Talk:Frank Buckles/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wow

If the anonymous IP is right, then farewell to a remarkable figure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted

Why were my edits reverted? http://twitter.com/#!/cnnbrk/status/42073350947868672

Beats me. That's what happens when we let robots run rampant. Welcome to the post-Buckles world.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The robot has been reverted. "XLinkBot is primarily intended to deal with domains which may have a legit use on-wiki, but are frequently misused by new and anonymous users."Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

cause of death?

the article quotes "natural causes", however that does not mean anything. i suggest that portion be removed. there is the risk of discrimination any time an 'older' person dies, that we overlook cancer, atherosclerosis, strokes and more. these facts are essential for statistics.

We don't do stats here. If anything changes, then we will change it. But at 110, it is likely he just passed away in his sleep as the CNN article says. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Arlington interment criteria appear incorrect

The article says:

… current Arlington policy… requires a veteran to have a Medal of Honor, Purple Heart, or have been killed in action. ("Arlington Cemetery Makes Historic Exception for World War I Veteran". Salem-News.com. 2008-04-08. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help))

According to both Arlington National Cemetery#Burial_criteria and the Arlington official web site, this is incorrect. Buckles may have been ineligible for ground burial, but the requirements are not as stringent as the cited source claims. This should be corrected. Since it involves changing reliably sourced material, I would prefer not to make the correction myself. —Mark Dominus (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The White house granted an "In ground" burial permission for Buckles. Ross Perot was one of the people who intervened on Buckles behalf. News of all that should be out in the news soon I would think. Or be self apparent when the funeral happens. I would also also expect that the Service secretary will be there as well as possibly the SECDEF. Especially since so many foriegn dignitaries will be there. --108.18.194.162 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Who Is Older? Near the beginning of this article it said that Buckles was the second oldest male military veteran in the world but did not say whom the oldest was; Any Info?JeepAssembler (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Who Is Older?

Does anyone know whom the world's oldest male military veteran is/was? It said that Buckles was second.JeepAssembler (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article (footnote 4) says: "There are only two remaining surviving veterans of World War I - both of whom are British. Claude Choules, 109, now lives in Australia and said it was an 'honour' to be the last British man standing after Harry Patch died in July 2009. He enlisted with the Royal navy aged just 15 in 1916 and went on to serve on board the battleship HMS Revenge. Florence Green, 110, is the world's last surviving female veteran of the First World War after serving in the Women's Royal Air Force during the conflict. She joined the Air Force at the age of 17 in 1918, where she served as a waitress. She is one of the ten oldest people in Britain, where she still lives."Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see List of last surviving World War I veterans by country. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Footnote format

Not to be picky or anything, but I've tried to use a uniform format for the footnotes, including this format for dates of publications: "(2011-03-01)." Is there some reason why some of these keep getting changed to this format: "March 1, 2011"? It's not important which format we use, but whatever one we use should be consistent. Likewise, it's not important whether a cite template is used, as long as the footnote comes out looking the same. And, per WP:CITE, the date you retrieve a footnoted source is only required if the publication date is unknown.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over lying in state

I'm seeing articles saying that West Virginia's delegation is pushing for him to lie in repose in the Capitol rotunda. Should we be covering this? here.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a little blurb about it the second to last paragraph of "Honors and Awards", though I think it should be moved to something like "Burial" or something more appropriate, since this is a controversy and not an honor. I have to get ready for church, but when I get back, I will help out on this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 14:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, back from Church. Now, the following links are from the past couple days that should help with the controversy about burial.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.

