Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I/Archive 10

Harry Futcher

I'm a little concerned about the inclusion of a new veteran without any prior discussion on the talk page here. I realise that Siamese Turtle has made extensive contributions here, and I'm not going to remove it. Still, 1 article in a newspaper after all of these years seems to be dubious grounds for instsnt inclusion. Thoughts, anyone?Mk5384 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

i think he should not be removed because unverified veterans accepts claims that are in the press and mr futchers claim is in the press so i think he should stay.--Del Boy (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

i have found a harry futcher on ancestory.co.uk here [1] is the link.--Del Boy (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Those of you who have followed this page for a while may be surprised by this - but I agree with Anthony Winward (Del Boy) on this one! There is a claim in the press, so it meets the criteria for the "unverified" section. As to the ancestry link, I will be looking at that in more detail next week when I renew my subscription! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't put his claim on the talk page as there was nothing to discuss. We have a claim in a reliable source, which is the criterion for inclusion. For the record, Harry has no middle name and I had searched on Ancestry before putting him on here. The entry posted above is to a Harry C Futcher, who joined in 1914 and was a private in the army. This is not the Harry who is still alive. SiameseTurtle (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

His birth registration certainly shows no middle name (and it's the only Harry Futcher registered in 1904 according to Ancestry):

Name: Harry Futcher

Year of Registration: 1904

Quarter of Registration: Apr-May-Jun

District: Islington

County: Greater London, London, Middlesex

Volume: 1b

Page: 224

Those facts fit in with the newspaper article, so I'd agree that none of the 4 records appear to be this Harry - but middle names weren't always recorded at registration, so I'll check the records (there is no Medal Card for Harry Futcher, but if he only served in Egypt in the last couple of weeks of the war, he may not have been eligible) - there is a medal record for Harry C (as mentioned by Anthony above) but no service record, and a medal record and service record for a Harry W Futcher (that would give date/place of birth). Going by the newspaper article, I would guess that if he served in Egypt "during the First World War" as the newspaper says, then it was very late in the conflict. However, we'll just have to keep looking! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, according to Ancestry.co.uk, his marriage in March Q 1926 (Dorchester, vol 5a p 531) lists him as "Harry L Futcher". MAR 86.152.54.114 (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

has anyone wrote to the WWI Veterans' Association to see if harry futcher is a veteran at all?--Del Boy (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have e-mailed the journalist who wrote the article about Mr Futcher to ask if she has any further information regarding his service, for example the regiment he served in. Perhaps my query might prompt her to make some further enquiries with Mr Futcher's family. Moldovanmickey (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

ok--Del Boy (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to infer that I objected. It just seemed a little sudden to have a new name pop up on the list; one that had had no prior discussions, at that. I just wanted to solicit a few opinions. I'm absolutely thrilled that we may have found another one!Mk5384 (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

has there been an email sent back from the person who wrote the article at all?Del Boy (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nickname?

Does anyone know if Mr. Buckles' full given name is actually "Frank"? I would assume that it would be Francis, or Franklin. I do realise that he's always referred to as "Frank", but it would nice if we could at least include his full name.Mk5384 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen him referred to anywhere as anything other than Frank. If I get time later, I'll see if I can find more information one way or the other. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a birth registration for Mr Buckles, but in the census returns I did find, he was listed as Frank W Buckles. I can't find anywhere that calls him Francis or Franklin (or any name other than Frank) - and I would assume that Frank is his given name rather than a nickname. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of anyone having "Frank" as his full given name. I suppose it is possible. I'll try to look into it myself.Mk5384 (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just some: Frank Conniff, Frank Lebby Stanton, Frank Sontag, Frank Lloyd Wright, Frank Thomas (baseball, born 1968), Frank J. Low - all Americans with the given name "Frank". However, I am happy to be proven wrong - as I said, everywhere I found that referred to him (including census returns) say "Frank"! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I was in no way insinuating that you are wrong. I just assumed that it was short for something. I didn't realise that it is used as a given name, but with the examples that you've given, it seems to be quite common.Mk5384 (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Some 'Frank's are indeed not the given name (Frank Sinatra for example), and I would welcome you looking just to confirm that Frank is Mr Buckles' given name (it's a shame I can't find a birth registration or baptism record - that would clear it up)! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

My grandfather's name is Frank, short for nothing. It does happen. Czolgolz (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

List over WW2 Survivors

Unfortunatly, there is no such list, but it should be, in my opinion.

There is millions of those Veterans still alive, but the list could be sortet by event. i.e Stalingrad/Pearl Harbour/Pacific/Africa/Atlantic Ocean/Baltic Sea/Germann Camps etc.

This would enrich Wikipedia.

88.91.118.212 (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As you said, there are millions of WW2 veterans; we cannot possibly list them. I have relatives who served and they're not even in their 90s yet. Give it another 15-20 years. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

i agree that we should have articles of surviviors from certain battles like pearl harbour, D day and so on.--Del Boy (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

There are far too many, even of just major battles, to start making worthwhile lists yet. News stories about veterans tend not to appear until they die or reach 100 years which as Siamese mentioned won't happen for the majority of veterans for another 15 years. (Even the Spanish War veterans page has been started at least 5 years too early). If anyone is interested in such things perhaps a page listing the number of surviving veterans for each country would be a place to start. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As of 2006, there were still an estimated 6,000 Pearl Harbor survivors. (http://www.pearlharborsurvivorsonline.org/html/events.htm) That number is obviously lower today, but I would guess it is still over 5,000. Fourteen years from now (2024), the latest year that a projection is available, the VA estimates there will still be about 81,000 surviving U.S. World War II veterans. If you extrapolate the percentage of U.S. survivors that year to all countries, it would be about 500,000. It's just too soon for lists. Frankwomble (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Surviving U.S. veterans of World War II could use that exact type of contribution.Cander0000 (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That article was changed from "List of survivng U.S. veterans of WQorld War II" (which would indicate a list of people) to the present article which merely contains the number of surviving veterans. Attempting to create a list when there are as many as 2 million possible entries would be virtually impossible and rather pointless. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

My great uncle Leonard Webb landed at D-Day but was present at the relief of Belsen and also the Belsen trial which are all notable events so the list theory wouldn't work as he'd be on more than one. Webbmyster (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, doing a category intersect between Category:Military_personnel_of_World_War_II and Category:Living people would be a route down that path. [2] I'm only pulling up 863 articles, which is another symptom at this time: the vast majority of the millions of veterans of WWII do not have articles on wikipedia, something that a domain of, say, less than a 100 members could aim towards. I would say some reasonable aims to take upon for the next few years would be to identify further notable WWII veterans, and continue to improve Surviving U.S. veterans of World War II not with lists, but with general discussion and events related to the surviving veterans.Cander0000 (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not just list estimates as to how many WW2 vets are still alive in each individual nation? I think there are about 1,900,000 living in the U.S.A.JeepAssembler (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a list as mentioned, as I have four relatives living who fought in WWII, but it would take forever to input the names, and even to try and read all the names! In Germany, there are many WWII vets still in their 70's! MAYBE when we get to the 75th Anniversary of the ending of the war (2020). I agree 10-15 years at least. We still even have A WWII Vet that fought in WWI living - Only one but..... Anyway. (PershingBoy)63.3.10.2 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Harry Futcher Part two

here [3] is another article that mentions mr futchers military carear during the First World war.--Del Boy (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC) .

