Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:56, 16 August 2008

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This redirect is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as High-importance). Military history: World War I This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  World War I task force Longevity Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Chris Treadway (July 72007). "German veteran of World War I dies". Contra Costa Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) James Joyner (April 32007). "Last navy and woman ww1 veterans die". Outside the Belt. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

	List of surviving veterans of World War I is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 20, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept July 30, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept September 1, 2007 Featured list candidate Promoted March 15, 2008 Featured list removal candidate Kept Current status: Featured list

Template:Archive box collapsible

Living WW2 vets ?

Sorry folks, I know this is a bit off topic ... but out of interest , how many living WW2 vets are out there ? What date would you predict that the number of WW2 vets may have gone down to the numbers of WW1 vets that were living when this listing was first started. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.250.180.50 (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, without really thinking about it - World War II started in 1939, which was 25 years after World War I started. This list was started in 1999, which would make the logical starting point around 2024. But then you have to consider that World War II ended 27 years after World War I ended - which would push that year out to 2026. Then, you also have to consider the fact that a generation later, life expectancy has risen throughout the developed world (which comprised most of the soldiers to fight in World War II) - so the life expectancy of a World War II vet was likely to be longer than that of a World War I vet.

As well, you also have to take into account that there were many more soldiers that fought in World War II than in World War I. Given all that, there would probably not be much call to start up a similar list regarding World War II until well into the 2020s, but another thing to consider on that front is that as technology evolves, starting up a list - no matter how long, may become more and more likely given increasing ease of using tools like Misplaced Pages. So really, impossible to say, but there's certainly no hurry at the moment.

In a slightly related field, I have decided to put up a "Surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War" page on Misplaced Pages. It may appear that a war fought from 1936-1938 may have a similarly long time to wait as World War II to warrant an article, the big difference is though, despite the Spanish Civil War having a deep and abiding effect on many field of Western thought, in terms of International involvement, that was limited to perhaps 50,000 foreigners who fought for the International Brigade / Republican side and also (According to the Times Online) (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article687933.ece), 60,000 Italian troops sent by Mussolini to fight with General Franco. At the very least, I think it is well time to start finding out exactly how many of these approximately 110,000 foreign troops are still around. There could well be less than a few hundred in the entire world. (Espeically given the fact many would also have fought, and died, in the subsequent conflict of World War II.202.139.104.226 (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Today also happens to be the 69th Anniversary of the end of the Spanish Civil War, which occurred on April 1st, 1939.jkm 07:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted before that the USA reckoned they had 3.4 million alive as of 2006. http://www1.va.gov/opa/fact/amwars.asp That's the USA veteran's association page and they have update their projections and the population models that they use. September 2007 they reckon 2.8 million. By September 2010 1.85 million and by September 2022 115,000. I doubt if thorough checking would be performed until 2028 or so, as that is the point where an individual USA state may be down to less than 100 veterans or so. As a note it is the same population projection methodology which projects that there will be 1 WWI veteran globally still living in 2018. RichyBoy (talk) 10:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Numerous Germans "Hitler boys" joined regular forces at age 14 or 15 in 1945. Given increasing live expectancy, it shouldn´t be surprising if one of them makes it until ca. 2040. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.150.82 (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you might mean the "Hitler Youth". Boys as young as 12 were drafted into the militia in 1945. RichyBoy (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We could at least start a page listing the numbers of surviving WW2 vets estimated for each involved nation; the earlier the start, the more accurate the list will be because there will be more time to search.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939)

Ok, I've finally done it, I've put up a rudimentary page relating to Surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War. It can be located at Surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War. I would encourage all the usual visitors to this page to do some research if you feel like it and identify and verify as many veterans - particularly of the International Brigade (Including the Soviets) and the Mussolini forces from Italy - to ensure this article gains some depth before the inevitable "well-meaning" busy-bodies attempt to delete it. I think the respect shown to this page is ample evidence that there is a place for this sort of entry on Misplaced Pages. There would be those who argue that the Spanish Civil War is not as important as World War I or World War II for that matter and that there is therefore no need for such an article. I completely disagree with that relativistic and simplistic assesment of the conflict. The literature and myths - and indeed long-term effects, of the Spanish Civil War have reverberated down the decades, and indeed had a strong influence on the conduct of World War II. As such, I would again urge all interested parties to take part in fleshing out this article so that it does not become an easy target of those who will inevitably try and argue for and perhaps achieve its deletion. I have saved a copy of the Misplaced Pages language version of the page in case of this to make for easy re-instatement.

Thanksjkm 08:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It often seems that Spain is the archetype national example of conservative politics and society. In the 15th and 16th centuries it became an absolute monarchy with a stronger than usual reliance on the military, the land owners, and the church compared to other european nations. In the 20th century the Franco regime put a modern spin on this historical legacy; largely stabilizing the country (except for occasional Basque unrest) and possibly help stem the tide towards communism in europe.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Giobatto and Satar

Can someone confirm Giobatto's and Satar's deaths? Czolgolz (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Both the Turkish and English articles were altered 4 hours ago, at 21:00 GMT. The English one was two minutes earlier, so they could have been getting their cues from here, since there's no citation. Also, the Turkish one has him born in 1895 which I assume is a Gregorian/Julian calendar issue. Turkey and Greece made the switch the latest of any countries. However the user who changed the English article is Turkish, according to their user page, and so they must have translated from Satar's entry on this months deaths page.

