Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I/Archive 3

William Seegers update
Greetings,

I am back from interviewing Mr. Seegers. I plan to have photos posted soon on either the GRG or the WOP websites. From the interview and his papers I determined he is almost certainly a WWI veteran though non-combat. He served in at least two different groups. One of them was the 71st battalion in Erfurt, Germany. The family showed me a long list of German papers which I have yet to go through. Mr. Seegers claimed that his time was spent in the office and guarding Allied prisoners of war. He also said he caught the Spanish flu. Mr. Seegers is anti-war and served unenthusiastically. He attempted to desert but his family persuaded him to return. He told me of sharing food with Allied soldiers. Clearly, it was a time of confusion.

Mr. Seegers's health is moderate at best. His eyesight is still good and he can walk with a cane, but he has had recent breathing problems. Hopefully he will make 107 later this year.R Young {yak ł talk } 05:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice, good work. RichyBoy 09:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

Today I received confirmation that William Seegers is a WWI veteran. He was drafted June 10 1918. Note that since he served in two units, I'm not sure if he also served in 1917 as originally claimed or not. However, I am now certain that he was in the German army well before the Nov 1918 armistice.R Young {yak ł talk } 02:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

I was told today that Mr. Seegers has pneumonia but his daughter is cautiously optimistic he will pull through.R Young {yak ł talk } 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to reading more on Mr. Seegers and I can only hope that his pneumonia has cleared up as I type this. I am curious if there is any further info on a 4th US WWI Veteran who was unconfirmed when last I read the boards. I apologize if this is answered elsewhere on this page, but any update would be wonderufl news indeed. --Brianmccollum 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to update, Mr Seegers is in hospice. He has not fully recovered but is said to have improved slightly.Ryoung122 02:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear all, Mr. Seegers passed away the morning of July 10, 2007...the day a reporter was scheduled to meet him. It remains to be seen if the media...which has so far avoided the inconveient issue of a "German" WWI veteran (remember Mr. Heiman)...will do anything here. Personally I think that Mr. Seeger's existence is great for historians and terrible for jingoists. Underneath it all, people should realize that the vast majority of the Germans were 'good people' and, while attacking France was wrong, it was a decision made by glory-seeking politicians, not the local townspeople. It was, in fact, Germans that staged a revolt that led to Germany pulling out of the war early (the Allied command had planned for victory in Spring 1919). Perhaps the harsh terms of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles backfired. By re-defining an 'Armistice' as a 'defeat', the stage was set for 'revenge' from the local level (i.e. WWII).

Of course, with cases like William Seegers and Walter Heiman, they chose to come to America rather than have another go at it. And we should give them credit for that. Ryoung122 15:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to make all the necessary adjustments to our pages. It is nice that we could give Mr Seegers a little bit of recognition before his death. If the media do not recognise the significance of there being only 2 remaining Central vets then they've obviously learnt nothing from the TofV (ie acknowledge the enemy), but I won't get started on that. As far as the jingoists go, the American ones might be happy that Mr Seegers is not going to be the last vet in the US. Of course Frank Buckles would be ideal, but at least John Babcock was on the same side. Similarly for Germany Erich Kastner is perfect whilst Franz Kunstler is also acceptable. 89.241.197.75 19:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Two papers I know of are planning an obituary tomorrow. But like Mr. Heiman in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, waiting until after death is a lot different than giving someone their due while still living.Ryoung122 03:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to do something for Erich Kästner. I hope there'll be some coverage soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.244.188 (talk • contribs) (ChrisW)

Well, he's made it onto one news website courtesy of our Mr Young: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_6356814 RichyBoy 14:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Remaining Veteran Count by Force Served
Greetings,

While the location of the veteran as they currently live is important, I think most people agree that what force they served with is more important.

So, to review the remaining veterans by force served:


 * Italy--8 veterans (6 living in Italy, two in France)
 * UK--7 veterans (3 living in the UK, 3 in Australia, 1 in Canada)
 * Germany--4 veterans (3 living in Germany, 1 in the USA)
 * France--4 veterans (all living in France; note one--Lazarre Ponticelli--served for both France and Italy)
 * USA--3 veterans (all living in the USA)
 * Australia--1 veteran (living in Australia)
 * Austria--1 veteran (living in Germany)
 * Canada--1 veteran (living in the USA)
 * Poland--1 veteran (living in Poland)

total=30 veterans (one counted twice) so in reality, 29 veterans. In addition, there is certainly one anonymous French veteran and possibly a few others, perhaps 1-2 more each from the USA, Germany, France, Italy, and Poland.R <span style="color:#006688; font-family:arial, helvetica;">Young {<span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;">yak <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica;">ł <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;">talk } 00:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, with another Italian death, the UK is now even with Italy, with 7 vets remaining apiece.<span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; color:#ff0000;">R <span style="color:#006688; font-family:arial, helvetica;">Young {<span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;">yak <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica;">ł <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;">talk } 02:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Update July 14 2007:


 * UK--7 veterans (3 living in the UK, 3 in Australia, 1 in Canada)
 * Italy--6 veterans (4 living in Italy, 2 in France)
 * France--4 veterans (all living in France; note one--Lazarre Ponticelli--served for both France and Italy)*(note that Bernard X, 108, is still living at last report)
 * USA--3 veterans (all living in the USA)
 * Germany--1 veteran (1 living in Germany)
 * Australia--1 veteran (living in Australia)
 * Austria--1 veteran (living in Germany)
 * Canada--1 veteran (living in the USA)
 * Poland--1 veteran (living in Poland)

So, over the past month, Italy has surrendered the lead to the UK, and Germany has collapsed to a thread...65.81.25.228 08:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, reading this you would think Russia either did not take part in these conflicts or all the Russian veterans are dead. Which is it?71.135.35.196 01:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations overhaul
I've now finished the mammoth task of overhauling all of the references, that is, converting them into proper citations. This should improve the quality of the article in terms of the wikipedia ranking scale (if we are ever ranked) or criticised. In addition I found a corrsepondents reference for Louis Lagarnaudie, but I've had to drop two dead references in total, not a big deal in the scheme of things as they were well referenced anyway. Now that they have all been cited the retrieval date now stands as evidence in the event of a 404 in future times, to demonstrate that they had a legitimate citation. I might have made a mistake somewhere so if anyone spots a mistake don't hesitate to fix it RichyBoy 01:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, two of the German cases aren't done yet.<span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; color:#ff0000;">R <span style="color:#006688; font-family:arial, helvetica;">Young {<span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;">yak <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica;">ł <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;">talk } 04:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work nontheless, I am really quite amazed that we can't root out citations for Remmert and Kastner, I spent a good few hours digging round and I would imagine I wasn't the only one SRwiki 07:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes my statement was misleading, I meant that the references we have are properly cited in true wikipedia citation style. RichyBoy 08:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added in the Ders des Ders website as references for those two. It's not ideal; as with other veterns though the correspondent aspect should probably count. RichyBoy 19:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Henry Allingham 111 update
Morning All, Heres a typical report on Henry Allinghams 111 birthday http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/07/nold107.xml He was in pretty much all of the main newspapers here, and was on all the news programmes I watched. Its makes me think about people who criticise this page on the grounds that these veterans aren't notable. In Henry Allinghams case, he has a government minister, two of the most senior officers in the British Armed Forces, one of whom delivered a hand written letter from the Queen, and a ceremonial RAF flypast, which he watched from the decks of HMS Victory. So we in Britain reckon he is a notable figure! Thanks SRwiki 06:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

