this case. I have a hard time believing that Mr. Al-Hajry could live to 130 (in Christian years), and no one has heard of him before now. A year or two beyond the oldest verified age would be credible, but not 8 years older.

People do make false claims like this just to gain a bit of notoriety. In the United States, a number of men claimed to be the last Civil War veteran. Most were just hoaxers. It continued until 1959, with Walter Williams and John Salling claiming to be 117 and 113, respectively. Salling was eventually proved to be a fraud, who was "only" 100 years old at the time of his death, and would have been about 6 when the Civil War ended. Williams' claim could not be verified, but there is some evidence suggesting that he also exaggerated his age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew76 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Another female veteran

Florence Green apparently served in the Woman's Air Force during the First World war: http://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/108--and-she39s-still.5006685.jp SiameseTurtle (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There's also a record that matches up with her on the National Archives: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/details-result.asp?Edoc_Id=7829292&queryType=1&resultcount=1 SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is she still alive? The article dated February 2009 Tinien (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Quick! not much time left. Can it be proven, and is she still alive? And if recently deceased she may be the last woman. Very critical, these are the last days! (PershinBoy)63.3.10.130 (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, she is still alive and has been proven. The issue really is whether it would be WP:OR to add her to the verified list based on the two links above. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
A couple of comments: firstly, the Lynn News would certainly be valid as a source of information, as would the National Archive document - however.. you would need something to show that Florence Green is the same person as Florence Beatrice Patterson. Although there is a circumstantial link (both Florences who were Airwomen), we would need a direct link through a newspaper article (saying "Florence Beatrice Green, born Patterson") or similar. Although Florence is an unusual name now, it was a lot more common in England in the first quarter of last century.
Also, can I just ask where the proof that she is still alive can be found?
Having said that, this looks like the most promising "missing vet" case that we've had for a while - if proof showing that she is indeed still alive can be provided, and proof that Florence Green is Florence Beatrice Patterson can be found, then I would certainly say that she should be included here (or if she has since died, to be included in the "last British airwoman" category on the List of last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a new report on her veteran status [8], so I'm being bold and adding her to the article. SiameseTurtle (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Well done! I've added her to the List of last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service. It would be great if we found more "missing" veterans, but I'd be very surprised if we do - but then again, I would have said that before this! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Mrs Green is (as of today) listed in the local online telephone directory as "F B Green", which is consistent with her identification as Florence Beatrice Patterson. (Incidentally, Douglas Terrey also appears to be still living; he has moved from Marchwood to Totton, still in the Southampton district). 220.244.56.24 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC) MAR

I think it's amazing (but not to much, considering how women generally outlive men) that such a high proportion of the very last are females (3 of the 26 verified cases still alive on Jan. 1st, 2008) compared to the actual percentage of females who actually served (maybe 2% of the total). Also, note that of the last were born after Jan. 1st, 1900 (again not to surprising considering the ~ 50% annual mortality rate.JeepAssembler (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe she didn't consider herself a WWI veteran, and that is why we are finding her at such a late date. Who knows, 1 or 2 more maybe out there, but time is running out! Good job in finding her! (Pershinboy)63.3.10.2 (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's another article on her from the Daily Mail with a picture of her in uniform. [9]Brucexyz (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but used the Daily Telegraph as a reference for the Florence Green article, as it had the same information. I have contacted Masons News Service to see if there is any chance of getting permission to use the picture on here, but as they make their living from selling pictures to the media, I think it's unlikely - but it's certainly worth a try! I'll let you know their reply when I get it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


This is found on the article List of last occurrences: 2008: December 19 - Ivy Campany, last surviving female veteran of World War I, dies at age 107.[11]. This dosen`t add up with this article?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.247.144.73 (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this entry - thanks for letting us know. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Frank Buckles

Happy 109th birthday to Mr Buckles. Pistachio disguisey (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Happy "109th" Birthday Frank Buckles :)Tony winward (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Veteran?