So yes, after all the searching for his 110th birthday, Kuenstler stands alone. The people who said that his national hero status would ensure prompt news of his death were quite right. It appears only to have happened a few hours ago. There must be relatives who don't know yet so I feel quite priviledged that I do. Don't know about Bisaro yet though. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

I thought the calendar switch was a matter of days, not years. Czolgolz (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, maybe I'm getting a bit confused. I remember the Mohammed el Mokri controversy. He was 116 in Egyptian years but 112 in our years. Of course he wasn't actually a supercentenarian at all but you see the point. But then that was Egypt 50 years ago, not modern Turkey. I'm grasping at straws to explain it really. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Correct me if I am wrong, but last month we lost the last WWI vereran that started his service in 1914, and with Satar's death the last from 1915. (Pershinboy)63.3.10.130 (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Morning All I think Henry Allingham joined up summer 1915 SRwiki (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Some sources seem to be under the impression that he signed up in 1914, but his mother told him not to. In 1915 he did so with the RNAS which had been formed just before the start of the war. This meant that he wasn't one of the poor bloody infantry. A wise decision, especially as he's the only founding member to see the 90th anniversary of the RAF on Tuesday. Since it was the Naval Air Service I wonder if aswell as the last airman of the war, he counts as a seaman like Choules and Stone? 80.2.17.47 (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Tribute national for Satar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.197.54.171 (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Veterans who saw combat

Let me get this straight: the four remaining veterans who saw combat are Henry Allingham, Harry Patch, Delfino Borroni, and Francesco Domenico Chiarello. Correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.59.63 (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was Patch, Borroni, Chiarello and Kunstler, with possible engagement involving Allingham and Choules. Arvonen also fought, but in the Finnish Civil War. Snowdog81 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you would think that, but I do not see how Claude Choules could have seen combat if he was only 17 when the war ended. Also, there was someone who edited on Surviving veterans of World War I the veterans who saw combat, but never gave us their names. For this reason, I assume that it was Allingham, Patch, Borroni, and Chiarello who saw combat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.59.63 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult defining what a combat veteran should be but if you ask me it should be considered to be those that were deployed to a theatre of operation. Remeber, you don't have to hold a side-arm to be under-fire from the enemy. This includes:

RichyBoy (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Franz Künstler definitely saw combat. He was drafted on February 06, 1918 (it was possible for all young Austro-Hungarian men who were at least 17 on January 01, 1918 to be drafted). After six weeks of training he joined the 5th Hungarian Artillery Regiment and fought at the Italian front near the river Piave until November 1918. So it was hardly eight month of real service.

http://www.networld.at/index.html?/articles/0802/10/194078.shtml (article in German)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.60.238.203 (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It would also be interesting to make a list of those who were drafted like Patch, and those that volunteered like Buckles and Babcock and in the case of choules, volunteered and saw action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.188.174 (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest I've paid for a copy of the service records of Claude Choules and Henry Allingham from the national archive. If anyone wants a copy please drop me a email. The handwriting is quite tough to read but there is a good deal of extra information which can be annotated to their pages. Allingham is on roll ADM 188/576 and Choules is on ADM 188/767, these aren't the medal role they are the actual service records. Choules joined up on the 10th October 1916 and was transfered to HMS Revenge 20th October 1917 where he stayed until 14th November 1920, for the record. Looks like the training captain paid £25 for him, it wasn't uncommon for people leaving school but weren't old enough to go to sea to either have their family pay for their place or have their place paid for him by a training vessel captain. They do have his engagement date wrong though (1914!) although it's quite clear elsewhere that it was 10/10/16. RichyBoy (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Elsewhere on the service record that is. RichyBoy (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Morning All if anyone wants to read up about HMS revenge (or pretty much any battleship thats ever floated) heres a good link: http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/revenge.htm SRwiki (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The new format

I like it, it is a lot easier to read as a whole. Czolgolz (talk) 02:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the new format also. However, I would put the Era vets before the ones with no proof. (PershinBoy)63.3.10.1 (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad you guys like it. I moved the unverified veterans up to keep the WWI veterans (verified or not) together. If people preferred it the other way then it can be easily changed. 86.153.221.46 (talk) 10:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include the national flags in the Nationality column as well as the Residence column? They way it looks at the moment implies that Australia has three veterans and the USA two. Mithrandir1967 (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to do that, but one is Hungary German. I don't know what would be right to use for that one, so I chose not to change that column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.221.46 (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

In which case I would remove the flag from the first column as it is likely to confuse. Mithrandir1967 (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I prefer the 'Veterans by country of service' format, as is in the died in 2008 section. I'm quite interested to see when the last vet from each country of service passes. For me particularly - Australia. 26 April 2008. Mic (South Korea).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.95.156 (talk • contribs)

Why So Many British?

It is a real curiousity as to why half of the known surviving World War I veterans were in the United Kingdom's services. While it is really theoretically statistically impossible to answer this question when the total numbers are so low (my college textbook for Design Of Experiments class has Analysis of Variance tables which state that the variance in any set of statistical data gets to great to make really accurate conclusions about the data once the total number of data points falls below about 30); it is nonetheless fun to speculate on the reason why. With such high variance potential at such low numbers there is not much to prevent a possibility that all of the twelve known survivors could have fought for a single nation. It is important to realize that many of the nations involved in WW1 had forced conscription and achieved full mobilization in 1914 or '15; this was certainly the case for France and Germany. I recall reading in a military history magazine that the U.K. didn't introduce conscription until 1916 though; so maybe that has something to do with why there are more Brits than european continentals. Also, once the U.K. introduced conscription it went into it full steam, drafting any male fit for service over age 18. By contrast, when the U.S.A. entered the war it only first set the draft ages as 21 to 30; only in the middle of 1918 did it expand it's draft pool down to age 18; thus; there were probably more men born in 1898, '99, and 1900 in the British services than the American; giving the U.K. an advantage over the U.S.A. as well.JeepAssembler (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The respective populations of USA and UK around the time of WW1 were 100 million (1915) and about 40 million (1911). This may give some of the "advantage" back to the USA. J271 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)J271

Keep in mind a lot more British were enlisted than those from America. I've also noticed over the prior three years, that one nationality will have almost double the number in living veterans, and then they take a big hit. I hope the British don't take a big hit like the U.S. did last year (they lost 6 in a little over 60 days). I'm afraid by years end, will be lucky to have 6 total remaining WWI veterans. (PershinBoy)162.114.40.32 (talk)