Thanks for the articles, but we can have 15 articles - We must have documents for him to be considered.(PershingBoy)63.3.10.130 (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Mr Futcher is in the "unverified" section, as there is no official verification of his claims. Unless official verification can be found, then he cannot be moved to the "verified" section. Even if 100 newspaper articles mention his career, it will still be "unverified", as none of these are official sources. Obviously, if one of them says "The Ministry of Defence verified that Mr Futcher had indeed been in the armed forces during the First World War and that they consider him to be a veteran of that conflict." or similar, then we could consider it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sadly Harry Futcher passed away last week: [4] SiameseTurtle (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

R.I.P Harry Futcher 1904 - 2010

R.I.P Mr Futcher.Del Boy (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

UK vs England/Scotland/etc

I believe that as the Armed Forces were "British" rather than "English", etc, then the correct designation for members of the forces on the main page should be UK rather than England, etc. If you want to change this, Nick, please discuss it here, rather than just changing it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

i think under the nationalality it should be england rather than UK because claude choules and florence green were born in England and UK reprosents Scotland, England ,Wales and Northern ireland.--Del Boy (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

it should stay at individual countries, because when i joined the army i still had to state on the Her Majestys Armed Forces Application Forms whether i was English Scottish Overseas etc! Webbmyster (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

However, you were not in the English Army, or the Scottish Army, etc - you were in the British Army - the English Army existed before the reign of Charles II; the Scottish Army ceased existing when the Union was created in 1707 - as it says in those two articles: "Shortly after the Act of Union in 1707 the English and Scottish Armies amalgamated to form the British Army." (English Army); "Its armed forces now form part of those of the United Kingdom and are known as the British Armed Forces." (Military of Scotland)-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

on the list of surviving veterans of world war I page it says Nationalality not Force served so it should say England rather than United Kingdom because claude choules and florence green were born in england--Del Boy (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If they hold a passport it will say "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" not "England", therefore their nationality is UK. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The column originally said 'residence' anyway. I'm not sure when or why it changed. SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC

I think you'll find i know what army i serve and what box i ticked! It should be individual countries. If we had any Welsh, Irish or Scottish people on here, and by the way this discussion is going we obviously don't, you would NEVER in a million years hear them call themselves British. Florence Green, Harry Futcher and Douglas Terrey were born at a very patriotic time where national identity sadly meant more than it does today and I'm pretty sure they would call themselves English. Also i'd like to know the problem with writing English on the list? I think you'll find England is a recognised country and it doesnt matter that its the British army as regards to whether we write English, Scottish etc. Webbmyster (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This can be a bit tricky. However, the U.K. is comprised of 4 countries; one of which is England. Therefore, it is both appropriate, and more precise to list "England" as the residence, where appropriate.Mk5384 (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nationality isn't really a complication; the internationally recognised sovereign state is 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland', if you live within its defined boundaries then the United Kingdom is the accepted abbreviation. Wiki has rules as well, which to paraphrase (from memory) is if consensus is Britain, Wales etc leave it alone, if consensus is United Kingdom leave it alone. I would back the vote for English/Welsh/Scottish but frankly it is completely moot, especially when you read the accounts of soldiers themselves whom nearly always consider themsleves British which by definition is no nationality but a combination of the home countries. Specifically only articles relating entirely to matters of the UK (this is a global article) can be justified in being broken down to the home countries. It was more important when the list was healthy and active, the meaning and intention has all been lost now, also it has been discussed before. As SiameseTurtle said, there used to be a nationality and residence column, it changed at some point and I can't remember why either. RichyBoy (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If the veterans themselves do describe themselves as British, then I would agree that U.K. should be used. Do we have a source for this? As it is now, we have "Nationality" as U.K., and "Residence" as England. I think that this works well, although someone might object, of course.Mk5384 (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

2 further "unverified" veterans and an "era" veteran

According to Simple English Wikipedia, there are 2 further unverified veterans from the Great War still living as well as another Great War era veteran.[5] Sir Stanley 11:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Simple English does not have adequate citations for those persons not already included to be included in this article. At least 2 have been discussed previously and consensus has been to not include them. The incited claim of a supposedly 136 year old man can't be taken seriously. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 11:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid for the next ten years or so, we will have claims pop up. Age 136 yea right! Same thing happened in the Rev. War and Civil war, you had false claims years after the official veteran died. Of course they need to be looked into, but just saying your 136 proves nothing. (PershingBoy)63.3.10.130 (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Douglas terry - alive or deceased?

on the edit history of this article slatersteve has put just found a report of his death about Mr terrey, is this true?--Del Boy (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

That was for Harry Futcher.Mk5384 (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

harry futcher was removed off the article on the 3 june but what im talking about was done on the 19 june so it must of been about douglas terrey--Del Boy (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Look at the diffs. It was Harry Futcher.Mk5384 (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Although Mr Terrey was still living at the time that this recent exchange took place, he has sadly died since - on 26 June 2010, three days after his 107th birthday. The death notice from the 'Daily Echo', a local newspaper, may be found here:

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/announcements/bmdsarch/8244725.TERREY_DOUGLAS___/

MAR 193.138.107.90 (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

RIP Mr terrey :(--Del Boy (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Anybody who understands Ukrainian?

Nick Ornstein posted an interesting case at the Worlds Oldest People yahoo group: Michael Tsyunyak in Ukraine, born January 5, 1900, News link 1 in Ukrainian News link 2 in Ukrainian. When I put the first article into google translate, i got this: "Because of poverty did not go to school and still remained illiterate. Fortunately, also involved Michael Tsyunyaka and military service. For who knows whether we are talking like a serious man, if he clothed in uniform." and further down: "Do not forget Mr Michael Polish and some German words, because he lived and by Austro-Hungarian and Polish rule, and therefore spoke different languages." No indication as to what war he may have been involved in. Now I wonder if there's any more info to be found in ukranian newspapers, or by mailing journalists? I guess it would be best if someone who knows the language checks this out. He may have been involved in the conflicts with Poland 1918-19? Hepcat65 (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the page

Upon the death of Douglas Terrey, there are only three full World War I veterans and one World War I-era veteran no younger than 109 that are still living. In light of that fact, I think that by now it would be time to delete this page and perhaps turn it into a new page like "Last veterans of World War I".72.144.234.89 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why there are still Veterans of the War Alive???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This page only becomes redundant when there are no more veterans. There has been lengthy discussion in the Archives as to what to do with this article when that happens. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

i agree with derbycountyinnz, the page should not be deleted until there is no more veterans left.--Del Boy (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as well. 2tuntony (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree - while there is 1 surviving veteran left, this page should remain. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Imich