Today's Daily Mail covers the 110th birthday of Stanley Lucas in Cornwall who was called up not once but twice during WWI and is listed as "serving" during the war. Perhaps this needs further investigation? [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biggus Dazzus (talk • contribs) 11:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation is that it has been mis-interpreted by the Daily Mail. There are a few more (local) articles on the same event, which just say he was called up - and it looks like the information has been forwarded to national newspapers (as happened with Florence Green). Previous reports say that he worked on the farm during WWI, which could have been a reserved occupation. Before even adding him to the claims, we need enough proof that he actually joined, rather than was just called up. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
One of the references in the Stanley Lucas article Hartlepool Mail specifically says "He received his call-up papers just weeks before the end of the First World War but ended up not serving because of the delay in getting them to him". -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
That was referring to Joseph Savage. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Ooops... quite right! Strucken as not correct! However, Ancestry has no service records for Lucas (unless Stanley was his middle name instead of his first name) (although that neither proves nor disproves anything, as quite a lot were destroyed by the Blitz) - and the National Archives has 13 "Stanley Lucas"s in the "World War 1 Campaign medals" list - but unless we know a regiment, we can't confirm that any of them are this one. oldestinbritain.webs.com says "He left school at 14 to help on the family farm during the First World War" as does Bude Today. I can't find anything else which mentions his call ups, let alone his service. Even Mr Lucas doesn't mention serving in any of the quotes from him that I can find - only about being called up. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

i think because stanley lucas has not yet been verified he should be put into unverified claims.Tony winward (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

i have been on ancestory.co.uk and i have found a stanley lucas on it, here is the site [11]Tony winward (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You found some people named Stanley Lucas, but not Stanley Lucas. The Daily Mail was not the one who originally made contact with Stanley Lucas. As I said, I think they have confused the issue. We should go with the local papers and assume that he was only called up until we get more information. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Tony - he isn't even eligible for an "unverified" claim. He doesn't claim it, none of the other newspapers claim it (only the Daily Mail) - and he was in a reserved occupation. That's probably the reason for 2 call-ups - when he turned up and said that he worked on a farm, they would have told him he couldn't sign up. I'm pretty sure that the Daily Mail made a mistake, as none of the other papers (all of which are local ones) made this claim.
Incidently, you didn't specify exact matches for your Ancestry search. If you ask for an exact match of "Stanley" for the first or middle names, "Lucas" for the surname and "1899-1901" for the date of birth (1 year either side of the 1900), you get 3 results: Albert Stanley Lucas; Arthur John Stanley Lucas; Gerald Stanley Lucas. None of the newspaper report call him anything other than Stanley, and there is a record for a Stanley Lucas born in Cornwall in 1900 at Ancestry here. Without evidence to the contrary, there are no service records - and without a regiment, we can't narrow down any of the WW1 Campaign Medal records to him. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ive found this [12] article that says stanley lucas was excused from service because of health conditions, so according to this article it says he is not a veteran.Tony winward (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Terrey D.O.B

i was on ancestory.co.uk and i typed in douglas terrey and it came up with a result saying that he was born in september 1903 rather than the date june 1903 that is on this article, here [[13]] is the link.Tony winward (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's because you're looking at the quarter (July-September) that his birth was registered during. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

More Veterans?

I have found 2 people called Frederica Sagor Maas and Hugues Cuénod, i think it is possible that they could have been called up or could of even served during the war because they are in the same age group as the current veterans.Del Boy (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Being the same age as known veterans makes them a possible veteran? What unjustified and pointless speculation! DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It wont be pointless speculation if it turned out if they did serve will it.Del Boy (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's something to look into, but at this point we don't even have a claim of service, much less proof, so they don't belong anywhere in the article yet. Andrew76 (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Del Boy, how about doing some research? Find some evidence that there are claims that they served in the war - and then come back here with links to it. They might have served, or they might have not. They could have been in reserved occupations, they could have had medical reasons for not being in the forces, there are lots of reasons why someone of the right age in 1914-1918 would not have served. Women were even less likely to have served in the forces - especially in the US which was not a battle front itself (and the sources given in Maas' article makes no mention of her being in the forces). Nothing in the sources about Cuénod mention military service. So again, I suggest that you do some research, and find evidence that there are claims of service, rather than assuming that others will do so.
Although it is possible that a previously unknown veteran will 'appear' (like Florence Green) there are unlikely to be many - and even then, we need proof, such as was found for Green. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
(blinks) Err ... isn't this pretty farcical? The odds that a Swiss citizen served in the War is next to zero, and the number of American women who served in the military in any capacity in 1917 were outnumbered by the ones who didn't about, oh, a thousand to one. Even speculation based on nothing beyond "OMG they're old!" is pointless.  RGTraynor  09:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

