Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

nurse

Who is the last nurse of the first world war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.220.204 (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is for surviving veterans. None of them are nurses. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so rude. Even if nurses don't fall under the scope of this article (and I agree they don't), perhaps someone might know of an organization or some other resource devoted to WWI nurses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.102.62 (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The specific purpose of this talk page is for discussion about making improvements to the article "List of surviving veterans of World War I". It is not, as many users seem to think, a messageboard for any other comments or questions, even if they are about WWI or veterans. There are doubtless such forums and messageboards elsewhere on the internet. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And there certainly were nurses in the military, and not all of them were women.Czolgolz (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad day at the office? I admit some (maybe a lot) of the discussion questions are off topic, but we have over the years asked a lot of (some very leading) questions. I see nothing wrong with this person asking this question. If you do, then we need to go back and remove aboout 2/3 of all the questions. Relax a little ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.212.55.40 (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Terrey Update

This in from Dennis Goodwin:

I am afraid I have drawn a blank on this one. Sometime back he was contacted but it was not possible to establish whether or not he did in fact take the "King's shilling." The military at that time was not convinced. A newspaper reporter has been down to see if he could re-open the case and I await his findings, but so far I have heard nothing.

Doesn't sound very positive but we'll have to wait and see.Brucexyz (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is disappointing. The fact that the Royal Logistics Corps gave him a plaque for his centenary seemed telling. But then far more extravagant tales have been celebrated as truths in the past. At least Mr Goodwin has kept up his 100% record of responding. 212.183.134.66 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

I agree it doesn't sound positive, I always thought he was a bit on the young side, he could well have been in the Royal Logistics Corps, but that didn't officially come into being until 1933. So without any evidence for earlier service, I think we have to leave him as unverified. SRwiki (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

He only sounds young by modern standards, it wasn't until 1918 that eduction was compulsory for everyone between the age of 5 and 14 in the UK. His age is actually fine; the British military back then and for many years had an official rank of 'boy', and a boy was somebody that they took on at the age of 15 and trained them in a trade of somesort until they were old enough to enlist, they would then usually join their regiment with the rank of private. I believe during WWI they would take boys straight from school at the age of 14. However, they were neither enlisted or conscripted so they have never really been recognised (this is very different to boys attempting to enlist claiming to be 19 when they were only 15 and so on). RichyBoy (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right. Claude Choules was 14 (although admittedly closer to 15 than 13) and he was in the Navy. Stephen Butcher was 13 and actually born 6 months after Doug Terrey. So we really have to consider everyone up to 1904, even the likes of William Olin. As for the RLC, he was supposedly in the Home Guard in WWII, but I suppose they could have been recognizing other non-WWI service. This might be like the Krichevsky case. Unverifiable but likely true given the mundane story and credible individual. 212.183.134.128 (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Ned Hughes Update

I had a message today from the news editor of the local newspaper that 'broke' Ned Hughes earlier in the year. She has heard from a relative of Mr Hughes that he has remembered his service number and wondered if this might help in his quest for official recognition. I suggested that she contact the MoD again, the Kings & Manchester Regiment Association, and Dennis Goodwin (who might be able to point her in the right direction).

Hopefully this new information will lead to Mr Hughes being formally acknowledged as a WWI veteran in the same way as Messrs Allingham, Choules, Patch and Stone. I have the service number if anyone thinks that they might be able to help.Brucexyz (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have insider information on this, or just a regular source? 84.13.31.46 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

It was the newspaper editor, who had spoken to a Hughes family member.217.42.88.132 (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Bruce

Rex,Robley,H

He is died?

http://www.ocalamagazine.com/specPubsNews/templates/default.aspx?a=909&template=print-article.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.15.217.122 (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That article is incorrect, he is still alive. The following is a link to a congressional report document from May 2008: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-s20080512-27#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm110mx002Fmcrmx002Fms20080512-27.xmlElementm1m0m0m

Mr. President, today I rise to recognize a very special individual from my home State of Kentucky, Mr. Robley Rex. Earlier this month, Mr. Rex celebrated his 107th birthday. To live 107 years in and of itself is an achievement by anyone's standard. In the case of Robley Rex, those 107 years have been especially full of accomplishment and patriotic service. He has filled his lifetime with loyal service to our Nation's Armed Forces, to the U.S. Postal Department, to local businesses, to the Methodist ministries and, perhaps most importantly, to his family and his fellow veterans.

I would ignore articles such as the one you found that "fact" in, with all the gerentology people floating around when he does pass away it won't be going un-noticed. RichyBoy (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I last wrote him and received word, in May of this year. As far as I know he is still living. (PershinBoy)209.247.22.75 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Future

Just wondering: what will happen to this list in a few years when they all die and there are no surviving veterans? Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 03:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Strictly this can still be a list even when there is just one entry left. Technically this list breaks one of the wiki rules relating to info of a transient nature, but that's all been voted on in the past, the details can be found in the archives. There is already another list (found at the bottom of the main page) which details the last living veteran for each country. However, before long we need to create a proper article about the "last living veterans of WWI", so we can retire this page at an appropriate point, or have a "countdown" article similar in style to that of ders des ders. That's my tuppence anyway. RichyBoy (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, can it be entered as a list like they have on wiki for the last Civil War veterans? We could list the last 25 or 50 vets, and list the other years at the bottom as we are doing now. I don't think we should do this until they are all gone though. (PershingBoy)209.247.21.167 (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Mortality rate

In 2007 the mortality rate was 35/58*100=60% In 2008 (so far) it was 15/23*100=65%

It is suggesting that we'll have 3 survivors at the end of 2009, only one survivor at the end of 2010. And we lost him in the first half of 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.242.46 (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If we include "WW1-era veterans", then 2008's mortality rate was 17/28 = 61%. Among the era vets themselves, we lost 2/5, or 40%. I can't do calculations with the unconfirmed vets because the "Died in 2008" page doesn't list them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.147.128 (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope we will have a better January than 2008. We've lost many veterans in that month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.170.108 (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Once you get to numbers this low, it is not very reliable to do % on death rate. If we are lucky, will have two make it to 2010. one might make it to 2011, but the way things are already going it is also possible we lose all of them this year. It's possible one of these last seven could live to 115, but the odds are against it. Who knows? The odds say no, but you have these people like Allingham that are like the energizer bunny! From the information I can get about these veterans, I'm afraid we will lose another 2 or 3 in the next couple of months.(PershingBoy)162.114.40.35 (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nationality: English vs British

Is there a reason why the UK listings in the table have 'English' rather than 'British' as their nationality? AJSG (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Whilst it is interesting to note that these surviving veterans are English as opposed to Irish, Scottish or Welsh, legally their nationality is (and was at the time) British. Mithrandir1967 (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many nationalities within the UK and I don't think there's need for a change. See WP:UKNATIONALS SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

i was the one who changed them and it was discussed before on here or on the oldest peoples page and it is because when things are listed such as last veteran from each country, wales and scotland are listed separately so therefore the surviving veterans are english not british. Webbmyster (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The list of last WW1 veterans by country has seperate entries for England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. I don't see the harm in it. Even if they all fought for Britain, they all have seperate identities. Andrew76 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to use English as a contrast to Welsh, Irish or Scottish in the list of last veterans, but does it still stand when there aren't any other members of the Union present in the list of surviving veterans? Without reading the list of last veterans first the list of surviving veterans seems inconsistant. Reading WP:UKNATIONALS and the style manual it links to suggests that UK nationalities other than British are used to mark something distinctive about the subject or by common usage, in this list neither seems to apply. AJSG (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You could spend a long time arguing one way or the other about this let alone what is right or wrong, but I would say that if there were 4 veterans, 3 English and 1 Welsh, the media here in the UK would definately disambiguate. I suspect the problem here is that the 'Nationality' tab doesn't quite label correctly what is intended to be described within. Still, it is pointless to alter it just because they are all English now, that's just revisionism after the event. RichyBoy (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not a national one. Unless/until the UK splits up, it's one nation, like it or not. The listing should be "British".Ryoung122 11:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's contrary to what is stated on WP:UKNATIONALS: "Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency – making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities – is strongly discouraged". One of the examples they give is Sean Connery and as you can see from the article, the UK itself is only mentioned twice: Once in a quote, and once when referring to the Queen. If your point was the case then mentions of Scotland would be referred to as Scotland, United Kingdom, at least in the first instance.SiameseTurtle (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is basically like the issue of "why list U.S. states." Whether Canadian provinces, US states, Australian states, or the United Kingdom, ENGLISH media is (gasp) BIASED in favor of English-speaking nations. In theory, all nations should be treated equally and listing sub-sections doesn't fit that, but then again this is the "English" Wikipedia.Ryoung122 12:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

On a purely pragmatic basis, removing the Welsh and Scottish entries in the 'By Country' table would be helpful. That's because there's no ciation for Walter Humphreys and even Will Young's doesn't say he was the last Scot, but all the remaining Brits were English. 84.13.31.46 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

So; the English nationalities came about because other UK nationalities were used in the list, not because the subjects considered themselves English or had some characteristic that made them particularly English, and the reason that they aren't changed to British now is to preserve comment that existed when other UK nationalities were present.

I agree that using English describes something broader than a person's legal nationality, and that's why it looks wrong when the list is read without knowing its history. Is preserving the historic contrast between English and other UK nationalities, which can't be seen now anyway, reason enough not to change them to British? AJSG (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think removing them would cause problems of its own. For example, the last Irish veteran was from Northern Ireland. If Scotland and Wales get removed, then Ireland would have to be too as it was an equal part of the UK at the time. That could cause confusion. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Scotland could be retained but Wales merged into England and Wales which is at least a legal term. Again, just for pragmatic reasons. 84.13.31.46 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Surely the point is that Ireland was part of the UK at the time and Northern Ireland remains so, so if the last "Irish" veteren of the war was from Northern Ireland legally he would be consider British at the time of serving and probably British at the time of his death. Again any other way of classifying him steps into very dodgy political territory (the whole Republican vs. Unionism debate is one that would be best avoided). Jae 11:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland was indeed part of the UK at the time, but it was never part of Great Britain, so an Irish person would not be legally classified as British. Similarly, dominions such as Canada and Australia were more strongly linked to Britain at the time of WWI (The King was head of state), but they retained their identity as independent Nations. This can be confusing but I do agree with you in that residents of England, Wales and Scotland can be appropriately and legally referred to as British. 208.104.52.232 (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)J271

Regarding RYoung's comment, the UK isn't a nation, it's a soverign state comprised of what we call the four seperate home countries. Whilst the vast majority consider themselves British everybody considers themselves either Welsh, Scottish, English or from NI depending on where they were born. This is what is different from the USA as if you asked what country you came from everybody would say America, if you asked somebody from the UK the answer would be interesting: If you are Welsh you would said Wales, if you are Scottish you would say Scotland and if you were English you would say England and sometimes the UK as a general rule of thumb, it certainly doesn't stop you from being a British Citizen or for that matter a citizen of the EU. Then again that is why Wikipedia recognises this as a troublesome area, especially as plenty of people (particularly the Scottish) don't want to be associated with the English by being called British. That's the point though I suppose, we still have national identity within the British Isles. Whilst nobody has an issue of saying that they reside within the UK, the same is not to be said for the labelling of nationality as 'British'. That's the peril of having nationality as a category, it would be better to change it to citizenship and then nobody could argue with labelling everyone as British. RichyBoy (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have lived half my life so far in the USA and half in England. The best analogy (for conversational use, not political) I can think of regarding the UK and England is North America and the USA. Americans would never say they were from North America even though it is true; an Englishman would say he was from England rather than the UK (well that's what I say, anyway!). Regarding Scotland and Britain, it works like this: Whan Allan Wells (Olympic sprinter from the early 1980s) won a race, he was British; when he lost he was Scottish! 208.104.52.232 (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)J271

Why not list the country they currently live in first and then forward slash to the one in who's armed services that they actually served? For example, John Babcock would be listed as U.S.A./Canada and Claude Choules would be listed as Australia/U.K. or even Australia/England/U.K. if you want to differentiate which part of the U.K. he was from.JeepAssembler (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We have all got so caught up in wondering what each other considers themselves (and I for one do not consider myself English and take umbrage at the suggestion that anyone born in the area known by some as "England" considers themselves English. That is an unwarranted generalisation unfortunately common among many in the UK) that we have missed the point. We should not be trying to classify these soldiers by what nationality they probably think they belong to (it is unlikely we will know this any time before they die) and stick instead to purely legal definitions under which, especially at the time of serving, they would be considered "British". Under other viewpoint is one based on personal prejudice and surely goes against any sort of neutral viewpoint. Jae 11:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Krichevsky

Krichevsky died. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Выползень (talk • contribs) 16:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone speak Russian?Czolgolz (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Using a Yahoo! Babelfish translation of the first news article, I get this: "In Donetske died the oldest Jew of the peace at the end December 2008. In Donetske left from life one of the most elderly people in the world, the oldest inhabitant of the Ukraine, the oldest member of Jewish community it was Donets - Mikhail Efimovich Krichevskiy." It sounds like he died just before the New Year. There seems to be a mention of his alleged WW1 service: "After leaving far behind in the 20th century of contemporaries and colleagues, man of three centuries, it proved to be by the last in the world veteran of the first world." Andrew76 (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We include Babcock, Hughes, Ross and Stone as vets even though they didn't see action. And we include press claims as era-vets. So for consistency we should add Krichevsky to 'Era-vets who died in 2008'. Because we know that although he chose to return to the Mining Institute rather than serve in the October Revolution, he was in the military when it broke out according to his claim. And its not like we've actually seen documentation for Arvonen and Kowalski. They just seem to be accepted cases in the respective countries. 84.13.31.46 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

If you look at a translation of the first news article in more detail it refers to Krichevsky's war service on the Austro-Hungarian front and the fact that he was one of the two oldest surviving veterans. [2]. More significantly, other reports [3] and [4], which relate to the recent 90th anniversary of the Armistice, are from Russian news agencies which cite him as a WWI veteran alongside those from other countries including Henry Ollinghem (sic)!

I have argued in the past (see archive) that I believe Krichevsky probably is a bona fide veteran in the same way as Babcock, Hughes, Ross and Stone and would contend that if we are accepting that he was in the army at the outbreak of the October Revolution, he should ipso facto be recognised as a 'full' rather than 'era' veteran in the 'Died in 2008' page.

We have seen no official documentation and technically he cannot be included as such, but the fact that he is Eastern European seems to prevent his claim from being as readily accepted as those of Western Europeans, many of whom appear in the 'Died In' pages on the basis of press releases and without sight of official papers. Brucexyz (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Only the middle link is working for me. I picked up on that one aswell. He was also mentioned on Russian TV on 11/11, as I noted on the 2008 Deaths talk page (which ironically has only started in 2009). So I have to agree. As for going to the front, there was that story of it being called off the night before because of the Revolution. I don't see why he would lie about that, because unlike Robley Rex's train story, it reduces his involvement rather than increasing it. Perhaps it was lost in translation or just incorrect. On a human level, its a sad story. His son died in October and he literally lost the will to live, dying on Boxing Day. 84.13.31.46 (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

I say list Krichevsky as a full vet in the "died in 2008" page. It sounds like he is generally accepted as a WW1 vet in Russia and the Ukraine. On the other hand, Douglas Terrey isn't generally accepted as a vet, and neither was William Olin. They really should be categorized as "unverified." I have to agree with the poster who said that pro-Western bias was the only thing that kept Krichevsky off the list Andrew76 (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've found something that may go some way to validating Krichevsky's claim to WWI service. Aside from these supporting articles [5][6] and [7], he featured in a Ukrainian television documentary last year "The Rules of Life: Live to be 100 Years Old." The link is here [8].