[6]

Alexander Imich (born 4 February 1903 in Poland, now aged 107 and living in the USA) claims to have joined Polish forces fighting the Russians and Bolsheviks in 1918. However no documentation proves this. Should he be included as an "unverified veteran"? (Sir Stanley, 21:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been discussion of this several times (check the archives) and the consensus has been that there is insufficient evidence to include him. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are sources that mention his veteran claim then surely he is by default an unverified veteran? SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If he was a polish person fighting the Russians, then he was more likely involved in the series of Soviet-Polish wars which lasted about 4 years after the end of the first world war, but were not part of that war, as conventionally defined (albeit from a western perspective) to have ended on 11 November 1918.Eregli bob (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

He claimed to have been involved in the war with the russians at age 15 in 1918 in the book "Mystic Souls" by Lyn Halper, but when I emailed him, asking about his experiences, I also mentioned the war with the russians didn't start until 1919 after he turned 16, but the war with the ukrainian peoples republic started late in '18 - then he mainained he was just 15, so he wrote he must have misremembered the russian part. He now claims to have been driving a Packard truck for the emerging Polish army in the polish/ukrainian war during the winter months of 1918/19, but we have no source for the claim that is accepted here, yet. I saw he activated a Netlog account a few weeks ago, so he is still active on the net. Hepcat65 (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well neither of those conflicts would be part of WW 1 actually.Eregli bob (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

For several years this article has included ww1 era veterans from wars not really a part of ww1, but still originating from it, up until the treaty of Versailles 1919. Now that we have the Oldest military veterans article, perhaps we should drop mr Kowalski & other possible ww1 era claimants from here, since I sense there are obvious strong feelings against including those who may outlive the "real" ww1 veterans. Hepcat65 (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Archived discussions on Dr Imich are here and here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Frank Buckles

Has Frank Buckles died, someone put on the page that he has although I have found no mention of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

USA Today actually has a topic page for Frank Buckles, which I ran into while checking this: http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Frank+Buckles. I'm leaving it here as a resource. To answer the question directly, though - there's no evidence that he has died, and if he does it will be mentioned at the link above. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Although all that mentions is his petition for a National WWI Memorial nothing to due with any death, they also have a page for Walter Breuning- who is currently America's (and the World's) oldest living man but has not died as well as Santa Claus (who of course is just a mythical figure), this page also list a burial date of July 30th which would be very soon for anyone who has just passed away let alone Buckles who most likely will have a state funeral and hopefully some sort of public viewing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I missed that the vandalism was still on the article, but I've removed it. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Claude Choules

I've perused the archives (I'm finally beginning to remember to do that), and read the debate as to whether or not Choules was a "combatant" in World War I. Though the feeling seemed to be that he did not qualify as one, I would like to revisit that dialouge, if permissable. Many possibilities were discussed, but I feel that one has been overlooked, which is Choules' presence at the scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow. The scuttling was considered to be an act of war, which broke the Armistice. Several German soldiers were shot dead, and numerous others were injured, in attempts to stop the scuttling. Whether or not Choules actually gave, or took fire, I feel that his presence at this event is sufficient to qualify him as a combatant. 2tuntony (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I were to reinsert that Choules is the "last living combatant" of World War I? 2tuntony (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I never really considered Claude Choules an Active Combat Veteran (which is why I think that Harry Patch was actually the last surviving combat veteran) but you could make the argument that he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Your opinion is held by others as well. Previous discussions seemed to be inconclusive as to whether or not Choules was a "combatant", while Harry Patch certainly was. I am hoping that this "new" information, concerning Choules' presence at the scuttling will sway opinion, at least to a degree. (And I will also echo that that is certainly to take nothing away from the legacy of Harry Patch.) As Choules is 109 years old, and in failing health, I am hopeful that this can be decided while he is still living. You don't seem to disagree with my proposal. I'll wait and see if others wish to comment. Thank you! 2tuntony (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

i think of mr choules as being the last combatant veteran Del Boy (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous. Just because he served at sea you lot think you have the right somehow to go on about his war service and some how "lower" his role! what would you call a navigator on a Lancaster bomber, because he didn't fire a weapon, he didn't fly the plane, and he didn't pull any lever to drop the bombs so i'm assuming you'd, make up some silly discussion to try and say he was non combat. What does it matter anyway? Webbmyster (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me if I've misunderstood you, but it was my assertion that Choules was a combat veteran. 2tuntony (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reference anywhere that states, olr even claims, that Claude Choules is the last combat veteran? If not then saying so here would be OR. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

How would it be original research? It seems that it would be original research to claim that he is not a combatant. 2tuntony (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's original research to make up statements that cannot be sourced. While not every statement must be sourced, those that are contended against need a source, especially if the issue is controversial.Ryoung122 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Claude Choules was originally listed in the article as the last combatant. It was in fact me who queried whether this was correct, in view of the fact that we did not appear to know if he had actually been part of any actual combat before the Armistice. As I recall, we had a rather esoteric discussion over whether a combatant, who could be defined as someone who takes part in, or is prepared to take part in military action, which Mr Choules most certainly was, could always be an actual combat veteran. I think the balance of opinion at the time was that he could not, but we did rather think that we had opened up a can of worms. No-one would wish to diminish anybody's role in the war, but I do think that there is an interesting distinction to be made between those who actually engaged militarily with the enemy and those who did not, for whatever reason.

However, I have now changed my view, having found Mr Choules' autobiography, The Last of the Last in my local book store. It was written whilst he was in his eighties, so the memories written down at that point would be at least twenty years fresher than they are now. I didn't buy the book, but photographed a relevant paragraph on my mobile phone. I forget the page number, but it will be easy to find for anyone with a copy. Two or three of the words are missing because I photographed it on two shots, so my apologies, but the extract below does seem to indicate that his ship was involved in actual armed combat.

"Not long after I joined the Revenge , I had my first taste of action. On 16 November 1917, the First Battle Squadron, led by the Revenge, went to sea, accompanied by our (missing word) cruisers and two squadrons of light cruisers with their attendant destroyers. That night we went to action stations on receiving reports of enemy ships from our light cruisers. The next morning, we (missing word..heard?) gunfire and received reports that our scouting forces were in (missing word..action?). Soon after this, Revenge’s foremost turrets, A & B opened fire (missing word) and later claimed that they had shot down a German Zeppelin."