R.I.P John Babcock

As I suggested at Talk:List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009#Possibility, perhaps the 2009 page should be renamed "List of veterans of World War I who died after 2008" or "List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009-201X" etc... unless another veteran is discovered, the most we'll ever have on the 2010 page is five (four verified, one era), and probably (hopefully!) less than that. We then run the chance of having pages with only one or two names, or maybe even none at all. Just a thought. Cheers, CP 01:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

a List of surviving veterans of world war I who died in 2010 has already been made, R.I.P John Babcock.Del Boy (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it could be easily redirected if that's the consensus. Cheers, CP 02:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that makes sense. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you mr babckok, i'm sad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.142.175 (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Why are none of the newspapers even mentioning Ms. Green as one of the last? Are they not considering her because she was only a waitress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That could be one of the reasons - the other is that they might not all know about her! She was only recently 'discovered', and not all news organisations would necessarily seen it on the news wire -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Tribute John Babcock

hello I am a French 17 years. The death of Mr. Babcock 'm hurt. I wonder if it would address one of his family. I'd like them to write to thank John and all Canadian who fought for my countries.For for freedom.Sorry for my English . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.142.175 (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be able to contact Mr Babcock's family, I'm afraid we can't help you, as we don't have the address. If you asked this question at the Reference Desk, someone there might be able to help you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Renewed: Discussion about what to do when the last veteran dies

Here are the proposals which seem to be suggested above (I have discounted the 'Last xx veterans' type of list because of the difficulties of definitively deciding who would qualify, and a couple of proposals below are effectively similar to this)

  • Proposal A: "This article should be a redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country, and a message on that page should read similar to On 99 Month 2099, Name was the last veteran of World War I to die., then this would be followed by the list of the last surviving World War I veterans by country.
  • Proposal B: "This article should be a redirect to an article with a title like Last veterans of World War I which would detail:
    1. The last verified Allied and Central Powers veterans.
    2. The last Allied and Central Powers combat veterans (if different to above).
    3. The last unverified and/or WWI-era Allied and Central Powers veterans (if different to above).
    4. The last veterans by branch of service but NOT by country"
  • Proposal C: "The current article should contain a list of the last veterans to serve in certain areas such as the last Western Front veteran, last seaman, airman etc, with a section for Allied and Central Powers respectively"
  • Proposal D: "The current article should contain a list of the last veterans to serve in certain areas such as the last Western Front veteran, last seaman, airman etc, as an overall list, rather than having a section for Allied and Central Powers seperately"
  • Proposal E: "The current article should be a redirect to an article with a title like Last veterans of World War I which should consist of a couple of sentences (1 paragraph maximum) for each veteran and a link to their article, and references to the 'died in' pages for further reading. Those who died last for their nation should be listed with a link to their exisiting article - those that don't you can refer to the exisiting list of deaths by country."
  • Proposal F: "The current article should consist of a statement along the lines of On 99 Month 2099, Name was the last veteran of World War I to die, followed by a message along the lines of "Articles which may be of interest are shown below:", followed to links to related pages, such as List of last surviving World War I veterans by country, List of last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service, etc."
  • Proposal G: "The current article should consist of a statement along the lines of On 99 Month 2099, Name was the last veteran of World War I to die, followed by a list of the last 100 veterans of World War I."