Indeed, which such a large percentage of the UK populace going to war you are far more likely to be a WWI veteran to begin with. RichyBoy (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Although yes, a lot of people were sent off to war, don't forget about those in the UK who had to stay behind for various reasons, such as being in reserved occupations. A lot of it is probably just due to chance. Millions went off to war, and now we have just 12 remaining. Of course, the most likely result would have been that the country with the most surviving veterans would have the most, but when you pick just 12 out of all those people, it's heavily weighted on chance. Also, I believe Western European countries and the USA had (and have) higher standards of living, and higher life expectancies, so it would have been less likely for somewhere like Turkey to have the majority of the veterans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.221.46 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The U.K.'s population (including Ireland) was 45 million in 1914; it mobilized either 5.5 or 5.6 million of it's own citizens (I have seen both numbers listed). By contrast, the U.S.A. mobilized 4,355,000 by Nov.11th,1918 (the V.A. official number of 4,735,000 includes some who enlisted immediately after the war). But 750,000 Brits died vs. only 116,000 Yanks; leaving November 11th survival numbers of 4.8 mil U.K. and 4.2 mil U.S.A.. My point was that it is interesting how different the numbers are now, especially when you consider that the "Tommies were probably on average a bit older than the "Doughboys" due to America's much later entry into the war. Of course, it is ultimately only a matter of chance at this extremely late time.JeepAssembler (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Buckles is coming to Kansas City

"Frank Woodruff Buckles, last known surviving American World War I veteran, will travel to Kansas City as a guest of the National World War I Museum and will be honored at the Memorial Day Ceremony on Monday, May 26."

I got this in an e-mail from my boss, and I can't independently confirm it. Czolgolz (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/549876.html and http://www.wickedlocal.com/burlington/news/lifestyle/columnists/x180607041 and also related: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/april082008/ww1_vet_4-8-08.php RichyBoy (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Liberty Memorial website has now posted a Memorial Day weekend schedule that references Mr. Buckles' anticipated visit to Kansas City. Click on the PDF link for the weekend Events Calendar. Here is the link: http://www.libertymemorialmuseum.org/ 75.72.83.84 (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 75.72.83.84 (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Ryan M

Archive volume 5

We were overdue an archival so I've done that for us. As usual, if you think something should become a current discussion point again please copy and paste it out of the archive. RichyBoy (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes

What happen to the list of how many WWI vets died in each year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.187.151.34 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC) I found it, it was better when the years where not hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.187.151.34 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Künstler Franz

Künstler, Franz can he be the last veteran ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.218.4 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

He's the last Central Powers veteran and the last veteran of Austria Hungary. Is that what you meant? Czolgolz (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Künstler Franz can he be the last veteran in the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.218.4 (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. I believe he is still working part-time, so he is fit enough for that. The odds are that it will be someone british. (PershinBoy)63.3.10.2 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

State funeral for Künstler, Franz when will die because he is the last Central Powers veteran and the last veteran of Austria Hungary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.218.4 (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No - allied power veterans get pomp and ceremony as it is a celebration of the triumph of all that is good and for justice, amongst others. That doesn't mean the individual is a bad person and far from it normally, but the regime they represented is bad (or evil in the instance of WWII). He will get press attention though as it is the passing of an era nevertheless, good bad or indifferent. RichyBoy (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Evil? Bad? We are talking about WW1, not WW2! WW1 was NOT a case of shining white knights against the axis of evil, as some would like us to believe... (ChrisW) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.243.2 (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I associated evil with WWII and not WWI. We all know there are lots of complicated reasons and interplay regarding WWI, but two reasons that I pick out for why one regime was worse than the other is that Germany had a thirst for militarism with left many feeling threatened and many opposed the subjucation of the slavics by Austro-Hungary (which is symptomatic of the wholescale change of landed gentry wealth dissapearing to the might of industrialisation across the whole of Europe). RichyBoy (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• In any event, it's a moot point. It's not widely known in Germany that Kunstler exists, and they certainly didn't hold a state funeral for the last veteran of the Reichsheer.  RGTraynor  14:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish that they would consider it. A state funeral for Künstler for historical reasons. In the U.S. the last Confederate was given a large funeral. There is a differance, but hopfully you can see my point. WWI was a war waiting to happen, for many reasons, but very few good reasons. It shouldn't have happened in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.167 (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Time heals all wounds. I'm sure the last veteran of Nazi Germany will be given a state funeral in 2035 or whenever. Czolgolz (talk) 14:38, 6

May 2008 (UTC)

Absolute rubbish! The war was evil and a pointless loss of life. it maywell have been inevitable but noone ever mentions the genocides of the first world war! My great grandads who died only 10-15 years ago fought and watched men be killed around them in the middle east and western front and they could never forgive or forgot what they saw because it was evil. there isn't a set figure of 6 million to mark the definision of genocide/evil! Funkdaddymac (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Most wars are pointless. All wars are evil!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.167 (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Künstler, Franz  Knows that he is the last veteran of Central Powers ?

(Sorry for the orthography mistakes, I am French) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.15.21.223 (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In Hungary there was no report about him. It's sad, because he is a German Hungarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Gerbicz (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he knows. He knows that he is the last veteran of the austrian-hungarian empire. If wrote him al letter and under others things I worte in this letter that the last known veteran of a german army died. This letter was short befor his exident in hungary (vacation). Know he had his second operation and let as hope he will recover.
--Statistician (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone has listed him as dead...anyone have a reference? Czolgolz (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I popped over to the German Misplaced Pages, which likewise lists him as having died today, and provided a German-language link. No doubt there's a German-speaker or three around who can decipher it, but it looks legit to me. Well ... and the book is finally closed on the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Central Powers.  RGTraynor  14:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,555854,00.html - GERMANY'S OLDEST MAN PASSES AWAY - World War I Veteran Dies in Germany RichyBoy (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Gladys Powers

109 years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.15.21.223 (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC) It's interesting, that at the moment all veterans age's are odd: 107,109,111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Gerbicz (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be something if she ended up being the last one!!!!!!

Here is a link to a report of her 109th birthday. http://www.canada.com/abbotsfordtimes/news/story.html?id=323a799a-87f6-445c-8076-a639f4e7f53c 86.139.186.178 (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Bruce

"Jihadists" for the Ottoman Empire?