It would seem, therefore that Mr Choules himself, albeit over twenty years ago, has made more than a passable claim to be the last combat veteran! Moldovanmickey (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment, as well as your effort in investigating this. I had seen promotional material for the book that stated Choules was the "last living combatant of World War I". I was, however, completely unaware that Choules gave a detailed acount in the book. I didn't mention the former, as it likely would not stand up to WP:RS. The book, on the other hand, most certainly will. (Someone may wish to challenge it, based on the fact that Choules wrote it himself, but as it is not a self-published work, I don't think that there will be any real issue.) I think that the page number is of some importance, so that it can be cited properly. I will attempt to find a copy of the book, or perhaps the text is available online. If anyone is able to provide the page number before I get to it, that would be great. Best of luck, and my thanks to everyone who has commented or done reasearch on this issue. 2tuntony (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have e-mailed someone who I know has a copy of the book to see if he can provide me with the page number and the missing words. I went back to the book store I saw it in but alas, it had been sold.Moldovanmickey (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it always seem to work that way? Again, your help is most appreciated. 2tuntony (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

after reading that bit in mr choules autobiography it sounds like he is definatly a combatant veteran of WWI.Tony W (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I now have the full text of the relevant paragraphs, from page 61 of the hardback edition of The Last of the Last, by Claude Choules.

"Not long after I joined the Revenge , I had my first taste of action. On 16 November 1917, the First Battle Squadron, led by the Revenge, went to sea, accompanied by our battlecruisers and two squadrons of light cruisers with their attendant destroyers. That night we went to action stations on receiving reports of enemy ships from our light cruisers. The next morning, we heard gunfire and received reports that our scouting forces were in action. Soon after this, Revenge’s foremost turrets, A & B opened fire and later claimed that they had shot down a German Zeppelin.

"As usual the Germans scuttled back into the safety of their minefields, so this action resulted in little appreciable damage, except to HMS Caledon, flagship of the Admiral Cowan. She got such a punch in the ribs from a 15-inch shell tha I thought she would drop in two halves. The Königsberg stopped two 15-inch hits that reduced her speed to 17 knots but too late in the battle for the British ships to catch her and complete her destruction. The German forces had been sent out to protect their minesweepers, which on sighting the British forces had slipped their gear but not before several of them had been sunk. In this case the enemy used a smokescreen to aid their escape, a tactical method of defence used by both sides in the First World War."

Choules appears to be referring to the Second Battle of Heligoland Bight- see http://www.seayourhistory.org.uk/content/view/452/599/1/2/ The article does not mention Revenge's part in the engagement, but the dates match. From Choules' account, it would therefore appear that Revenge was in the vicinity of the battle as presumably Caledon was amongst the scouting forces referred to.

Well, is this autobiography a sufficient source for adding "last combat veteran" to the entry? I'm not sure of the rules, so I'll leave it up to other more experienced Wikipedians to take a balanced, consensual view. For what it's worth, in my view there's no reason to doubt him, and we could certainly add "last claimed combat veteran" to the entry. Moldovan Mickey Moldovanmickey (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple of weeks ago, after perusing the archives, I asked if we could reopen this discussion. As Moldovanmickey says, the question seemed to be whether or not Choules fought in any actual combat prior to the Armistice. Numerous editors made numerous points, all of them good ones. The discussion seemed to have ended with no clear consensus, as in addition to the question of Choules' combat experience, there also seemed to be the question of what exactly constitutes a "combatant". It does not seem like any of the editors had a real problem with either version. One of the many topics covered in the previous discussions was Choules' presence at the scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow. It appears that general opinion was that this would not qualify Choules as a "combatant", as it took place after the Armistice. Here is where I attempted to revisit this discussion, as I felt that something important had been overlooked. As I stated earlier on this page, I felt that this did qualify Choules as a combatant, as the scuttling itself broke the Armistice. That the Germans decided to scuttle, rather than surrender, as had been previously agreed upon, was considered to be an act of war. Several Germans were killed, and others wounded by British fire. The Germans were considered to be prisoners of war. And I made the case that Choules' taking part in this event would, indeed, qualify him as a combatant. If that was not sufficient, which I think it is, the information that Moldovanmickey has kindly brought to light should eliminate any doubt. We have a reliable source, that states that Choules did see combat action in World War I. I have inserted the reference next to the claim. Someone appears to have made the argument that we have no source which specifically identifies him as the last combatant. This is true. However, it is undisputed that neither Frank Buckles, nor Florence Green saw combat. Jozef Kowalski's participation in the Polish-Soviet War is not questioned. The Polish-Soviet War has been discussed on numerous pages in this encyclopedia, and numerous editors have asserted that it can be considered, loosely, to be a part of the First World War. While this may be true, I have not seen, in any of these discussions, a reliable source that makes this claim. Finally, there are several other living people who claim to be World War I veterans. Some of them are absurd, while others may very well be true. None have been documented in reliable sources. The fact is that there are three living people, who according to reliable sources, are World War I veterans. One of them, according to reliable sources, is a combat veteran of the war. This will hopefully suffice to finally clarify this issue. Please pardon me if I've overlooked something. 2tuntony (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be sufficient evidence from the sources quoted above to list Choules as a combatant. There's no point in dragging this discusssion out further here or including irrelevant discussion. This is not a forum.DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Which part of the discussion, may I ask, was "irrelevant"? And, as far as "there's no point in dragging this discussion out further", while I'm happy that you agree with me, others may certainly feel otherwise, and are always welcome to comment. 2tuntony (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Harry Patch is certainly the last "trench" veteran. To me, Choules was an "active" veteran, but if his unit was not engaged in combat then he was not a "combat veteran."Ryoung122 21:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have inadvertantly got invovled in this issue. To me calling him a combatant is fine, he served under arms in a tooth arm, the extent to which he was directly involved in combat himself is a little unclear from the sources cited in this thread, it's not clear that Revenge fired her guns in anger during the episode cited for example. David Underdown (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops sorry yes she did, however, perhaps best to leave it up to the reader what constitutes combat, he was clearly in a combatant role, as opposed to Florence Green who served in the UK (and no woman served in a combat role in the British Armed Forces at this time anyway), and Frank Buckles who was an ambulance driver. David Underdown (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Claude Choules is also of course the last overall Veteran to serve in both World War I and World War II does anoyone know who the last American Veteran to serve in both World Wars was- a quick check made by me to the pages of Veterans who died by year suggests it was Frank Steer (who died in March 2006) although I saw no direct mention of it on any page, was he indeed the last American Veteran to serve in both World Wars or was there someone else who died ater him who did as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As this page is about living veterans, it is probably best to discuss that question elsewhere. 2tuntony (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

True, although the Discussion for the Vets who died in 2006 page looked pretty dead, although I did see something posted there in March 2010 so I guess I will ask it there (before that there were no postings after 2007)

Frank Buckles army unit

In the table in this article,frank Buckles army unit is given as the 1st Fort Riley Casual Detachment. In the article on Frank Buckles, the army unit is given as the 1st Fort Riley Casualty detachment. I don't know how to check it but Casualty seems to make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WallyW (talk • contribs) 00:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It does, and I have changed it to "Casualty". Good eye! 2tuntony (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

A google search gives 1570 results for "Fort Riley Casual Detachment" and 69 results for "Fort Riley Casualty Detachment". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, from the horse's mouth himself, Mr Buckles is quoted in an interview on the Library Of Congress Website as saying:

"Now the unit I belonged to - 102 men - were called the First Ft. Riley Casual Detachment, and "casual" means unassigned, and were expecting to go direct to France, but I went overseas on the Carpathia in December 1917. Many of the officers - some of the officers - and some of the men had been aboard when they made the rescue of the Titanic of the survivors."