About 10% of the way into the programme there is an interview with the man, who seems very lucid for his age (he is also seen sawing a log). This is preceded by a short biographical piece which features WWI/Russian Revolution film footage and a photograph of the young Krichevsky in what appears to be military uniform. I don't speak Russian and so cannot confirm what is said, but it does give his claim some credence.Brucexyz (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering that 12 million served in the Russian armed forces in WWI it seems that there should have been more names than are listed, yet it is probably hard to verify such a short period of service during such chaotic conditions. But the fact that his home nations ( both Russia and Ukraine) accept it should be good enough for our acceptance.JeepAssembler (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Before this guy is accepted, a gentrology service would have to be hired, and as Russia does not have easily reliable records, Gerontology Research Group doesn't go there. As such it would have to be a paid investigation into a questionable case. With the scrutiny that Terrey, Olin and Picault have undergone, this is definately not enough evidence. Star Garnet (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrey, Olin, and Picault have never been generally accepted as WW1 vets (even if Picault does qualify for our purposes) while Krichevsky does seems to be generally accepted in his home land. It may be that no one on this board is in a position to confirm Krichevsky's status, but I'll bet good money that people in Russia and/or the Ukraine have. Basically, I say that his apparent general acceptance by the Russians should qualify him, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Andrew76 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

According to these articles (and others) [9] [10] Krichevsky was visited by a British Gerontology body (British Society of Gerontology?). The inference, allowing for the vagaries of the Google translation, is that they were satisfied with his case and, indeed, pronounced him of sound mind....Brucexyz (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

New WWI veteran?

I came across this: http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/news/Ivy-107/article-601388-detail/article.html

I realise she's now deceased, but I posted it here incase anyone is able to verify her, or contact the authorities that can. Also, should she be added to the deaths in 2009? SiameseTurtle (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I suggest adding her to the 2009 deaths as an unverified claim, for now. If her army number is real, it shouldn't be that difficult to verify service. This case would affect claims such as Gladys Powers to be the last female veteran of WWI, so at the least we should not give her the benefit of the doubt (why did this not surface earlier?) but leaving a note will let people know there may be another case.Ryoung122 14:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea. Most unverified veterans were/are people that we've known about for a while, and it's unlikely that any new evidence is going to surface. This, however, seems like a case where it is quite possible that new evidence might surface with a little more research. If records don't surface soon, they probably never will, but for now maybe we should keep her on the 2009 page as an unverfied case, just so that she isn't forgotten about. Andrew76 (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps says that a lot of the records were destroyed during WW2. I tried searching for Ivy (Lilian) Dixon (her maiden name) on the National Archives [11], but couldn't find anything. I also tried looking for Gladys Stokes (maiden name of Powers), and also found nothing. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if she wasn't a WWI Era veteran instead. I just don't see how (with the media and such) this could have been over looked. The only logical reason - she wanted to keep identity private, but from the article you can tell she enjoyed the limelight. (PershingBoy)162.114.40.35 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

When I saw this I prepared for disappointment. But the article seems fairly unequivocal that she served in the WWI era. Gladys Powers didn't have documentation so if someone like Dennis Goodwin approved this case then why not? He's clearly not a 'yes man' because he didn't validate Doug Terrey, but he's not Dr No either as shown with Ned Hughes.

It is amazing how journalists don't realise that being a WWI veteran these days overwhelms any other biographical facts. If this had come out before 11/11 then she could possibly have gone since she lived in Kent. You can't argue that her death proves she wasn't up to it because now Bill Stone has died too. 212.183.134.209 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

I think it's possibly more that the veterans themselves don't see themselves as anything special. Ned Hughes didn't count himself as a WWI veteran, and I doubt this lady did either (especially given that she was a woman). She likely just didn't realise she qualified as a WWI veteran, partly because of being a woman, and partly because she would have joined up right at the end of the war - possibly only a few months from the end, which she may have just seen as trivial information. SiameseTurtle (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lack of interest by Mrs. Campany was probably a key reason she never received any attention, but the loss of records was likely a factor as well. If the reporters couldn't prove she was a WW1 vet, and Mrs. Campany wasn't seeking recognition, then why should they pursue the matter? Andrew76 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't prove Ned Hughes is either, or Gladys Powers, according to someone who posted earlier. In fact most of the British records from WWI have been destroyed and it's unlikely to find proof even if they really did serve. Those that survived the fire did so because they had been moved to the pensions department (or something along those lines). I think however her service number could give a few leads - if only to confirm that it was in the right format. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The service number (five digits) is in the correct format: you can see other examples by visiting the medal-card section of the PRO's website. The lady in question is not there, but this could mean a number of things (eg she didn't serve in an active theatre of war; she didn't apply for any medals depsite being eligible). Other details of her reported life story can be verified, eg her birth at Hackney as Ivy Lilian Dixon was registered in the December quarter of 1901 (vol 1b p 549); her marriage to Frederick William Campany was registered in the Thanet district in the December quarter of 1922 (vol 2a p 2391); I have already mentioned that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's site contain details of the death of her son, Eric, in 1945 [it names his parents]. So far, the story seems credible. Could she have joined the WAAC at age 17? That's a different question. MAR 220.244.26.75 (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Gladys Powers' service was documented in her memoirs rather than officially. She joined up before her 16th birthday even though the minimum age was 17. What's amazing is that of the last 10 veterans in the world, Mrs Campany could be one of two from the same area of London - Hackney. I still think it would be a good idea to contact Dennis Goodwin on this though. Its within his range to investigate, and posthumous cases are going to be more likely now. 213.190.165.49 (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

It's amazing how all of the verified surviving veterans are from English speaking countries (unless you count Arvonen and Kowalski). Ned Hughes' case was not discovered until late either; showing how the last few are likely to be more noticeable. As for Dennis Goodwin and others who specialize in verifying veteran status; is there anyone who can search for missing German cases? There are only 11 Germans listed as died in 2005(35% of the total listed as residing in that nation on Jan. 1st, 2005) and 8 in 2004 (Just 21% of those living in Germany at the beginning of that year). I doubt the wisdom of searching prior to 2004 though because there would be too many cases.JeepAssembler (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

In an interview Frederic Mathieu gave a few months ago, he said that Kaestner was not the last. Instead it was someone who had died in the intervening period. My thoughts went to the Georgs, Thalhofer and Rosenkranz, but their service would surely have been revealed when they were Germany's oldest man. There was supposed to be another man born in November or December 1900. He would have been slightly underage which was unusual for Germany, but then they were losing. In any event, Kaestner and Kuenstler were largely ignored, so he would have been anonymous either way.

Its incredible to think how many 'lasts' have gone unnoticed. Picault is unknown with Ponticelli getting the funeral. Ivy Campany has only been discovered posthumously whereas Powers received a reasonable amount of press. Krichevsky and Stanley Stair's deaths were only noted in their own countries. Moses Hardy is still considered the last black veteran. I hope this doesn't happen to Ned Hughes. On the other hand, the 'lesser' powers, Italy, Turkey and Poland, made big fanfares about their last, and seem to have it correct. 212.183.134.208 (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Waldemar Levy Cardoso

FWIW, some details of Mrs Campany's story bear up to scrutiny. The CWGC website records details of her son, Fl Sgt Eric Campany, RAFVR, KIA in India in 1945. But isn't there also a retired Brazilian Field Marshal - Waldemar Levy Cardoso - who may qualify as a *living* veteran? According to the entry on the Portuguese language version of Wikipedia he was born 4 December 1900 and was a cadet at Military College from 1914 to 1918, when he graduated and was commissioned (Brazil entered the war in 1917). Other military cadets/enlisted men in training appear to have been accepted within this list in the past. 220.244.26.75 (talk) 06:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC) MAR

If what you say is true then Waldemar Cardoso would indeed qualify, and if you have a reference which we can cite (I had a brief look but could find nothing appropriate) then we can add him to unverified at least, unless someone out there knows better already. RichyBoy (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was worthy of its own section. I've looked at Mr Cardoso before, but as so often, I didn't make the connection to WWI. 212.183.134.209 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

The Portuguese language Wiki is here http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldemar_Levy_Cardoso and contains statements such as "(he) entered the military life in 1914 at the Military College of Barbacena. Leaving there in 1918 at the age of 17 as Colonel-Pupil [sic], having been head of the class." The only citation for the whole article is this webpage: http://www.terra.com.br/istoegente/71/testemunha/index.htm which relates to his centenary. It contains much further information and photos (eg one of him in military cadet uniform from 1917) but probably constitutes original research for Wikipedia purposes. MAR 220.244.26.75 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to find out if he received his commission before or after Armistice Day. If it was after, then perhaps he's only an era vet.Andrew76 (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to be able to put a South American on these pages, to show how this truly was a global conflict. Now if there where only a way to verify at least some of the 100 or so Japanese (and slighlty smaller number of Indian Subcontinent) veterans that statistically must have still been alive on January 1st, 1999; to give some Asian input instead of merely the last Thai and last handful of Phillipinos. P.S.: Wasn't there a veteran named Evaristo who fought for Italy but died in Brazil in 2006?JeepAssembler (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if your source is the Portuguese Wikipedia, but they list Evaristo Dal Maso (born 1899, died Sao Paulo 21 June 2006). So perhaps he was the last combat veteran, but they may not have considered Mr Cardoso. It would be amazing, at this late stage, to increase the representation to 4 continents for the first time in years. 212.183.134.208 (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

By the criteria we have set for these pages - in uniform (including in training) for a combatant nation by 11 November 1918 - Field Marshal Cardoso would appear to be a surviving verified WWI veteran. His long and distinguished military career is a matter of public record and there are many online articles in addition to the one above that refer to it starting at the Barbacena Military College in 1914. The Brazilian academic year runs from March to November meaning that he would have graduated at around the time of the Armistice (although it seems that Cardoso's classes were suspended and students excused from sitting the final examinations because of the Spanish Flu pandemic, which reached Brazil in October 1918).

Brazil’s military contribution to WWI was actually fairly small – some army and navy missions were sent to Europe, a few of which made it into combat, some airmen were sent to Italy for training and a naval squadron assisted in patrolling the South Atlantic. Without wishing to re-open the old debate about who and what constitutes a WWI veteran, it does seem to me to be stretching matters to suggest that a newly qualified army officer in a country some 5,500 miles from the war’s main theatre, and with relatively limited involvement in the hostilities, is a WWI veteran. (Would a drill sergeant based at Aldershot in 1982 be considered a Falklands War veteran?) However, Cardoso technically qualifies and should by rights, the above reservations notwithstanding, be included.Brucexyz (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A veteran living thousands of miles away who didn't see action? Sounds like Jack Ross to me. The exact date is important of course. Remember that if Robley Rex's train story was true, we'd have included him. 212.183.134.208 (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

How can you call someone that was 4,000 miles away in training a veteran? We are stretching it a bit. I have a problem with considering someone that drove a bus and probably didn't even have a uniform and nowhere near a battle field, and considering them in the same category as Harry Patch, a man that was in the trenches. We will end up listing an eight year old waterboy next. If you disagree, I would like for you to give your opinion on why you think I'm wrong. I consider only five of the eight listed, to be veterans. Were going to end up with a list of people that were not even in a country involved. Just because you had a uniform doesnt make you a WWI veteran. (PershingBoy)209.247.22.75 (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If we count Cardoso, because he graduated from the military in 1918, shouldn't we also count anyone still in military school. Even if they were in their second year of school, they could have been called up for action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.75 (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To me, there is a huge difference between someone "in training" to be a soldier and someone in military school. Had it not been for the Armistice, those in training to be a soldier likely would have been sent into combat; those in Brazil really didn't have much to worry about. Brazil's support of the Allies was little more than "tokenism." Many of the children of the elite were sent to military school to learn to be the "leaders of tomorrow" in Brazil, not to be sent across the Ocean to fight a European war. To me, there's a difference between being in ROTC and being in the Army in the USA, to make the analogy.Ryoung122 15:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

At this late stage we are grasping for straws to include all possible cases; I say check to see exactly which date he finished military school; if on or before 6 A.M. Brazilian time (they're 5 hours behind France) Nov. 11th then include him, just note the circumstances (as has been done for numerous other cases not yet shipped out). Otherwise count him as an era vet. The harsh reality is that with a group of people of which about half of whom die each year the survivors are going to be skewed towards the youngest members of the goup (and therefore less likely to have seen extensive combat). I think Maurice Floquet is the last one listed to have began fighting in 1914 (and he was born at the end of 1894). In fact, he may have been the last 1914 vet still alive on Jan. 1st, 2006 (not sure though) when there were still at least 113 verified cases worldwide (there were probably really closer to 140 then if all the Russians could be verified, Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire each probably had a couple more than listed at that time, the Ottoman Empire, Japan, Bulgaria, and perhaps the Indian Subcontinent also each should have had at least one (more than listed in the case of the O.E.)).JeepAssembler (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is classic Wikipedia. While its being discussed people are in favour, but when someone takes action it becomes controversial. Users MAR and RichyBoy were in favour, Jeep Assembler and myself weren't against. Andrew 76 noted the Armistice deadline, but Bruce pointed out that Mr Cardoso had graduated before November. I was only acting as the 'agent of consensus'. I consider my own vote to be an abstension because I don't know that much about military history.

I sympathise with PershingBoy's view, but as I said, Jack Ross has been listed for years with no complaints. Also, why do you consider 5 to be 'real' veterans? Surely its either 4 or 6, because Babcock and Hughes are similar cases. Just because Babcock came further doesn't affect his status. If the criteria need to be looked at again then fine, but lets not do it arbitrarily. And by the way, Lazare Ponticelli served in 1914 aswell. 212.183.134.130 (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Just to set the record straight, I was not advocating Cardoso's addition as a verified veteran - I was simply suggesting that his case be looked at, a position I retain. Unfortunately I know nothing about the status of Brazilian military colleges in 1918 (although I think there were then only two, the other being in Rio) but do note that logically if cadets are to be excluded [not an unreasonable stance, IMO] then others such as Delaire should also be omitted from earlier lists. If, however, Cardoso joined the armed forces of one of the belligerent nations before the Treaty of Versailles was signed, then it would seem appropriate to add him at least to the WWI-era list: I don't believe any of the women-veterans saw active service in a theatre of war, and yet no-one denies their status. MAR220.245.20.202 (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I see he has been added to the Verified list. Have I missed something? Where is the verification that he was commissioned before the Armistice? DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

From above, "It seems that Cardoso's classes were suspended and students excused from sitting the final examinations because of the Spanish Flu pandemic, which reached Brazil in October 1918" 212.183.136.193 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

That sounds like a fairly vague claim, I don't see how it constitutes "verification" of a military service record! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I may have to agree with Ryoung in this regard. I'm glad we found Field Marshal Cardoso...his is a life to be celebrated. But did he actually "enlist" in 1918 or did he simply graduate from the military academy? To me, that would not be a "veteran" for our purposes. A mention as a peripheral participant maybe, but not a veteran. I honestly believe that a person should have "completed basic training" (like Babcock) to be included as a full veteran, but I will respect the definition we have here. If Cardoso was commissioned and was in training by November 11, 1918, then I say include him, but if all we have is an Academy graduation reference for that year, then I think we should put him under "Unverified." To me, someone who graduated from West Point in 1918 or 1945 would not be a WW1 or WW2 veteran had they not been commissioned. He has a most distinguished military record though, and I'm thrilled we can celebrate his life, however we decide to classify him.Snowdog81 (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's ask the question another way. What FORCE did Cardoso serve with in WWI? Even John Campbell Ross was a member of the Australian army. Unless/until someone can identify that Cardoso was actually serving with the Brazilian army, navy, air force, marines, or even coast guard, I'm not going to buy that "ROTC"-style military school qualifies him as a WWI veteran. If it did, we would have seen a whole lot more "veterans" including Boris Efimov and Anton Bodhal that some Wikipedes pushes for some time about a year ago. Finally, is Brazil advocating this man as a WWI veteran? Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If the original sources view Mr Cardoso as a WWI veteran, then there might be a case. But right now, all we have is that he was in military school and classes were cancelled...hardly seems like "service," not even in training, to me.

Also, many of these "military schools" also trained people to be officers (police officers). Just some points to ponder.Ryoung122 06:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reflecting on the points raised above, my own included, I think that Cardoso should be listed as a WWI Era Veteran. To quote our own definition, “there is debate on his join date,” but we can be fairly sure that he “joined the armed services .... before the Treaty of Versailles.” Cardoso’s military service is verified – he became a Field Marshal – and would have begun in November 1918 when he graduated from military college but we don’t know if this was before or after 11th November (the cancellation of classes because of the Spanish Flu is neither here nor there). If we don’t know then he can’t be a verified WWI vet.