60 public appearances year-to-date! He seems to enjoy it all so good on him. I think there is an excellent chance he will take George Frederick Ives' record for being the oldest UK service man, that's in another 5 months or so. I know Henry Goodwin has said that he isn't quite as spritely as he was, but if you ask me he seems to be 'full of beans' still as we say in England. RichyBoy 10:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware he is the last UK resident veteran who still makes public appearances, both Harry Patch and Bill Stone prefer to remain out of the public eye. SRwiki 08:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency
The first top-level section headers says "First World War"; the second says "World War I"; the third says "WWI"; and fourth doesn't include the name of the war. --zenohockey 04:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Those terms are all interchangable as valid descriptions of the First World War. The formal descrption used by the UK veterans office is "World War One" as is the "World War One Veterans' Association", the Canadian veteran office calls it the "First World War", it's universally recognised by the allied powers as the "The Great War", some call it the "War to End All Wars", the press often use WWI to save on column space so it isn't inconsitent to use different nomenclature. Also as the article context is about WWI there is no need to disambiguate every instance of 'the war' unless it serves some purpose of futher clarification, eg, without disambiguating Emiliano del Toro you may remain in doubt as to if he was a WWI veteran RichyBoy 09:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Format Problems
Can somebody tell me how I can change the bottem-numbers on the Veterans of the First World War who died in - lists? I added some german veterans in 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. There are some problems with Veterans_of_the_First_World_War_who_died_in_1999. The format isn't correct in the New Zealand-list. Also the german and new Foundland-lists are mix in one by wiki and I don't know why. Can someon fix this problem? Statistician 11.06.2007 18:01 (CET)

Now fixed - might be an idea to try changes out in the sandbox first before saving.86.129.82.180 22:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Bruce

Remaining Unbio'd Vets
Greetings,

I think we should attempt to write documented/cited articles for the following remaining WWI un-bio'd veterarns:


 * Syd Lucas (UK/Australia)
 * Justin Tuveri (Italy/France)
 * Rudolph Christmann (Germany)
 * Erich Kastner (Germany)
 * Franz Kunster (Germany/Austria)
 * Stanislaw Wycech (Poland)
 * William Seegers (Germany/USA)

Note that for Mr. Seegers, I plan to write one as soon as the story hits the newspaper. I'm holding back on the press to give the documentarians a chance to interview/photograph him first (if he recovers from his current illness).

For the others, remember that earlier attempts at writing an article were deleted by just one powerful Wikipedian with a vendetta. The weakness was, there were no citation links, the articles were not 'watched,' and there was not enough explanation as to rarity.

I believe all these men are rare enough now (less than 30!) to deserve a separate bio. It wouldn't be very difficult to write an article that withstands scrutiny, now that much effort has been made to find citations. Remember, often when someone dies, it is too late to get people to do an article. So, for example those from Germany, can you re-write the German articles now? It would help.

Sincerely, Robert Young<span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; color:#ff0000;">R <span style="color:#006688; font-family:arial, helvetica;">Young {<span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;">yak <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica;">ł <span style="font-family:arial, helvetica; font-size:x-small;">talk } 02:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the information we got on this cases isn't often enough for en articel and often we don't have internet-links... An please, his name ist "Franz Künster" - if you don't have ä, ö and ü than write ae, oe or ue - the points over a, o and u came from a e writen ofer the letter... Statistician 12.06.2007 14:18 (CET)

I thought it was "Franz Künstler"? (ChrisW)
 * And so it is. Extremely sexy 22:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Jim Lincoln - A question for GRG?
I am asking this question out of genuine curiosity. At what point does the GRG start checking claims to supercentenarian status? is it on the claimants 110th birthday or do you start checking in the year before? I was just wondering because Jim Lincoln is now approaching his 109th birthday, and presumably, is now somewhere on the GRG radar screen and I would be interested to hear GRG's opinion on whether he is as old as he says he is. Thanks SRwiki 08:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you just asking Young? Others contribute too and just are as responsible for leaving him there. Licoln is obviously a hoax and no one bothers doing more research into him. The only source is a tabloid one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.231.148 (talk • contribs)

Apologies I stand corrected, I have changed title. But I am still wondering about How Old Jim Lioncoln actually is, and what GRG's opinion is SRwiki 07:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I am the 'senior claims researcher' for the GRG, and Mr. Epstein refuses to use Wikipedia. Let me just say that we have a backlog of 110-year-old cases and won't bother with Mr. Lincoln until 2008, at the earliest.68.219.112.144 09:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just stumbled on this page and saw Mr. Lincoln lives in my hometown, found this if anyone needs a source http://www.registerguard.com/news/2006/06/28/d1.cr.108yearold.0628.p1.php?section=cityregion 198.6.46.11 16:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

Would you like to 'volunteer' and interview Mr. Lincoln? Personally, I doubt that he is a WWI veteran but we still don't know if he is 108 or not.Ryoung122 08:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry Patch update
The BBC are carrying a small article about his 109th birthday. It doesn't appear to be a new interview so it mostly contains comments that you can find on his WW1 Bio page on the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/6760973.stm

RichyBoy 11:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Bart, do you not know when to leave well alone? Needlessly editing my comment has broken it, you can't go around adding full-stops to the end of URLs - it concatenates into a new URL, so it breaks people that use a text-only reading mode to access Wikipedia, and not everyone clicks on a link, they c'n'p it. Also, unless it was a mistake I wouldn't sign after a URL either as I find that very cluttering; it isn't my style. RichyBoy 09:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Louis Lagaurnadie 1899-2006
Greetings,

Today I found out that Louis Lagaurnadie of France (born June 17, 1899) passed away Oct. 26, 2006, aged 107 years 131 days.

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/8044

Ryoung122 05:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Well, I wonder how many more of these may be dead? That was over 7 month ago!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.188.174 (talk • contribs)

Hey, I did say the last verified update for Mr. Lagarnaudie was Sept 24 2006.Ryoung122 08:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Last update
I think it is good to make a list of the last updates of the veterans. I will start. Statistician 18.06.2007 12:30 (CET)

Living in Germany:
 * Christmann, Rudolf: I had a telephone call with his granddaughter last week. Statistician 18.06.2007 12:30 (CET)
 * Kästner, Erich: I had a telephone call with his son 07.05.2007. Statistician 18.06.2007 12:30 (CET)
 * Künstler, Franz: I had a telephone call with the director of the Jagdmuseum where Künstler lives and works at about 24.04.2007. Statistician 18.06.2007 12:30 (CET)

It's probably more appropriate for veterans of certain countries than of others. Veterans residing in the UK, USA and Italy are by-and-large well-documented, as are ex-pats residing in Austrailia. I was surpised that Mr Lagarnaudie had evaded a report of death mind you, but, he was a very private individual apparantly. I must admit out of all the veterans I am most concerned about it is Jozef Kowalski, there is still no fresh information about what war effort he may have contributed to, I wouldn't feel all that great inside to discover he was a legitimate veteran after he has passed away. RichyBoy 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

When was the last update for Wychech? I'm fairly confident that all remaining listed veterans made it to at least 2007. Note that Kowalski turned '107' in Feb.Ryoung122 05:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Morning All I found this: http://www.kprm.gov.pl/english/f_listopad_text.html which is a note (with a picture) of the Polish Prime minister Meeting Wycech as a veteran of the 1920 Polish Soviet war it is dated 11 November 2006 (I wouldn't read too much into the date, as the text makes no mention of WW1). I can't help feeling that if this gentlemen is important enough to be visited by his Prime Minister, he is unlikely to drop off the radar. SRwiki 07:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sad news: I phoned his grandchild today and was informed that he died 27.06.2007. Statistician 28.06.2007 14:44 (CET)
 * You do mean Rudolf Christmann, right? Extremely sexy 17:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Can someone make an article for Rudolph Christmann?Ryoung122 23:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - yes I mean Rudolf Christmann. About the articel: I need more information about at this time it isn't good to phone the family für this purpes. When I phoned befor his granddauther wanted to serche for informatin about her grandfather - there were some information collected about his live when he was 100. Statistician 29.06.2007 10:50 (CET)

I will do some work for the articels. I started with Franz Künstler - I have a photo but don't know how to put it in the articel. Cam someone do this? image= Franz_Künstler_103.jpg Statistician 14.07.2007 22:32 (CET)

Stanisław Soliński
http://dersdesders.free.fr/russie.html

I admit in this instance I've not checked the previous discussion history, but has this person been discussed before as a WW1 candidate? RichyBoy 23:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For those that can't read French the Ders des Ders website makes it clear that they only have small amount of information for Russian veterans (hardly suprising). I've personally undertaken some research before but Russia by-and-large does not acknowledge this war in the same way the Western world does, I would have to assume this corespondent knows something out of the ordinary. RichyBoy 23:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