I am wondering if there is any historical record of non-Ottoman muslims fighting for the Ottoman Empire during World War 1. Given the recent history of foreign fighters against U.S.A. troops in Iraq and U.S.S.R. troops in Afghanistan during the 1980's as well as traditional Islamic beliefs about fighting any "infidels" invading muslim nations going back at least to the time of the Crusades it seems logical to assume that men from parts of the Muslim world not under Ottoman jurisdiction in 1914 or '15 would have fought to defend the O.E.; especially during the Gallipoli Peninsula campaign. I am aware of the rising tensions between Arabs and Turks at that time, beginning with the Young Turk revolt in 1908 (which caused an exodus of Lebanese to the U.S.A., Canada, and Brazil) and of the fact that many Iraqi and Syrian Arabs at first supported the British against the Ottomans (at least until the British and French made clear there colonial ambitions and support of a Jewish homeland in the middle east). Maybe there were no Arabic foreign fighters for the Ottomans but perhaps there were Iranians or others (especially considering the genocide against Armenians; the traitional enemy of the Azerbaijanies who are cousins of Iranians). How about foreign jihadists for Turkey during the 1918-1923 war? By that time there was a revolt against British rule in Iraq. I know that records of foreigners are likely incomplete (the discussion on Spanih Civil War foreign vets is an example); but it would be interesting to know if there is any solid evidence.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

At this late date, I doubt it. Even so, a verifiable record would be non existant. This isn't negative talk, just realistic. The youngest is 107. However, your smart to bring up subjects like this. It's wise to check out. (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the lack of present-day mass media and swift transportation, and the fact that the Ottomans were generally perceived by Muslim contemporaries as irredeemably corrupt, this comes down to a basic: no reliable sources. Demographically, there'd probably be someone still alive out there, but with no verifiable evidence, it's a moot point.  RGTraynor  14:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it the other way round as it where, the British campaign relied heavily on Arab support, so there could still be some-one from that largely irregular army still around, but as other contributors have noted without evidence it is a moot point. SRwiki (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists of known World War I veterans' deaths by year

The links for pages for 2007 and 2008 have somehow become detached. Does anyone know how to fix them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.103.252 (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Last Ukrainian Veteran

On the page listing the last known surviving WW1 vets for each country was "Tony Skabar" (although that name doesn't sound very Ukrainian to me) for the Ukraine on December 17th, 2005. I am wondering why he is not therefore on the Year 2005 Death List? Is his claim unverified? Obviously the current Ukrainian listed is not verified.66.213.36.2 (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)JeepAssembler66.213.36.2 (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Last Netherlands? Veteran

On the page for last surviving veteran of WW1 for each country was Bert van Sloten (a very Dutch sounding name) for The Netherlands. I thought Holland stayed neutral in WW1 (and wanted to in WW2 but the Wehrmacht invaded anyway; the Dutch government immediately surrendered). Whom did Mr. van Sloten fight for? Was it Germany? Considering the ethno-linguistic similarities between Dutchmen and Germans and the fact that the Kaiser fled to The Netherlands after abdicating makes me think that most people in Holland sympathized with Germany. Were there foreign volunteers from neutral countries like Holland in The Central Powers? Please let me know if there is any information on this subject; thank you.66.213.36.2 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)JeepAssembler66.213.36.2 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

According to this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2005/sep/20/obituaries.readersobituaries , he fought for Germany during the first world war and England in the second. Czolgolz (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Henry Allingham - 112

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7439117.stm The article is nothing special, straight out of wiki, but the video interview is rather good - Henry is extremely lucid and talking rapidly and in fact looks/sounds in rather fine form. Happy birthday! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichyBoy (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Frank Buckles visited The Kansas WWI memorial last sunday. If someone could please post the site, I think it would be of interest. (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Another claim: Stanley Stair

According to the Jamaica Observer, Stanley Stair (age 107 in 2007) served in the British West India Regiment during World War I. There is also some evidence of his service in the UK National Archives - see Your Archives page. However I can't find any mainstream media coverage. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks promising to me. there is also this: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20040802T010000-0500_63848_OBS_HANOVER_HONOURS_ITS_OWN.asp from 2004 thoughts anyone? SRwiki (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Born October 1900, died May 3rd this year is all i've managed to find!Webbmyster (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to include him on the 'Died in 2008' page.

1) The Jamaica Observer is no less 'mainstream' than, say, the 'Abbotsford Times' (Gladys Powers) or the local newspapers articles which are the basis for the verification for some of the British and American veterans on these pages who passed on in the early 2000s. As the 'last' Jamaican veteran one might have expected wider coverage, but associations with the imperial past and Britain's poor treatment of it's colonial troops may make this something 21st century Jamaica does not particularly want to commemorate.

2) Evidence of military service is significant. The UK National Archives show that only one Stanley Stair served in the British Army in WWI - as a Private in the West Indies Regiment.

3) Most articles on Eugent Clarke (d. 2002) refer to him as the 'oldest' Jamaican veteran, rather than the 'last' one.

Anyway, happy to go with the consensus view. 86.129.75.134 (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Bruce

I agree he should be listed, for the reasons that Bruce gives, shame we missed him when he was alive SRwiki (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Delfino Borroni and Francesco Domenico Chiarello

Delfino Borroni and Francesco Domenico Chiarello Are popular in Italy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.218.225 (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in Italy, but not much is known about them in other regions. Especially Chiarello. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.114.40.32 (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Happy 110th to Harry Patch. In the book he wrote, right before turning 109, he states maybe I'll make it to 109, but never 110. Happy you were wrong! (PershinBoy)162.114.40.32 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fernand Goux

a new veteran french —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.15.18.182 (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a mention of this gentleman at .

If the article is correct, he may well have been at the front for the first few days of November 1918. Irrespective of whether he was at the front or not, I suppose he would qualify as a veteran for "our" purposes as long as he was a member of the armed services before the Armistice. Moldovanmickey (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Moldovanmickey

It is a significant claim - the article is strongly worded. However I think somebody needs to contact the paper and discern the source of this information. Although the GRG group can't be expected to be up-to-date with everything he isn't in the GRG super-centenirians list. You know, it is completely possible - but a lot of work has been put in with France's oldest so it would be a suprise. Maybe Bart or RY has some idea. RichyBoy (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've received further information about Fernand Goux, I'll give everyone a proper update tomorrow as I don't have access to that particular email right now and I only got to skim-read it this morning. He's not in the GRG list as he is 109, but apparently it all checks out, he served less than 90 days though so isn't an official Poilu. Interestingly there may have been a discovery of another living French veteran as well. Regarding Stanley Stair, he appears to check out as well. There is potentially another living British veteran out there, pending confirmation. Anyway, I'll give a proper update with what I know soon. RichyBoy (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See this link also from AFP

The article translates as follows:

"The Soldier Who Was at The Front at the Beginning of November, 1918 but has no War Veteran Status.