Any of those should be more than helpful. Please let me know if you need further links as I can quickly find them. Take Care....Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 18:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been following this for the last few days. Stories are still being published on this and there will be more, up to and until he is buried. Let's hope they manage to sort something out with not too much arguing. The latest story I'm reading is from the Washington Times, here. I wasn't aware of the last two stories Neutralhomer linked to. From what I've read, the family and the family's spokesman (who has been doing recordings and filming for the past few years) had tried to get all this planned in advance, so there wouldn't be all this uncertainty, but the only thing they managed to get sorted was the permission to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery. The Rotunda honor requires the current leaders of both houses to agree on it, and that hasn't happened (hence the news stories). I'm never sure of the right approach to take with slowly developing news stories like this. I suspect small daily updates as new stories come out, and then a final update and rewrite after the funeral. There are also lots of opinion pieces out there reacting to the "passing of a generation", but it is harder to use those, though arguably they are more relevant. The real updates will come the day of the funeral. Carcharoth (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there will be a push up to the day of the funeral, but I do also believe we should pull the blurb about the controversy over the laying in honor to a section of it's own. Currently it is in "Honors and Awards" and that isn't really an honor nor an award and isn't appropriate in that section. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Split all the commemoration (all the post-death) stuff into new section. I don't think focusing unduly on the controversy is the right way to go. Hopefully it will all be resolved during discussions this week. Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope so as well. If we need to focus on it (again if) we have the links above, so they are there. But I think everyone will come to their senses (or so I hope) either today (Monday) or sometime this week. But from what I have heard, Buckles is being laid to rest on the 14th, so they need to hurry up, they only have 7 days. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 05:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Article also needs tidying up, as there is now repetition in there, but the duplicate mentions of the burial both have bits that should be kept. To get the details right here requires sifting through lots of newspaper stories, all of which seem to take a slightly different angle on the story. Carcharoth (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a good once over in the next couple of days, most likely Thursday. Want it tidy for the funeral, whenever that is.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Last I heard is that Buckles will be laid to rest on the 14th. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 04:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we can keep it as is and let the rotunda situation play out. After he is laid to rest we can add about the controversy. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction on the burial date, it is the 15th of March. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 16:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Buckles Bill

New story here: Poe introduces the Frank Buckles World War I Memorial Act. AFAIK, this bill has been around a while. I think this is the bill being re-introduced or however things work in US national politics. I should be able to do some work on the article at some point as well, but probably not before the weekend. Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this was done last week by Jim Webb (of VA) and a couple others. See here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 04:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Local Memorial Service

There will be local memorial service, this one will be at Buckles' church in Charles Town, West Virginia. Please see here and here for details. This should be added to the article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 09:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, perhaps we should mention in the article or in the infobox that he was Episcopalian Since in the article it mentioned the local memorial service will be "at his church in Charles Town" and it is an Episcopal church. See the first link above for that information. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 09:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, too bad you can't go! Images, images.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right, but out of respect (and since it is a church setting) I wouldn't take pictures at the service. I bet, though, the Martinsburg, WV paper will have somehting we can use. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 16:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Name

I see nothing in the article about Buckles ever legally changing his name. If he didn't, the article should perhaps begin: "Wood Buckles, better known as Frank Woodruff Buckles..." And if he did change it, then perhaps it should begin: "Frank Woodruff Buckles, born Wood Buckles..." In either case, articles where a person's most commonly know name differs from their birth name usually have that information in the opening sentence. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

On page 3 of this source, it says "A sergeant insisted that he needed a middle initial, Mr. Buckles recalled. So he adopted an uncle's name, Frank Woodruff Buckles, and never stopped using it." So, I am not sure if it was a legal adoption of the name or just a personal adoption. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 15:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with Joe's proposal, but would favor the second alternative no matter what the sequence of events was. Please see WP:NAME for one thing. Today, I think we would want a recognized legal way of name change, but at one time things were looser. You could acquire a name through a misspelling at Ellis Island, or the action of a sergeant, or just because you wanted to change your name. My grandmother (born in 1907) acquired the first name Grace because her Kindergarten teacher said she looked like a Grace; her given name was Rachel, but she bore the name Grace for the next sixty years until her death, and she's buried under it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You do make a good point about things being different then and name changes easier to come by. I think the Washington Post article I linked above is good enough to confirm the "given name" and the name he would later adopt. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 16:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we adopt a similar practice as found at the pages of former presidents William Blythe and Leslie King. In other words, the second alternative suggested by Joe.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 17:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. I didn't mean to insinuate that I thought legal documentation of a name change was necessary here. Things were indeed different then, and using a name for 90 plus years is certainly good enough in my book to constitute a de facto legal change. I just think that his birth name should be mentioned in the lede, as per most of our biography articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just one other thing. Do you think that we should include the actual information in the article? In other words, state, in the article, what the reference says about how he took the name "Frank Woodruff Buckles"? Joefromrandb (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should. Just use the same reference and all. Let me know if you need any further references. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 07:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection requested