As an aside, the comparison between Cardoso and Jack Ross is not a valid one. Of a population of c.4 million, 416,809 Australians - some 39% of the total male population aged between 18 and 44 - enlisted for service in WWI. It was only by chance that Ross was sent to be a wireless operator in Sydney rather than to the trenches. Brazil’s military role in WWI was peripheral and involved only a small proportion of it's existing professional armed services. Even if the war had gone into 1919 there is no guarantee that Cardoso would ever have had to serve in it directly.

Also, if we are taking the view that attending military academy is not the same as military training then it’s curtains for Bernard Delaire on the ‘Died in 2007’ page. He was, you may remember, one of Laurent Toussaint’s anonymous French veterans and is included only on the basis that he entered Brest Naval College in August 1918. Significantly, Frédéric Mathieu has never had him on Der des Ders.

Finally, it seems that the 'east-west' divide is alive and well! There is protracted debate on the validity of Mikhail Krichevsky's claim, yet Ivy Campany gets in on the nod on the basis of one article in a local rag.Brucexyz (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's policies is that "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. Each case must be judged on its own merits, not on those of another. Last I checked, France lost quite a few officers in WWI. Also, the Krichevsky and Campany debates don't have anything to do with whether Cardoso is or is not a WWI veteran.Ryoung122 18:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Other stuff existing" may not be a valid argument per se but it is critical to the credibility of the information on these pages that it is all subject to the same standards. There are hundreds of cases on most of the 'Died In' pages, each judged on its own merits within the context of what we have decided constitutes a WWI, unverified WWI or WWI era veteran. Cases will arise (such as this one possibly) that may prompt a re-appraisal of that context, and where a re-appraisal is accepted it should be applied retrospectively to existing cases in the interests of consistency, completeness and correctness. I don't know what "Last I checked, France lost quite a few officers in WWI." means, though I have no doubt that they will be glad you did.

You are correct to note that the Krichevsky and Campany debates have nothing to do with Cardoso; this was a general observation on the apparent variance in the quality and quantity of evidence required for Western and Eastern European veterans to get listed.Brucexyz (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been favourable to this page up to now. But this case takes both the seriousness and the fun out for me. English and American soldiers who SIGNED up one day before armistice are ok -- but Cardoso is NOT who had military service for years by then? I don't even want to remind us of people like William Olin...... If Cardoso is not in - this page is not fair but BIASED. (ChrisW) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.149.172.21 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Get a grip. If Cardoso were born Dec 4 1900, he was just 17 years old when the Armistice was signed...but you claim above that he had military service "for years"?Ryoung122 18:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

With so extremely few left the last verified in the world could even wind up being from some place like Liberia (which declared war on Germany in 1917), you just never know. Let's check out Cardoso's service record and make sure that he was REALLY in the Brazilian Armed Forces by the armisitice (and if not than when exactly); it would be ideal if Harry Patch or at least someone who was near the action turns out to be the last, but that is probably not going to be the case. We should also double check Ms. Ivy Campany's true status also; it seems odd to me that the U.K., which was at the height of it's global glory (and therefore very likely to honor all in it's service, unlike Germany who lost) would have three undiscovered vets until the very end; but hey, if the stories fit the criteria than that is just the way it is. Finally, what is necessarily so honorable about Mr. Cardoso's military career; Brazil was a military dictatorship from 1964 to 1985 and before then had a tradition of oppression of much of it's population; of course that is not something to be carried on about in this forum.JeepAssembler (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Morning All I have found this paper about the Spanish Flu Epidemic in Rio de Janerio: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-59702005000100006&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Its pretty lengthy (and appears to be just about the only scientific paper written on the subject available on the internet) But my reading of it suggests that the Spanish Flu epidemic only appears in Sept 1918 and only really gets a grip by the end of October. With the authorities only taking an interest in November 1918. Frustratingly the paper does not give a specific date when they started taking action, but the cartoons dotted throughout the paper suggest to me it was after 11th Nov. If this is true then logically Mr Cardoso could not have had his final exams cancelled before Nov 11th and therefore must have still been in military school. Can others read this paper and see what they think? SRwiki (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I initially said he should be included by the criteria set out in the main article as an "unverified" because the minimum we need is a citation/claim somewhere and as that hasn't actually been forthcoming he shouldn't even be in the unverifieds, and I think I now know the reason why. Whilst I knew that Brazil had declared war against Germany and that the participation was small I decided that I'd better check just exactly what the war effort was - it seems that it didn't extend to Brazil sending any troops to Europe and the contribution was mostly naval, with the exception of a few airmen being sent to the European theatre along with a medical corpse of some description as well. It seems that a Brazilian Expeditionary Force was being prepared (I can't find any details on that but the likelyhood of that containing cadets would be slim) but the armistice ended all of that, so the contribution is token through-and-through. Now if you ask me the main article makes a rod for our own backs with its ultra-loose definition of being a member of the armed forces of a combatant nation, and the reason why you won't ever find a citation is because of what I just said - the army was never involved first or last and nor do they think of themselves being involved. Also note that only 2,500 or so Allied Victory Medals were issued in Brazil. It's a bit of a mockery to include the potential of a whole army that didn't actually do anything anyway.RichyBoy (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be expedient to have a compromise because of the criteria we use, I don't mind him listed as a unverified-vet (or in some new section) with an appropriate explanation that whilst he was in the army, their army was never commited to a theatre. RichyBoy (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Citation by JeepAssembler: "Finally, what is necessarily so honorable about Mr. Cardoso's military career; Brazil was a military dictatorship from 1964 to 1985 and before then had a tradition of oppression of much of it's population; of course that is not something to be carried on about in this forum" -> What does that have to do with his military record????? This page was not made for worshipping heroes, but for stating facts. Some people here keep mixing both. (ChrisW)

Cardoso would be 64 years old at the inception of the dictatorship. The majority of his military career was over by then, so it is unlikely he built his career via dictatorship and what if he did? I agree; it is not appropriate to allow judgement of an individuals military service to be swayed but the stance of his country! Using this logic, do we excclude all Germans because Hitler ran a dictatorship? Of course not!! 208.104.52.232 (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)J271

We need different standards for countries that were major participants in WW1 (like England or Germany) versus countries that were only peripherally involved (like Thailand or Brazil). It's ridiculous to count a guy who never had anything to do with World War 1 as a vet, just because his country sent a trivial token force which didn't include him. We can enjoy wide lattitude when we're talking about major players, because almost everyone was involved in the war effort in some way, but for a country like Brazil we really need to demonstrate that the "veteran" had a meaningful connection to the war effort. Andrew76 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think we need double-standards. If Mr Cardoso joined a military force of a warring nation before Nov 11 1918, he's a veteran. If he joined before the Treaty of Versailles, he is an era-veteran. If he claims to be a veteran but his service is unconfirmed, then he is an unverified claim.

Checking the story, so far we don't have any claim, other than on Wikipedia, that he is a WWI veteran. We don't know when he joined a military force. We only know that he was in military school and classes were cancelled early due to Spanish flu. I suggest more information is necessary before reaching a decision.

And, last I checked, no one added William Olin or Jim Lincoln to the "died in year X" lists. They were only on this page so we could keep a watch on them; once they were deceased, their claim was moot.Ryoung122 18:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we try to draw a line under this Lilliputian debate and decide what we're going to do with him? The facts (again):

1) Cardoso graduated from a military college in a combatant nation of WWI in or around November 1918. This makes him, by our own criteria, definitely a veteran of some description.

2) We do not know when in November 1918 Cardoso graduated nor, realistically, are we likely to find out. Without confirmation that he graduated before 11th November he cannot, by our criteria, be a verified WWI veteran.

3) Neither Cardoso himself, nor any media channel or other group or body is making any claim for WWI service. He is therefore not an unverified WWI veteran.

4) Cardoso graduated from military college and entered the army before the Treaty of Versailles (or rather, there is no suggestion from any source that he graduated, went and did something else and returned to the military at a later date). Therefore he could be a WWI-era veteran.

It would be nice to put him somewhere on the 'Surviving' page before he keels over. What does everyone think?Brucexyz (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

On further thought, I think he might be a WW1-era vet, for two reasons: his join-date is in dispute, and some of us question whether his service is within the scope of World War 1. Andrew76 (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My vote would be for Era vet until any new information is brought forward. Good idea.Snowdog81 (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we all can agree on "era-vet" unless/until more information is brought to light which establishes that he served for a military unit (even in training)on or prior to Nov 11 1918.Ryoung122 04:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly an era-vet barring further evidence. I think we've come to the right conclusion. 212.183.134.208 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

I vote era vet, until more substantial info comes to light. Czolgolz (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unverified Era Vet seems best to me right now because Cardoso's military school may have merely been the equivalent of a preparatory or high school; he may have then enrolled in the Brazilian equivalent of West Point or Sandhurst and not been commissioned as an officer until 1922 or so. Again if it can be verified that he was commissioned on or before 6 A.M. (Brazilian time) than he is the real deal, barring that, how about just acknowledging that he was potentially around then.JeepAssembler (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No need for Unverified era-vets section since we can accept press claims. What exactly is being claimed is another question. 213.190.165.49 (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

• OK Everyone I've added his section back into the Era-vets based on the above consensus and the summaries of him definately being in the armed forces before the ToV, definately being in a combatitive nation, but no verification of service start date 'as yet'. Feel free to edit the particulars. RichyBoy (talk) 07:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. And just to mention, with Ivy Campany we have an actual source (newspaper) that claims she was a veteran, such is not (yet) the case with Mr. Cardoso. There seems to be too much invention going on here. Graduating from military school and serving in the military are not the same thing. Let's see if someone can come up with a date for when he started military service.Ryoung122 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ryoung122. We do not have a start date for Cardoso's formal military service. We know he was commissioned after graduating from Military School in 1918, but we don't know when. The Portuguese-language Wiki simply says he "became an ensign in the Artillery in 1921"; it is possible he did other 'stuff' between 1918 and 1921. Also, it is worth noting that he was not a WW2 field marshal: his patent as a marshal was only granted in 1966 [he was a lieutenant-colonel as late as 1944]. The crucial thing is to establish when he actually joined the army. MAR 86.137.192.158 (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources seems to say that he left the army in 1967 after 48 years service. That doesn't rule out a pre-Armistice start date, but it does mean 1919 at the latest - the WWI era. But they could be filling in the blanks like we are. 213.190.165.49 (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

R.I.P. Bill Stone

Apparently, Bill Stone has died. We need to start a page for 2009 deaths. I'd do it, but I don't have time before my lunch hour ends. According to his Wiki page, he passed away on January 10th. Andrew76 (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Worry not - its been done. You have to get up pretty early to catch all the other Wikipedians napping. As for Mr Stone, I hope that it wasn't the trip to the cenotaph that took it out of him. We've had a cold snap recently so I hope it wasn't that either. I suppose we'll never know. 212.183.134.209 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

And now there is only 10 living verified WWI (and era) veterans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.95.29 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I REALLY HATED TO SEE HIM GO. HE WAS QUITE A GENTLEMAN AND JUST A KIND PERSON. HOWEVER, HE LIVED A LONG LONG LIFE. HATS OFF TO MR. STONE! (PERSHINGBOY)162.114.40.35 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Revolution Veterans

Okay, isn't that a bit out of the scope? Mexico wasn't involved in the war at all. Shouldn't this be discussed first?Czolgolz (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the entries as the Mexican Revolution is completely unrelated to WWI, it just happened that the time periods overlapped. I think there should be somewhere else for surviving veterans of "smaller" conflicts such as this. Perhaps this might a good time to resurrect my suggestion for a list of surviving veterans (other than the World Wars) aged over 100. It would be more useful than Surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War which has been started at least 5 years to soon to be of much use! Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ever heard of the Zimmermann telegram? The Mexican Revolution was NOT "completely unrelated." These might qualify, in some minds, as era-vets.Ryoung122 06:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

User: Nick19thind has made a number of contributions to List Of Last Living War Veterans and Last European Veterans By War, so that's the place to go. So we're treating the Mexicans as 'Dan Keating cases' then? Concurrent, but unrelated. Fair enough. 213.190.165.49 (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

I agree. The List of Last Living War Veterans is a good place to list vets these conflicts. Czolgolz (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Totals on 'Died In' Pages

Someone - Andrew76? - has added aggregate totals and percentages to the 'Totals' at the bottom of each of the 'Died In' pages. Can I suggest that these are removed, as:

1) The addition of any veteran means that the totals have to be recalculated and amended for each of the preceding pages which will be a real chore. If/when Waldemir Cardoso gets added to the 'Surviving Veterans' page, no less than 10 'Died In' pages will have to be updated! Inevitably, the totals will not always get changed and the numbers shown will be incorrect/out of date.

2) Pre-2004 the lists of veterans dying in each year are so far from being complete that aggregate totals and percentages are meaningless.

3) IMHO they don't add anything to the pages. If anyone is that interested in this detail can they just calculate it themselves from the 'by year' box template at the foot of the page?

What do others think? Brucexyz (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that they should be removed for the reasons you have listed. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's kind of ghoulish. Czolgolz (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about it, I'll remove the totals and statistics. When I added the statistics, I thought it might be interesting to see how the mortality rate varied from year-to-year. However, you're right that the numbers are too incomplete to really mean anything. Also, it would be a lot of work maintaining them when people are added. I'll remove the "Totals" sections entirely, since the total number of entries is listed at the top of each page anyway. Andrew76 (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say its any more ghoulish than listing deaths in the first place. It is interesting and for that last few years fairly accurate. But it is cumbersome. Initiative should always be encouraged, but in this case it was perhaps slightly misplaced. 212.183.134.209 (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Aarne Aarvonen 1897-2009

Greetings,

I'm just wondering why no one has added Mr Aarvonen, or Ms Campany for that matter, to the "died in 2009" page.Ryoung122 15:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone provide a reference? Czolgolz (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Ms. Campany is listed as having died in 2008.JeepAssembler (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted attempts to add Arvonen as 1. I couldn't find a report saying he had died, and 2. The date of death people were adding were given as 1 January, or 16 January depending on the page (which made me think it was not reliable). I added Ivy Campany to 2008 after confirmation of her date of death. SiameseTurtle (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Evening All I found this obituary for him: http://yle.fi/elavaarkisto/?s=s&g=1&ag=4&t=573&a=5007 But it is the only one I can find SRwiki (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

French veterans?

According to: http://www.m-bon.net/brouziliens/gourraud_georges.php Georges Gourraud from France (died october 2008) has been called by French Army on september 11th 1918. More information: http://www.lessablesdolonne.maville.com/actualite/2007/10/19/les-sables-d-olonne/pour-georges-gourraud-le-travail-ne-tue-pas-georges-gourraud-a-55265225.html Obituary: http://www.ouest-france.fr/2008/10/18/les-sables-d-olonne/Naissance-Centre-hospitalier-Cote-de-Lumiere-75-...-54696426.html According to: http://www.lavoixdunord.fr/Locales/Valenciennes/actualite/Autour_de_Valenciennes/Pays_de_Conde/2008/09/19/article_jeanne-dietrich-doyenne-du-valenciennois.shtml Jeanne Dietrich from France (apparently still living) digged trenches at age 14 (years 1914 or 1915) during WWI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.144.229 (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The top source actually has November 11th, tantalisingly, so he could have been an era-vet. The second mentions 1917. If he died on October 18th then Laurent Toussaint could have been refering to him on the 29th - "2 is not the real number". After all, Fernand Goux's death took about the same time to filter through.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.mettivia.it/vita/alpino-sante-dal-santo-il-vecio-dei-veci&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsante%2Bdal%2Bsanto%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox

http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anavicenza.it%2Fsezione%2Falpini%2520centenari.htm&sl=it&tl=en&history_state0=

As for Mme Dietrich, here is a similar case, albeit male, for consideration. The Italian Wikipedia lists Sante Dal Santo as their current oldest man. At 106 I find that unlikely, but more importantly there is reference to trench digging here aswell. Perhaps Giovanni Alunni could help us? 212.183.134.208 (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

France mobilized 19% of it's 1914 population for the war (7.8 mil out of 41 mil), by contrast Germany mobilized 16.3% of those living within it's prewar boundaries (including weastern Poland) and the U.K. 12.2% living in it (including Ireland at that time). I also read in a U.S.A. Today article about Frank Buckles that French boys as young as 13 served; given these facts and the French government's three months of combat rule it wouldn't surprise me if there were still more undiscovered French veterans.JeepAssembler (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend that you "be bold" and add him to the 2008 deaths article.Ryoung122 22:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would advise caution in this case: the first reference cited states that he "was called to the flag" on 11 November 1918; this may simply mean that he received call-up papers on that date, or dated that day - ie there is no indication that he actually joined the military. And the second source referring to 1917 has nothing to do with his own call-up: it says "in 1917 I replaced a boss who had left for the war - ie it's talking about his employment history. MAR 86.137.192.158 (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the 1917 bit. It was lost in translation for me. Since era-vets can be press claims, and 11/11 is as 'era' as you can get, that seems appropriate in this case too (like Cardoso). 213.190.165.49 (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Henry Allingham at the Somme

After a bit of Googling: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4613587.stm

Apparently he was a mechanic at Ypres and the Somme. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm 2/3rds of the way into his book, once I've finished it I'll be updating his article because some things need expansion or correction, including what you mention above, and that he was in a reserved occupation in WWII, that he was a volunteer at a local hospital in WWII etc.RichyBoy (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, Henry Allingham is categorically not a veteran of or witness to the Battle of the Somme. This conflict ran from 1st July to 18th November 1916 and, at its outset, Allingham was still aboard HMS Kingfisher, busy being the last witness of the Battle of Jutland. In his biography 'Kitchener's Last Volunteer: The Life of Henry Allingham, Britain's Oldest Man and the Oldest Surviving Veteran of the Great War ((ISBN 1845964160), Mainstream 2008.)' he states that he was not posted to France until September 1917 where he was stationed on the Ypres Salient in support of the British push at 3rd Battle of Ypres (Passchendaele). He was then transferred to a maintenance depot in Dunkirk, away from the Front, in December 1917.