See 2004 deaths under Poland.Ryoung122 05:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That explains why his name seemed familiar. I just assumed that site was reasonably up-to-date. Thanks. RichyBoy 08:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Józef Kowalski
http://www.wojewodalubuski.pl/?mod=news&act=archivedetail&nID=2860&page=165 "Walczył już podczas I wojny światowej, II wojnę spędził w niewoli, a po jej zakończeniu osiedlił się w Przemysławiu pod Krzeszycami"

I've seen that before, the problem is that all of the 107 birthay articles appear to be from the same press release, this one is slightly more edited than most. The original press release is just plain ambiguous. RichyBoy 16:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Today I've got a eMail from a polish friend: "Hi I sent an e-mail about a week ago and called the nursing home this morning, but unfortunately the man is very old and doesn't remember any such details. The manager told me they were able to rationally talk to him few years ago for the last time, and now it's impossible. They have no documents as well. Sorry for bad news. You can base only on the informations you already have..." Still no profe of WWI-veteran-status. Statistician 21.06.2007 11:47 (CET)


 * What happened to WP:NOR?  ← ROGER →   <sup style="color:blue;">TALK  16:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Which article of the WP:NOR do you think this page breaks? SRwiki 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no issues under WP:COS and besides, this email isn't cited within the article, this is the discussion page. I don't think there are any instances of WP:NOR within the article, even if some of the citations are not of the highest quality. RichyBoy 13:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC) I am just wondering how this (good) comment came to have my name after it as I didn't write it? SRwiki 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the comment, I don't know why your signature came out! Maybe I made a cnp boo-boo without realising it. RichyBoy 09:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bart Versieck did it:

Revision as of 21:28, 25 June 2007 (edit) (undo) Bart Versieck (Talk | contribs) (Unsigned tag) Newer edit → Line 213:
 * Which article of the WP:NOR do you think this page breaks? SRwiki 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

- There are no issues under WP:COS and besides, this email isn't cited within the article, this is the discussion page. I don't think there are any instances of WP:NOR within the article, even if some of the citations are not of the highest quality. He is a pathological and compulsive rule-breaker. Despite several suspensions and warnings, he continues to edit the comments of others.Ryoung122 17:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You will take this back immediately, because I won't tolerate your name calling anymore at all, especially since you are wrong as well: I haven't edited comments of others in a long time, but this was an unsigned comment which I corrected, and, in doing this, I added the wrong person just by mistake, which has now been ameliorated as well. Extremely sexy 12:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't take it back at all. First off, correctly identifying you as a party guilty of rules violations is not 'name-calling,' it's 'truth-telling.' If I point out you mislabelled something (such as labelling Susie Gibson an 'African-American'), that means you made a mistake, not I. The others, including SRWiki, wondered how the comment came to be mis-labeled. I correctly identified you as the perpetrator.


 * You just continue in your typical egoistic ways of doing, just as Mr. Jeff Knight used to tell me: this is not done, and simply only results in even more people going to dislike you, because your behaviour is far from tolerable, but if you like or want to go on in exactly the same vain, be my guest, and nobody will stand you anymore you know. Extremely sexy 02:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

As for 'pathological' and 'compulsive'---I've known you for several years now and if you aren't those things, then no one is.Ryoung122 23:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I already mentioned above, name calling is a habit of yours, and you're only contributing to it getting even worse by the minute, but apparently it's no use at all pointing this out to you, regrettably so, since you won't stop, proving my point in the process, which is all the more disappointing, taking into account your professional status. Extremely sexy 02:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Bart, you NEVER admit fault, even when caught red-handed...and doing it multiple, multiple times. This isn't about me. It is about you. Someone mislabeled an unsigned comment. Now, you want to make a mountain out of a molehill. Instead of apologizing and moving on, you choose to:

A. Ignore the mistake B. Not admit the mistake C. Redirect attention to me

The fact of the matter is, you are the MOST pathological and compulsive person, bar none, I have ever come into contact with. You even obsequiously edit articles that are far tangential to your 'oldest persons' interest, the only connection being that I had made an edit on them (i.e. Living Stream Ministry, Rafael Verga). Clearly, this is no coincidence but a pattern of 'following' or 'stalking' others on the internet. I don't go through the articles that you edit and track down every one. And while clearly I haven't endeared myself to many on this and other message boards, time and again I have been proven right...for example when I said that the last WWI veterans wouldn't die out in 2006, or predicting discoveries of more veterans even when it appeared bleak. Sure, people have a way of not liking Rafael Nadal...the 'raging bull of Pamplona'. But surely some of that loathing is simple jealousy at his success.Ryoung122 20:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, it's not prohibited to edit whatever articles there are, so I won't ever give in to your dictatorship at all, secondly, you are the most egocentric person I ever met (and I have met some already, meaning not just a few persons), and finally, last but not least, I don't understand your comparison with Nadal, whom I like personally. Extremely sexy 22:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Help please
Over the past few weeks I've added a large number of late American, Australian and Canadian veterans to these pages. These have been sourced from the official lists of US and Canadian recipients of the Legion d'Honneur for 1998, when the French government decided to honour the surviving veterans who served on French soil in WW1, and the roll of the 71 known Australian survivors who received the 80th Anniversary Armistice Remembrance Medal from their government for Anzac Day 1999.

I have been unable to trace the birth and death dates for a number of these from the US SSDI or other online sources and wonder if any other correspondents are able to provide this information, or let me know where it can be found. This will greatly assist in completing the picture of the veterans who lived into the period covered by this site for these countries.

The veterans are:

Australia

Canada

USA

Thank you in anticipation of your responses 86.129.77.90 23:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Bruce

A number of those Canadian veterans have biographies on the Veterans Affairs Canada web site: http://198.103.134.2/general/sub.cfm/collections/sub.cfm?source=feature/week/pilgrimage/bios

The National Archives of Austrailia should contain the service records of those that served in the Austrailian forces (complete with birth dates), Eg, I dug out John Campbell Ross (who is still alive): http://naa12.naa.gov.au/Scripts/Imagine.asp?B=11474492&I=1&SE=1 The main search portal is here: http://naa12.naa.gov.au/scripts/ResearcherScreen.asp

RichyBoy 16:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Richyboy, I'm aware of these sources - it's their dates of death I'm looking for, but cannot trace. 86.129.77.90 21:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Bruce

Oh, well you did mention birth dates as well - that would solve a number of them. RichyBoy 15:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Alex Zalewski died in 2000 by the looks of it, best bet is phoning the cemetery. http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Zalewski&GRid=9167224& Fraser Clifford in 1998 http://membres.lycos.fr/drt/canada.htm I know it doesn't help much but it might narrow down for you. RichyBoy 16:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance - every little helps 86.149.163.100 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Bruce

Frederick Connett is listed under 1999 deaths already. RichyBoy 19:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

McKINNON, Alice; 96; Toronto ON; Toronto Star; 1998-12-9; ghall  <--- That's on the Obituary recorder - can't be certain it is her but it's a fair chance, what with the age and everything. http://obits.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/obit.cgi THOMSON, Edward William Mowat; 99; Aberdeen SCT>Toronto ON; Toronto G&M; 2001-3-16; sw <-- Canadian and just about the right age.. just.

ARNOLD, J Leroy; 103; Lebanon PA; Harrisburg P-N; 2000-4-9; mam BOWEN, Herbert W; 101; Baltimore MD; Baltimore Sun; 2001-11-30; siwel BRICE, Thomas "Frank"; 105; Murfreesboro TN; Knoxville N-S; 2001-1-10; dmbischoff COE, Frank L; ; ; Los Angeles T (CA); 1999-8-17; awest EAST, Arthur Walter; 102; Southwest Philadelphia PA; Philadelphia D-N; 1999-3-2; cwkirsch FISHER, Homer Arthur; 103; Arcata CA; Napa R; 2002-12-28; eudora FORD, Lorenzo Sr; 106; Shreveport LA; Shreveport Times; 2000-3-24; pepper SHRADER, Earl Clore; 102; Louisville KY; Louisville C-J; 1999-5-31; greasoner VIERA, Henry Koster; 100; Brooklyn NY>Lake Worth FL; PBP; 1999-11-17; billspa

and finally a more accurate date for Alex Zalewski: ZALEWSKI, Alexander "Alex"; 104; Warsaw POL>Erie PA; Erie T-N; 2000-8-20; ctdsmom RichyBoy 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

He's quite interesting, did he fight for the American side as a result of immigration or did he emmigrate after the war I wonder. RichyBoy 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fantastic work!