I requested temporary semi-protection of this article. Admittedly, the vandalism is not quite as high as I would normally need to see before making an RfP. However, a 110 year old WWI vet does not deserve this. Hopefully it can at least be protected until Mr. Buckles' burial. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you there. Not sure if we will get pre-emptive protection, but it is worth a shot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 07:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not exactly pre-emptive. There has been vandalism, and 1 edit was apparently so bad it had to be rev-deleted. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That was my doing getting it RevDel'd. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 08:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Something tells me I shouldn't even ask. In any case, we got 2 weeks protection. I feel confident that a lot of the children will have moved on by then. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I was the first to see the edit after it was reverted, so I reported, no worries. :) Anywho, I agree the kids will have moved on and sadly, Frank will be out of the 24 hour newscycle. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 10:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Updates

I added some things from the 8th to the 10th to the "Commemoration" section. Some neat stuff in there like his former high school honoring him, two more states lowing their flags (Missouri and Pennsylvania) and an update on his burial (still no word on the Rotunda). Any other information you all might have, please feel free to add. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 04:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Official DoD announcement appears to be here.

"He will lie in honor at Arlington’s Memorial Amphitheater Chapel from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. March 15 for the public to pay its last respects. The interment will be at 4 p.m., and the corporal will be buried near the site where General of the Armies John “Black Jack” Pershing, the commander of the American Expeditionary Force, is buried. The Pentagon Channel will carry the service."

Pity they get the bit about the last two veterans wrong (one is a woman and one is in Australia though was born in Britain). Carcharoth (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Frank Buckles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 21:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully later today. Canadian Paul 21:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! There are three editors working on this article. User:Anythingyouwant, User:Wehwalt (who is working on others) and myself. So, if you have any questions, please let us know. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

1. Under "Honors and awards", World News Tonight needs to be disambiguated. -  Done
2. As an overall comment, there are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs in the article, which makes the flow choppy, the article difficult to read, and reduces parts of the narrative to just listing of facts. My general rule is that any paragraph should have at least three sentences, otherwise it doesn't need to be its own paragraph OR it needs to be expanded. While the "three sentence" rule isn't a GA requirement, having flowing prose is, so there has to be something done with these one-two sentence paragraphs to improve the narrative of the article. By the final sections, the prose has crumbled and it becomes almost a bulleted list of random facts. An example of how disorganized this looks is the use of David DeJonge's name - he's mentioned by name as a photographer, then only by "DeJonge" when implied to be Buckles' bibliographer, then he is reintroduced with his full name later as the "family spokesperson", then his full name again as a photographer and reintroduces the film that was mentioned earlier as if it had never been noted before! -  Done
3. I don't agree with the fair-use rationales for the two fair-use photographs - with the first one, however, it should fall under Public Domain in the United States (since it was first published prior to January 1, 1923), so that that should just be a matter of switching the tags. For the second image, however, I don't think that fair use is going to work here. Free images of both Buckles and the memorial are available and having a picture of the two together is a nice visual aid, but isn't essential for the understanding of the topic, so it needs to be removed.

1. The image in question was changed to a NFUR image due to issues raised by Neutralhomer. A version of the image was deleted from Commons due to this deletion discussion. It was furthere debated at this user page. Neutralhomer then raised the issue at WP:AN#Who's Manning the Ship at Commons?, which is how I became aware of it. It is quite likely that the image is PD, but as this has been disputed, we need to be able to prove the fact. I faced a similar situation when adding an image to the Penshurst Airfield article. Again, the image is probably PD, but in absence of definite proof of the source, it is being treated as a copyright image being used under NFFU rules, an action which was endorsed at the GAR for Penshurst Airfield, which passed the review and is now rated as a Good Article. Therefore I suggest that the changing of the image to another hosted on Commons be undone, and the image should be allowed to remain under NFFU rules. It is of historic importance and does add to the article. I will raise Commons-related issues with the image on Commons. Mjroots (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Some of the citations need improvement - 7, 17, 25, 39, 40, 42, 47, and 56 are all missing necessary citation information (mostly dates).  Done
2. Per WP:QUOTE, quotations, especially block ones, should be used infrequently and only in situations where paraphrasing would be inappropriate and/or the direct quote significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the subject being discussed. Under "Life during the twentieth century", the block quote about Buckles' recruitment seems inappropriate - it's merely an anecdote that could be paraphrased and whose exact details could be explored by simply reading the source. The block quote at the end of the article, however, is fine. -  Done
3. Under "Life during the twenty-first century", "Buckles' life was featured on the Memorial Day 2007 episode of NBC Nightly News. On February 4, 2008, with the death of 108-year-old Harry Richard Landis, Buckles became the last surviving American World War I veteran." has no citations and requires them for at least the last statement. -  Done
4. Under "Honors and Awards", fourth paragraph "Buckles also received other awards" is too blunt and bland of a sentence to fit in with everything else. It either needs to be integrated earlier in the section ("Among the numerous awards that Buckles has received...") or expanded upon. -  Done
5. Per WP:LEAD, the lead needs to do a better job of summarizing all the major sections of the article. -  Done