Four months after the death of Lazare Ponticelli, last French soldier of World War I who died on February 12th at the age of 110 years, a First World War specialist has found a 108 year-old Frenchman who was at The Front at the beginning of November 1918 but who has no war veteran status. Frederick Mathieu, creator and animator(?) of the specialist site dedicated to the last veterans of the war of 14-18 (Dersdesders.free.fr), publishes in the next number of the 'Journal des Combattants,' a fortnightly publication started in 1916, an article on this man which will appear on Saturday. Fernand Goux, born on December 31st 1899 in Sceaux-en-Gatinais (Loiret), was called up on April 19th 1918 to the 85th Infantry Regiment, then sent behind the lines (troop supplies and burial of killed soldiers). Transferred to the 82nd Infantry Regiment on November 3rd, he was sent to The Front where remained only a few days owing to the armistice of November 11th 1918. This former farmer, who lives in Ile-de-France today, cannot claim the official status of war veteran since he has not, according to the l'Office National des Anciens Combattants (ONAC) (National Office of War Veterans), spent at least 90 days in a combat unit, been taken prisoner or evacuated due to wounds, or suffered from illness contracted during service."

Looks good, especially if is the source. 81.152.207.152 (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Bruce

Yep, when it comes to French Veterans, Frederick Mathieu's word is good enough for me SRwiki (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but there is still another one left who is even older (at 109) and wants to remain anonymous regardless. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Harry Patch

He is now the 11th oldest verified man world-wide. I will update both his and allingham's articles this weekend if I have time, Allingham now being the joint 20th oldest verified person. Like Henry Allingham a few weeks ago, the BBC interview was quite revealing - the mental faculties of both men are still immense. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7458315.stm . We all know that health is fickle at that kind of extreme age - but to be honest there is nothing about either of these two gentlemen which makes you think they don't have long for this world. Maybe it is the self-recognition of what they represent and the fact they are both kept busy, but I personally sense that there are many years left in the tank, if they want it. I think both could make it into the 2010's, I certainly hope so anyway. RichyBoy (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Allingham is one of those oddities. He may make 115. I think Stone wants the record, as the last British WWI vet. and may get it. I was very glad to see Patch reach 110, but seriously doubt he will make it past 2008. (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Is he frail? Extremely sexy (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, from the video I have seen of him from the last few years, he seems very weak at present. He is still alert, but I'm afraid a "cold" will do him in, from the last video I saw...... However, as I stated about a year ago, I believe any of these remaining veterans (now 12 perhaps 13) could be the last. We have been given reports of the ill condition of Gladys Powers, but at her last birthday (last month!) she was dancing around (with a walker), and having a great time. All I have is a guess based on my judgement. I think Buckles or Babcock has the best chance to be the last........ Only a guess. I suppose the best we can do, is what has taken place over the last month or so- 1 to 3 new possible veterans may have been found. Great work (PershinBoy)209.247.22.75 (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I played it as well and he's definitely got a sore throat, since he sounds very hoarse indeed (speaking extremely soft). Extremely sexy (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ned Hughes

Like buses, you wait ages for a new veteran claim and then three come along at once.

The (identical) articles below relating to Mr Hughes's 108th birthday last week refer to his service in WWI as a driver. Given his relative youth (born 12th June 1900) and the absence of any record in his name in the British National Archive it is highly likely that he served in the UK in a non-combat role for a short period towards the end of the war. Further research/verification required.

Is this the 'potential other British veteran out there' that RichyBoy was referring to? 86.129.76.250 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Bruce

If confirmed this is quite stunning, I would have put good money on the British list being complete, but I am a bit concerned if his name is nowhere to be found in the BNA SRwiki (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

British Army WWI service records were mostly destroyed in an air raid during WWII and the best records that remain are held at The National Archive which contain only details of those who fought overseas during WWI and so received camapign medals. Those who served on the Home Front are not listed (Syd Lucas, for example, does not get a mention either). This is not unduly concerning given, as I said above, the high probability that Ned Hughes served only briefly at the close of the war, and may never have left Britain - there would have certainly been a large number of army driver jobs at home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.76.250 (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC) 86.129.76.250 (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)Bruce

"Following the war, he returned to England."

Could be a mistake, but this suggests that he served overseas. Seems to have performed a similar role to Frank Buckles. 89.241.176.11 (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

I have been in communication with the journalist who wrote the piece on Ned Hughes. He is now making further investigations. Will advise of developments as and when received. 193.82.143.66 (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Bruce

English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish

Are all different and we recognise it on the 'last veteran by country' page so surely we should recognise that the last british veterans are english and not british and the same for bob taggart with regards to being scottish Webbmyster (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Verified veterans of the First World War—12 veterans

Which veteran knows another veteran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.222.246 (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Verified veterans of the First World War—12 veterans

Which veteran knows another veteran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.222.246 (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The english veterans who live have met up together so you could call em mates if you like and i think they're aware there are other ones abroad but not how many or who they are. Webbmyster (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Archduke Otto of Austria

First of all, thanks for a very interesting page! For you experts, I have some thoughts about the definition of a WWI-veteran, "a member of the armed forces of a combatant nation". I am thinking about the ex-crown prince of Austria-Hungary, the 1912 born archduke Otto of Austria, or as he later has been called: Mr Otto von Habsburg. As it was usual in Europe of the early 20th century to give royal children military titles, I have found that the 4 year old Otto in 1916 was made titulary commander of the "K.u.K. Infanterieregimentes Nr. 17 Kronprinz", and if I have understod it right he was also made a titulary colonel at the same time.

As I understand this, he was actually 1916-1918 a member of the Austro-Hungarian armed forces, and according to the definition, this technically makes him a "World War I-veteran"? (Perhaps it could be solved with a new category "Royal children with military titles 1914-1918"? As far as I know, it is possible that more persons in this category is still alive.)

Source: Short biography in german here

(Maybe I should also mention this: I know he has been involved in politics, but I have no interests in those things - I'm swedish and write this just because I am interested in military history and royal genealogy.)