Those articles that state that he is a veteran of the Battle of the Somme are either factually wrong (which wouldn't be a first), or allude to the fact that he served 'on' or 'at' the Somme (ie in the geographic area known as The Somme) rather than in the battle itself. The Daily Mirror which was quoted as a source supporting his presence 'at the Somme' quite happily contradicts itself in the articles below:

[12]

[13]

Brucexyz (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right; it's the historical back-fills from Dennis Goodwin that talk about the Somme, I knew he wasn't in the battle of the somme anyway so next time I'll wipe the sleepy dust out of my eyes RichyBoy (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew he wasn't actually in the battle. I just thought he was in the area. Tabloids in 'incorrect' shocker. Should have known not to trust The Mirror! Although to be fair, The Sun were probably closest to accuracy when Bill Stone died. Maybe because they were using Wiki. 212.183.134.65 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

new veteran ?

Helmuth Fink,Augusto Moreira de Oliveira,Joseph Malahieude Can have fought? How can we contact these persons to ask them if they have fought? Particularly Helmuth Fink; if he had really fought he would be the last surviving veteran of Central Power! I've found the website which talk about his birthday (http://www.umsorgt.de/journal/gesundheit/2008/06/3178.php) but I've not found a contact. I don't know German but somebody who will read this page, will be interested in this topic, and who knows German could investigate... the time doesn't favour us in this research (sorry for my bad english)

The article about Herr Fink speaks of his having lived through both World Wars, and during the reign of William II; it also says that his parents had wished him to study Law, but he became a musician instead. However, it says nothing about his having served in either war. MAR 86.150.5.10 (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Fink and Malahieude seem to have been semi-famous for their careers, before their longevity became notable. So you'd have thought it would have come out earlier, but definately by now given their status. Fink's the better bet though. That's because Malahieude has been confirmed as France's oldest man (although not since Picault's death) by Laurent Toussaint. And Moreira is a Filipe Lucas case, and he has Jose Ladeira as last Portuguese. 212.183.134.65 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Waldemar Levy Cardoso

Ok, I am the one who went ballistic when Waldemar Levy Cardoso name was added as a WWI veteran. However, the article states he graduated from the military in late 1918. Does anyone know how late? If he was in fact drafted, or in training on or before 11-11-1918, then by the rules established here, he should in fact be listed as a WWI veteran and not an era veteran. (PershinBoy)63.3.10.1 (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So far that question has not been answered. One source suggested he had 48 years of service in 1967 (suggesting a start year of 1919). So, he is an era-veteran for the moment.Ryoung122 08:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources also say that he graduated "at 17" which narrows the window. But again I don't know that this proves anything. The "late 1918" bit is ambiguous because the sources are too, but it does differentiate from the undisputed Ross and Hughes. 212.183.134.65 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Munition workers

i remembered we discussed it but couldn't find it in the archives! just wondered as Doris Nash who turned 110 in Dover, worked in a munitions factory during the war and all i remember is being behind including such people somewhere/somehow on the list! Webbmyster (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This is also relevant for another British SC, Eunice Bowman. 212.183.134.65 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Without looking at the previous discussion, I'm inclined to say they shouldn't count. Many people in WWI played their roles: both women and men, both at home and abroad but we can't add everyone who played a role in any shape or form. A 'veteran' as I view it, is someone who was enrolled in a military force during WWI. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the general consensus. Now that we're down to the last few people, there's a tendency to "pad out" the list with all sorts of war-related people (message boys, ditch diggers, factory workers) who we wouldn't even consider if there were a hundred uniformed vets still alive. Frankly, I think we need to keep some standards and insist on uniformed service. Andrew76 (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The problem with Jeanne Dietrich, listed above, is that of who she could have served for. I don't doubt that she played her part in France's resistance, but armies don't take many 14 year old boys, let alone girls. Terrey and Dal Santo are different, in that although they performed the roles you mention, they are claiming to have served in specific branches of their respective armies. 212.183.134.210 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Strong agree from me, the "where they in uniform" test is just about the best and simplest test we are likely to come up with. Once you go beyond that that all sorts of potential claims appear. Just as a for instance, I would list the claims of merchant seaman higher than munitions workers, as they where very much on the front line and suffered considerable losses (Note, I am not suggesting we list them, just pointing out the problems of going beyond our current criteria for conclusion) SRwiki (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Poland

Jozef Kowalski is 109 today. But there may be other Poles who served in 1919 and so are era-vets. I know Wycech is accepted as Poland's last veteran by the Western media, and more importantly by their own. Because there are boy soldier cases, which they obviously don't count, but seem similar. So what do we think of these?

Stanislav Malinowski http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://www.tarczyn.pl/527-45ae36e3d82bf-7311-p_1.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=6&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dstanislaw%2Bmalinowski%2Blwowa%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26sa%3DN

Wilhelm Meisel http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://www.skrzyszow.org/gimnazjum/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle%26id%3D56%26Itemid%3D2&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=8&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dwilhelm%2Bmeisel%2Bslaskiego%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox

Stanislaw Dardzinski http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://miasta.gazeta.pl/bialystok/1,35241,4392489.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dstanislaw%2Bdardzinski%2Bwojska%2Bposkiego%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox

Marian Skwarski http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weteran&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=5&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpiotr%2Bszydlowski%2B101%26start%3D20%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26sa%3DN

Piotr Szydlowski http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://www.nowiny.pl/artykul.php%3Fidr%3D66%26id%3D118%26a%3Dshow_art%26ida%3D30442%26PHPSESSID%3Df1cca84&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=5&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpiotr%2Bszydlowski%2B101%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox

Aleksander Rebalski http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://www.famavolat.waw.pl/index.php%3Fop%3D7&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Daleksander%2Brebalski%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox

Kazimierz Draczynski http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pl&u=http://www.niedziela.pl/artykul_w_niedzieli.php%3Fdoc%3Dnd200837%26nr%3D39&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=5&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Daleksander%2Brebalski%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox

212.183.134.65 (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

It is difficult to know what parts any of these individuals played: soldiers, paramilitaries, or civilian schoolboys in supporting roles. Of those listed, Malinowski, Rebalski, Szydlowski and Draczynski would all appear to be recognised as veterans of the Polish-Bolshevik war by the Polish government which decorated them as such in October and November 2007 [14][15]. This makes them ‘Era’ veterans for our purposes but it is not clear from any articles I can find online whether any of them are still alive.

Wilhelm Meisel, however, does still seem to be alive, as this article from 2nd January 2009 attests [16]. Why is he not given the same media coverage as Jozef Kowalski or Wycech? Does our anti-Eastern European bias preclude his inclusion as an ‘Era’ veteran on the basis of this and the article above alone? Stanisław Dardziński was alive on 12th October 2008 [17] and, assuming that he is still with us today, the same questions apply.

I can’t seem to find anything on Marian Skwarski on the above link, or elsewhere, but I may just be missing something.

I have come across several other Polish ‘Era’ veterans for inclusion in the ‘Died in’ Pages (the above reservations notwithstanding):

Joseph Drążkiewicz (24 May 1904 – 27 May 1999) [18]

Wladyslaw Kowalkowski (1898 - 2003) [19][20]

Mieczyslaw Widajewicz (1903 - 2004) [21][22]

Zenon Jankowski (1905 - 2007) [23][24]

Antoni Rosinski (1901 - 2007) [25]

Stefan Kepczynski (2 Sep 1903 – 2007) [26][27]

Antoni Piedel (1902 - 2008) [28]

Aleksander Salaki (1904 - 2008) [29]

Julian Hendler (1907 - 2008) [30] [31]

And finally, Russian Revolution/Russian Civil war veteran Boris Gudz (1902 - 26 Dec 2006)[32][33]

I will try to get round to adding these in the next few days.Brucexyz (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this is an old chestnut, but we should only include the Polish-Bolshevik vets who served in 1919, if that's possible to establish. Otherwise it will open the door for loads of early 20s cases. Marian Skwarski is definitely worth another search, because I think his case was most similar to Wycech's. I seem to have added the wrong link there. 212.183.134.210 (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Whilst accepting that previous debates concluded that the Polish/Bolshevik War is a ‘World War One Era’ conflict for the purposes of this article, and The Treaty of Versailles as the agreed cut-off for qualification as an ‘World War One Era’ veteran, it seems absurd to include some participants and not others on the basis of when they joined up. Someone who fought in the Polish/Bolshevik War from 1920 is no less a veteran of that conflict than someone who fought in it from 1919.

I don’t believe we’ll find out exactly when the service of these individuals dates from. However, if this is an agreed ‘World War One Era’ conflict then, logically, everyone who fought in it should be included, or we leave out the whole war.

Without wanting to re-open the old debate, should these pages include anyone from a conflict other than World War One at all? If related ‘Era’ wars are in then it should be accepted that veterans who served as late as 1923 in some cases will have to be counted. If not, then Kowalski, Aarvonen et al should be removed and posted on the List of Last Living War Veterans page. It’s a tricky one...Brucexyz (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be tricky if the focus is on the veteran and not the era war. Simply put, anyone who joined after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles is excluded no matter what the dates are of the particular era war in which they participated. If we can't find out the dates of exact service for an era war for a specific individual, they would be "unverified era veterans" and therefore excluded from the page as the only "unverified" section is for "unverified WW1 veterans". If we remain focused on WW1 and maintain that the "era veterans" is just a sub-category, then it's pretty straightforward. The only "tricky" situation comes when we focus on a specific WW1 era war - then and only then does the claim of service for such a war become relevant. That is outside the scope of a WW! veterans page.208.104.52.232 (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)J271

I am sorry - I have definitely missed something but from which sourse is it known that J.Kowalski joined the Polish-Soviet war BEFORE the Treaty of Versailles? The link in the article says that "he fought against Bolsheviks at the end of WW1" but that is definitely wrong as the war started on 14.02.1919 (in fact, it was a consequence of WW1). See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War --89.228.146.169 (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The ToV was signed on the 28th June 1919 so WWI didn't actually end until then, however as we know hostilities ceased on the Armistice. Personally I'm not a fan of the whole era-veteran thing, I'm happy enough up to the ToV, but really, unless you have been awarded campaign medals by a respective government I can't see how anyone can justify an inclusion after that date when a government hasn't recognised it at all.RichyBoy (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I mean that campaign medals were still awarded after the ToV date.

Well, very ambiguous - I don't think that the authors of the sourse article really meant "at the end of WW1"="before the ToV". The end of WW1 is celebrated in Poland (as a national holiday - the Independence Day) on November, 11. Polish Wikipedia also gives 11.11.1918 as the date of the end of WW1. Probably they simply extended the concept of WW1 to all "Polish independence wars" of 1918-21. In any case the fact of his participation in the war before the ToV is not verified in any other sourses (most of those found by Google just repeat the same wording and give no further details); therefore his presence on the list looks quite doubtful.--89.228.146.169 (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Most (and perhaps all) of the information in this article is really second hand information; i.e. some national government or the news media in some nation claims that it found a veteran or someone they think may have been a veteran and then that person is listed here. If it can be independently proven that some or all of these Polish veterans were in uniform on or before the Treaty of Versailles than go ahead and make the call; otherwise we will simply have to take Polish governments' word for it.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

But when and where did the Polish government say that J.Kowalski "was in uniform on or before the ToV"? As far as I know, he is only honoured as a veteran of the Polish-Soviet war, which means he could have (and most probably did) join the war during the toughest period, i.e. in 1920 (btw in one of the sources it's said that he "took part in repelling Bolsheviks' invasion", which indeed happened in 1920).--89.228.146.169 (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, if I don't forget, I'll try to find out the phone number of the Tursk Social Aid Home, where he resides, call them, and ask them whether such information is available.--89.228.146.169 (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Like RichyBoy I don’t personally think 'Era' veterans should be listed, however, of all the names above only Malinowski (who appears to have participated in the defence of Lvov in 1918), Kowalkowski (mentioned as a WWI veteran on Der Des Ders), Kepczynski (an unarmed scout in 1918) and Gudz (October Revolution and Russian Civil War service mentioned in both links) seem to have served in any capacity pre Treaty of Versailles. Widajewicz is already on the ‘Died in 2004’ page (per Der Des Ders).

I can’t find anything on Kowalski having served before June 1919 so his inclusion as a living ‘Era’ veteran looks shaky unless anyone can come up with a source that says he did.

For accuracy and completeness the following should really be removed from the ‘Era’ sections of the respective ‘Died In’ pages:

1999

Soelsepp, Edwards, Everett and Jones – no reference to pre ToV service

Verilo – enlisted post ToV

2001

Plotinsky – enlisted post ToV

2002

Tilk – no reference to pre ToV service

Clayborne – enlisted post ToV

2003

Salecki (shown as WWI veteran) - no reference to any service and none traceable online

Ilves – no reference to pre ToV service

Gerena-Rivera – enlisted post ToV

2004

Pritchard (shown as WWI veteran) - no reference to any service and none traceable online

Parna – no reference to pre ToV service

2006

Starkey – enlisted post ToV

2007

Turan – no reference to pre ToV service

Brucexyz (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A deep breath, but it is time for a review

Everyone, recent discussion points have highlighted some long-standing issues that we've always been able to put off in the past, mañana if you like, but now with veteran numbers dwindling some fundamental questions need to be sorted. I know that this is opening up some old ground and is likely to re-hash some debates but I think it is about time that certain things were addressed, as I'm seeing stuff that borders on confabulation IMO on this discussion page. I think that era-veterans do have a place but the idea isn't to fill up their ranks, if anything era-veterans came around as a concession to the fact that it isn't easy to find out the truth about everyone (take Mr Kowalski for instance, he was cited via a language translation but moved to era until we can prove one way or another his case, eg, a concession). I think we need to have a collective vote on definitions, and I would like to put forward the following.
1. The article opens with this statement: 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. Is this statement true? It may be a starting point, but there is the following to consider:

• A veteran is somebody who was in the armed forces over a particular time-frame as identified and acknowledged by their respective government. What I'm saying is that the empahsis is on a governments reocngition of an individual being a veteran, not us deciding it. There are however problems:
  • The victorious side award campaign medals for those that were in service, and providing it was before or on the Armistice this is the backbone of the Allied veterans percentages, so there is no problem here.
  • The losing side have no such "records", the Russians don't really admit to much because of their withdrawal in 1917 and in the case of the Polish they were conscripted for Germany, Austria and Russia depending on what bit of Prussia you were in and your luck at the time etc. Nevertheless they can either be verified as serving before the armistice or, as is often the case, a government might say they no longer have records, in which case they will be forever unverified.
  • The French Poilus and the Italians aren't recognised unless a certain time-frame had been reached and for the French government this is still the "recognised" way it is today. This however is a bit of a nonsense and nobody really has a problem with using a definition more akin to the British or American governments for instance.
  • The current definition allows for the minor allies entire armed might to be counted as veterans, even though their governments don't say so. Even Siam (Thailand) had victory medals made and distributed for those that it considered to be veterans. This goes back to my earlier point though, what business is it of ours labelling up an entire nations might as 'veterans', leave it to their governments. In fact if you can't cite them as a veteran then they shouldn't be on here at all as it will be original research then.