 * I found Frederick Connett after I wrote the above message and it was me who added him. My Alice McKinnon was born on 23rd June 1894 in England and served in France as a nurse for the British.  She was alive as of September 1998, so far as I am aware, in Nova Scotia, so your Alice is a different one.


 * I suspect that Alex Zalewski will have fought for the US as he was awarded the Legion of Honour for serving in France, something that he would have been unlikely to have done if fighting for the Russians.  Interestingly (or not), the list of Legion of Honour recipients shows Briton William Parkes (d 2002), a sergeant in the South Wales Borderers  but not fellow British vets George Bell (2002) or Horace Gaffron (2000) who also died in the US.  I wonder if they got their medals?


 * It would be great if we could track down the death dates for the remaining veterans on these lists (I have found a few more - Kerr and Robinson from Australia, Parker from the USA, Gibbons from Canada) as this would mean these pages show complete listing of all the Australian and Canadian vets, and and a good proportion of the Americans, who served in France and made it to 1999 and beyond.86.129.77.209 00:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Bruce

Usage of the comma
In Surviving veterans of World War I you chose to remove my changes to this sentence:

British WWI veteran, 111-year-old Henry Allingham (born June 6, 1896), is currently the oldest living verified veteran.

It was correct as I had it. It would also be correct this way:

British WWI veteran 111-year-old Henry Allingham, born June 6, 1896, is currently the oldest living verified veteran.

But it is incorrect the way you have it. There is a simple test. If you remove the commas and the text between them, the remaining sentence would still make sense:

British WWI veteran is currently the oldest living verified veteran.

But it does not. So it has been fixed again, this time using the correct example above, which I hope you find more to your liking. --DHLister | Talk 21:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

DHLister,

First off, I didn't write the sentence, but your 'correction' was no better than before, which is why someone else changed it.

Actually you are wrong. How much would you like to bet? First off, the word "The" is missing, but can be assumed. Therefore we would have "The British WWI veteran is currently the oldest living verified veteran." Thus the problem was the lack of an article, not the use of a comma. So, you 'fixed' what was not broken, and missed what was broken.

Because the sentence as written uses both 'veteran' and 'Henry Allingham' as 'nouns' in separate clauses, they must be set off with commas to be correct. Thus, for you to claim that your version was correct is spurious.

Please apologize for your rashness and presumption.Ryoung122 05:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. The pedant's revolt.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.135.184 (talk • contribs)

Note: another tempest in a teapot. I didn't start it. Someone chose to mis-edit and call me wrong. I don't feel that defending proper English grammar is a crime. Misspelling 'grammar' is (at least educationally). Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be an 'encyclopedia'?Ryoung122 20:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Death rates slowing down
After a much faster-than-expected death rate this year, it seems the remaining vets are holding on...now up to 22 days in a row without a reported death. I think that once they get this close, there becomes an awareness...for example Russell Coffey and his family are aware that he is just one of three remaining American WWI vets...Ryoung122 15:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC) ____________________

Oh dear - that was tempting fate a bit - on the same day Mr Young mentions that there haven't been enough deaths lately, one goes...! Shame though, but at least it's not one of the "big" ones. 86.133.104.143 18:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC) JR

Question
Several months back there was talk of another possible WWI veteran living here in the USA, but did not wish to come forward. Does anyone know if this is or was true, and could this person have been Mr. Seegers that fought for Germany? 162.114.211.143 16:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)(PershinBoy)

Just one comment, it is Mr Seegers, somehow the name was misspelled.

No, this is not him. There remains an unidentified case.Ryoung122 00:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Rudolf Christmann?
I see he has been recorded as dying on 27 June. Has anyone found anything to back this up? SRwiki 13:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes: "Statistician" just told us. Extremely sexy 17:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

With the death of Mr Christmann we are down to the last remaining Central Powers veterans. In the breakdown it says that there are 4 left. There is William Seegers and Erich Kastner for Germany, and Franz Kunstler for Austria-Hungary. But Stanislaw Wycech of Poland is noted to have fought against Germany, so does this not need correcting to 3? 84.13.31.185 22:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

I think the 4th person is Josef Kowalski, whom someone moved to the 'WWI era' category.Ryoung122 02:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Central Powers count did used to include Wycech, but arguably should not. The problem is that the PMO was set up by Germany, but towards the end of the war they turned on the Germans. It is now becoming as clear as it can reasonably be, that Wycech was involved in action against Germany, so I suppose he should be included in the allied count.

We have discussed Kowalski at some length in the past, and the problem is that neither of our 2 citations mentions WW1 service, and flatly contradict each other as to which army he was likely to have served in, one citation has him as Russian subject, the other as an Austro-Hungarian. So any claim to WW1 service must be considered as unverified. Sadly Kowalski is no longer able to confirm or deny WW1 service, so I suspect that the trail has gone cold. SRwiki 07:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the only hope for Kowalski is that somebody discovers a service record. It does raise an interesting point, it's quite possible there are a few more veterans out there that simply don't have their faculties or awareness any more. One would hope their families would be aware, but it isn't always going to be the case that they have families, or if they did that they have some interest in their elders and so forth. RichyBoy 10:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When the youngest person on the list is 105, it's doubtful many more will be forthcoming. We'll most likely hear of new vets upon their death. Czolgolz 15:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Stanislaw Wycech
http://www.radzymin.pl/index.php?id=74&n_id=1321 105 years old! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.253.36 (talk • contribs)

Most important veterans
Surprisingly, the death of Rudolph Christmann brought a comment that he was not one of the 'big' ones. Would someone like to 'rank' the remaining veterans as to:

A. combat time served B. relative importance

It may be said that, for example, John Babcock is more important due to his uniqueness. However, what about persons like Justin Tuveri, who served more than a year?Ryoung122 22:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This can only end in tears with vituperative attacks on ones patriotism or values. Relative importance is so subjective - the lay person would think that anyone non-combat is of no importance whatsoever but we on here would disagree, the act of signing on for fighting, even if you didn't get to do it should make you no less important, in some senses anyway. Also people like Henry Allingham and Frank Buckles who make a lot of public appearances - they are more important today than perhaps the individual contribution of when they fought. It's also a moving target - you may say Henry Allingham is the most important veteran today, but when we are down to the last Central Powers veteran he would probably be most important, at that time. Anyway, one thing we don't list explicitly are the combat veterans (what the press/lay person cares about if you like) so I'll list them here - but I'll not be getting that involved in any 'importance list'.

Frank Woodruff Buckles (American) Henry Allingham (British) Claude Stanley Choules (British) Harry Patch (British) William Young (British) Raymond Camberfort (French) Louis de Cazenave (French) Erich Kästner (German) Franz Künstler (German) William Seegers (German) Delfino Borroni (Italian) Francesco Domenico Chiarello (Italian) Enrico Garbuglia (Italian) Lazarre Ponticelli (Italian) Justin Tuveri (Italian) Battista Serioli (Italian) Stanisław Wycech (Polish) A total of 17.