--Skogs-Ola (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting point, however, his office was clearly titular. A lot of those royals had military ranks, but were meaningless honors. I for one this this category should only include persons who actually were active soldiers/sailors.Czolgolz (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think this is an interesting point which merits discussion. We already employ a generous definition of "active" service in WW 1 if we include soldiers "in training" and "barracks waitresses". Presumably, Otto von Habsburg would have been given the appropriate uniform even at that stage (I remember that the Hohenzollern princes were, upon joining the army). The example of Wilhelm I (German Emperor 1871 - 1888) comes to mind, who in 1807 (aged 9) was made a member of the Prussian army and, in 1887 celebrated 80 years of service in the army. Josias Bunsen (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point indeed, I think this is at least worthy of a footnote somewhere on the main page. I doubt if there are any other royal children in uniform still around - though I don't know enough about the offspring of the last Ottoman to be definite SRwiki (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Beyond that, there are many other examples. Just about every British royal is honorary "colonel-in-chief" of one regiment or another. Queen Elizabeth held a colonelcy in the Grenadier Guards during WWII (and before she became colonel-in-chief of the regiment upon her ascension to the throne), but I doubt she's considered an army veteran in that conflict.  RGTraynor  12:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a 'generous definition' at all. Maybe some people on the list didn't see combat or serve in a glorious capacity, but they were all members of the armed forces and supported the war effort. We've agreed not to include veterans of the Russian Revolution or Finnish Civil War here. I think it's absurd we'd even think about including some toddler who got to put on a costume and play soldier because of his birthright. Czolgolz (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that Queen Elizabeth II is considered a WWII veteran due to her service in the ATS. Mithrandir1967 (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth has an excellent chance of being one of the last surviving WW2 veterans given her 1926 birth and longevity of her mother (101+ years). 66.193.79.4 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)J27166.193.79.4 (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Francesco Domenico Chiarello

Francesco Domenico Chiarello is dead . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.15.253.46 (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Can Delfino Borroni, the last Italian veteran of World War I, be the last veteran of the war?65.8.190.233 (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bill Stone

Bill stone the last english veteran of the First World War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.29.220.241 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You should be able to do a little research yourself to figure out. Come on!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.114.40.32 (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So have you got a chrystal ball? Extremely sexy (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No But i mean if stone bill can become the last british veteran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.141.150.21 (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not then? Extremely sexy (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there are still five other English veterans besides Bill Stone that are still living, it is still possible that another English World War I veteran could be the last, don't you think?70.146.62.29 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you count the Australians and the Canadian. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, if you just count the British. - fchd (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Then we have just three (or maybe four), my dear friend. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Allingham, Choules, Lucas, Patch, Powers, Stone = 6 British, regardless of where they live now. And please don't refer to me as a "dear friend", you've never even met me. - fchd (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not only that those three don't live anymore over there, but they aren't British anymore either (another nationality), man. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this 'discussion' should be shut down. Let's represent these brave veterans a little better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowdog81 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

i agree, its a pointless discussion which noone can answer the question askedWebbmyster (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is for discussion about how to improve the article not idle speculation. Irrelevant questions and comments should really be removed asap. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, and about a year ago I said the last one could be any of the remaining ones. After you reach these great ages you can't know for sure. After I said that, someone blasted me, and said no Borroni is all but gone....... Well he is now the last one to represent Italy, and I certainly hope he makes it to 110. Lets not forget these are real people though, and not a contest. I wouldn't want one to live in sickness and pain just for a record. (PershinBoy)209.247.21.167 (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course I agree too, but I just answered someone's (asked by another anonymous person) question, allbeit pointless or not. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Bob Taggart

i thought i'd have a quick look at anything on him on the internet, because i never have, and i couldn't find one word about him being in the navy! does anyone know anywhere where it is mentioned or know where the info originally came from? what it did say was that he was a railway worker and in world war one worked on the trains all his life!Webbmyster (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point I think it was this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6425261.stm that may have triggered it, if so we have got our veterans mixed up, unless someone can find a definite citation, I think we should remove him from this list. Thoughts anyone? SRwiki (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Taggart was never in WW1 - he was in the Home Guard in WW2 - he worked on the railways during WWI, but this is very different from being a veteran - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17307521&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=bob-the-elder--name_page.html

He should be removed, IMHO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.135.228 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

SRwiki, I thought that the basis of his inclusion was a letter that you had been sent by Dennis Goodwin, saying that like Baker, he enlisted in the Navy just after the Armistice? 89.242.32.64 (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Captain, After digging round in my random piles of paper I have discovered you are right, I will write to Dennis Goodwin again, to check - it is possible he has made a mistake. SRwiki (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope this will be resolved very soon. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if we take him off we'd be admitting an oversight, but perhaps the error was not ours. 89.242.32.64 (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Dr Alexander Imich

Dr Alexander Imich was born february 4, 1903 according to http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/articles/04/0127266.html A recent blogpost suggests this remarkable man is still active researching parapsychology: http://www.mind-energy.net/archives/281-Interview-with-Miroslaw-Magola-the-magnetic-man.html "Dr. Imich is now almost 105 years old but he is still active in the world of parapsychology. So, I talked to him over the phone and he asked me to write him an email which I did."

What made me posting about him here is a google preview from the book "Mystic Souls" by Lyn Harper: http://books.google.se/books?id=Pa523QynArsC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=alex*+imich+1903&source=web&ots=53Yr4aadpK&sig=4P9slRW_cW6EbFNEflEz-0yOqcE&hl=sv&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA129,M1 "In 1918 the Russians attacked Poland and I volonteered to go into the army. I was only fifteen years old and my entire class had volunteered. Of course my family was not happy about that. My two older brothers were already in the army. One was an instructor in the automobile division and.." That was at the end of side 129. Side 130-145 isn't included in the Google preview.. Does anybody have a well equipped library close by, & is able to check on side 130 if he really joined the polish military forces & should be included in the WW1 era group? Or maybe someone interested should phone or e-mail him. Guess he's one of very few centenarians on the net. I hope his recent financial struggles doesn't stop him from reaching closer to his goals. (wonder what kind of bank loans money to a broke 101 year old for speculating on the stock market??) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/nyregion/27neediest.html?_r=1&ex=1196830800&en=4bb02c1f9477ef42&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS&oref=slogin http://www.mindshiftinstitute.org/articles/nobel.htm Hepcat65 (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC) The Russian-Polish war started in 1919, and the Russian attack on Poland was in 1920. As I understand, all that is out of the scope of the WWI era, according to your criteria, isn't it?--81.190.205.149 (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The end of the WWI era can't be December 31st 1918. The ToV hadn't been signed so the war could have restarted. And there would only be a 7 week window so you might aswell call it the 'Aarne Arvonen' category. Sometimes you don't have a month, such as May for Floyd Matthews, but conveniently the ToV was only ratified on January 10, 1920. So the new decade should be the dividing line. If you apply the same logic to related conflicts then the Polish-Soviet War qualifies.