2. Unverified veterans. This should be straightforward in respect that there is a claim that they have served in the military on or before the armistice, the reference can be cited (eg, it's quoted by the media and not just claimed by themselves), but there is no actual proof (for whatever reason) to support that claim.

• Of course on this discussion page we can talk about what we like and truthfully it is useful to discuss the veracity of certain people and claims.
• There is a western bias here but I can't see much that can be done about that. Considering that it is the western bias which is 'celebrating' this whole veterans thing to start with, I'm sure you don't read much about Eastern veterans because they are far cooler on the whole thing.
• The above point is a bit moot as unless we discover a great cache of new veterans which are unverified it isn't going to manifest as a bias.

3. Era-vetarns. Personally I think the same criteria should be applied as to that for armistice veterans, just that the dates are move to after the armistice but before/on the Treaty of Versailles. I don't like the whole related conflict thing, Winston Churchill said that he always thought of WWII as the second round of WWI so what is the point of including related conflicts. It's even a little bit of a stretch in the first place going to the ToV, we could just stop at the armistice but going to the ToV isn't at all unreasonable and the reasoning we discussed way back in archive 1 or 2.

• Personally I do think of the Polish-Russian war to very much be an afterthought of WWI and is no doubt a 100% direct consequence of how the land was divided up in the ToV, but really, do these kind of veterans have a place on the page? To me the give-away is in the title, Polish-Russian war, not WWI.
• This is countered by the fact that America was dishing out victory medals well into 1920 for various activities such as the exepditionary force to Siberia which are counted as the scope of WWI, so why shouldn't we include the above?
  • Probably a lot to do with politics and the fact that a lot of people died and it needed recognition rather than anything to do with WWI per se
• It's been used as a concession for certain veterans we've been unsure on for whatever reason.

On reflection it would be a lot easier as well as lot more relevant if we just stopped at the Armistice, otherwise it becomes a free-for-all. Not to say that I'm not interested in these people because I am but I think the discussion page is the best place for it rather than the article.

My final comment for now is that I do think that we must have consensus on this, if we carry on the way we are then before long we will have more era-vets than actual vets. We need to get into perspective what the article is for and what should be on it, and what should stay on the discussion page. RichyBoy (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree... I had just written the following in the "Poland" discussion, but have placed it here now...Snowdog81 (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should really consider, as some have suggested, limiting the definition of Era Vet to someone participating in the WW1 war effort as a member of the armed forces of a combatant nation between the Armistice and ToV (Rex), or when the join-date is in question (Cardoso). Perhaps we should let go of the "participated in a related conflict" criterion, as these conflicts are in reality distinct from WW1. This way, we don't have to debate if a certain veteran participated in a related conflict before ToV or after, how closely the conflict was related to WW1, etc. With Mr. Arvonen's passing, the only era vet to fall into this category is Mr. Kowalski. Since Mr. Kowalski has had claims of actual WW1 service made on his behalf in the past (which, unfortunately, he is not healthy enough to confirm or deny), it is possible that he can be left in the era vet list for the time being. Aside from him, we should really think of ceasing to include veterans of related conflicts, and instead celebrate them in other articles on those conflicts. Just my thoughtsSnowdog81 (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You have put a lot of thought into this, and it is something we should discuss, and you raise some very good points. Within the last few months, (to me) is seems like we are grasping at straws to find veterans, and era veterans who really should not be considered either. I think a veteran is someone who finished training. I do not think a time period as the french and Italians should be considered. I think if you were on the battlefield one day, or one hour, your a veteran. I think the later point most agree with me. The veteran part most do not agree, and I understand this and accept this. Therefore, I think anyone that was in training or fighting, or in service before 11-12-18 should be considered a veteran, and era veterans 11-12-18 until the treaty of versailles. Note there were other veterans that received WWI victory medals after 1918. Like the ones in Siberia and Russia - These should be considered as veterans. However, as far as I know these are all deceased. Example - My uncle was in Russia and was killed march 1919. His family received a WWI victory medal. However, all those that went to Russia that were from the U.S. were in fact in training in America before 11-12-18. (PershingBoy)209.247.21.177 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should leave everything as it is. This is not about "you." Both the US and UK governments did not require their "veterans" to have finished training to count as a "veteran." We should not be more restrictive than the official versions. If anything, this page should be a little looser than official versions (but not too lose). If an Italian or French veteran served 1 day, they should be on this list.

Also, I don't see any reason to remove Kowalski. Calm down, people. I haven't seen any good reason for making any changes. There's a reason why the page is as it is now...a consensus was established long ago.Ryoung122 01:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what others have said. This is a List of Surviving Veterans of World War 1, not of any other war. My thoughts on who/what should be listed are:

Verified Veteran The fighting officially ceased with the Armistice on 11th November 1918 and anyone who we can be sure served in the armed forces of a combatant nation prior to that date should be recorded as a verified veteran (even if in training).

Unverified Veteran The existing definition works for me: those for whom there is a claim of service in the armed forces of a combatant nation prior to 11th November 1918 but which is not verified by a government-sanctioned body or actual records located. By this definition Ned Hughes is technically ‘unverified’ (although the UK Ministry of Defence has said that whilst Hughes’s service cannot be proved, it has no reason to believe that he did not serve). Additionally, a fair proportion of those in the ‘Died in’ pages would also fall into this category as they owe their presence only to media reports (including Ivy Kampany whom we are purporting is the last female veteran of the conflict of any nationality).

Era Veteran IMHO the war ended with the Armistice but it is valid to assert that hostilities did not formally cease until the peace treaties were signed. Whilst the Treaty of Versailles of 28th June 1919 brought peace only with Germany (peace treaties with Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and The Ottoman Empire came later), it also gave birth to the League of Nations which it is reasonable to assume would have mandated against any attempt by the defeated Central Powers to re-start the war rather than the wartime Allies. As such, if this is the consensus view, it seems to be an appropriate cut off date for the inclusion of ‘Era’ veterans but, in my view, only for those from the armed forces of the combatant nations of WWI whose service is verified.

Related Wars Again, MHO is that these are what they are – civil wars or local (as opposed to ‘world’) hostilities related to, or a consequence of, but not part of WWI. Veterans from the Estonian War of Independence, the Russian Civil War, the Finnish Civil War, the Turkish War of Independence and the Polish-Bolshevik War which are all shown on these pages are not WWI veterans. As Richyboy says, they appear to owe their presence because we don’t quite know what to do with them but don’t want to lose them (I actually posted a lot of them, thinking that the consensus was for inclusion). Some are listed on the ‘List of Last Living War Veterans’ and ‘List of Last Notable Events’ pages anyway, and there is nothing to stop any interested and enterprising soul from starting a new page dedicated to the last veterans of the conflict in question if they wish to.Brucexyz (talk) 01:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: We call the Great War "World" War I for a reason. All these 'other wars' were a direct consequence of WWI. In fact, for the problems in Finland, Russia, and Poland, fighting was going on at the same time and contributed to such 'WWI' stuff as the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which ended Russian-German hostilities on the eastern front. For Turkey, it's a bit different, as their war for independence was an "aftermath" war...but for those occurring at the same time, the service of the men involved may have helped change the war's outcome, or at least when it ended. This isn't about being "all-inclusive," it's about being historically accurate. Germany helped fund Finnish resistance against Russia. That alone argues for its inclusion.Ryoung122 01:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that Aarne Arvonen was fighting BEFORE Nov.11th (but after the Treaty of Brest - Litovsk).JeepAssembler (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Carlo Dozzi

I've found another unverified italian veteran who is in the same condiction of Sante dal Santo: he should have digged trenches during World War I. We have not sources as instead Sante Dal Santo. So my question is: can we write he on the page of unverified world war I veterans? Even the italian page about supercentenarian people hasn't a source about Carlo Dozzi but he is anyway considered the oldest italian man. What do you think about this question? (Sorry for my english, I hope you will understand) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.23.72.45 (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the discussion above it will be difficult to post an unverified veteran without at least some sort of source. Good luck in tracking one down though.Brucexyz (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is now a citation, but it is in Italian. So does it actually claim military service? DerbyCountyinNZ 22:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest someone ask Giovanni Alunni. Right now it's on the "unverified" list which really means cases to keep an eye on.Ryoung122 05:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Polish sources

I do not speak polish but, if i understand well, in the following URL: http://www.historycy.org/index.php?act=Print&client=wordr&f=106&t=6825 it is discussed of surviving WWI veterans, and at the start of 2009, they mention a surviving Kenyan veteran (known from TV ?), and a surviving French veteran (called Charles Legrain ?). No similar references elsewhere. Does anybody have information about that? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.144.229 (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Can't open your link ("Invision Power Board Database Error"); please repeat it--89.228.146.169 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In August, 2007 there was a piece in the archives of these pages about M'Lthiria Mukaria; who was supposedly 114 years old and had served in the (British) Kings African Rifles (probably in the East Africa campaign, which didn't end until Nov. 25th, 1918). There has been frequent mention of undiscovered French Veterans on these pages (due to both the French governments' three months of combat rule and the very high percentage of Frenchmen mobilized; higher than any other combatant nation except Bulgaria). So both are plausible; indeed, if the estimate that only two-thirds of the veterans are known, then there could concieveably be three more still alive.JeepAssembler (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, here is the original source: http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=6825&st=45 Please see the posts of the user "gronostaj". Regards.

Aha, gronostaj says that he got the information about the Kenian veteran from a telecast of the Planet Channel (maybe Planete?). As for the French veteran Charles Legrain, who is probably 106 years old, the sourse is a Belgian website but "I can't give you a link even if you kill me", gronostaj says :). Generally, nothing more than a rumour. --89.228.146.169 (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Google search doesn't find any veteran called Charles Legrain.--89.228.146.169 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Information about an hypothetic Kenyan veteran cannot be found, either. However, the following URL speaks about a Kenyan veteran still alive in 2002 in Isiolo: http://www.worldwar1.com/tripwire/ei_ep.htm Just for your information, reference to an Ugandan veteran still alive in 2000: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20001112/ai_n14345088 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.144.229 (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Australian wildfires

Let's all say some prayers that Jack Ross is healthy and safe (and obviously all other Victoria citizens as well), in the wake of the bush fires this week. According to the Wiki page, Ross lives in Bendigo, which is one of the areas hit by the fires. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.44.210 (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Franz Künstler

This is a bit off topic, but can anyone locate a picture to download on his biography site. Since he was the last Central Powers veteran, as far as we know, it is noteworthy to have a picture. (PershingBoy)162.114.40.34 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are several: One on Der Spiegel: http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/document/14977/weltkrieg_1_veteran_franz_kuenstler.html?d=IMAGE%2CSPON_VIDEO%2CPDF&o=original_publicationdate-DESCENDING&s=2348&r=1&z=24&cp=98&c=1

the same is all over the net, seems copyright-free: http://img6.myimg.de/ww137708.jpg

another one here: http://www.news.at/articles/0802/10/194078/erinnerungen-leben-der-soldat-portraet

and here: http://static.twoday.net/strobl/images/franzkuenstler.png

(ChrisW)

THANK YOU! (PershinBoy)162.114.40.34 (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Corvet Fernand

This man, or perhaps Fernand Corvet, has been added to the French page with a start date of April 1918. He seems to be a different person from Fernand Goux since he was born in August 1900. However I can't find any evidence for this claim on DDD or elsewhere. And since Laurent Toussaint has recently confirmed Joseph Malahieude (born October 1900) as their oldest man, it would seem unlikely to be his case. This is the only Wiki contribution made from that IP address so perhaps a hoax is more likely. Does anyone know otherwise? 212.183.136.192 (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

Mr. Toussaint said he had another anonymous claim. Also, it is possible this is another case that Mr Toussaint doesn't know about. The real question is: is there a source? Wikipedia can't be a source for itself.Ryoung122 05:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

question

Suppose this list will one day go down to zero, would the article be ever deleted?

It's doubtful. It would probably be retitled Last Surviving Veterans of World War I, with a list of the last Central Powers and Allied veterans, along with the links at the bottom (list of deaths by year, etc). Czolgolz (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Jim Lincoln claim

Did the Jim Lincoln thing ever get cleared up? --208.65.188.23 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The family didn't believe he was a WWI vet. He is dead now anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.167 (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact he's dead now, where should I take the discussion, then? :| --24.21.148.212 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Only about 15% or 20% of men born in the U.S.A. in 1898 (the year he claimed to be born in) actually enlisted in the military during WWI and it's immediate aftermath. Not until the summer of 1918 did the U.S. government lower the mandatory draft registration age to 18 (it had been 21); leaving 1897 as the last birth year with a really large percentage of it's males in the Armed Services. And then again there is the doubt as to him really having been born in 1898. Who really knows though?JeepAssembler (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are true, but I think the big lead is that it was only reported in one newpaper that I know of, and that was from an interview he did. His close family members insisted he was not a veteran. We have seen a time or two in which the so called veteran did not consider himself a veteran, or the family or caretakers wanted to keep it quite. However, he spoke of this along with other things the family did not go along with. Just because the family did not believe, and a record was not found does not mean he wasn't a veteran, but it certainly doesn't help his claim. He was probably a nice man, but kind of like Walter Williams. Luckly, we had someone like Mr. Buckles to fall back on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.114.40.34 (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This appeared to be little more than a tall tale. Nothing he said was believable. Ironically, though, the SSDI DID list him as born in 1898. But even that's based on a self-report.Ryoung122 05:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing: When I heard he'd died I was surprised it had not been reported in, say, at least the Oregonian newspaper. I hadn't though about his age being incorrect.... as for his SSDI, if it was issued in the 1930s when the program was created, it would have been hard to go on years and years without it getting noticed, right? The lady in South America who claims to be in her late-120s got a state-issued ID card sometime in the last 8 years or so, based on heresay.--24.21.148.212 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sante dal Santo

Please, delete Sante dal Santo because he is dead. It is a very big pity because he really was a veteran who digged trenches during first world war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.23.72.45 (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for informing us. Do you have a source to show when he died? And were he and Carlo Dozzi actually in the army? Or part of the civilian resistance? 212.183.134.64 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Captain celery

I don't speak Italian but isn't this the report of his funeral? http://www.ilgiornaledivicenza.it/stories/Provincia/164823/ --89.228.146.169 (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I translated the article with Babelfish. It doesn't say exactly when he died, but the funeral was "yesterday afternoon," which would be February 28th. Presumably, he died a couple of days before then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.102.62 (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

February 27th! http://www.ana.it/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6550 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacek downey (talk • contribs) 07:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he was a real veteran, shouldn't he be on the "veterans who died in 2009" page? We already know that the French and Italian governments had ridiculous requirements to be counted as a "veteran" (3-6 months service) that, if applied to the American and British vets, likely would exclude people listed.

Do any of the articles mention WWI service? If not, can the family send in evidence to www.grg.org...Ryoung122 10:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The news article mentions war service in "1922"...Ryoung122 10:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that anyway nowhe is dead, so there are not problems about if he was or not a Veteran. He didn't fight, he wanted only to earn money to survive and he help Italian Army digging trenches. I think that thereis not a document which let us now this. Anyway also Carlo Dozzi has the same "c.v." so do we consider him a veteran?