RichyBoy 15:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Even a listing of 'combat' veterans is controversial. First off, simply making it out of training does not make one a 'combat' veteran...moving into combat does. William Seegers does not consider himself a combat veteran...guarding Allied soldiers, getting the Spanish flu, and doing paperwork, while important, does not constitute 'combat.' Frank Buckles is not really a combat veteran, either. I suspect if we scutinized this list a little more, some other cases may not count, either.Ryoung122 16:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC) ___________________________________________________ I agree that trying to list who is a combat and isn't would be quite controversial. If I had to come up with the most important, I would say Harry Patch. (PershinBoy)

Well it's always going to be subjective because there are no standard definition of terms. Making that list proves that, not least of which because different countries have different definitions, where they have bothered to define them at all. All we can say is that the people listed in the article are military veterans and have been reasonably verified. However people that put life and limb on the line are called 'combat veterans'. You can probably attach value to each veteran though.. probably along the lines of "in training" -> "active service" -> "posted to Theater of Operations" -> "Combat Zone posting" -> "Combat veteran". Doesn't necessarily make the contribution less because you didn't fight in the combat zone though, but you could perhaps group people that way, if we wanted to keep tabs on who was the last combat veteran, for instance. RichyBoy 09:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It might work I suppose and we have a pretty good idea of what the British & US vets did for example. It might be tricky to sort out a "combat zone posting" from a "combat veteran" Looking at William Young he was a wireless operator in the combat zone, but if his airfield had been bombed then does that make him a combat vet? Also deciding were to put Claude Choules might be tricky And then we have a group of vets (mostly French and Italian) for who we only have sketchy details. It might be an idea if you draw up a list along the lines you suggest, so the rest of us can have a look and see what we think SRwiki 17:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this getting all a little distasteful? All those who signed up were prepared to die for their country for a cause they believed to be right. Talk of "winners", a "big one" or "most important" combined with the sense I get that some people seem to be disappointed when they find that someone is still alive, trivialises the sacrifice these people were prepared to make and somewhat undermines the life of a human being (something this group of people know the value of more than any of us). Can we just step back from this and take stock of the historic nature of what is unfolding before us, as opposed to treating the death of brave veterans as some sort of competition?Mithrandir1967 17:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Nay, I think we didn't do enough of this already. If someone served in the trenches, that is the ultimate symbol of not just the 'Great War' but the heroic sacrifice and danger faced there. Clearly, all these veterans, while humans, are also 'symbols'. Mr. Allingham is so popular because he has fully embraced his role as a symbol. Yet if we were to rank 'most important,' several factors would have to be considered, including:

A. level of combat service, with 'trench veteran' being the premium B. length of time served C. uniqueness (is there any other individual left from this particular nation, outfit, etc)? D. age

Obviously, these values change over time. Had a fair assessment been made earlier, we could have recognized, for example, Antonio Pierro's irreplaceability as perhaps the last American veteran to have served at the front lines (even if not in the trenches, he had to dodge artillery shells while picking up dead bodies). Perhaps we all thought he would have made it to '111'. Charlotte Winter's status as last female American veteran went almost unnoticed until the very end. Finally, Justin Tuveri served MORE THAN A YEAR IN COMBAT but until this week had no article on him at all.

So, there are a few issues here: our knowledge of what level of service contributed, the remaining veterans's willingness and ability to be a symbol at occasions (i.e. Frank Buckles in the Memorial Day parade 2007), and our ability to recognize the remaining veterans before it is too late.

Clearly, much work has been done and we are nearing the end of the final chapter of this 'history' or 'story,' but still a little more needs to be written, needs to be done.Ryoung122 01:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I envisioned this discussion not for 'vituperative attacks' but to assess what we know/don't know about the remaining veterans and what remains to be done.

Also, I believe we could do a table with status data such as date joined (i.e. June 10 1918), force served, combat status, wounded status, time served, and date service ended.

While all the remaining veterans are equal as humans, their historic status as remaining symbols varies. Here is my preliminary ASSESSMENT. Another way to think of this is 'Irreplaceability'--what historical symbols will be lost with each particular passing? If anyone disagrees, please explain why you disagree...I'm open to other ideas. True, a single death can change one's uniqueness, but this is the way I see it now:

Most Important:

1. Henry Allingham, 111, UK. Clearly the oldest and most-famous remaining WWI vet, his stories of service in Jutland, in the Royal Air Force, and even on the ground (if not in combat, then close to it) make Mr. Allingham 'irreplaceable.'

2. Lazare de Ponticelli, 109, France/Italy. The last '1914' veteran, the last veteran to have served for two nations, possibly the last wounded veteran

3. Louis de Cazenave, 109, France. The last French-born poilus and a trench veteran, Mr. Cazenave is also the oldest veteran in France and second worldwide

4. Harry Patch, 109, UK. The last 'Tommy' or UK army trench veteran.

5. Erich Kastner, 107, Germany. The last German vet of the trenches, his lack of an article is appalling and points to the need of an assessment.

6. Franz Kunstler, 106, Austria-Hungary. The last Austro-Hungarian vet, combat vet

High Importance:

7. Frank Buckles, 106, USA. Last American veteran to have made it out of basic training and served overseas, though did not see combat.

8. Gladys Powers, 108, UK. Last female veteran of WWI. Although the vast majority of vets were male, the contribution and beginnings of modern female war service should not be overlooked

9. Stanislaw Wycech, 105, Poland. Last Polish vet, combat vet, youngest remaining vet

10. John Babcock, 106, Canada. Last Canadian vet, but non-combat.

11. John Campbell Ross, 108, Australia. Last Aussie vet, but non-combat.

12. Delfino Borroni, 108, Italy. Oldest vet living in Italy, combat vet, later POW

13. Justin Tuveri, 109, Italy. Though now lives in France, 1+ year of service is substantial.

Moderate Importance:

14. Carmelo Bertolami, 106, Italy. a POW.

15. Francesco Chiarello, 108, Italy. Not unique, but last unlisted combat vet to serve 3+ months.

16. Claude Choles, 106, UK. Navy combat vet

17. William Seegers, 106, Germany. One of just two remaining German vets

18. William Stone, 107, UK. As WWI vet, didn't make it out of training until after the Armistice, yet also served in WWII

19.William Young, 107, UK. Wirelss operator on the Western front

Relative Low Importance:

20. Battista Serioli, 106, Italy. Served less than 3 months' combat.

21. Raymond Cambefort, 107, France. Served 2 1/2 months' combat.

22. Enrico Garbuglia, 107, Italy. Served less than 3 months' combat.

23. J. Russell Coffey, 108, USA. Did not make it out of training, but one of just 3 Americans remaining and the oldest

24. Harry Landis, 107, USA. Did not make it out of training, but born in the 1800's.

25. Sydney Lucas, 106, UK. Did not make it out of training; born in 1900 (relatively young; not unique as one of 3 remaining UK vets in Australia. However, his apparent good health could make him more important later on.)

All in all, the USA lost several top-importance vets since Nov 2006: Moses Hardy (last black veteran); Emiliano Mercado Del Toro (oldest veteran ever); Antonio Pierro (was oldest vet in world, also last to see front-line action for the USA), Jud Wagner (last US Marine vet), Lloyd Brown (last US Navy vet), and Charlotte Winters (last US female vet). Hence, like a poor NBA draft lottery, the USA is 'down but not out'.Ryoung122 02:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

France, of course, lost Maurice Floquet, who at 111 years 320 days was the oldest living veteran at his passing and the survivor of numerous close calls on the battlefield.Ryoung122 02:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

An interesting and well reasoned list, personally I would put Claude Choles in a higher category as he is the last "Surface" naval veteran from any of the combatant countries, and he served for roughly 3 years of the war. But other than that it looks a well reasoned list. On another point I have dug around on http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk about HMS Stirling (given as his ship on our page) it appears as though there are two possible ships HMS Stirling Castle, which appears to have been a paddle steamer that was sunk in the Mediterranean in 1916, and HMS Sterling which was commissioned in Oct 1918, and is therefore unlikely to have played an active part in the war. My suspicion is that Choles almost certainly served on HMS Sterling, which was finally scrapped 1932, but that his WW1 service must have been on another vessel SRwiki 07:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ders des Ders alleges that Claude Choules served on HMS Sterling in 1915 and that the HMS Sterling was engaged in operations in the North Sea. RichyBoy 08:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well this blows it out of the water (forgive the pun): http://www.defence.gov.au/news/navynews/editions/05_13_02/story09.htm

He joined the Royal Navy as a boy in 1916, and served in the Naval Training Ship HMS Impregnable situated at Devonport dockyard. The Impregnable had been a 140 gun square-rigged wooden battleship prior to becoming a training ship.