After Kowalski and Wycech there were supposedly 2 other unnamed veterans over a year ago, so there must be some records. Dr Imich was born only 8 months after Wycech so it's possible. But certainly he needn't have participated in the Greater Poland Uprising of 1918 because Wycech (due to illness) and Kowalski didn't. Apparently the already deceased Jan Rzepa was the final veteran of that portion of the fallout. 89.242.32.64 (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Józef Kowalski is included in the WW1 era group for fighting bolsheviks at the end of WW1. Dr Imich may have done something similar?

There were irregular units of students and child soldiers, the Lwow Eaglets fighting invaders from Western-Ukrainian People's Republic already at the end of 1918. I have ordered a cheap copy of Lyn Harper's book and will write what I find. (may take a week, someone else who can look at it sooner?) After living in the US for more than half his life, dr Imich may well have lapsed in identifying the Ukrainian revolutionaries as Russians. Hepcat65 (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO "WWI era" should only include wars fought at the same time as WWI (i.e. before 11.11.1918). There is no other logical deadline. Therefore - no Polish uprisings, no Civil War in Ucraine, no Polish-Soviet war. BTW last year, during the "Vistula Wonder" anniversary celebration, Polish President Kaczynski handed orders to several "veterans of Polish fight for independence in 1918-20", of which only S.Wycech was mentioned in this article; unfortunately I failed to remember the names but they can certainly be found on the net. And I can't understand why those called up "after the Armistice but before the Versaille Treaty" should be included in this section. IMO only Arvonen should be left here - or the section should be deleted altogether.--81.190.205.149 (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Continuing discussions has resulted in the current inclusion criteria. Check archive 1, subject #26 for a referendum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.150.6 (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm... I see it was a Soviet-style voting as only one option concerning WWI-era vets was given to choose from: "Listed here are those that joined the armed services after the Armistice date, or where there is debate on their join-date but for some reason are considered WWI-era vets by some authority.", which is BTW different from the eventual formula you can read on the page.--81.190.205.149 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to be sarcastic. This has been discussed and debated here literally for years. Czolgolz (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just amazed by this sort of discussion to be honest. Who are we to point at a somewhat "arbitrary" date and say if you joined the forces before that date, and perhaps never even made it to the front line - we can classify you as a "World War I Veteran", but if you joined after that date and perhaps found yourself at the front-line under enemy fire - but because it was only a "related" conflict to what has come to be accepted in the West as "World War I" - ie the Polish v Soviet conflict, or the Finnish "Civil War" or indeed many other conflicts that spun off around Europe (or elsewhere) at that time - you are not a World War I Veteran!

The cheek of that presumption frankly amazes me! By the way, just when was World War I defined properly - and when was it even commonly known as World War I - in order to be able to be defined! I certainly know that it didn't happen at the Treaty of Versailles for instance did it!?! In fact, I believe it was known as the "Great War" for many years - and what is the exact definition of the "Great War" for instance - is it the same definition we use for World War I today?

Frankly, I think this list should strive to be inclusive - but obviously being extremely careful to check and verify claims as completely and accurately as possible - but not spend hours, weeks, months, years etc. nit-picking about exactly which conflicts qualify a Veteran or not for inclusion - to me that is frankly shameful, it is in effect arguing, "my conflict is better/more important/more relevant than yours - yours doesn't really count - not enough people died." What a crass argument.58.175.240.247 (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're rehashing old debates. We're certainly not saying one colflict is more relevant than another...we're simply defining which conflicts were actually part of WWI. The Russian Revolution, the Polish vs. Russia War, and the Finnish Civil War were certainly wars with real veterans, but weren't part of the Allies vs. Central Powers War which defines the great war. If we include those conflicts, should we also include veterans of the Mexican Revolution, which happened at the same time? African tribal wars? South American infighting? No one is saying these old soldiers aren't veterans, they're just veterans of other wars. I bet this debate gets more heated when discussing the second world war, when we'll debate over the merchant marine, underground organizations, and other combatants who were not in an official standing army. Czolgolz (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

November 11th 2008

veterans for the ceremonies of eighty tenth birthday of the armistice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.15.91.239 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There will probably be a 90th Anniversary ceremony in London, so I would be surprised if neither Allingham, Patch or Stone turn up, since none of them are too far away. Similarly Buckles is close to DC so they could do something for him. It doesn't seem to be a big thing in Australia, but if they did it in Melbourne then Ross and Lucas could go. Likewise for Borroni in Milan. He seems to have attained some celebrity status at last, with a website now he's the last one. But I'm sure Goux, who actually lives in the Paris Region, will not be honoured. 89.242.218.62 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Captain celery http://delfinoborroni.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.37.237.28 (talk) 11:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ned Hughes - An Update

I have communicated with journalists from both of the newspapers which carried articles on Mr Hughes's recent 108th birthday. He has apparently re-iterated his claim to have served in WWI and would like to be 'verified' as such. At my suggestion the papers have contacted the Ministry of Defence, the Centre for WWI Studies at Birmingham University and The WWI Veterans' Association but have made no progress as yet.