The interview can be found here]- it's Mr Buckles' fifth answer. I don't believe anyone will seriously want to contest this, so I have changed it back. Moldovanmickey Moldovanmickey (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Another vet

First of all, 100% credit going to Chris Amos for finding this article.

Andrew E. Rasch was born in 1901/1902/1903. No obituary nor SSDI entry.

The article says "Over the years, Andy has collected newspaper articles of fellow WWI veterans, including obituaries. He says “I used to keep in touch with a couple of guys in Wisconsin,” he says, “but they are gone now.” He also has a recent article about Frank Buckles, 108, shown at the White House with President George W. Bush. [Mr. Buckles is recognized as the last surviving WWI veteran.] “He may be the oldest WWI Vet,” Andy remarks, “but he’s not the last!” Does he mind being left out? “Not really. I know who I am and what I’ve done in my life,” he says philosophically. “Except that he gets to be buried in Arlington [National] Cemetery.”" http://www.adlercentenarians.org/centenarian_archive.htm --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...an interesting article. Need more info about this potential vet, though. I found another version of this article dated April 2009, http://liveto100andbeyond.blogspot.com/. If Mr. Rasch was 107 in 2009, he was born in 1902 and would have been 16 in 1918; possibly old enough to have lied about his age and enlisted by 11 November 1918. Is there any documentary evidence of his birth date? The article also says in 2006 a television station "verified his service with the Veterans Administration." What evidence was discovered to verify his service? When did he enlist? Just seems odd (but not impossible) that he has been overlooked until now. Frankwomble (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It could also mean 1901. 1901 or 1902. Doesn't say his exact birthday. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

after reading all the information just now i think he should definatly be added to the list but not sure if he should be down as verified or unverified, personally i think he should be down as verified. --Tony Winward (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some confirmation of this report at a reliable source - I'm not saying that the aldercentenarians.org isn't telling the truth as they have been told - but I'm not sure that it meets WP:RS. Like Frankwomble, I'd like to see some verification at a definitely-RS source - I don't think that it qualifies as a verified case, and unless it's been reported at an RS source, I'd be hesitant to list it as unverified. I'll look into this - I'm surprised that none of the "main" RS sources (like national newspapers) have reported on this case if the veteran's agency have indeed confirmed it: is there somewhere else where this has been reported? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have e-mailed Lynn Adler at the National Centenarian Awareness Project to ask her if Mr Rasch is still alive and where he lives, just so that any further attempts we make to verify him do not become a wild goose chase. I don't think we can put him in either the verified or unverified categories as things stand. Somehow, out of deference to Mr Rasch's privacy, I don't think she'll be able to help us, but I'll let you know if I hear anything. Moldovanmickey (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

has there been any updates on potential WWI vet Mr. RaschTony Winward (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I emailed Ms. Adler several weeks ago regarding her April 2009 blog entry on Mr. Rasch; no response to date. Frankwomble (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For all we know, this is a made up person. It should be treated as such until verification can be obtained. If he really is a WWI veteran and wants privacy - So be it. Unless we have something solid, we don't need to start adding a name just because he might be a veteran, and he might still be living. (PershingBoy)63.3.10.1 (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

' Alright, I looked up the article from 2009 and there was a picture of him. He is holding a display of his medals. However, I noticed he does not have a WWI victory medal - That says something right there. Perhaps he lost his, but it appears he kept everything else? (PershingBoy)63.3.10.2 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing without discussion

Marcus - if you want to edit the article to take references whcih have been there for over three years, you need to discuss it first, in order to obtain a consensus or otherwise. The article is well established, well written and exceptionally well researched, and whilst you might think that the references should be removed, you should not do so unilaterally. Mithrandir1967 (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Andrew E. Rasch

has there been any updates on potential WWI veteran Mr RaschSir Tony (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not even sure he is a WWI vet. That should be subject no 2. subject no.1 can anyone verify he is still alive as of 2011? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.2 (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Service before the Treaty of Versailles

WP:BRD. Okay, here is your discussion. What objections do you have? Marcus Qwertyus 16:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• That the broad consensus, for several years now, has been that World War I-era veterans should be included on the list, the more so in that the combatant nations have wildly differing (and often statutory) notions of what constitutes a "veteran" in that war. These regulations seldom fall exclusively within the timeframe between Austria-Hungary's declaration of war and the implementation of the Armistice. Certainly, in dealing with a well-established former FL, some attempt at gauging whether consensus had changed should have been attempted before altering the longstanding structure of the article.  RGTraynor  17:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• None of the sources cited (that haven't become deadlinks) consider Josef a veteran of WWI. Marcus Qwertyus 21:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Which is why he is listed as a WWI-era veteran and not as one of the three remaining WWI veterans. The Polish-Soviet war started after the Armistice but before the Treaty of Versailles and is not conisdered to be part of WWI. Mithrandir1967 (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• But there no sources yet that he was even a WWI-era veteran. Marcus Qwertyus 13:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I presume you haven't looked at his article.  RGTraynor  18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Are saying that his article states he enlisted before the the Treaty of Versailes? If so, read again. Marcus Qwertyus 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Footnote 10 in this article refers to his service in the Polish-Soviet War, as do several of the footnotes in the article about him. It doesn't appear that any of them indicate a specific enlistment date. There is a free Polish-to-English translator on line at http://poltran.com/pl.php4 Frankwomble (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read some of the post/discussions years back 2006-09 we talk about this subject every year. The way we have it set up, really seems to be the logical way and best. (PershingBoy)63.3.10.1 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's about verifiability not consensus. Marcus Qwertyus 01:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving the article

Instead of deleting it, this list should be moved to List of last surviving veterans of World War I. That way, the existing tables can be kept, but the latest surviving members can be still kept. Nergaal (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Józef Kowalski

At 111 stil fine. Short film uploaded on the occasion of birthday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPjCAmlyQ0Q —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.183.182.71 (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Making the centennial

It would be amazing if either Frank Buckles, Claude Choules or Florence Green could be alive for the centennial in the summer of 2014. They would have to make it to 113.

Henry Allingham and a few other veterans made 113, I believe.

They'd have to make it to 117(pushing 118) for the centennial of the end of the war on November 11, 2018. And I believe only a handful of people have ever made it to this age or greater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zz pot (talk • contribs) 18:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Frank Buckles dies

Buckles died Sunday February 27 aged 110 a little less than a month after his birthday.