Finally, I don't feel the article passes the stability criteria, because it's going to be updated and changed once he is buried on the fifteenth. Normally this would be cause for a quick fail. Since the burial is within the range of a seven day hold, however, and it is not likely that a substantial amount will need to change in the article, I think that I will just put it on hold for up to seven days and see how the article develops in relation to my concerns. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 04:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that all the issues were addressed so quickly! I still want to see the state of the article after his burial takes place, even though I don't think that the changes will be too major, so I will re-review the article at that time and keep the GA on hold. This will also give a little time for the debate on the first image to develop. Canadian Paul 05:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a nightowl, so I took care of those quickly. :) Had help on the sources. From what I have heard, Buckles' service will take place at 4pm EDT, with a special service before hand with honor guards from the Navy, Army, Marines, and Air Force. I heard that service will be broadcast live on The Pentagon Channel here in the US. Due to earthquake coverage, it probably won't be carried elsewhere (CNN, etc), though I figure the DC locals will have reporters there, with video, so I will watch for those. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 05:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

One question, besides the image, do you see, at quick glance, anything (before your official re-review) that needs updating or reworking? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 05:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just skimming through it, the article looks much better and I didn't see any obvious issue with it. It looks like my concerns have been addressed and you even went beyond them to improve the article (for example, moving the quote from his website to a quote box was a nice touch). I'll do a proper re-review tomorrow, but I think that my concerns at that point will be minimal and, as long as the article remains stable after his burial, I don't see any reason why I wouldn't pass it in the end. The only issue that I might raise is that, per WP:LEAD, the intro should summarize all of the major sections of the article, and I didn't catch anything from "Honors and Awards" or "Commemoration and funeral". Canadian Paul 16:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

After 26 hours of continous work, help from User:Wehwalt‎, User:Acroterion‎, User:Connormah‎, User:Anythingyouwant, and User:Mjroots, MANY edits and re-edits, a really good U.S. DOD picture, and work on Commons....I am proud to say it is done. I would even venture to say it is FA quality, but that is for another review. I will check in on your re-review in the morning when I get up, but this editor's bed is callin' his name. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 01:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I had meant to do some more work on this, but didn't find as much time as I wanted. I'd like to add my thanks to those who have worked on this. I saw the DoD pictures today, and I said to myself that I was sure it would be in the article before I got home, and hey, it was! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks great! Some final comments before I pass:

1. Under "Life during the twentieth century", the final sentence ("His wife died in 1999 and their daughter moved back to the farm to care for him.") requires a citaiton.
2. I still don't see anything substantial from the "Honors and awards" section in the lead.

Other than that, it should be ready to go! Canadian Paul 05:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will take care of those when I get back from a doc's appt, which should be after 2pm EDT. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 16:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, on 1, another user sourced that while I was gone and on 2, I added more to the lead. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article looks great everyone, so there's no hesitation on my end to pass this as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! Good luck with FA... I tried that route for another last veteran, John Babcock, but had my nomination shut down and its GA status questioned for a handful of small issues... I hope you have better luck than I! Canadian Paul 21:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Gotta get a PR first, but yeah, my next step is FA. Thanks for keeping up with the article as others and I have made the changes. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Image

The images on Commons have both been nominated for deletion as copies of an image that was deleted on Commons as not being in the Public Domain. As such, the image hosted on en-Wiki should be used (partly in order to avoid its deletion as an orphan). It can be justified as being of historical importance, and impossible to recreate. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is opposition to the deletion at Commons, for the reasons explained there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