Not if he was a civilian. The problem with Dozzi is that someone added him with no discussion and the only reference won't load. Should he even be on this list? Czolgolz (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Worse than that: the only online reference I can locate to "Carlo Dozzi" in connection with "Mangiano" [Italy] - apart from the slew that quote this Wikipedia article as if it were established fact - is this one:

http://www.artifactsweb.com/press_aug06.php

which refers to an American cutlery salesman in Pittsburgh named Carlo Dozzi who imports his merchandise from Mangiano. Someone should remove any reference to Dozzi in the article as it has been inserted without any evident factual basis. MAR 86.130.234.192 (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No mention of 1918 war service? Was he in uniform the? If so, then he needs to be listed in the "Died in 2009" page. I am in New Delhi, India right now and am going to try and find out who there last one was and when he died.JeepAssembler (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Harry Patch update

He's received an upbraid to his Légion d'honneur, he's been promoted from a Knight to an Officer. I'll try and update his page later if I get some time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7931817.stm

RichyBoy (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Average age of WWI veterans is 109

Correct me if I am wrong, but within the last 2 1/2 years the avg. age has been 107 to 108, never going to an avg. of 109. With the (Hopefully) birthday of Mr. Campbell tomorrow. the avg. age has now gone to 109.14. Of course unless we find more WWI veterans it can't go below 108, as the youngest is 108. (PershinBoy)209.247.21.167 (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And this improves the article how? DerbyCountyinNZ 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

He was just commenting. I think it's interesting. Czolgolz (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically I guess it doesn't improve anything. Shall we remove all post that have not improved the articles in discussion?

if we did that then you'd have to remove 99% of the stuff written on here! like this post! Webbmyster (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Last seaman ?

I wonder if it is correct to list Claude Choules as "last seaman" when Henry Allingham was a member of the Royal Naval Air Service from September 1915 to 1st April 1918 ? Until the 1918 foundation of the Royal Air Force the RNAS was a branch of the Royal Navy. Moreover Allingham was not only a seaman in the technical sense of being a member of the navy ; he also went to sea (HMS Kingfisher).

Brian Boru IV (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats a good point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.114.40.34 (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry Allingham update

He's been made a Officer of the Légion d'honneur as well, as can be seen in this video below. I can't make out what Henry says (although I've only watched it once), but he seems very emotional about it all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7946998.stm RichyBoy (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry looked a lot worse than about 6 months ago. I hope he improves and makes it to 113. 208.104.52.232 (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)J271

I understand what you mean. I hope he makes it to 113, but not if he has to go through pain and suffering to get there..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.167 (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

New German veteran maybe?

Helmut Fink (born 18 March 1901) was a member of "Bahrendorfer Freikorps" during World War I. The local Hamburg newspaper reports on this in an article on his 108 birthday.

http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2009/03/14/1084841.html

Freikorps (freecorps) were paramilitarian units wearing uniforms. There is an article on Freikorps in English wikipia. The newspaper article says Mr Fink is proud and full of enthusiasm about his service in Bahrendorfer Freikorps. However, he does not like to talk about his World War II service, when he served from 1939 - 1945 and suffered harsh conditions and forced labor while being prisoner of war in the Ural mountains in the Soviet Union. Mr Fink has been a professional and reknown musician. He is in good health and still plays his keyboard every day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.252.234 (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not quite: the article says he served full of enthusiasm and pride in the Freikorps "as a member" during the "First [World War]". But the Freikorps was not necessarily a military unit in the normal sense of the word: it was usually a private group with military trappings -this was certainly the sense that prevailed after the war. Can anyone shed any light on its status before December 1918 - eg was it the equivalent of the Territorials or Home Guard? MAR86.130.234.192 (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Freikorps were paramilitary organizations. BUT the vast majority of its personnel came from disbanded units of the armed forces. Quite a number of their members enlisted into the army or navy shortly before the war's end - and did not get enough fighting... This is quite a worthwhile case to look at - there could be a good chance that Mr Fink enlisted before the Armistice. Even if he did not, he would be an era-veteran in the same way as A. Arvonen. (ChrisW) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.149.168.48 (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. By our own standards, we should include Mr Fink on our lists, at least as an era-veteran. We had people on the list who enlisted in 1919 only or laster, who did not fight directly in World War I but in related conflicts only, or who were trench diggers not wearing uniforms. Here we have got someone who enlisted in a paramilitarian, uniform-wearing unit in one of the major war countries, and all that before Armistice. What more do we ask for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.135.228 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What more do we ask for? In this case, confirmation that he was a "member of the armed forces of one of the combatant nations", which is the qualifying definition for this list. A "paramilitary" group is not the same as a military unit; a self-formed collection of individuals dressed in self-designed kit, which is what many of the Freikorps amounted to, is not necessarily an "armed force of one of the combatant nations", any more than the Boy Scouts or the Bahrendorf Town Band. It could be, for instance, that Herr Fink worked as the equivalent of an unpaid security guard in his home town - we just don't know from the scant material thus far presented. What would be useful would be to clarify the role of the Freikorps before December 1918, by which stage they seem to have been (or become) entirely private bodies. Could it be classed as an auxilliary or reserve unit? MAR 213.86.213.196 (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear know what the "Bahrendorfer Freikorps" were and what his his position was, so we can't decide if he was a WWI-Veteran, Era-Vertan or non of them. --Statistician (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Dozzi

I have removed Dozzi per previous talk, as there is absolutely no references to him anywhere. Please reinsert him if you find a citation. Czolgolz (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

RIP Ned Hughes

We now have only 6 veterans 3 of whom are British by birth. Statistically, the last survivor may be with us until 2012 or 2013. Good health to all. 208.104.52.232 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)J271

Statistics don't really count for much with low numbers though as the variation is very high. Sadly I wouldn't be surprised if we only have 2 or 3 left at the end of this year. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Helmut Fink

The question of whether or not Helmut Fink was a World War I veteran or era veteran centers around the role of the Freikorps Bahrenfeld, which he was a member of.

This article remembers Freikorps Bahrenfeld, for its role in unsucessfully defending the Hamburg City Council from a hungry mob storming it in 1919. Nine soldiers, as they are called in the article, died in the incidence. http://www.abendblatt.de/extra/service/944949.html?url=/ha/1969/xml/19690625xml/habxml690406_8438.xml

This article on another soldier of Freikorps Bahrenfeld describes how the Freikorps fought in Latvia against troops of revolutionary Russia, both on behalf of the Latvian government and on the Freikorps´ own behalf. http://www.ffmhist.de/ffm33-45/portal01/portal01.php?ziel=t_ak_ernst_salomon

The articles clearly show that the Freikorps Bahrenfeld was much more than a self-formed collection of individuals dressed in self-designed kit, but at least a militia or paramilitary unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.135.228 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Helmut Fink was a member of Freikorps Bahrenfeld during World War I, it is by all accounts fair to consider him a World War I era veteran, if not a full World War I veteran. If Mr Arvonen was considered an era veteran, than the same should apply to Herr Fink. Bahrenfeld used to be a city on its own and is now a part of Hamburg. Herr Fink still resides in Hamburg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.135.228 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. However, although the articles do shed some light on the Bahrenfelder Freikorps' existence and activities, they do not assist in demonstrating whether Herr Fink was a WWI veteran. And a citizen's mitilia or paramilitary group - which is not necessarily different to a collection of individuals dressed in self-designed kit - is not the same as "an armed force of a combatant nation". In general terms, the Freikorps movement was established after (and as a consequence of) the First World War: former soldiers were recruited into paramilitary units, and played parts in the various internal struggles connected with the Revolution and early years of the Weimar Republic. So far, nothing cited makes it clear that the Bahrenfelder Freikorps even existed before December 1918. (And of course there is nothing to indicate that Herr Fink saw paramilitary service in Latvia either). He may be a WWI-era veteran using the Arvonen analogy, but I would suggest that the necessary evidence is still lacking. MAR 86.130.233.181 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This article implies that the Bahrenfelder Freikorps was formed "after 11 November 1918" by former soldiers of the 76th Hamburg Infantry Regiment (2nd Hanseatic):

http://www.altearmee.org/IR_76

"Nach dem 11. November 1918 bildeten sich aus ehemaligen Soldaten des Regiments die Stämme für einige Freikorps die in den unruhigen Zeiten der Weimarer Republik gegen die kommunistischen Verbände kämpften. Das „Bataillon Hamburg“ im Baltikum und in Hamburg bildeten sich die „Einwohnerwehr Hamburg“, das „Freikorps Bahrenfeld“, das „Zeitfreiwilligenkorps Bahrenfeld“ und die „Freiwilligen-Division von Lettow-Vorbeck“. "

"After the 11th of November 1918 former soldiers of the Regiment formed the basis for several Freikorps which fought against the Communist groups during the troubled times of the Weimar Republic. The Hamburg Battalion in the Baltic and in Hamburg formed the 'Hamburg Residents' Force', the 'Freikorps Bahrenfeld', the 'Bahrenfeld Volunteer Corps' and the 'Volunteer Division of Lettow-Vorbeck'."

Additionally, this history (in English) of the Freikorps movement makes it clear that these bodies were formed after the end of the war "to defend public order from revolutionary movements", and that they comprised "not only veteran soldiers but also like-minded citizen volunteers":

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UXouZJHA-5EC&pg=PA47&dq=%22kompanie+bahrenfeld%22#PPA47,M1

MAR 86.130.233.181 (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

All this sounds a lot like he should be considered an era veteran. I wonder why Herr Fink is under much more scutinity than other era veterans. Do we know where and in which units the Italian trench diggers exactly operated. What role did Mr Arvonen play in the Red Guards, where did he serve? Such questions where never asked before these people were added on the list. The Freikorps Bahrenfeld clearly was a militia, and our first evidence cited Herr Fink served there during World War I. I wonder why some people apply double standards as to when someone is an era veteran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.135.228 (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure who is applying double standards. I have not expressed any opinions about trench-diggers (other than to suggest the removal of one for whom no evidence at all exists), and I have never seen any doubt expressed about Mr Arvonen's service in the Finnish Civil War. In this instance, the preponderance of evidence clearly seems to indicate that the Bahrendorfer Freikorps did not exist until after the end of the WWI; ergo, on the basis solely of service in that body, Herr Fink cannot have been a WWI veteran. If you (or anyone else) has different evidence, you are welcome to adduce it. I personally have no problem in listing him as an era-veteran, but merely because others have slipped through in the past on the basis on insufficient scrutiny is a poor excuse for applying similar low standards to all cases. If you are not happy with the evidence listed here, find some better! MAR 213.86.213.196 (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Was he in uniform before June 28th,1919? If so, then he qualifies as an era veteran. P.S. wasn't Corporal Adolf Hitler in the Freikorps?JeepAssembler (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was never a member of any Freikorps. (ChrisW)--87.149.162.57 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry Allingham is 113 years old!

And currently the 13th oldest verified living people in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.240.208 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Its very sad, but Henry Allingham´s condition is not that good and he will probably die soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.135.228 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought he looked good in the video of his birthday celebration. He appeared in better shape than he was a few months ago. We all have good and bad days, no matter how old we are.....208.104.52.232 (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)J271

How would you know? Are you his nurse? I don't think so. Congratulations Allingham on your 113th birthday. Paulus Gun (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What an unbelievably crass comment. Mithrandir1967 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Odds are Mr. Allingham won't be around to break 122.5 - However, I wouldn't write him off and say "he will die soon" - As one person stated above, we all have our good and bad days. In March 2009 I saw a video of him, and thought he will be lucky to make 113. However the video on his 113th birthday he looked pretty darn good. As I have stated about every 6 months on this site, when you reach these great ages (now 108+), you don't know who will be next and who will end up last. From the information I have formulated, I think Babcock will be the last. However my formulation means nothing. Roy Brown appeared to be fit as a fiddle at 106 and then he died...... We have no way of knowing. One could live to be 115 or older - They already have beat the odds. (PershingBoy)209.247.22.75 (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

harry patch,birthday

A meeting with patch and allingahm ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.15.220.11 (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well they (including Bill Stone) have met several times with the last being the very important date of 11-11-2008. Mr. Patch states in his book each trip he takes now, wears him out a lot. I think the 11-11-08 will be the last gathering due to both men being in frail health. 113 and 111 is a lot of mileage. (PershinBoy)209.247.22.75 (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

picture

There are pictures of five veterans during the war 14 18? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.15.220.11 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Health of World War I veterans

Although Henry Allingham and Harry Patch are now both frail, aren't there any surviving World War I veterans that are still healthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.191.131 (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be honest a person would probably have to be their personal doctor or nurse to know that. You can also be healthy, but still frail. 108 year old bones can't take that much. Without knowing his situation, I read that Mr. Babcock walked every day when he was 105. I have seen several and have several recent pictures of him, and he is never in a wheelchair. I think he and perhaps Mr. Buckles are the only ones still able to walk short distances. Of course you can be in a wheelchair for years, and be healthy, but in my opinion would increase frailty. However I am no doctor and do not know their medical history. I'm only going by things I've read or recent pictures. (PershingBoy)63.215.29.245 (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know about how Claude Choules is doing? A while ago, he was as healthy as a horse!Contributions/72.144.140.149 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone actually read the box at the top of this talk page which says:

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of surviving veterans of World War I article."

"This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. "

DerbyCountyinNZ 05:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone really care? No? Didn't think so. RichyBoy (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But what about Claude Choules?72.144.115.117 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,25351694-948,00.html He's in worse condition than Henry.

Yikes, he looks terrible! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.102.62 (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that either Choules or Henry Allingham can live to 2010?72.144.138.251 (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Working people during First World War

During First World War soldiers were fighting in the trenches. But there were people that contributed to the war with their work: digging trenches, transporting people who had been wounded, carring war material from trains to the war field. Sante dal Santo, who is died two months ago, was an example of this kind of people, very very young during the war; and he has been considered a "claim veteran" for his work in this site. So now, in Italy, we are looking for this people and we've found two ones that are 108 and 104 years old. What do you think about this matter? My idea is to create a new kind of "veterans" in this web page besides the ones are already written and extnd the research to the whole world. Maybe the new category shall be called "militarized workers" as we called them here in Italy. If you decide to create this new category I will prontly supply you the names and some details. (For one of this two people there is a problem of sources) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.23.72.45 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. How will you go about authenticating those who contributed. There was a lot of home front activism during the World Wars. How will you distinguish those who served in Mr. Santo's capacity and someone who, say, collected a little scrap iron on the side? Czolgolz (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

We have been round this one quite a few times in the past. The big problem is where do you stop? do you stop at munitions workers?, the train drivers who delivered the weapons?, the miners who dug the coal that fuelled the train?, the farmer who grew the food that fed the miners? etc, etc. Taken to its logical end point the list you are proposing would basically be of anyone borne before roughly 1905 (so they where of near working age in 1918) who is still alive. Interesting though that sort of list might be, I don't think it should be on this page. SRwiki (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are right. The list would be very long and it would be difficult to certificate all the people who claims to have worked. However a new page/forum may be created. Do you think a new wiki page with this list should be considered encyclopedic? Shall we do it? (One of the reasons for which I believe it is important to find this people and recognize his worth, is that a lot of them died working near the soldiers; and in Italy a special department of this people received the same title of the other soldiers "Cavalieri di Vittorio Veneto" for their worth. This department was called "portatrici carniche", women that transported wonded. Already this recognition could make understand that the site/list would be enciclopedic and true.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.23.72.45 (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a considerate thought, but I think it would open up a whole can of worms. There are thousands of people everyday that do things that should be remembered but are forgotten. We have to stop somewhere. Unless another veteran that was fighting or in training is found, we should let it rest at these final six. We have to realize this list will not go on forever. These are just my thoughts on the subject.(PershingBoy)209.247.22.75 (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Any other thoughts/proposes about the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.23.72.45 (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Without minimizing the contributions of civilian workers, I think you'd be opening a can of worms. Since there's no international definition of a worker, I don't think it's possible to write an encyclopedic article. Czolgolz (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot can be learnt from WWII here with England, as the whole country was considered mobilised and those which performed a specified service for a minimum duration were recognised with the 1939-1945 defence medal. Harry patch has one of these for his service in the fire brigade. The lesson that can be applied, IMO, is that you would need continous and dedicated civillian effort to be counted as part of the war machine. Spending a month digging trenches just isn't the same as joining the armed forces with the knowledge that you could be sent to the front and will have to engage the enemy. RichyBoy (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We've already stretched the definition of "veteran" to its limits, including reservists who never saw action and people who weren't even finished with basic training when the war ended. We've got to draw the line somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.102.62 (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Helmut Fink should be listed as an era-veteran

Helmut Fink should be put in the era veterans section, because:

1) we have no evidence at this point that he was a WW1 veteran, 2) we know he was in uniform in a paramilitary organization, the Bahrendorfer Freikorps, which was formed immediately after the Armistice, clearly before the Treaty of Versailles, 3) we have very similar cases from the Finnish War of Independence (Rönnback, Arvonen, Lehtinen), from Estonia (Ants Ilus and others), from Russia (Boris Gudz, Livshits and others) and from Poland (Kowalski).