Didn't the last veteran of WW1 die in 2009? Harry Patch? How about something special about him? Also the whole article is based in the current tense and needs to be chronologged or it will require constant updating forever and will frequently be out of date and therefore wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvrly (talk • contribs) 14:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

For "veteran" we mean the criteria on the article page- there are still some left. It is in the present tense, as only those still alive are listed. Did you actually look at the article page? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Voting"

  • why not keep the listing LIKE WE ALREADY HAVE on those who died from 1999 to 2009. Why get rid of this information. Get rid of it and we lose a lot of good information. A lot of people do care about who Charlotte Winters or Lloyd Brown was but the last per country only, and nothing else - stinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem with the "last US Navy" etc is that this would be a long list, although it may be sufficient to have a page entitled something along the lines of Last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service - and indeed I may start such a page next week if I get a chance to. The main problem for such a page, as I see it, would be that there will be a lot of entries, and I am not sure all the information is available. List of last surviving World War I veterans by country has 31 countries. Just looking at the United Kingdom, such a list would seem to require entries for the following categories to enable it to be complete (although some may overlap):
  1. Last Regular Army veteran
  2. Last Army Reserves veteran
  3. Last New Army (Kitchener's Army) veteran
  4. Last Territorial Forces veteran
  5. Last Infantry veteran
  6. Last Cavalry veteran
  7. Last Artillery veteran
  8. Last Engineers veteran
  9. Last Royal Army Service Corps veteran
  10. Last Royal Army Medical Corps veteran
  11. Last Royal Flying Corps veteran
  12. Last Royal Marines veterans
  13. Last Royal Navy veteran
  14. Last (others) - including Royal Army Pay Corps, Royal Army Ordnance Corps, Army Signals Service, etc
Realistically, we would need a similar list of veterans for each of the 31 countries - and to be honest, I don't know if we have the information on them. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: there should be only three proposals: delete, redirect, or keep/rename. If keep/rename, then the question becomes, "what should be listed here?" I agree with Siamese Turtle that a "last 100" list would be good. "Last veteran by country" has already been done, but what about when a country has several last veterans? Also, minor details/comments could be listed for each case. For example, William Seegers was the "second-to-last German veteran." A comment like this is useful in a "last 100" format with comments.Ryoung122 13:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Would that be a last 100 verified veterans, along with a last 100 non-verified veterans and a last 100 era-veterans? Or 100 which includes the last 100 of whichever category? Or just the last 100 verified veterans? Also, if we do a page like that (and there's no reason why there couldn't be one like that anyway), this article could only be a redirect. Personally, I don't think that this article can have its own content (as there would be no surviving veterans), but it needs to be present (if only for the history of the page); I am going to add another Proposal above, where this page basically has a note saying "The last veteran was ... who died on ...", and then a list of links to relevant articles connected to the subject. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I have now created List of last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service - If you look at it, you will see that it includes Air Force/Army/Navy entries for the UK, and Air Force (currently blank, as I can't find it)/Army/Navy (female)/Navy (male) entries (which includes both Lloyd Brown and Charlotte Winters). If anyone wants to expand this list, please feel free to do so. Some of the entries have "???" as the branch of service, as the references provided did not specify. I'll try to do some more work on it later this week, time allowing. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Proposal G. I don't feel Proposal A is detailed enough. The last by country does not give a good overview of the last veterans. For example, it will miss out Harry Patch and Henry Allingham. I also feel that the list of last veterans of World War I by country and branch of service is too sparse - nearly all countries have a single entry. I appreciate your efforts into making the page, but if the references aren't there, then it only gives slightly more information than the list of last veterans of World War I by country. I think a list of the last 100 [or whatever is best] veterans will give the best overview. I wonder if we could have some sort of amalgamation between the two: A list of the last 100 veterans, with a table of the last veterans by country that consolidates the information alongside it. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support proposal A, as this page will be the closest to what this page is now. I like what would be done with proposal G, but that's not as close to what this page is, and anyway it would be hard to quantify how many veterans should be on the list. Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