While I understand that folks want to focus just on the image, I think we would be best served if we focused on both the article and image. Even if that means "hiding" the image for the time being on the article. Since the article is up for GA, that should take up the majority of our time, while the image should come secondary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 08:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The GAN is on hold for seven days. During that time, there is no need to hide the image, unless the GA reviewer asks us to. I think everyone agrees that the image is valid either as public domain or fair use or both, so hiding it would be unfortunate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with hiding the image is that it could then be deleted as an orphaned NFUR image. It needs to stay to justify it being hosted on en-Wiki. If it gets deleted on en-Wiki, then a whole new can of worms is opened which could ultimately result in the permanent loss of the image. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: A GA can be approved even while on hold. Had that happen before. :)

@Mjroots: It can be deleted when hidden? Really? I didn't know that. OK, scratch that. But I still think we should put more focus on the article than image for the moment. Anythingyouwant mentioned this article and I think there is some really good information in there we can use and should use. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 09:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

@NH, I'm not saying it will be, but want to avoid the scenario of the NFUR image getting deleted if at all possible, as it then raises further problems in getting the image back up on en-Wiki. Images on Commons would not be deleted solely because they are not being used in an article. Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. :) Hey, I am crashing out for the night. Stupid gastritis and insomnia have my schedule all flipped around, so I will leave things in your hands until I get up. If User:Canadian Paul has any questions for me, feel free to answer them and work on anything on the page. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 10:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the question of hiding the image at WT:IUP#NFUR images question. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if hiding it would not make it liable to deletion, what possible reason is there to hide it? Don't we all agree that it's either PD or that there's a valid fair use rationale?Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Another Image

Just added this to commons. Wasn't sure if it fit anywhere in the article. Mingusboodle (talk) 03:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice picture, thanks. We've probably got enough pics for now, but the article may get longer once his biography is published, in which case more pics may be included.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sons of Confederate Veterans

Looks like he was active in a group called "Sons of Confederate Veterans".[1] If we're going to put in the lead that he was a Shriner and Freemason, I'm not sure it's right to completely omit from the article the stuff about the Confederacy, even if that stuff might detract from the guy's image. On the other hand, the sources that I've linked to do not provide a lot of detail.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That one I wasn't aware of, good catch. Looks like he resigned in May, 1976 and came back in January, 2000. Might want to source both of those and put the connection to his Civil War ancestor, via this link. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 10:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I guess we'll add something about it. Thx. He has "left the planet" now, so he won't mind.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I see you noticed that too, eh? Man, that is going to follow me for awhile. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 03:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

British English

I would like to know why an article on the biography of an AMERICAN serviceman is written in British English. Or is it just that they think they can now re-write our history for us as they usually do in the UK? It seems highly inappropriate and the article should be entirely written in American English.Yoganate79 (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, we do have a Brit writing this article as well as us Yanks, so that could be it. Could you show me where the offending sentence(s) is and I will take care of it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Some thought should be given as to whether to go day month year or month day year, it seems usual in the military articles to go day first. Perhaps someone from the MH wikiproject could comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been writing in American date style (and spelling the US way over on the Japan earthquake article), even though I may be the Brit Neutralhomer is referring to above. I may have erred at times, as the habits of a lifetime are hard to kick. I do hope Yoganate79 will forgive me if any Britishisms crept in from my edits (I am being slightly sarcastic here, in case that is being missed). Carcharoth (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should split this into the American Wikipedia and the British Wikipedia. I don't think the Australians really need one. Once that's done, we can focus on the Piers Morgan problem.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Actually, I was refering to Anythingyouwant. I seen him spell "honours" and "defence", which is British, hence I made a connection. Not a worry though, that can always be fixed. :) I have looked the article over though and I can't find any British English on there, so I am unsure what the OP was refering to. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 14:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't me. I spell "honor" and "defense" like every other loyal American. It must have been some foreign interloper.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought you had. Eh, on some of those nights, I was running on little if any sleep, so you could have danced an irish jig in the middle of the living room and I wouldn't have noticed. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 16:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