So please could someone put him in the era veterans list?

(ChrisW) --87.149.175.106 (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this before and haven't reached a consensus. The above cases you mentioned were combat veterans. Also, someone took Rex off the list. Did he die? Czolgolz (talk) 11:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• It looks like Robley Rex did die. I found this article: [url="http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090428/NEWS01/904290364/Robley+Rex++WWI-era+vet++dies+at+age+107"] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.102.62 (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I for one would not consider being a member of a paramilitary organisation to be the same as being in a country's armed forces and don't think he should be included. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially since the war was over at the time.Czolgolz (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Just like the Finnish, Russian and Estonian cases, Helmut Fink was a member of a paramilitary organisation in the time period we consider World War I era. Moreover, the Bahrendorf Freikorps was engaged in combat in various conflicts, as discussed before. Therefore, by our own definitions, Helmut Fink should be considered an era veteran, if we do not want to be inconsistent. It would be very helpful if one of our German contributors could do some research to further clearify his status, e.g. by contacting him or his family. There is a good chance that he is not only an era veteran, but a "real" World War I veteran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.135.228 (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lou Kenton

How exactly is Lou Kenton a World War I-era veteran? His first military involvement seems to have come in 1937 and he was still at school when the war ended. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have given User:NickOrnstein a 24-hour block for continually reverting the removal of this information from the page (a violation of WP:3RR) and refusing to discuss it on the talk page. I hope that this will foster discussion about this issue here. Cheers, CP 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Estimated World War I and II Veterans Alive

Looks like OR to me. Opinions? DerbyCountyinNZ 23:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As you stated earlier in a post I left "and how does this improves the article" - I'll go one step more. I don't even understand what your asking, questioning, or stating? (PershinBoy)162.114.40.35 (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A link to the above article has been added to the See also section of this article. The same user previously attempted to link one of his user pages which was largely similar. Whether or not the link is allowed to stand ("improves this article")" depends on whether the page is allowed to stand. I considered nominating it for Afd but thought it would be better to see what regular editors of this page thought of it first. DerbyCountyinNZ 22:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be put up for deletion. Could intereted users please join the discussion at Talk:Estimated World War I and II Veterans Alive#Suggestion that this article be deleted. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 23:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems like an article that would really be best as a graph. The only information in the article that is relevant to the title is the table. The rest is taken from this article to try and pad it out. The data is not sourced either. SiameseTurtle (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a table full of original research to me. - fchd (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What is it's source? If it is sanctioned by the Veterans Administation (U.S.A. or any other country), or published by professional actuaries then I say let it stand; if not than delete it. It is obviously wrong in some respects (there where more than 206 worldwide and fewer than that number in the U.S. in 2004, for example).JeepAssembler (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The creator of the page has now removed all references to WWI so I'll delink it from this article. DerbyCountyinNZ 03:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RIP Cardoso

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u565349.shtml Can someone add him to the died in 2009 page? It's interesting to note they don't appear to mention any WWI service in his obit. Czolgolz (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not at all interesting and isn't at all a surprise. He was never a veteran first or last in any sense of the word; he was on the list as a technicality. RichyBoy (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty rude! The people who maintain this list are interested, and since everyone on the list has a triple-digit age, it shouldn't be a surprise when any of them die. That said, I do agree that Cardoso slipped in on a technicality. I'll bet he didn't think of himself as a WW1 vet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew76 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah I can see how that can be read that way as well. I'm only refering to the abscence of WWI references in relation to his death, not to Mr Cardoso's demise itself. RichyBoy (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture Armistice day 2008

Has anyone already attempted to obtain a picture of Patch, Allingham and Stone together on 11/11/2008? It would be lovely to have one on Wikipedia & there are so many pictures on google. Paulus Gun (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00647/SNN1215BL_380_647470a.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article1920925.ece&usg=__528pOkQOXNPe-GBDrkPhiaB62dI=&h=580&w=380&sz=66&hl=fr&start=33&um=1&tbnid=pfeAKfXMLrz_rM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=88&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbill%2Bstone%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Dfr%26sa%3DN%26start%3D18%26um%3D1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.9.69.192 (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack Ross

Has the death of Mr. Ross been confirmed? If so, RIP Australia's last WW1 veteran. 208.104.52.232 (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)J271

• I found this article linked to his Wiki page: http://www.theage.com.au/national/last-remaining-digger-australias-oldest-man-jack-ross-dies-aged-110-20090603-buy4.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.102.62 (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC Coverage: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8080731.stm PhantomSteve (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The BBC has overlooked the fact that Beatrice Riley died before Jack Ross.....208.104.52.232 (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)J271

I have contacted the BBC about it, hopefully their editor will amend the copy shortly PhantomSteve (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

World War II List

The DoD estimates are amazing to me. It'll be forever until we make one for WWII. In 2023, there will probably still be 96,000 US veterans alone, so it could easily be 2030 before we make a new list. That's sad about Ross, too. Star Garnet (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say later than 2030 as this would be 85 years after WW2 ended. In 1999, 85 years after WW1 ended, there were too many veterans too keep track of and with more participants and a longer lifespan, it would probably be closer to 2035 before the list is manageable. I would expect the last WW2 veteran to live to the early 2040s. 208.104.52.232 (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)J271

I think that the WW2 list may last quite a bit later than the early 2040s. Considering the age of some of the Axis combatants in the last few months of the war, it is quite likely that debate over which 11 or 12 year old was wielding a panzerfaust in Berlin in 1945 may extend the life of the list to as late as 2050. On the Allies side, it will be interesting to see what Soviet soldiers emerge who were also quite young. (Mekozak)3 June 2009

Now that I've calculated it out, continuing the DoD's trends, the number of US veterans will be 1,000 sometime in September of 2033 and the last one will die in 1945. In other words, it will probably be about 2037 before we put a list together. And this is all assuming there is no big, life-extending thing found in the medical world! Star Garnet (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

and the last one will die in 1945. <--- That's a nasty typo you made there, haha. Anyways, someone already made a page about it. It was previously the 'Estimated World War I and II alive' page Paulus Gun (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well frankly, I think it should be deleted. The stats are not cited. The only citations used are American so it does not give a global perspective. The mortality data will change every year (obiviously the average age is going to get older each year, and the numbers dying will fall). Infact the citation does not even say the average age is 85, which seems very young and out-dated data to me. An 85 year old would have been born in 1923/24 - approximately 21 at the end of the war, which seems extremely young for the average. Of course it will tend to the lower end of the scale, but not that extreme. All the 'data' (if there really is any on a global perspective) could easily be shown as a graph on the World War II page. There's no reason why it should have its own article, and it's certainly far too early to list individuals. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That's 81 years btw for those who can't count :) I would imagine the earliest list will be from 2024, as the oldest veterans then would have been 21 years old maximum at the end of 1945 so there still should be a thousand at least alive (including Queen Elizabeth II possibly), a very small number (10 or so) of the youngest veterans may well get to 2039/2040, unlike WWI were sadly it seems unlikely now that anyone will get to 2014. As records exist for this war rather than WWI the only real exceptions are the Hitler youth members that were called up into the Wehrmacht and the defence of Stalingrad, in terms of age anomolys and lack of documentation. RichyBoy (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, 1999 was 85 years after WW1 BEGAN! Your estimates are reasonable as the last veteran of a major war typically survives 90 to 93 years after the end of that war (American Civil War, Boer War...) and we could reasonably add a couple of years to that for WW2 due to greater numbers and slightly improved longevity. A 17-18 year old veteran in 1945 could make it to 2040. This could extend to 2045 or so in the case of Hitler Youth "veterans" as age anomalies.208.104.52.232 (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)J271

First off; who is the Beatrice Riley referred to in the previous section? Second, their will probably be better records for the last surviving WW2's than for the last WW1's; due to the fact that their probably won't be any massively destructive events to destroy the records (such as the Luftwaffe bombing raid which destroyed British WW1 archives) and the fact that there is plenty of time to prepare for the WW2 vet countdown (usually things go better the second time around). There are about 2300 names on the WW1 vets died in pages going back to Jan. 1st, 1999 (probably between one fourth and one third the global total number actually alive then); a simialar list starting from November 2025 (80 yrs. and 2 mos. after the end of WW2, the same time interval as used for the WW1 lists) would probably yield at least as high a proportion (inspite of their being about twice as many survivors); as countries like Russia will probably be more forthcoming (after all the Russians won in WW2 and refer to it as The Great Patriotic War, while they lost in WW1 and refer to it as The Imperialist War; ultimately condemning them to 74 years of communism).JeepAssembler (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Beatrice Riley (1896-2009) was Australia's oldest person until she died on 5/15/09. The BBC Article written 6/3/09 stated that she was Australia's oldest person, whereas Mr. Ross was in fact that person at the time of his death.208.104.52.232 (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)J271

Archiving

Can someone archive the older (say 60 days plus) sections of this page? I could add a bot to do this (werdnabot) but it would make things a bit messy to have 2 sets of archives. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ 20:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added the bot. It will at least get rid of some of the sections that are inappropriate/unnecessary for this page, such as the 2 below. DerbyCountyinNZ 20:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot was putting archived material on archive pages #1 and #2. I've moved that stuff to /Archive 7, and changed the bot's counter.

—WWoods (talk) 06:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. DerbyCountyinNZ 06:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry Allingham was the oldest verified living man in the world!

After the death of Japanese supercentenarian Tomoji Tanabe on 19 June 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.41.186 (talk) 09:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The article says Allingham is one of two surviving World War I veterans in the United Kingdom. Who are they not counting? Maybe Choules, since he emigrated. Czolgolz (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article does say IN the UK- Choules lives in Oz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.57.6 (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Claude Choules

Mr. Choules has been removed from the list of surviving WW1 veterans. Has his death been confirmed? 208.104.52.232 (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)J271

I've found nothing so I reverted it. If there is a source it should be provided in the edit summary (or cited in his article). DerbyCountyinNZ 03:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Marie-Simone Capony(14 mars 1894, Charlieu - 15 septembre 2007, Cannes), a woman veteran

http://dersdesders.free.fr/actu.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.29.222.214 (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As she is not a surviving veteran, why ask that here? DerbyCountyinNZ 10:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

For the memory ,for the tribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.15.218.253 (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not what this talk page or this article is for. DerbyCountyinNZ 20:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

DerbyCountyinNZ I'd rather someone ask a question, like they did, than to see your rude replies! (unsigned)

She may belong in the 2007 deaths session, and this is as a good a place as any to discuss it. Czolgolz (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as this page is for surviving veterans and Mme Capony died in 2007 the appropriate place to discuss her veteran status is List of veterans of World War I who died in 2007. DerbyCountyinNZ 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but more people read this page. It's all good. Czolgolz (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing veterans

These members used to be on the page. Olin was unverified and Taggart was an era vetran.

Residence	Name	Date of Birth	Age	Nationality	Force served	Notes	Result
United States	Olin, William	28 August 1904	104	American	United States Army	Claims to have enlisted at age thirteen. Resides in Chicago, Illinois.	Deceased
United Kingdom	Taggart, Robert (Bob)	28 June 1900	124	Scottish	Royal Navy	Enlisted just after the end of the war. Scotland's oldest man.	Deceased & Non-veteran

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NickOrnstein (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Forgot to add Sante Dal Santo. By the way, why is he off the list as well?

• From the reference you cited for Bob Taggart:

"Bob - a World War I key railway worker who was part of the Home Guard in World War II - was also given whisky glasses by South Lanarkshire Provost Mushtaq Ahmad."

• He was not a veteren - he never served in the Armed Forces, as he was in a reserved occupation. Hence, he is not on this page. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

William Olin died Sept 12 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.56.205 (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Have you got a source that confirms that he died on that date? Also, the reference for William Olin links to a forum - the link they give to Suburban Chicago News doesn't work, so no first-hand source is available. For William Olin to be counted as an "unverified claim", I think we need a working link (for a website), or a book citation. I've had a quick look on the web, but can't find anything other than mentions on forums, or items about *a* William Olin, but with no mention of what he did in the First World War. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Correction - there is an article on the Suburban Chicago News website at [34] - the text says (in its entirety) "William Olin, who died Wednesday at 104, said he served in World War I. He said he lost all his records and a fire in St. Louis destroyed the enlistment records of hundreds of men. (STNG)". And that's the only non-forum reference I can find to Olin. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing veterans Part II

Below is Sante Dal Santo, he used to be an unverified veteran and originally was on the World War I surviving veterans page, but he got tooken away later on, could someone please have a reference of some sort and why he got removed? thanks, signed: User:NickOrnstein

Residence	Name	Date of Birth	Age	Nationality	Force served	Notes	Result
Italy	Dal Santo, Sante	8 September 1902	106	Italian	Italian Army Military engineers	Claimed to have joined up in 1916 digging trenches and tunnels. Also served in WWII. Lives in Montecchio Precalcino.	Deceased

• He can't be listed here, as he is dead: Report of his death in Il Giornal Di Vicenza - He died on the 26th February this year.
• His contribution in WW1 appears to be in the Military Engineers sometime between 1916 and 1917 (he left Caltrano with his family in 1916, returned home, 'escaped' again in 1917. (see Mettivia's report about him).
• However, there are conflicting accounts - Ana's report about him seems to say that "Dal Santo had been called to arms in 1922 and put into the alpine battalion Bassano". PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wow, everyone is dieing, thanx for the info, I really appreciate guys!!!!!!! Signed: User:NickOrnstein

Claude Choules fought in the Battle of Jutland?

The BBC has reported that Claude Choules fought in the Battle of Jutland in the newsreport of Henry Allingham's death:

The other is Claude Choules, aged 108, who served with the Royal Navy and fought in the Battle of Jutland, as did Mr Allingham. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8157128.stm

Is this true? Because that would mean that Allingham wasn't the last surviving veteran of that battle.Paulus Gun (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As is so often the case the media have got it wrong: Claude Choules is not a Jutland veteran. He enlisted in 1916 but did not complete training until 1917 and then served aboard HMS Revenge. He is however the last man to witness the surrender and scuttling of the German fleet.86.129.80.221 (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Bruce

11 november th 2009

A meeting with Buckles and Babcock ( November 11th, 2009)  ?

well it hasn't happened in the past, and one lives close to one coast and the other on the other coast. I think they see it as pointless. Veteran affairsn in the USA should have supported get togethers with WWl vets around 2000-2005 when some were still able to get around. I think the last meeting of two or more vets ended 11-11-08 with Allingham, Patch and Stone. It would be neat if they met half way though like in Kansas. (PershinBoy) 04:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Choules and Patch should meet as well. But that is 4 months away. Out of the previous 4 months, 3, or 75%, World War I veterans have died. April- Netherwood Hughes, June- John Campbell Ross, July- Henry Allingham. Its 2 bad Harry is the last 90th anny armistice survivor, his pals have deceased within 8 months. Signed- User:NickOrnstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickOrnstein (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Future

Inevitably, this list will someday be deleted. Who would support the idea of eventually renaming this page to something like the "List of the last 25 (or so) surviving veterans of World War I"? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The unusual thing about this list is that the fewer members it has, the more significant it becomes!208.104.52.232 (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)J271

I wouldn't. The 'veterans who died in 200-' pages would take care of that. I think this page will eventually say the last veteran was so and so, and some other interesting info. Czolgolz (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

When the last one is gone, I see no problem in listing the last 25 (or even 100), and at the bottom put the years when others died. Your right the 200_ page would take care of it, but I agree with the first person. We have a list of the 100 oldest people and who we think were the last civil war veterans, so yes we should have a list. However I would wait until all are gone. It is possible we find another WWI vet out there - very slim but possible. I also think we will have people claiming to be the last veteran years after these 4 go. Thats what seemed to happen in the Rev. War and Civil War (PershingBoy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.114.40.34 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

TERRY DOUGLAS EDWARD

Can one add Terrey, Douglas Edward in the list of the veterans, as he is the only one of his category?(Unverified World War I veteran claims) The same case had taken place for Krichevsky, Mikhail Efimovich be put in the list of the veterans after its death

sorry for my english,i'm french —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.15.121.253 (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As you say, his claim is unverified. As such, he can't be put on the list of veterans, as there is no evidence that he is one.