William Olin

i have found an article that says there is a man who says he was in The First World War but has no proof, just thought he could be a possibility that he could go in Unverified Veterans, here [14] is the link.--Del Boy (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Olin died in September 2008 (see September 12, 2008, The Beacon News. So he can't be added to the list - and anyway, even his neice didn't sound totally convinced that he had served, Anthony. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

ok, also do you know if Helmut Fink is living or deceased.--Del Boy (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, you are allowed to check Google News Archive and Google Web Search, you know - it's all I do, anyway, when you put up a name here. As far as I am aware (without looking up), Herr Fink is deceased, but without looking it up, I can't be sure offhand -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

i did look up Helmut Fink and i cudernt find anything that said if he was alive or not.--Del Boy (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right that there is nothing indicating that he is alive or not. The last news reference that I can find is March 2009. We'll see in March this year if he is still alive when it's his birthday. As for his status, there have been several discussions on his eligibility for inclusion in this list (see the archives), but as their is no proof that he was a member of an official armed force. The Freikorps at the time of the First World War was not an "official" part of the armed forces of Germany - they were a militia, in which case members would not be eligible for inclusion on this list. I have not seen any evidence that Herr Fink was an "official" member of the German armed forces in the Great War. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Herr Fink unfortunately passed away in April 2009, shortly after he had turned 108. The local Hamburg newspaper reported about his dead, but have meanwhile taken the article offline. I therefore cannot provide a reference. I nevertheless know it for sure. The oldest German man now most probably is Erich Berger, born 13 March 1901. Personally, I always considered Herr Fink at least an era veteran. This is especially the case considering how many far fetched claimants with much weaker "claims" than his made it on the WW I veterans list in the past. However, the discussion on him unfortunately has become obsolete by now.

Moreover much of this stuff is in the archives of this chat page. It's good to be looking, but the second stage is then checking against the archive. RichyBoy (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

more veteran ?

Philibert Parnasse (lives in Guadeloupe)born 6 May 1901 (french)? Erich Berger 13 March 1901 (german) ? Giovanni Ligato 18 February 1901 (italian) ? Walter Breuning 21 September 1896 (american) ? Stanley Lucas 15 January 1900 (england) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.208.128.22 (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

My advice:
  1. Check the archives to see if any of these have been discussed
  2. Look for references showing that they were members of the armed forces in the time scale accepted for this list.
Do not assume that we have time to do your research for you - just because someone might have been a veteran due to their age, this does not mean that they were. Find some evidence that they were, and we can discuss it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

i know walter bruening isnt a veteran because he said on a recording that he put his name forward but wasnt called up and stanley lucas also isnt a veteran because he was excused because of a heart condition.--Del Boy (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Claude Choules

I posted a similar message on Ryoung122's talk page clarifying why I have correctly listed Mr. Choules as the last living combatant of World War I. Mr. Choules was a seaman who saw live naval combat during the war. Mr. Buckles was an ambulance driver who did not see live combat. Ms. Green was a barracks waitress, who can not, in any reasonable way, be confused with a combatant. Mr. Kowalski is a veteran of World War I on a technicality, and did not participate in it. Mr. Terrey's claim is unverified, and even if correct, does not make him a combatant, as he claims to have been a bicycle messenger. The recently deceased Mr. John Babcock, of Canada, also did not participate in the war. Mr. Choules became the last living combatant of World War I upon the death of Mr. Harry Patch, of England, last July. I wish to stress that this edit was made solely in the interest of accuracy. It is not an attempt to diminish the legacies of Mr. Buckles, Ms. Green, Mr. Kowalski, Mr. Terrey, and Mr. Babcock, all of whom I hold in the highest esteem.Mk5384 (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I lot of this is your mere opinion, misstated as fact, and uncited. Harry Patch was correctly noted as the "last veteran of the trenches" and some sources consider him to be the last person to be in actual combat. Even if one is an "active" veteran, if they did not engage in battle then they are not a "combat" veteran and are not eligible for "combat" awards. 'Active service" is NOT the same as "combat." Also, if Mr. Buckles was driving an ambulance, he was likely very near actual combat and was likely as close to or closer than Mr. Choules was to harm's way. Regardless, Wikipedia is supposed to display NPOV and base its assertions on sources, not flat-out statements.