The article says that, after grade school, Buckles and his family moved to Oklahoma. I seem to recall reading that Buckles made the trip on his own; that his family stayed behind, while young Buckles went to live with an uncle. I'm fairly sure that it was in either a reference, or an external link (and, as such, possibly not WP:RS). Perhaps one of our astute editors who have done such an impressive job with this article will know the answer, or perhaps where to look for it. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It is sourced to the LA Times, so a good source. The actual sentence reads as follows: "He was born Feb. 1, 1901, on a farm near Bethany, Mo., and moved with his family to a farm in Oklahoma's Dewey County as a teenager." That's what we used and I have seen it in a couple other places. If you have a "different version", please let me know. The "early years" are sketchy at best, so they definitely could use some work. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 21:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thank you for clarifying that, as well as for all of your work on this article. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It is an honor to work on it and I hope to take it to FA and TFA soon. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 23:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm considering submitting it to WP:ITN/C. There was a submission that failed around the time of his death, but I'm hoping that a new submission, phrased the right way (the passing of a generation, rather than focusing on Buckles himself) will strike a better tone. It is unlikely to get onto ITN, given the opposition last time and the current news, but I said during the last discussion that I thought the submission should have waited until the funeral, and I would make a submission then, so I should still do that. I won't be able to write anything until tomorrow, though (well, it will still be 16 March, but tomorrow for me). Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Funeral details

There may be more news stories to come, not yet published. One thing I would like to see is mention of whether The Last Post was played. I remember seeing a reference somewhere that Buckles wanted this played at his funeral, but it was said that military funerals at Arlington don't have this played, but that Taps is played instead. It would be nice to know which was played. Also, I see from military funeral some of the details, but possibly it might be possible to say what differed here. The edit I just made to the article said there were 7 horses. I wonder what that number signifies? There is a picture in the news article I used for that edit, see here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Some more suggestions

From memory (from news stories read), some bits that might be worth adding:

• (1) Buckles' daughter has said that the media misrepresented her as requesting the laying in honour with no prior suggestion of it, and that it was actually first suggested to her and her father (at some earlier time) when the issue came up of his burial and government officials were discussing it with them (presumably around the time the Arlington burial was granted). Unfortunately, it's proving difficult for me to find this.
• (2) Bob Dole and a relative of a decorated soldier (York) commented on the Rotunda business. [2] [3]
• (3) There were several other Congressional statements that didn't get reported. It would be worth mentioning them. Search here to find them.
• (4) The bill that has been introduced several times regarding the WWI memorial and other matters is not mentioned here. This is a rather big omission, IMO. However, it has a complicated history. [4] That is the most recent introduction. The two earlier ones (not sure if there were others) are: here and here. Another link about the latest attempt to get this act passed is here.
• (5) Some nice details here about the context following WWI (the Bonus Army).

That last link has a nice quote:

"Yet the hallowed ritual at grave No. 34-581 was not a farewell to one man alone. A reverent crowd of the powerful and the ordinary — President Obama and Vice President Biden, laborers and store clerks, heads bowed — came to salute Buckles’s deceased generation, the vanished millions of soldiers and sailors he came to symbolize in the end." - Washington Post

And a nice bit about a 73-year-old son of a veteran who came with his father's infantry insignia pin to say farewell one last time. The end of that article is nice as well. I'll try and add links to more stories as I read them. Carcharoth (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

WaPo has a wonderful quote from Buckles about thinking that the war would only last a month or so. Plus one of these news articles mentioned that he gave his Army bonus in the 1930s to his father who was still farming in the dustbowl that Oklahoma once was. I also noticed that both Buckles and his brother had scarlet fever in 1903, and only he survived. In WWI, a German gave him an item that said "God is With Us" (in German of course). Another article said he spoke several languages (e.g. fluent in Spanish). This Wikipedia article is okay as-is, but these are some random thoughts in case anyone wants to expand it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. There is lots that could be added. I scrolled past the top hits in Google News and found: the US Army report (some extra pics there); the DoD report (some more pictures and some great quotes as well); and a report here on the Congressional Record commemoration, which would also be nice to include, though it is difficult to work out how to keep things balanced with so much material available. Another thing I forgot was suggesting that this article should mention how France and Britain commemorated their last veterans. That's out there in the news stories as well if you look in the right places. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I finally got around to adding the stuff I mentioned above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth said above: "The bill that has been introduced several times regarding the WWI memorial and other matters is not mentioned here. This is a rather big omission, IMO." The article now mentions that the legislation is in limbo and explains why. Also, Dole is now mentioned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Languages