“ Comme vous le dites, sa demande n'a pas été vérifié. En tant que tel, il ne peut pas être mis sur la liste des anciens combattants, comme il n'y a aucune preuve qu'il en est une.

Excusez mon français, j'ai utilisé le service de traduction de Google!

”

PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 00:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing veterans Part III (last part)

Originally, Carlo Dozzi was an unverified veteran, ofcourse, im not sure of what happened to him. Can some1 site a reference of his death please, if he died? Thanks very much!!!!!! Signed, once again- User:NickOrnstein

Residence	Name	Date of Birth	Age	Nationality	Force served	Notes	Result
Italy	Dozzi, Carlo	25 January 1901	123	Italian	Italian Army Military engineers	Claimed to have joined up in 1917 digging trenches and tunnels. Also served in WWII. Lives in Maniago.	Deceased

• I very quick search on Google yielded this: Carlo Dozzi è morto a 108 anni: era l'uomo più vecchio d'Italia - his death was reported on 30th May this year. Before putting people on this discussion page (especially as they mainly seem to be unverified), could you please check to make sure they aren't dead. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• • The reference you put up there doesn't work. Could you fix it, as I can't find the web page. Also, I notice you have copied an old version of this page to your User page... do you intend on putting up every unverified claim on this discussion page? The reason why they are not on here is either that they are dead (and to be honest, you really do need to check this yourself before asking us), or they remained unverified. Instead of just putting them up here and asking why they're not on the list, do these two things:

1. check they aren't already dead - easy enough to do, as I've demonstrated a few times here
2. if they are alive - find verification that they are veterans - a news report where they say they are doesn't count. A newspaper could report that I told them that I fought in the Gulf both times - with a different President Bush as my Commander-in-Chief each time - but that doesn't make it so just because I say it and they report it - especially as I was invalided out of the Marines after the first one!

Just check your facts before asking us to do so, ok? Thanks :D PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • As an example, I was never in the Marines, never in the Gulf, never in the Army - yet it was reported here as something I said... that is why those are unverified claims! Anyone can say anything (to a reporter or to their family)... it don't make it so! PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • A suitable obituary can be found here - [35]

References

Henry Allingham

State funeral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.15.249.100 (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? He is not the last British veteran and the article specifically states that the British Government has agreed a national memorial service on the death of the last veteran. Whilst I think a state funeral would be very appropriate, it has been debated in the House of Commons, and the decsion has been made. Mithrandir1967 (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they should do something special. He was a Special man As Patch said "a Gentleman". What if Choules is the last to go, are they going to bring his body to the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.114.40.34 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They are all special men - no one here disputes that. However, the matter has been debated, the decision has been made. As for Choules - I do not know what would happen, I'm guessing that the decision would be made when the penultimate British veteran dies and he's left. Until then, it's a moot point anyway PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Having re-read the article (!), if Choules was to be the last British veteran, he would not be brought back to the UK, as there will not be a State Funeral, but rather a National Memorial Service. From the cited article:

The government had rejected calls for a state funeral for the last survivor of World War One and decided instead on a national memorial service for all that war's veterans.

— BBC NEWS

PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So if I understand this correctly. In the UK - When Patch dies they will have a special service for him, and when the very last veteran in the world dies they will pay tribute? 63.3.10.2 (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Whichever UK veteren is the last one to die, a National Memorial Service will be held. If he is not the final veteran in the World (i.e. if the final veteran is the Canadian John Babcock or the American Frank Buckles), their respective country will commemorate them in the manner stated in the article. No mention has been made of what HM Govt will do in that case - although I would expect that a formal note of condolence will be sent to the American/Canadian Government. However, other nation's veterans are not covered by any plan of the British Government, as legally they are their home nation's 'responsibility'. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The National Memorial Service is for Britain only, other nations have had or will have their own tributes. This will apply to both Mr Patch and Mr Choules, it is a memorial service, not a burial service. It will serve equally well for either - the veteran of the western front, the classic image of the tommy and the trenches - or the underage volunteer, the desolation of the local villages decimated when these young men never returned, to be commemorated in every village with their own memorial counting the human cost, families all wiped out in one go. Both are iconic of British World War I imagery. RichyBoy (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Allingham and Patch funeral together

"Henry Allingham's funeral will take place at St Nicholas' Church, Brighton on 30 July 2009, with full military honours" Since Mr. Allingham's funeral has not taken place, what is the likelihood Allingham and Patch could be honored together? Just a wishful thought, but it would be fitting(Pershingboy)63.3.10.1 (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, BBC says ("Service planned for WWI sacrifice") A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said Mr Patch's funeral would be held in Wells Cathedral and would focus on prayers for peace and reconciliation., Mr Allingham's public funeral with military honours will take place in Brighton on Thursday.. So the answer is no! However, as previously mentioned, a National Memorial Service is planned. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 06:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

New World War I-era veteran

This man enlisted in 1918 in the German Revolution of 1918–1919. This man deserves to go on the list. Please just drop him on the era veteran list, thanks! Signed- User:NickOrnstein

Nationality	Name	Date of Birth	Age	Residence	Force served	Notes
Germany	Fink, Helmut	18 March 1901	123	Germany	Freikorps	Fought in the German Revolution of 1918–1919. Served as a freikorp during the war. Germany's second oldest man. Lives in Hamburg.

Yes Herr Fink is as old as you say (both references confirm that). However, neither reference mention war service or the German Revolution... have you got a citation for that? Oh by the way, the 2nd reference is not in English, it is in German. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it going to hurt if I just add him there? Here [36] it says that he fought in the war, but I know, you will say no citation. It said that he was in the freikorps on that 2nd reference on Helmut Fink above. Signed- User:NickOrnstein

Yes, it would hurt, if it is incorrect! Wikipedia has enough detractors without putting something on that we know is unverifiable! If the details are unverified but claimed by himself with a valid reference to back it up, then it would possibly be ok... but two points:

1. the 2nd reference didn't seem to say anything about him being in the German Revolution when I read it, or about him being in the Freikorps... could you quote the relevant bit from it?
2. The link on the wikipedia article does not say when he was involved in the German Revolution (ignoring the fact that it is unsourced) - it started just before the Armistice, but lasted until August 1919. If he joined the Freikorps, then when he joined makes a difference. He could have joined up until 11 Nov 1918, in which case he would be an veteran using the definition of this page (*if* verified). If he joined up after that, but before the Treaty of Versailles (28 June 1919), he would be an era-veteran (*if* verified). If he joined between 29 June 1919 and August 1919, he would not be eligible for this page on either count.

If you really want him on this page, you will need to source references from reliable third-party sources, and get back to us. Oh, by the way, I have added a citation needed note on his entry on the List of last living war veterans - thanks for pointing that out! PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

References

It's getting rather tedious to be continually rehashing issues which have been fully dealt with before when no new information is being provided. And using a table format is quite unnecessary too.DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well maybe I like doing it that way. Signed- User:NickOrnstein. It's getting this stuff out of my head, im letting it out. And I just had everything answered. Signed- User:NickOrnstein

Nick, it's good that you are enthusiastic about contributing to wikipedia - I like that, honest. However, all of the people you have shown us have been discussed before, and found to be unsuitable for this page - that's why they are not on here! Also, the longest it took me to find the information about any of the people was maybe 5 mins... if you must put a candidate on this page, firstly you don't need to do it in table format (as Derby says, it's not necessary), and check your facts. Unless you can find a reliable third party source, the odds are that the individual will not be eligible to be put on this page. Regards, PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think one is being somewhat elitist here; it is infinitely better to be added to this page for discussion than just added to the main article willy-nilly. All it needs is a reminder to read the archives, not bashing someone when they have done more than most people would by even checking the discussion page to start with. RichyBoy (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Beyond any of the above, since when was service in a Freikorps deemed to be WWI service? The Freikorps came into being after the War, they were private mercenary companies and they were not part of any recognized national army. You could, with as much justification, consider the guards employed by private security companies in Iraq to be "Gulf War veterans."  RGTraynor  05:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Would participating in the German Revolution be enough to make him an Era Vet? Wouldn't he need to have been in some sort of official unit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.102.62 (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I would say that to be an Era Veteran, he needs to be in an official unit of the military. The Freikorps, as mentioned by RGTraynor, was a militia, and hence unofficial. There is no mention of him being part of the German (or any other) Armed Forces, and so he would not qualify for this page. As I said to Nick though, the reference he cited did not mention the Freikorps or the Novemberrevolution, or military service in any form. If anyone here is fluent in German, I'd be grateful if they could read the 2nd reference, to make sure that it isn't mentioned. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• IT SAYS IN THE 9TH SENTENCE OF THE 4TH PARAGRAPH quote, "The first-full entusiasm, pride- as a member of the Bahrenfelder Free Corps." By the way, Freikorps is German for Free Corps. When you type freikorps and Free Corps, they are both 2 seperate wikipedia pages. On the free corps page, just look under Germany. Signed- User:NickOrnstein
  • My apologies, Nick - it does indeed say that he was in the Frei Korps. However, it does not say when - and also, as has been mentioned, the Frei Korps are para-military militia rather than military organisations. Unless evidence can be found that he was a member of the German Armed Forces during the War (or between the Armistice and the Treaty of Versailles) then he is not eligible to be on this page. Free Corps says that the German ones were pre-1754, Post-World War I, and the BFC from WW2. Freikorps says that they were voluntary armies (i.e. not officially part of the Armed Forces - from the article: The freikorps were regarded as unreliable by regular armies, so that they were mainly used as sentries and for minor duties - emphasis mine.. they were regarded this way by regular armies, and therefore were not part of the regular armies) and after WW1, they were para-military forces - again not part of the Armed Forces. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Haha, I swear it seems like it takes a million and a half to get someone on the list. Signed- User:NickOrnstein

The question of whether or not Helmut Fink was a World War I veteran or era veteran centers around the role of the Freikorps Bahrenfeld, which he was a member of.

This article remembers Freikorps Bahrenfeld, for its role in unsucessfully defending the Hamburg City Council from a hungry mob storming it in 1919. Nine soldiers, as they are called in the article, died in the incidence. http://www.abendblatt.de/extra/service/944949.html?url=/ha/1969/xml/19690625xml/habxml690406_8438.xml

This article on another soldier of Freikorps Bahrenfeld describes how the Freikorps fought in Latvia against troops of revolutionary Russia, both on behalf of the Latvian government and on the Freikorps´ own behalf. http://www.ffmhist.de/ffm33-45/portal01/portal01.php?ziel=t_ak_ernst_salomon

The articles clearly show that the Freikorps Bahrenfeld was much more than a self-formed collection of individuals dressed in self-designed kit, but at least a militia or paramilitary unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.135.228 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Helmut Fink was a member of Freikorps Bahrenfeld during World War I, it is by all accounts fair to consider him a World War I era veteran, if not a full World War I veteran. If Mr Arvonen was considered an era veteran, than the same should apply to Herr Fink. Bahrenfeld used to be a city on its own and is now a part of Hamburg. Herr Fink still resides in Hamburg.

It would be best if on of our German contributers (Statistican??) could verify the specifics of Herr Fink`s involvement in WW1 / WW1 era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.85.179 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Like I said, it would be great if he just went on the World War I era section. Signed- User:NickOrnstein

John Babcock, Claude Choules, and Frank Buckles

Now that Harry Patch has died, who will be the last World War I veteran?65.11.158.217 (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't very interesting. The three remaining done nothing in ww1: seaman, completed training in UK but did not see action, and a doughboy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.245.164 02:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So incorrect information aside, you dismiss soldiers because they are general infantry or seamen? The vast majority of folks who fought and died in those conflicts were GI's or seamen. Without them, what sort fo a military do you have? Do we no longer have intersting WWII vets left either because Patton is no longer with us? Darned trolls. aremisasling (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Claude Choules did nothing in WW1? He was on active service with HMS Revenge from 1917 - and as far as I am aware, was not a training ship. Although she may not have been in any specifically named battles in the article, that does not mean that she was lying around doing nothing! She was a warship, and a member of the 1st Battle Squadron, the flagship of Vice-Admiral Cecil Burney. As such, she would have been actively in action! Unless you can provide evidence that he didn't see action, then I think you are talking rubbish. Frank Buckles was an Ambulance driver who served in France during the War - unless you can prove he was far from the enemy lines, again you are talking a load of rubbish. They were brave enough to join the Armed Forces, knowing (when they signed up) that they were liable to be sent to somewhere where they could be killed - whereas you don't even have the guts to sign your name... PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 06:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

To me, I sometimes think that people are waiting until the last world war i veteran is left. I think that others believe its a race till the last one, it shouldnt be like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickOrnstein (talk | contribs) 03:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to have this type of discussion. Very bad taste. I'm sure Claude Choules family thinks he has done something. He only served his country from 1916-1956! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.1 (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The sort of inappropriate (in more ways than one) comment that happens all too frequently on this page. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for fun: there are no more WWI veterans living in UK; however, the initials of three remaining veterans coincide with the abbreviature of UK's main media company. A consolation for Britain? :)) --89.228.159.74 (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Terrey deceased?

He hasn't had an update in a year. If people don't have an update on their birthday after a year I think that they are deceased. Could be wrong, maybe not. Signed- User:NickOrnstein

Thinking is not enough - find a source. Nick, we don't suppose here... The last news item I can find is in London's Metro last November - but then he was alive and well, and eating a fry up every morning! Until we find evidence of his death, we assume he is alive. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 06:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I emailed the place he is staying at about three months ago (I'm trying to find the address and will ask again). However, he was alive and doing alright about three months ago (PershingBoy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.114.40.35 (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Harry Patch

I just heard on the local news that Harry Patch had turned down the offer of a state funeral, instead opting for a public funeral at Wells Cathedral, which implies that the British Government (incorrectly in my opinion as it should be about the force they served) doesn't consider Claude Choules for the offer of the state funeral. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

How many times does it have to be said? There is going to be no state funeral but a memorial service. Undoubtedly the Governement consulted the remaining veterans and their families and it would have been nice to have a state funeral, but the decision was made some time ago to have a memorial service - and that is that. A national memorial service also avoids the tricky problem of repatriation of the remains of an overseas veteran.

In addition, let's not forget that the country had what was in effect a state funeral when the remains of the Unknown Warrior were returned to the UK and interred in Westminster Abbey. Mithrandir1967 (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Claude Choules again

For the record, the Sun published a piece on him a few days ago [37] (dated July 28). I doubt that a blog I could contribute an article to right now is a better source than that. If anything newsworthy happens, it needs a reliable source (at least as reliable as that Sun article) to support changes to the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Juan Carlos Caballero Vega

Greetings,

Juan Carloa Caballero Vega of Mexico claims birth June 24 1900 and to have participated in the attack upon Columbus, New Mexico in 1916. As the Germans were instigating Mexico to attack the US, this could be seen as a WWI-era attack and Vega thus a WWI-era veteran:

http://www.daylife.com/photo/007caco7n8f2z

Ryoung122 17:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ryoung122! I just saw this posted on the WOP Yahoo group, have read the article and I would say he should be included in the "era" section. Cheers--Jkaharper (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the history of the Mexican Revolution, but if it's considered a "related conflict," then Mr. Vega should qualify as an era-vet. Andrew76 (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we add Juan Vega, and the other 3 living veterans that are on list of last living war veterans page, under Mexican Revolution? Signed- User:NickOrnstein, 11:27 AM ET.

Actually, there are only 3 living veterans, including Vega. The first guy in that list died in 1999. Andrew76 (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I meant to say. Lol :P . Signed- User:NickOrnstein, 3:09 pm ET.

There has been no consensus that the Mexican Revolution be considered a "related conflict". I for one disagree that it is. Unless/until there is such a consensus he should not be added. As such I have removed him. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the link is pretty weak. Czolgolz (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read the Wiki page about the Mexican Revolution, and it doesn't sound like it's related to WW1. I'm sure that James Burke could tell an interesting story connecting the two (via German instigation of Pancho Villa, as mentioned above), but that doesn't make them related conflicts. Andrew76 (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing Veterans - Closure

Bob Taggart who was once on the unverified vet page died August 13, 2009 at age 109. 208.104.52.232 (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)J271

Rest in peace, Mr. Taggart. Andrew76 (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Vet or not, that's a respectable age. Here's to you, Mr. Taggert. aremisasling (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)