Whilst the former is unlikely to yield anything (60-70% of WWI army service records were destroyed in an air raid in WWII) I am surprised that there has been nothing from Dennis Goodwin. I found his contact details - and address in Rustington, West Sussex and two telephone numbers starting 01903 and 0151 - on a blog, but wonder if they might be incorrect or out of date. Can anyone confirm the best way to approach the WWI Veterans Association? 193.82.143.66 (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Bruce

SRwiki has been in contact with him over Bob Taggart so join the queue. Mr Hughes does seem to be a bit of a character, which could be the problem, but then again he isn't really making any outlandish claims. Having a friend who worked on the Titanic is as plausible as meeting Van Gogh or having Louis Armstrong play on your porch (George Francis). It was registered in Liverpool after all. He's not claiming to have discovered DNA like a certain Jim Lincoln. It's nice to think that he actually cares about being verified. I always think of centenarians as being above such concerns. 195.171.111.194 (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Morning All, Bruce you need to write to Mr Dennis E Goodwin, 24 Amberley Drive, Goring-by-Sea, WORTHING BN12 4QG. I would enclose an SAE if I where you. SRwiki (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

But an "SAE" = what ? Extremely sexy (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Self Addressed Envelope! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SRwiki - will do. 86.129.70.78 (talk) 13:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Bruce

John Babcock 108

Happy birthday. 89.242.218.62 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

From the information I have been able to gather about him, and the remaining veterans (don't know about the french vet.) Mr. Babcock seems to be in the best total all around condition. He still goes for a walk daily and reads and his mind is good. Just thought I'd update you, but as I've stated times before, at these great ages you can be fine one day and gone the next. Anyway, glad Mr. Babcock is doing well. HAPPY 108!!! (PershinBoy)209.247.21.167 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

94th Anniversary of World War I

World War I started on July 28, 1914, but today is July 28, 2008! Don't you think we should celebrate the 94th anniversary of World War I?72.144.115.163 (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This page is actually for discussing how to improve the article NOT for celebrating anniversaries or birthdays or idle speculation and "what if?"s. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If we said that about everything written on here than we would have about a quater of what is written still down! Webbmyster (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should only Celebrate the end of a war, not the start of one. I do agree with the quarter of what is written statement though. A lot of the so called speculation has led to some finding of additional WWI Vets., and Era Vets. (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Pierre Picault

On 'Living National Longevity Recordholders' someone replaced Fernand Goux with a Pierre Picault, born February 27th 1899. Derby Fan reverted it since it was uncited. He's listed on the French Misplaced Pages but only because there was no citation for Goux either. It appears that he's been put forward by someone who knows him. Even so, could this be the remaining anonymous French vet that Bart has mentioned? 84.13.31.119 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

He is indeed: confirmation by Laurent Toussaint. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought there were two unidentified french vets., and one died last year, and the other is Goux. Is there another one out there, in additon? (PershinBoy)162.114.40.32 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought so too, but apparently there is a further one. 84.13.31.119 (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

I may be wrong, but I have a feeling his name has been brought up before (somewhere) and someone pointed out this his age claim has been debunked. (Might have been another Frenchman though...). DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Must be another guy. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So if we can't find an internet source, what should our next step be? Because this makes him France's oldest man and the 12th living veteran. We can't ignore him. 84.13.31.119 (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

A google search for '"Pierre Picault" 1899' resulted in 7 pages all in French of which 3 were about this person. 2 from French wiki and 1 other of no use. This one is probably the best but it's a bit beyond my 30 year old school French! Best I can make out is that someone knows Pierre Picault is older than Fernand Goux but there is no reference. Really with no reference he shouldn't even be on the French oldest persons lists. Seeing he is 6 months or so from becoming a supercentenarian the GRG may already know something about him? DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

He also doesn't confirm that he's a veteran. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

This all looks a bit fishy to me. There appears to be nothing to verify this claim. Bart, have you talked to Laurent Toussaint about this, do you know what evidence he has got? I checked on the Wiki oldest living persons page, where he is listed as the oldest living Frenchman, and his "citation" appears to be some sort of blog about French football. So in short we do not have a shred of evidence that he is as old as he says he is, let alone for WWI service, at best I think he has to be considered as unverified SRwiki (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly a question of citation, but I don't think there can be much doubt about the case. Having noted Bart's mention of a further French vet I put the name forward and he is that person. And he must have been on the over 108 French list last year. This is Toussaint we're talking about. Even RY backed his credentials. We've had Bob Taggart on for ages on the word of Dennis Goodwin so this seems to be the same, except it's not WW1-era so it's more important. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Fair point Captain, i have changed my opinion, and am happy to leave him where he is - you have reminded me, I haven't heard back from Dennis goodwin yet, might try writing again. SRwiki (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/10929 =>

Pierre Picault: WWI veteran?

Greetings,

I note that Misplaced Pages recently added Pierre Picault, which cited a blog, which cited Misplaced Pages...a circular citation.

This is what Laurent Toussaint said to me about Pierre Picault in June:

The last one is Pierre Picault born 27/02/1899 also incorporated in avril 1918 and could may be an official "poilus" !

It seems that this case is under investigation, and when the time is right, hopefully, there will be media coverage. Until then, we have Mr. Toussaint's statement above, which seems to indicate that not only is Pierre a veteran, but might qualify as a "poilus" (served over 90 days in combat).

Any updates, Laurent?

Regards Moderator Extremely sexy (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Title

Just a question of curiosity. Why the title of the article is Surviving veterans of World War I, not List of surviving veterans of World War I? Since this is a list, the title should be in the format "List of...". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, especially now that there are only 11 veterans of World War I, this article should be renamed List of surviving veterans of World War I.65.8.190.165 (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

+me. Soon this page will have to be List of the last surviving veterans of World War I. --I'm an Editorofthewiki 18:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But then we would have to change all the other articles (10!!!) about Veterans of the First World War who died from 1999 till 2008 as well. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As my eight-year-old cousin would say, "Suck it up!" As far as I know, OC is correct and all of the titles should be changed. Cheers, CP 19:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God: Suck it up? Extremely sexy (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I just learned the origins of that phrase from #2 though. Cheers, CP 19:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather glad not to be a pilot. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• Redirect-Class biography pages
• Redirect-Class biography (military) pages
• High-importance biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• FA-Class military history articles
• FA-Class World War I articles
• World War I task force articles
• NA-Class Longevity pages
• Mid-importance Longevity articles
• WikiProject Longevity articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Featured lists that have not appeared on the main page