In 1917, Claude joined the battleship HMS Revenge, Flagship of the First Battle Squadron. While serving in Revenge, Claude witnessed the surrender of the German Fleet at Firth of Forth in 1918, ten days after the Armistice and later the scuttling of the German Fleet, by the Germans, at Scapa Flow.

He also served actively throughout WW2 and remained in service until 1956.

I'll re-hash his bio on the weekend if nobody has done so before, this changes everything. RichyBoy 09:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just be my guest if you want to. Extremely sexy 14:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems if I had to do this over again, everything would be the same except maybe Claude Choles in a few places higher. Some feel that Harry Patch also should be ranked higher. A lot depends, however, on who dies next...Ryoung122 21:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've updated Claude Choles' Biography page now. RichyBoy 19:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Update
Orin Peterson was alive as of today, when I called.68.218.42.20 02:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

'Trench' Veterans
Harry Patch is known as the 'last Tommy,' or the last British army veteran to have served in trench warfare. I'm particularly interested in those vets who faced bullets and survived, and/or were wounded in action.

Those that appear to qualify are:


 * Louis de Cazenave (France)
 * Lazare de Ponticelli (France/Italy), also combat-wounded
 * Erich Kastner (Germany)
 * Justin Tuveri (for Italy)
 * Franz Kunstler (Austria-Hungary)
 * Delfino Borroni (Italy), also prisoner of war
 * Francesco Chiarello (Italy)
 * Harry Patch (UK), also combat-wounded

perhaps: Ryoung122 01:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Henry Allingham (UK)
 * Stanislaw Wycech (Poland)

Harry Patch was combat-wounded when a shell exploded and killed three of his machine-gun crew - he had to apply a field dressing to his own thigh before passing out. Are there any other trench veterans outside of Harry Patch? I'm starting to think that he might be the 'most important' veteran out there after re-reading his story. RichyBoy 11:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing is true, the British have done the best with 'commemoration.' If we argue 'most significant' based on 'faced the most danger/closest to the front lines,' then perhaps Mr. Patch would be the #1 most-significant veteran left, since the passing of Maurice Floquet on Nov 10 2006. One thing, though: we don't know enough yet about the French and Italian combat vets to offer a 'qualitative' assessment. So Mr. Ponticelli was 'wounded' in 1914...but what kind of wounds? We don't know. A second thing is that 'significance' is also in the context of 'commemoration.' Mr. Allingham showed up to meet the Queen, but Mr. Patch didn't. So, it could be argued that even though Mr. Patch's experience was more harrowing, he has not contributed as much to the commemorative aspect. On the other hand, one might argue that Mr. Allingham is guilty of a little 'grandstanding' and that the Patch contribution, in his book, will last far longer. However, I could not make that argument now because it remains to be seen, as well, how long these two gentlemen will last. Given that Mr. Allingham is both two years older and, apparently, in better shape, I find it difficult to see how Mr. Patch can be more than the third-most significant veteran. My assessment was based not just on combat experience but also representativeness...that is, which nations contributed the most troops/lost the most troops/suffered the most casualties/civilians? I would, wild guess, say France, Germany, then the UK. Which nations have the fewest veterans left? In other words, 'last Canadian veteran' trumps 'last Australian veteran' but not 'last German veteran.' One thing, I do agree that the 'trench fighting' is the MOST central to our images of the war, and was probably the most dangerous (well, maybe being a fighter pilot, but...). So, I factored in: uniqueness, representative, personal experience of the war, contributions to historiography since the age of 100, and age (I think someone who is '109' is more rare than someone who is '106'--but the younger have the decided advantage that they are more likely to be the 'last' veteran...hence their time may come). Of course, we also give a 'demerit' to Germany for being the 'bad guys' and history is generally told by the 'victors'. But I do look to not let that be pushed too far...and it seems, that with Mr. Allingham's meeting with Robert Meier in 2006, efforts have been made to understand the 'other side' as well.

Finally, yes this is an English Wikipedia and the English are more dominant, language-wise, culturally, financially, etc. worldwide than the French. But, let's face it, most of the worst battles were on French soil (some in Belgium, Turkey, Italy as well). Given that Louis de Cazenave is the last French-born poilus and he was born in 1897 (instead of 1898) I think his uniqueness as a symbol arguably places him above Mr. Patch. At the least, however, we can conclude that Monsieur Cazenave's current Wikipedia article is too much of a stub.

One of the primary purposes of this assessment is not really to one-up another, but to determine how to 'sell' the story to the media (note how hard it was to get Mr. Seegers a little recognition...but in the end, the Contra Costa Times recognized he represented far more than Germany...

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_6366047

One of the primary reasons for the war, not discussed here, is the 'Entente Cordiale.' Basically the UK and France agreed to divide up the world (places like Africa, Vietnam, India, etc) and Germany, seen as a 'new kid on the block', was basically left with...leftovers (Tanzania, Nambia, etc). Germany used the start of hostilities as an excuse to leverage a place on the world stage. Perhaps the most bewildering, one does wonder why the UK determination to France never wavered, and that is perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the war. We should also remember, however, how intertwined history is...40% of the "English" language is, basically, from French and the majority (about 50%) is from German. The Angles and Saxons were German tribes. France and Germany were one country under Charlemagne, and divided by his sons into different realms. France and England fought the '116' year's war. After all this...can't we all just get along? As Mr. Seegers said, it didn't matter what country we are from, we are all human. This is perhaps the best message we can take from the war. Will it be lost in another round of flag-waving? Or will the spirit of Mr. Allingham's visit with Mr. Meier prevail? Yes, we honor each veteran by each nation, and especially those who heroically risk all. But hopefully they risked all more for the 'good of humanity' (ie. the 'war to end all wars') than for provincialism.21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I note of the 10 'land combat' veterans above (Allingham also being an air veteran), no one has added to the list...

An update on Harry Patch: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471468&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770

His trip is recorded in other news sites as well, some of which mention that a number of preperations are being made next year for the 90th anniversary of the end of the war and that Henry Goodwin is hopeful that one or two of the remaining three UK resident veterans will be able to participate. RichyBoy 15:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

One more to verify and add to the list..and hurry!
This was just entered Erich Kästner (WWI veteran)--Hourick 03:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

He is already on the list. Thanks anyway!Ryoung122 04:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wishful-Thinking Claims
An unregistered user added Anton Bodhal (again) as well as the oldest males from Germany and the Netherlands. Given that reputable researchers from these nations have NOT mentioned these guys as WWI veterans, I must assume this is mere wishful thinking or speculation (like Boris Efimov).

Actually, these cases aren't even claims because no one in the media is claiming them to be WWI veterans.

If the anonymous user has evidence to support these assertions, a discussion HERE should be made first.

I would like more than anyone to find more WWI vets, but we have known about the Dutch guy for over a year and no one from the Netherlands has asserted he served in any military force yet.Ryoung122 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the Dutch took the sensible option of keeping out of WW1, I am intrigued to hear of "probably the last Dutch WW1 veteran"! Maybe we should have a list at the bottom of the page - something like "people wrongly thought to be veterans" SRwiki 08:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that would confuse things...I think non veterans should stay on the discussion page. Czolgolz 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has just added Gustav Adolf von Halem to the article as a unverified claim (which is for once fair enough; there is a tangible citation of sorts this time). Does anyone know anything about him though? RichyBoy 22:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well that didn't take me long: Born 4th November 1899 Died 12 Jan 1999. I'll remove him, but I'll put him in the 1999 list. RichyBoy 22:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That same anonymous user is continuing to add unsourced German 'veterans' to the earlier lists (1999-2006). While we would welcome real additions, I do worry about the quality suffering due to unsourced 'wishful thinking' entries. I wonder if we could user "User 172" to talk about his sources.Ryoung122 09:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

World War I Nurses
Do Red Cross Nurses in Europe during the times of WWI count as veterans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.141.5.124 (talk • contribs)


 * Interesting question, my reaction would be no for the following reasons:
 * 1. Even though the Red Cross operated at or near the front lines, it was still a civilian organisation. If we go beyond listing military personnel were do we stop? The next logical category would be merchant seamen - the allied merchant fleets (notably US and UK) suffered enormous loses during WW1. Then if we start listing them you could go on and on, making a case for the citizens of Paris - shelled by Big Bertha, or people on the receiving end of bombing raids for example. I think our "were they enlisted?" test with its straight forward yes/no answer is by far the best definition we are likely to come up with.
 * 2. As an entirely neutral, humanitarian organisation, I suspect the Red Cross itself would be aghast if we started listing its personnel as military veterans. SRwiki 07:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Enrico Garbuglia 1900-2007
Well, it seems our recent discoveries are not doing well:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/8160

Enrico GARBUGLIA 1900-2007  Message List

Reply | Forward | Delete  Message #8160 of 8160 < Prev | Next >

Sadly, the newly discovered Italian WWI veteran, Enrico Garbuglia, born on 30 march 1900, died a few days after my discovery, on 2 june 2007. Best regrds Giovanni Alunni

p.s.The other Italian veterans (only those living in Italy) are confirmed alive as of today 12 july.

Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:16 am

Show Message Option

View Source Use Fixed Width Font Unwrap Lines

"giovannialunni"

This also leaves the British-born vets clear in the lead, 7 to 6 over Italy...Ryoung122 18:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed (as Bart would say), although of course there are 4 vets living in Australia, France, Italy and the US compared to 3 in Britain. If you include Bob Taggart then the US would still be ahead with their era vets, and perhaps France with Mr X. For a while it looked like the summer would sustain the numbers, but now we're back to a death a week on average. If it continues like that there'll be just 2 era vets left by 2008, but I'm sure that this won't come to pass. 89.240.193.8 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

I'd be mildly surprised if there were less than 15 veterans at the end of the year - even though every veteran is now at a very advanced age and a minor illness could prove fatal, many of them still enjoy good health. For some veterans, knowing they are the last of something also provides some raison d'être. The chances are that one or more of these people possess the genetics to make it into the next decade, a few of them enjoy excellent health still such as bill stone. RichyBoy 10:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Commentary?
Greetings,

Less a tidal wave than a ripple, but I did help convince two newspapers to run an article on Mr. Seegers. Comments to make it look like someone is interested would help not just this case, but others as well:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/12/BAG61QV5G31.DTL

Here is the other story:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_6356814

Ryoung122 19:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

UK press coverage for the Queen's private garden party and the commemoration of the Battle of Passchendaele
The UK press have ran a number of articles in the last couple of days or so, and it is heartening to see such recognition for the last UK-residents who fought in the Great War.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/BritainsOldestWarVeteransMeetServiceChiefsAtTheMinistryOfDefence.htm http://www.itv.com/news/britain_a936741c38cc7283f10c789b201f9b51.html

The best article I think is the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=467533&in_page_id=1770

On Harry Patch: "Soon the veteran's memories of the conflict will be published in the memoir The Last Fighting Tommy, written with historian Richard van Emden." Probably a book I will buy and read. It's a shame that he felt unable to make the journey from Somerset to London through frailty. RichyBoy 10:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * think daily mail should get peoples ages right!Webbmyster 16:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed so: you do mean Harry Patch is 109, not 104, right? Extremely sexy 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

yep. Webbmyster 14:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Trench War Stories
Greetings,

I do find these two stories compelling:

Lazarre Ponticelli, wounded in action:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://perso.orange.fr/memoire78/pages/ponti.html&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=4&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DLazarre%252BPonticelli%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

In the Tyrol, vis-a-vis the Austrians, it was a black disorder. Our own artillery undoubtedly bombarded us. One was decimated. But buddies fell one by one. They had died or wounded. I was with the machine-gun. The order was given to me to draw on the exit from a gallery. I did it. An Austrian ball reached me with the face. Blood ran me in the eyes. I said myself that if I stopped, I had died. I continued to draw in spite of my wound. And suddenly, the Austrians left, they agitated white cloths A little later…, I was transferred in a hospital in Naples. Wounded to the face, Lazarre Ponticelli will quickly return to fight.

Harry Patch, wounded in action: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2115789,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/ninety-years-to-forget-but-his-bloody-war-lives-on/2007/07/13/1183833774275.html

The last survivor of Passchendaele

Ninety years after, a veteran aged 109 tells of his moment of truth on the battlefield

David Smith Sunday July 1, 2007 The Observer

Harry Patch is the last fighting Tommy of the First World War. He alone will preserve the living memory of the carnage of the Battle of Passchendaele on its 90th anniversary this month. Next week Patch, now aged 109, will meet his sole surviving British-based comrades from the First World War - Henry Allingham, 111, who served in the RAF, and 106-year-old Bill Stone, formerly of the Royal Navy. The three will have a private audience with the Queen, attend a garden party at Buckingham Palace and meet chiefs of staff at the Ministry of Defence.

Article continues

Two days later, the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh will travel to Belgium to commemorate Passchendaele, a name which became synonymous with the mud and carnage of the Great War. They will attend a service at the Tyne Cot graveyard, the biggest military cemetery in Europe, and a Last Post ceremony at the Menin Gate, a memorial arch inscribed with the names of 54,896 Commonwealth soldiers who died with no known graves. The veterans are too frail to travel so soon after visiting London, but hope to make the pilgrimage this summer. Passchendaele, officially known as the Third Battle of Ypres, cost 300,000 allied lives for the sake of five miles conquered during three months of attrition under the command of Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. The war poet Siegfried Sassoon gave it the epitaph: 'I died in hell - they called it Passchendaele.'

Preparations for the battle began with a two-week bombardment of German positions with 4.5 million shells fired from about 3,000 guns. The infantry offensive was launched on 31 July, with the aim of pushing north-east to free the German-occupied ports on the Belgian coast, but within days allied forces had literally become stuck in the mud. Torrential rain, the heaviest in 30 years, and the previous shelling had turned the area into a quagmire. Guns, tanks and other machinery seized up in the conditions, and in places the mud was so deep that men, horses and pack mules drowned. On 6 November, after a long stalemate, allied troops reached the Belgian village of Passchendaele, by now a ruin. A total of about half a million men died.

Patch was a teenage conscript in 1917 and still remembers the battle as 'mud, mud and more mud mixed together with blood'. Last year, in up to 100 hours of conversations at his nursing home in Wells, Somerset, the old soldier poured out his life story to the First World War historian Richard van Emden. The result is the imminent publication by Bloomsbury of a memoir, The Last Fighting Tommy, which could make Patch the world's oldest first-time author.

'My Remembrance Day is on 22 September, when I lost three mates,' he once said. It was on that date in 1917, serving in the 7th Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry, that Patch's battalion was returning to the support line when, he tells van Emden in the book, one of them stopped to 'spend a penny'. There was a flash and bang as a shell exploded just yards away, knocking Patch out for a couple of seconds. When he regained consciousness, he felt blood on his tunic and applied a field dressing, then passed out again. A piece of shrapnel was lodged in his groin. He later discovered that three of his friends had been killed.

But the story which most affected van Emden was Patch's memory of a Cornishman ripped from shoulder to waist with shrapnel, his stomach on the ground beside him. 'Shoot me,' the young soldier begged, but before Patch could draw his revolver the man was dead. In a 2005 interview, Patch recalled: 'I was with him for the last 60 seconds of his life. He gasped one word - "Mother". That one word has run through my brain for 88 years. I will never forget it. I think it is the most sacred word in the English language. It wasn't a cry of distress or pain; it was one of surprise and joy.'