Ryoung122 20:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not one word of that is my opinion. After much discussion amongst other editors, I removed the statement I had added. I did so in the interest of accuracy, just as I did when I added it. You declined to be specific, so please tell me exactly which parts of it are opinions misstated as facts.Mk5384 (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I would consider it to be vitally important, as Mr Choules was undeniably on active service in the Royal Navy, and would have been at risk of suffering attack (although so would Mr Buckles have been, whilst travelling to Europe), but has anyone actually established if HMS Revenge engaged with the enemy before the Armistice whilst Mr Choules served on her? I have not seen anything to suggest that she actually did. If she didn't, then in this very technical sense, Mr Patch could be considered to be the last combatant. Thoughts, anyone? Moldovanmickey (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr.Choules' autobiography, titled The Last of the Last, discusses various hostile acts in which his ship was involved. You brought up a very good point that Mr. Buckles was subject to enemy hostilites as an ambulance driver. I wish to stress that I in no way meant to insinuate that these other fine individuls were immune to the ubiquitous dangers of this war.Mk5384 (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting. Having checked Amazon, Mr Choules' autobiography hasn't yet been released in the UK, where I live, so if you have seen a copy where you are, what specific details does he provide? Regarding Mr Buckles, I was referring more to his Atlantic voyage rather than his time as an ambulance driver- in an interview that's on the Library of Congress website[15]he confirmed that he was at least 30 miles from combat.Moldovanmickey (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Choules' book states that he "saw action aboard the HMS Revenge in the North Sea". It also states that his ship "participated in the surrender of the German High Seas Fleet in November 1918". Finally, it states that he witnessed "the last hostile act of World War I; the German scuttling of their fleet at Scapa Flow on 21 June 1919." I am admittedly relying solely on Mr. Choules' word. His autobiography was only published last year, and there is always the possibility of poetic license as well as the diminishing of memory over the course of 90 years. However, if the book is not accurate, I would think that someone would have challenged it by now.Mk5384 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, the press release for Mr. Choules' book states that he is one three living World War I veterans (they probably discounted, or were unaware of Ms. Green, as Mr. Babcock was still living at the time), and that he became the conflict's sole living combatant upon the death of Mr. Patch. However, if consensus feels that this claim is dubious, I would be willing to consider the possibility you gave that Mr. Patch was, in fact, the last combatant.Mk5384 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The surrender, and the scuttling at Scapa Flow took place after the Armistice, which would mean that if Mr Choules were to have enlisted after 11 November 1918 and had witnessed those events he wouldn't qualify as a World War I veteran for our purposes! But of course, he did enlist in 1916 so it all comes down to what precisely "saw action" means, doesn't it? We could take the line that unless HMS Revenge fired its guns at the enemy, or conversely, was fired upon by the German navy, then actual "combat" did not take place. I can't find any mention that HMS Revenge was involved in any engagements after the Battle of Jutland of 1916, when of course, Mr Choules was not present. There may well have been a looseness of language use over the issue by the publishers of Mr Choules' book: my inclination would be to say that he was on active, wartime service (by, for example, enforcing the naval blockade against Germany) but that he did not actually see combat, although I would be happy to be proved wrong. Somehow, although it's a bit sloppy to think in these terms, Mr Choules' "active service" was more "active" than that of Mr Buckles, but neither can quite be counted as "combat". In the absence of further corroboration, I would say that Mr Patch was the last combatant, but others who have contributed far more than me to these excellent pages over the years might well disagree.Moldovanmickey (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have, for the time being, removed the statement that he is the last surviving combatant. I will attempt to investigate this matter further, and I hope anyone who has knoweledge in this area will contribute.Mk5384 (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

For the story of Claude Choules' life in his own words, in print, see http://www.hesperianpress.com/press_release.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.146.76 (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who posted that comment, but we have been using that source for the majority of this discussion. The problem is that Mr. Choules' book itself, is unclear as to wheather or not he was an actual combatant. I have, as such, removed the statement, pending verification. If you know of something in the book, or elsewhere, that can help us clarify this, please do not hesitate to post it here. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A pertinent thought, on the definition of "combatant". My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines this as a (person) that fights, whilst Merriam-Webster [16]defines it as one that is engaged in or ready to engage in combat, so on the latter definition, Mr Choules could be described as a combatant without actually having seen any combat; on the first definition he could not. It just shows what a cruel mistress the English language can be- there may even be a different nuance in American as opposed to British English. However, MK5384 seems to be favouring the Oxford definition, as indeed do I. Perhaps the term "combat veteran" lacks the potential ambiguity of "combatant".And a very happy birthday to Mr Choules!