Claude Choules and Florence Green are now the only two left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zz pot (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving on

Jozef Kowalski doesn't belong on this list. There is no citation for an enlistment date and nothing that explicitly states he was a veteran of that war. He is no more a veteran of WWI than my cousin is a veteran of Korea (the state of war in Korea has never ended). There is also a technicality that allows service members in the U.S. to declare themselves a veteran of the Gulf War for compensation. To say Jozef was a veteran of WWI even with a citation for the enlistment date would be synthesis. Marcus Qwertyus 23:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

His article certainly doesn't appear to say anything about WWI - all the refs are in Polish though, so I can't check them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I translated the references. Bearing in mind that the translations are a bit crude, the only mention of World War I is: "At the end of World War I, he fought against the Bolsheviks". Joefromrandb (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It has never been claimed that Jozef Kowalski is a WWI veteran. There have been many discussions over the last couple of years and it is accepted that he is a WWI era veteran - that is he fought in an unconnected war which occured within the timeframe of WWI. Hence he qualifies for inclusion on this page. Mithrandir1967 (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is it accepted that he is a WWI era veteran? Marcus Qwertyus 15:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The listed criteria also says, "or who served in a related conflict". You made the statement that the Polish-Soviet War is not considered to be part of World War I. While you may be correct about that, is it your assertion that it does not qualify as "a related conflict"? Joefromrandb (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. It was a different editor who stated that the Polish-Soviet War is not considered a part of World War I. (Again, I've seen both sides of that argument, and don't know which one is correct.) But the rest of my statement still stands. I think that it can quite reasonably be considered a "related conflict". Joefromrandb (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A pretty arbitrary inclusion criteria. I could say "... or has lots of shiny medals". Marcus Qwertyus 10:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you could. However, I don't know that a consensus of editors would accept that criterion as they have they have "related coflict". Joefromrandb (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors can't just make-up some arbitrary inclusion criteria. The editors would have to determine that that was a commonly accepted categorization. Marcus Qwertyus 14:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the matter remains that Jozef is not labelled as a WWI veteran on this page, he is labelled as a "surviving World War I-era veteran", which is correct, because he is a surviving World War I era veteran. He has his own section on this page and is not incorporated with the remaining WWI veterans in their section. Therefore, there is no problem with leaving his name where it is, until he passes, at which point he will no longer be included anyway. burbridge92 (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That's like have a page on donuts and having a section on bagels. Defending the inclusion with "it's close enough!" won't get you far. The scope of this page is World war I veterans and nothing else. Marcus Qwertyus 22:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not defending his inclusion with "it's close enough", on the contrary, I'm defending it with "he has his own section which correctly describes his position within the page", and there's a clear distinction between the two. There are multiple pages on wikipedia that do the same. Check out the page for "List of longest-reigning British monarchs" (and the discussion page) for a perfect example. If you genuinely believe that this page should not contain Jozef Kowalski because his position does not fit with the title of the page, we are left with three options.

• We create a new page purely for either "Surviving veterans of the Polish-Soviet War" or "List of surviving WWI-era veterans".
• We rename this page as "List of surviving WWI-era veterans" (the title still covers WWI and they can still be divided into those who fought in the First World War and those who did not).
• We leave the page exactly as it is.

I would argue against the first option as we do not need multiple pages that are basically on the same topic when they can covered easily within the one page without too much complication. Add to this the fact that there is only one surviving veteran from the era of the First World War and as a result the page may not need to exist for long also makes the creation of one seem fairly pointless. I'm open to either of the other options. burbridge92 (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

A further point I feel it is imperative to make is that, without Kowalski being given a mention, this page's existence is completely futile, due to the fact that all of the information given with regards to Choules and Green can be found on their own personal pages, and the page for "List of last surviving World War I veterans by country" also has both of Claude Choules and Florence Green listed as surviving veterans of the First World War, making this page nothing more than a duplicate of what is stated elsewhere, which in itself suggests that this page should just be deleted. burbridge92 (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the only way to keep Jozef is if we move to WWI-era veterans but that would be list cruft and the inclusion criteria would be a slippery slope. Should be redirected. Marcus Qwertyus 01:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

Once they're all dead, what will we do with this article? jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 02:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

See the previous discussions here, here and here. There is no consensus yet. Still a moot point until it actually happens, which could be years. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

i think the article should be deleted after they have all past away.Tony (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be an article documenting details of WW1 Vets who were still living beyond 2010 (or 2009 including Henry Allingham and Harry Patch). 120.16.215.158 (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Mic

actually i agree, yes i think we should do that Tony (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This should be converted to the last 100 (or 50?) living veterans. Nergaal (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend simply moving the article to a new title like List of Last surviving Veterans of World War I! --108.18.194.162 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

As a wandering passerby, I'd think the list should be kept, perhaps as the "last survivors" and rolled back to the last 100 or few years. On one hand when they're all passed on, they are all War Veterans equally. On the other hand the last ones Living are our connection to the past making the event more "real" because there is somebody still around that was there with all the other people who fought. The other consideration would be that the rules for internet encyclopedias are slightly different than deadtree ones. The article was written as they LIVED. In twenty years that perspective will be unique to Wikipedia versus news in other forms... the discussion of the event is as important as the actual event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.122.2 (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Setting any sort of quota or time limit would not only not be particularly encyclopedic it would also be almost impossible to get an agreement on who should be in the quota or what the time limit should be. The most sensible thing to do would be to rename this article (or redirect to a new article) something like Last veterans of World War I, and in it to merely identify the last survivor under each criteria i.e. last recognised veteran, last era/claimed veteran, last combat veteran, for both Allies and Central Powers. There should also be links to List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009-11 and List of last surviving World War I veterans by country and perhaps a few other relevant links. WP:Listcruft should really be avoided. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Camel's Nose/ Boiling frog / 'Thin end of the wedge' arguments about setting limits for articles are all scare and no danger. Whatever the number of inclusions ends up as, it ends up as. Only the people who wanted some other number will be inconvenienced.

The information so far collected in the Edit History of the article can show veterans that lived to a certain age, or were still alive as of a certain date. Thus, the article can be expanded to the desired size, and it will remain relevant.

110 is certainly notable, but then it is as few entries as the three currently in the article. 105 would probably make a nice small group, but 105 is sort of a patchy number. One nice round century is a very compelling age, but the list would be pretty long. See List of veterans of World War I who died in 2000 etc right up to List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009-11 Anarchangel (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition the WWI Deaths in some of the earlier years listed are skewed towards the US and the UK (not that many from other Nations even though there were veterans from those Nations who died during that time) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of veterans are missing from this list for years 1999-2004, and will probably never be an all inclusive list. I suggest listing the last 100 to 200 veterans known. Example - 76. Homer Baker (and number 75 would be the next person that died.) By 2006 we had a pretty good hold on naming most. NO LIST WILL BE PERFECT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.204.248.86 (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Claude Choules

Claude Choules died today. I heard it on ABC radio at 5.30 pm while driving home.

Also, re: Jozef Kowalski ... I have been checking in on this site for many many years and from memory his name has been listed for a long time now. It seems sensible to just let this page run its course. There has always been an WW1 era section.

Thanks to all the people who have put time into this site to keep others informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.224.173 (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

RIP Claude Choules :(Tony (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It now seems as if Florence Green will be the last overall veteran but if Józef Kowalski outlives her then he might have an argument —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

An argument over what? If Florence Green passes away first then this page either needs to be removed, or appropriately renamed. If Jozef Kowalski dies first, then this page can stay as it is until there are no veterans left.Burbridge92 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Józef Kowalski

Please leave Józef Kowalski as is.

