Talk:Arthur J. Forrest

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arthur J. Forrest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619115707/http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/89thdivision/89th-history.htm to http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/89thdivision/89th-history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Arthur J. Forrest
The birth year was originally given as 1896 (but 1 January is always suspicious). It was changed to 1895 (with a citation that I can't verify) by User talk:Grokett, who made other questioned changes. I haven't found any sources except for this nice contradiction: Findagrave says May 1, 1895 and shows a grave marked with 1896 as year of birth. Perhaps it is better to mark this kind of issues as self-contradictory than to sweep them under the rug? —Kusma (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC) John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Congressional Medal of Honor Society has his birth year as 1896. Military Times also has 1896. While not a reliable source, and like Kusma says findagrave has a headstone of a medal of honor winner by this name with a birth year on it of 1896. Id go with 1896.  nableezy  - 20:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Im just going to change it to 1896 citing the Medal of Honor Society page.  nableezy  - 20:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You can get the draft registration card online through an LDS associated family records search (its here, requires registration) but its unclear the birth year in the image. It could be a 5, or it could be a 6. The May 1st is clear, but the 1895/1896 is less clear to me. The website does say 1895, though I dont think it is more reliable than the CMOHS site. Im still of the view we should use 1896.  nableezy  - 20:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Or we could use both if we're not sure.  As the 1896 is a bit better supported by RS, an alternative is to claim 1896 in wikivoice but to use a footnote that says that his birthyear is given as 1895 at some sites and that his draft registration card is difficult to read. Basically, we shouldn't pretend to be sure unless we're sure. —Kusma (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The only secondary sourcing we have is for 1896, and I can quite honestly say that I dont think anybody can look at the draft card and say it is a 5 and not a 6 without doubt (the top has a flatter edge like a 5 would, but the left side is closed like a 6). But I would be ok with saying some reports show 1895. I dont quite get how findagrave has a picture of 1896 on the gravestone and then says 1895 as the birth year.  nableezy  - 21:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)