In this news story, it says that Buckles spoke "...German, Spanish, French, and he learned a little Japanese." I think, that a person of 110 to know 5 languages is pretty extraordinary and should be mentioned, but I am unsure as to how. It would be a really short sentence, so I am not sure where to put it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 07:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there's any rule of thumb, but it doesn't seem uncommon to note in a Wikipedia article that its subject is/was a polylinguist. It seems worth mentioning. However, I could see a possible issue with WP:RS, and WP:V. What we seem to have is his pastor stating this fact in a local newspaper. I'm not quite familiar enough with these policies to know whether or not that passes muster, but if it does, I say go for it! Joefromrandb (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have this up for PR, so I will ask the reviewer and see what they think and go from there, but you are probably right and I just need a better source. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 06:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This source (from MSNBC) mentioned "several languages", so we can take that from them and the local source mentioning which languages and put them together. My problem still remains, it would be a short sentence and I am unsure where to put it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 07:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How about including it in the paragraph that discusses Buckles being held by the Japanese as a POW? We could insert there that he learned some Japanese, and follow that with his fluency in the other languages. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How's this look? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 08:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! I made a tiny change, and removed the conjunction "but", as there isn't anything contradictory about the two parts of the statement. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I seen that change and it looked like the first sentence it created was too short, if a sentence at all, so I switched it and made it one sentence again with "and". Feel free to tinker if that doesn't work. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 09:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I considered doing it the way you did. I decided against it because it creates a run-on sentence. I'm unsure how the sentence would be "too short". There probably is a better way to phrase it than the one I chose, but I'm not sure if your change is grammatically correct. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What I was meaning by a "short sentence" is "During his capture, Buckles learned some Japanese." just seems abruptly short. I guess I have my 3rd grade teacher in my head telling me about incomplete sentences and that one just seems like one to me, I guess. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 10:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Medical role"?

It says, "Buckles was the last field veteran of WWI (though his role was medical in nature)". Is that qualifier necessary? "Field veteran" doesn't imply "combat veteran". The article discusses Buckles' role in the war as an ambulance driver, and there doesn't seem to be any reason for a reader to get the idea that Buckles engaged in live combat. Adding "(though his role was medical in nature)" seems to infer that his status as a "field veteran" was diminished by the fact that he didn't actually fight. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Wood Buckles"

Frank went 93 years with that name, and while his birth name does deserve encyclopedic mention, it doesn't deserve a spot on the first line. See e.g. Lillian Russell as to how Wikipedia traditionally handles a case like that. Themadchopper (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh. WP:WAX. How else can you help get this article to FA status? Cause there are several editors gunning for that... Doc talk 07:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ON, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOS, it is prefered the original way, hence I have reverted. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 09:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. ON applies largely to titles of nobility. COMMONNAME just goes to prove my point. MOS might benefit by a read by you, or at least a citation. Reverting your revert. Themadchopper (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, I am not getting into an edit war with you. What you have done was discussed above where we reached consensus on this. Consensus you are currently going against. So, what we've got here is failure to communicate. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 12:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The consensus version is fine with me. If you seek to change it, Thermadchopper, you must build consensus yourself.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, do you want to revert back to the consensus version or should I? I want to avoid the looks of an editwar (which is one of the criteria of FAC). - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 12:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus where? Point us. Themadchopper (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. That's pretty much my point, there was no legal name change. It wasn't necessary here in those days. It's *trivia. It doesn't belong on the first line. Themadchopper (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Think about it, 97 *years with the same name, 17 in your youth without it. I don't even see why this is in contention. Themadchopper (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. Consensus (and WP:NAME) is against you. That doesn't mean you are wrong, or that you aren't welcome to continue to discuss this. But several editors have put in tiresome hours working on this article. Please don't disrespect their hard work by disrupting the stability of this article. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus WP-wide is clear: it shouldn't make any difference if it was 97 years of 19 years; in general, the birth name is highlighted in the first line. Entertainers, for instance, frequently change their names for PR or Equity reasons, and those names are mentioned right up front. See Danny Kaye, Angelina Jolie (an FA), Sonny Bono, etc., etc. There's no good reason to suppress the birth name. Acroterion (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, sourced content (from the Washington Post) isn't trivia. Also, it is his birth name. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 13:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess if we can put Gerald Ford's birth name in the first line of his article, and that is an FA, we should be able to for Buckles. I really don't understand what all the fuss is here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Just the one editor going against consensus. Which I think (HOPE) is over, so we can, for the moment, mark this resolved. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 19:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NAME is completely on my side of this "argument" if you'd bother to actually read it. And never mind that the <a href="http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Buckles&diff=416419585&oldid=416399036">sourced content</a> was put there by myself, before the talk page was censored <a href="http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Buckles&diff=418600372&oldid=418600138>by you ten days ago>