There has been much discussion about this subject over the years and general consensus about his status.

He fought with the Polish forces against the Soviets prior to the Treaty of Versailles. His service has been verified and documented with appropriate photographic evidence; and there is general agreement among historians that the many conflicts in Eastern Europe at this time were connected directly with World War I, thus the term World War I-era veteran. Cam46136 (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)cam46136

See WP:Synthesis. Marcus Qwertyus 13:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Which bit is Synthesis? Be explicit - remember this page isn't purely about a US or UK-defined criteria of World War I; like most things a certain degree of education reveals the problems. An uneducated view would have the WWI armistice as the end date which is what a lot of people would expect, but a slightly better understanding reveals the Treaty of Versailles, the handing out of war medals, that is, official government recognition well after these dates and so forth. The important part of this debate is article consensus and proper demarkation within the article, both of which are in place. I agree that it isn't ideal but removing the entry because it doesn't sit comfortably is actually the real 'synthesis' in this instance. RichyBoy (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well to even continue this discussion we would at least need a citation for an enlistment date. Cam said he fought before the Treaty of Versailles, historians agree that many conflicts in Eastern Europe at this time were connected directly with World War I, therefore he is a World War I-era veteran. I shouldn't have to provide an example since I have already explained why this is synthesis but I will anyway. Congress considers the Gulf War an active war since Saddam never followed through with reparations. Unless a reliable source says so, that does not make my dishonorably discharged cousin a Gulf War participant. Marcus Qwertyus 18:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion are explained in the article. Kowalski meets one aspect of the criteria. The criteria does not require that a date of enlistment be specified. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't just make up criteria. Marcus Qwertyus 19:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

He didn't. This has been discussed for years. Czolgolz (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not there is consensus on this page, one thing is clear: Historians do not agree that Józef Kowalski was a veteran of World War I. Your petty consensus means absolutely nothing if reliable sources fail to agree. If you form a consensus that the world is flat but your consensus won't hold water if you don't provide sources that back your claim. Marcus Qwertyus 20:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

No one's claiming he's a WWI vet, they're claiming he's a WWI 'era' vet. Czolgolz (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I would really like to see you cite several Polish historians (As we are talking about a Polish veteran here) and what their considered thoughts are on the wars conducted during this period are? How do they classify veterans of this period? Provide proof to back up your assertion please.202.139.104.226 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? Not only is that out of the scope of this page but I have yet to see one single citation for an enlistment date and I'm really tired of explaining that in my numerous edit summaries. Marcus Qwertyus 03:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And I for one am tired of repeating that for the purposes of this article an enlistment date is not necessary. Consensus is that this article include "era veterans". Kowalski meets the criteria for that category. Wiki requires that reliable sources be used and consensus is that those provided for Kowalski are sufficiently reliable for him to be included in this article. If there is consensus that Era Veterans not be included or that Kowalski does not meet the wiki standard of reliable sources then he can be removed. At the moment there is no such consensus so he stays. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I second that comment. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Andy Rasch

Sincere apologies if I'm bringing up an old discussion.

Should not Andy Rasch be considered for "Unverified Veterans" given this link and others about him?

http://www.adlercentenarians.org/centenarian_archive.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowdog81 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There's obviously something keeping him from being recognized as a veteran even though he says he has documentation to prove it. I can't find too many links about the man. It might be his age. Being "only 107" he would have been 14 when the war ended but then again Claude Choules enlisted in the Navy at the same age.

I think if he could have gained recognition as a veteran he would have done so by now. Same thing with the two I mentioned earlier in the thread.

The Article is from a few years ago so he is probably at least 109 by now, although do we know if he is even still alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't look like a very reliable source, if this guy really is a World War I veteran he probably would have appeared in other sources (I've looked and can't find any). Not only that but there are plenty of sources that say Frank Buckles is the last American veteran. I don't recommend adding it unless better sourcing is presented. Hut 8.5 22:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

List Deletion

We ought to weight the arguments for deleting this list. Technically a list an ordered series of two or more pieces of information, but does that necessarily meet the Wikipedia requirements to exist as a separate entity? My opinion is that it should remain. Enough specific information and interest in the surviving veterans seems to exist to justify keeping it. MKleid (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As that seems to be a "closed discussion", I'll comment here. I think the list should stay, if for no other reason than there remains the possibility of more veterans being discovered. I realize that it's very unlikely, but it's certainly not impossible. Florence Greene's article says that she was discovered just last year. With over 65 million participants, we would be remiss to not leave that door open. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agee. No one would have expected a new entry on this page last year before Florence Green was found. It is still possible - if unlikely - that another verifiable veteran could be found. Personally, when Florence dies, I think the page should basically say something along the lines of "there are no verified veterans left. The last combat veteran was Claude Choules who died xxx and the last non-combatant veteran was Florence Green who died on xxx. Tad last Axis-powers veteran was xxx who died xxx." (I'm on my mobile phone so it's more of an effort to look those details up!) then there should be a link to the "WW1 Veterans who died in xxxx" pages. Would anyone have any major objection to that? Realistically, we need to decide as Florence won't be with us indefinitely -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 00:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good, but suppose Lt. Kowalski outlives her? Joefromrandb (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If Green dies I suggest we just redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country which has all this information anyway. Hut 8.5 12:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That would seem to rule out the possibility of another veteran being discovered. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If another living veteran is discovered then yes we should keep the list, but I don't think that we should keep it there if it has no veterans. If the page is redirected and then another veteran is discovered we can always recreate it. It does seem pretty unlikely that another veteran will be discovered, as there are at most a few hundred people aged over 110 alive today (almost all of them women). Hut 8.5 15:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

True. There's still the issue of Kowalski, should he outlive her. There has been longstanding consensus that he belongs on this page. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I know this list is to be kept and that is good. It has details that the last survivors of WWI does not and in a short time of a few months or years, nature will take care of the need for this list to exist. Septagram (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet War

The Polish-Soviet war is not WW1 and its participants can never be conflated with the status of WW1 veterans because:

• its causes are distinct to and subsequent to (or anciently preceding) those of WWI in the region of Poland-USSR
• it's subsequent to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk declaring peace and formally ending WW1 in the East a year before Polish-Soviet fighting
• it's subsequent to the convening of the Paris Peace Conference and it continued more than a year after that Conference concluded & that Conference in no fashion treated its resolution as within the scope of its work or the subject of any part of its outcome treaties
• the WW1 article is in no doubt that ww1 was from 1914-18 and is steadfast in making no suggestion whatsoever that the 1919-21 Polish-USSR war could be considered part of it even by a small fringe of reliable historians. It wholly rejects and excludes

that historical interpretation.

• it was the Aftermath of World War I that led to the Polish-Soviet War and World War 2, not world war 1 itself.
• Poland is not even listed as a combatant member of the Central Powers or Allies of World War I, so be real.