Moldovanmickey (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I have said, this does appaer to be the more precise definition, and I have, as such, removed the statement about Mr. Choules being the last combatant. I would, however be opening to reposting it if consensus would overrule us. And I, of course, join Modolvanmickey in wishing Mr. Choules a very happy 109th birthday.Mk5384 (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Some further relevant information:

I found this on a non-authoritative website dealing with the history of HMS Revenge [17]

Post Jutland she performed manoeuvres and sweeps of the North Sea but the German fleet never again put to sea in force, in November 1916 Revenge became the flagship of Admiral Madden – the second in command of the Grand Fleet,. In 1917 she was refitted at an unknown port and on the 05th November 1918 she was at anchor in the Firth of Forth when the Campania, an auxiliary sea-plane carrier dragged her anchor and collided with the bows of the Revenge, Revenge received moderate damage repaired at Rosyth but the Campania sank In 1919 Revenge had a stern-walk added for her role as flagship, she was the only one of her class so fitted and thus easily identified.

and this from the Battle of Jutland article on the Encyclopaedia Britannica CD 2001 edition:

The British had sustained greater losses than the Germans in both ships and men. In all, the British lost three battle cruisers, three cruisers, eight destroyers, and 6,274 officers and men in the Battle of Jutland. The Germans lost one battleship, one battle cruiser, four light cruisers, five destroyers, and 2,545 officers and men. The losses inflicted on the British, however, were not enough to affect the numerical superiority of their fleet over the German in the North Sea, where their domination remained practically unchallengeable during the course of the war. Henceforth, the German High Seas Fleet chose not to venture out from the safety of its home ports.

I suppose there would have been a risk from German U-boats and mines, but in terms of actual combat, I think we would be struggling to find anything. Moldovanmickey (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I also said on Modolvanmickey's talk page that if we were to use the second definition of "being ready to engage in combat" for Mr. Choules, then we would also probably have to use it for Mr. Buckles as well. Although Mr. Buckles never saw combat, he was on active duty, and as such was ready to engage in combat at all times. If no one has anything else to add, we should probably just let things rest as they are. I was premature, and likely in error, when I listed Mr. Choules as the last living combatant.Mk5384 (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As a former night club bouncer, I can assure you that a deterrent can be as effective if not more so than a combatant! Regarding the German fleet, it may be that the reason they chose not to engage in direct combat was due to the presence of ships such as Mr. Choules'...? I think that if Mr. Choules was present in a potential combat zone and ready for action, then this counts. Mr. Buckles was an ambulance driver, so regardless of his proximity to the combat zone, it was never intended that he would fight in combat directly. 66.84.209.156 (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)J271

An excellent point. I did float that possibility when I suggested earlier that Mr Choules could be described as a combatant without actually having seen any combat depending on the preferred definition of "combatant". I do think that Mr Buckles' deployment was not analogous to that of Mr Choules, as the potentiality of Mr Buckles being involved in actual combat whilst being an ambulance driver was nil, whilst the possibility that Mr Choules could be caught up in some form of combat was that much greater whilst he served in the North Sea. I think the problem has been that the word "combatant" could imply that a person had actually directly engaged with the enemy. Perhaps Mr Patch was the last combat veteran, and Mr Choules the last combatant? It is all a little more tricky than I had initially thought....Moldovanmickey (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's quite complicated, is it not? I'm fine with it the way it is now, but if anyone feels that the article would be improved by changing it again, I have no objection.Mk5384 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I/Archive_8&oldid=1136258974"