Frank Buckles wasn't famous until he lived a hundred years, nor was he ever President of the United States. Use your loaf.

And I'd thank people for not censoring out his brother's name as well. Also, consolidation of sources is a good thing, by "consensus." I'd thank you to leave that as well. Your edits are coming close to vandalism. Cite a source, someday. I'd do it myself, if you'd show me how. 209.188.67.64 (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Your IP is showing. You may want to ask to have it oversighted out, up to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSBIO states that it birth names should in the lead as it is currently, IIRC. Connormah (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Lillian Russell article (mentioned in the first comment above in this thread) now has birth name in lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

@Themadchopper: Nothing on the talk page was "censored", it was moved to Archives, see at the very top of the page. Also, this isn't about sides, it is about WP:CONSENSUS, something that Wikipedia is built on. We do everything by consensus and currently that consensus has the birth name going in the first line. Like Wehwalt said, if you want to change that, build consensus. Finally, if my edits were "nearing vandalism"; Wehwalt, Acroterion, or Connormah would let me know very quickly as they are admins and are read up on the rules and policies of Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 01:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll believe that "nothing is being censored" and that "you're not getting into an edit war with me" when I see the word "Ashman" in the article after one of your reverts. 209.188.67.64 (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the archived contents of the talk page. Since you are wanting to argue, I am leaving this discussion to everyone else. Just please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where we all edit collabratively, not what one person wants, one person gets. With that, I leave this thread to everyone else. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 04:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that the brother's name ("Ashman") was specifically discussed at the archived talk page. But, I don't see any problem leaving it out of this article until we have good sources for the names of other family members too. It looks kind of weird to mention his brother's name but not the names of his parents.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It could be mentioned as part of an anecdote, rather than saying "he had a brother Ashman" say "Late in life, Buckles remembered that he and his brother Ashman" yada yada.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If it can be sourced, I would be glad to have a brother's name in page. The page is seriously lacking on early life history, like parent's names, siblings, etc. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 15:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I had gathered that something about his brother was sourced, but that there were difficulties with the other family members. As a thought, why not call vital records in the county where he died and see if the death certificate is publicly available. That would get you parents names anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point, but how would I source that? Wouldn't that potentially fall under original research? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 16:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You source it to the death certificate, county department of vital records, file number whatever it is. This is not OR, and it satisfies verifiability as others can take the same path. As it is a quasi-primary record, I would not overrely on such things, though, but for purposes of obtaining parents' names, it should be fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, have you considered 1910, 1920, and 1930 census records?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I will give the court house and the county's historical society a call here in a moment. Didn't think to look in the Census records. Let me see what I can dig up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 16:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Google's amazing, but it's always good to think outside the box.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Running into some brickwalls at the moment with the National Archives (where the 1910 Census records are). Have to call back to Harrison County, MO after 4pm EDT. For now, I am going to try another opinion, but I need to know, is Ancestry.com a reliable source? - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 17:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The brother's name is sourced in footnote #4: "He said destiny seemed to side with him early, in 1903, when he and his brother Ashman fell deathly ill together with scarlet fever."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if ancestry.com is a RS. Search the reliable sources noticeboard archives, I'm sure it has been discussed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Asked on IRC as well, they told me the same thing, so I just asked on RSN. So, we wait. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

[http://www.sos.mo.gov/archives/resources/deathcertificates/ Missouri death certificates (pre 1960?, too lazy to check link) are available online in digital form. familysearch.org has some census records available online for free. Connormah (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)