There take warning from now on not to reintroduce mention of Józef Kowalski in the article and do not twist or misuse the term 'World War 1 era' which refers to the period in history starting with the Austro-Hungarian_declaration_of_war_on_Serbia and ended by the first sitting of the League of Nations —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnotherRomeo (talk • contribs) 10:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(Hi, I've removed the indents so the text doesn't go off the screen, and we can read it better - hope you don't mind -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC))

There is no "reintroducing". Kowalski is in because that is the current consensus. Unless that consensus changes the repeated removal by anonymous IPs, single issue user accounts, sock-puppets or anyone else trying to get around semi-protection, or even by genuine users, is still against wiki guidelines and will be treated accordingly. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It doesn't say Kowalski was in World War I, it says he's a World War I-era veteran (my emphasis) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about veterans of World War I, not its "era", or its title would say so. Things happened in the world in 1914-1918 which weren't relatable to world war one, for sure (like perhaps the Easter uprising) and we can say they occurred in the era without being part of the war. The Polish-Soviet war isn't even that. It didn't even get underway until substantially after the treaty that defined an end to world war one in the region encompassing Poland. Poland is not listed as a combatant or even an existing power, nation or country in world war one. It existence is wholly after and as a result of the Armistice with Germany - the event commemorated on Remembrance Day ever after for its significance ending world war one, and also by implication the related bogus and superfluous concept of the "era" of that war.

Well, if you can get a consensus to agree to his removal, that can be done - but with the lengthy discussion that has already taken place, that seems unlikely -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

New Unverified World War I Veterans

I distinctly remember that this page used to have a section for World War I claimant veterans, however since all of those listed have since passed away this section has been removed. It has come to my attention that there are at least three other cases of claimant veterans (although at least one of these is somewhat dubious). There are also claimant WWI-era veterans that have come to my attention. Is it a wise idea to re-add the claimant section with those claimed veterans who still live to this day? One flaw may be that some of them have since died without it being noticed by the media, due to the vast amount of claimed supercentenarian claims there are at current. burbridge92 (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to firstly confirm that they are still living and then bring any details of such claims to this talk page. If the claim appears reasonable then there is usually someone here who can help with establishing if there is any further info which might lead to their inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it is easier said than done to confirm some of them are still living, or whether their claim is reasonable or not. The articles which I know of which relate to these individuals are all at least a year old. If I do happen to find anything that proves a claim is still existent and reasonable I shall most certainly bring it to this page. burbridge92 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There was a man living in Africa claiming to be 120 years old named Mzee Barnabus Arap Rop who claims he fought with the British against the Germans in a contingency called the King's African Rifles in 1914. While we can most probably dismiss his age as not being 120 it is possible he could be 110 and fought as a child soldier. If this is true, I don't see why this would not make him a WWI veteran. But since there's no written records or anything even proving his age I see no way his claim could be verified. There was also a Nepalese born man living in the US named Kashi Rai(?) or something like that who said he fought in an Indian regiment. He claimed to be 111, last I heard. I can't find much else on him or even if he's still alive or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zz pot (talk • contribs) 23:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Rop and Rai were two of the three individuals I was thinking of, the third being Andrew Rasch. The problem is, as you have mentioned, it is hard to verify whether these men are still alive to this date. If they were, and it could be verified, there would be no reason not to recreate the "Surviving Unverified Veterans" table, as all three would sit comfortably under that definition.burbridge92 (talk) 14:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd also suggest checking this page's archives, as numerous persons have been mentioned, and debated here before. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

After looking at this [7] i believe that Mzee Barnabus Arap Rop should be in the unverifed world war I veterans section. Tony (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG. Only one person has indisputably reached the age of 120, and no man has lived to see 116. There isn't any evidence other than this person's recollections to support their claims and claims of extreme age are common in many cultures. Hut 8.5 19:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

User:AnotherRomeo (who started the section above), User:TheOnlyRationalBeing (who recently blanked the article), and User:PrussianKaiser (who nominated it for AfD), have all been indef blocked as socks of User:SuperblySpiffingPerson - see SPI cases. IP User:124.169.142.140 is also temporarily blocked for blanking the article. It now looks like a fair proportion of the demand to delete this article has come from just one person - if anyone spots a new user behaving similarly, be alert for suspicions of further socking -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just removed a comment from 117.120.18.133, which is plainly a sock of the now-banned user -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

List?

This article isn't much of a list anymore. Probably the tables should be folded into the text William M. Connolley (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Nor do I understand this revert [8]. the chances of new claimants turning up is negligible; and if they do come, we can always restore the text William M. Connolley (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting to get consensus on this. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to wait to get consensus on everything. If you have a problem with my edits, please articulate it here, or point to the prior discussion that I've missed William M. Connolley (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't necessary to wait to get consensus for everything. But that being said, had it escaped your notice that this list, and its formatting, has been a highly contentious topic that's been up for AfD twice in the last four months, and which has provoked a great deal of slanging back and forth? I would think it axiomatic that before any change was made the editor would check consensus here first, and doubly so - never mind in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines on the subject - once an objection was raised and his edits reverted. I'll be reverting your edits now, and perhaps you can seek consensus here before further muddying the waters.  Ravenswing  14:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You've reverted, but have provided no explanation at all for why. Did you read your edit comment? It said "BRD". The D stands for "Discuss". Please do so William M. Connolley (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I read the AFD, which predictably enough was about deleting the article. Since I'm not suggesting that, I'm puzzled why you're using that as a reason for reverting. I also notice you said "once an objection was raised": however, I can't see what you mean: DerbyCountyinNZ merely made a snarky comment. What "objection" are you referring to?

Also, the page says This page was nominated for deletion on 7 May 2011. The result of the discussion was keep. but the link is to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I. It should be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of World War I (2nd nomination) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

We now have 2 people against the change, therfore there is no consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

But we don't have a single articulated reason against the change. Other that WP:OWN of course. I await with interest some actual reasons rather than simple blind reverts William M. Connolley (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The title of this article is still "List of...", removing the list requires changing the name of the article, which has no consensus, yet, although that should be straighforward. However, given the recent AFD, an opportunity for input from other users would be constructive. Removing the description of era-vetarans removes information useful to the average user and is not particularly constructive. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The title is List of but the page *isn't* a list, because it only has one person in each category. Whether you attempt to format it as a list or not, it still isn't actually a list. Removing a description that applies to no-one is indeed helpful; it removes worthless text that people might otherwise read William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(coughs) The reasons for retaining the list, articulated by many editors, are listed in torrents above, never mind in the two AfD discussions. I'd advise reading the talk page if you were curious.  Ravenswing  11:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO the list version as it was should be continued until the natural end to the page occurs. The tables are part of a tradition that has been followed by many people over many years and the consistency of keeping this format allows a natural continuity to be preserved that respects all the years of research and information exchanges that have preceeded this point. I think consensus is important here because this list has its own history. I don't post here really at all but have been following the list since 1996 or earlier. Seems like ages. Mic (Australia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.71.50 (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Add me to those against the change. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)