You know, it is hard to believe that so few actual trench war veterans are left; of the '23' left, only 10 seem to have been, maybe, a trench veteran...but even of these 10, how many have told their story for history's sake? Can anyone find details for some of the hard-to-find cases, like Erich Kastner?Ryoung122 10:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Some work is right now being done on Kästner. I will post anything that comes up. (ChrisW)

There was a TV documentary in 2005 in the UK called The Last Tommy, which had personal interviews with the last UK 'trench' veterans, including Harry Patch, Bill Young, Jonas Hart, Arthur Halestrap, Arthur Barraclough and Alfred Anderson. You've probably seen the BBC text on it before, but it serves to highlight that whilst not everyone may have had or wanted to have their story recorded, many have recorded their stories for posterity in the last couple of years. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/last_tommy_gallery.shtml

RichyBoy 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Antoni Rosiński
Is still alive? 22 march 2006 - 105 years old Born: 22 march 1901 battle - Nieszawa - 1920 []

If he fought in 1920, then he would be a WWI-era veteran, at best...not a WWI veteran.Ryoung122 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WWI Numbers
Just a quick look at some stats:

But none has so touched the national psyche as World War I. The war museum at Peronne, in France, lists the number of men mobilised and the number killed from the various combatants, with the percentage of dead to mobilised.

Advertisement AdvertisementGermany mobilised 13.2 million, of whom 2 million died (15.4 per cent); France 7.9 million, of whom 1.3 million died (16.8); of Russia's 15.8 million, 1.8 million died (11.5); and of Britain's 5.7 million, 715,000 died (12.5).

Australia mobilised 413,000, of whom 60,000 died, or 14.5 per cent.

No mention of Austria-Hungary or Turkey.

So it seems that the most deaths were:

1. Germany 2. Russia 3. France

Yet we see that proportionality has less to do with 'significance' than perspective-bias. Very little information is available about Russia. Almost in inverse proportion, it seems the less contribution made, the greater the news coverage.Ryoung122 22:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Morning All, Just thought I would add some more nations to the above - My figures are based on the Times Atlas of World History. Its figures for France Russia and Germany are in the same ballpark as the figures above, but it only gives a total British Empire figure of 9.5 mill, 1 mill, 10.5%.

So the others are as follows: 1, 1,000,000 or more servicemen-

Austria Hungary 9mill, 1mill, 11.6%; Italy 5.6mill, 533,000, 9.5%; USA 3.8mill, 116,000 3%; Ottoman empire 2.8mill, 325,000, 11.6%; Serbia 1mill, 322,000, 32.2%; Romania 1 mill, 158,000 15.8%;

Less than 1,000,000 service men

Bulgaria 950,000, 49,000 5%; Japan 800,000, 2,000 0.25%; Greece 200,000, 5,000 2.5%; Portugal 100,000, 7,000 7% Montenegro 50,000 3,000 6%

looking through the list, couple of things surprise me,

1, the gap between GB and the total for the British Empire. But a little bit of research suggests that between them India 1.5 mill, Canada 650,000 Australia 400,000 South Africa and NZ with 130,000 each make up most of the difference. I would hazard a guess the remaining 1 million must have been drawn from elsewhere in the Empire - the figures for whom I don't have to hand.

2, I was surprised at the relatively small force fielded by the Ottoman Empire.

3, The Serbian army appeared to have taken massive casualties, relative to it's size.

I don't know what my list adds to the discussion on surviving vets, but I just thought it might be of interest to some of you. SRwiki 11:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I mention some figures on my chat page as well if your interested, mostly as a response to why a picture of a dough boy can't be used on this page. RichyBoy 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Vets died in XXXX"--Unsourced Statements
Greetings,

It seems that it is easier for people to add unsourced vets to the 'died in year XXXX' lists. For example, dies anyone know if Tonio Selwart really was a WWI veteran, or is that just another Boris Efimov claim? I suggest a second scouring and removal of all unsourced claims.Ryoung122 22:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Limbo
Veterans whose deaths are still unreported, but are unlikely to be living:

- André Tuchini : vétéran français de la Première Guerre en vie à la fin 2002. - Joseph Julé : vétéran français de la Première Guerre en vie à la fin 2002. - Jean Rémy : vétéran français de la Première Guerre en vie à la fin 2002. - Doumitrascu Lacatusu (22-03-1891 / vivant en 1998, dâte de décès inconnue) : Bucarest - Naum Djordjevitch (10-09-1898 / vivant en mai 1999) : Belgrade.

Ryoung122 23:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.hhrf.org/rmsz/99aug/r990817.htm has a foot-note about the world's oldest cavlary man dying at 108 years old, somewhen between 14-16 August 1999, called Dumitrascu Lacatusu, so I think we can say he is no longer in limbo. RichyBoy 21:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Erk! The French Wiki still has Naum Djordjevitch as being alive! (I've thrown in a translation link for those that can't read French) http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derniers_poilus&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDjordjevitch%2B1898%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1B3GGGL_enGB231 It's not *quite* as up to date as our lists but the site appears to be credible; it's listing him as validated as being alive on the 14th April this year, but it was listing Louis Lagarnaudie as well. This is going to have to be investigated. RichyBoy 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

He was removed from the list anonymously on January 14th 2006 but he wasn't put into any of the 'died in ...' lists. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I&diff=35168648&oldid=35168602 RichyBoy 23:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo Tagging (PHOTO WEBSITE OF REMAINING VETS)
As we have photos of 'most' of the remaining WWI vets, does anyone want to add photos, perhaps to their bio pages?Ryoung122 11:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the Genarians website covers it very well on their WWI veterans page, so no need to recreate a similar page here.

____ what is the address for the Genarians website please?

the actual page is http://www.genarians.com/WWI%20Veterans.html There are photos of all but three veterans.

I've thought about this before but Wikipedia is quite strict on the usage of pictures/photos - we have to make sure they don't breach copyright. I was thinking something along the lines of this though:

RichyBoy 18:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Georg Thalhofer
saw the name as germanys oldest man and just thought i'd never seen his name before, im sure mr.young has checked before but is he a possibility for service in the war? Webbmyster 20:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My German colleagues say that they have no information right now that he is a veteran, but cannot confirm that he did not serve, either.

There still remains a chance to find more German WWI veterans. However, simple speculation that any 107-year-old is a veteran is not warranted.Ryoung122 02:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Morning all. We have had problems with people just assuming any male over 105 must be a veteran, and listing them here. So out of curiosity I fished out a couple of articles about his 107th birthday:

http://www.pnp.de/nachrichten/artikel.php?cid=29-16649196&Ressort=bay&Ausgabe=a&RessLang=bay&BNR=0

http://www.szon.de/news/lifestyle/klatsch/200707171130.html

Nothing about war service in either of them (though to be fair they are both rather short) but what they both comment on, is the irony that Germanys oldest man, as a child, was considered to be "kranklich" i.e. in poor health or weak, not saying thats in anyway conclusive, but suggests to me he was unlikely to have been conscripted SRwiki 07:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

With all the Geman I know I found this one in the first article: "Im 1. Weltkrieg kam der gelernte technische Zeichner dann in ein Militärlager, litt an Tuberkulose und Rippenfellentzündung. Drei Rippen mussten entfernt werden," It says that he came in a "military camp" during World War I, suffering of tuberculosis and pleurisy, three ribs had to be removed. It save to assume you must have been a member of armed forces when being put in a military camp. I therefore added him to the list of surviving veterans. (unsigned, user 194)

Greetings,

Thanks, user 194, for contacting us on the 'talk' page. However, I must say that your citation is not conclusive, and my German colleagues have said:

Earlier this month I informed the nursing home in Pullach, that Georg Thalhofer (*February 19, 1900) is now considered to be the oldest living man in Germany. The executive of the home was quite excited to hear this news, et voilá, here is the first report of a local newspaper on this special man. The report also says, that in the time of WWI he suffered from tuberculosis and pleuritis and had to have three ribs surgically removed. So it sounds quite unlikely that he would have taken part as a soldier in WWI.

http://www.mittelbayerische.de/top_themen/artikel/taeglich_cognac_deu tschlands_a/109658/taeglich_cognac_deutschlands_a.html

While I agree further investigation is warranted, it is premature to conclude that Mr. Thalhofer was a WWI veteran.Ryoung122 01:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that further investigation is required, the relevant part of the citation runs roughly "In WW1, as a skilled technical draughtsman, he went to a military camp, suffering from pleuritis and tuberculosis, where he had 3 ribs removed" So the possible citation is rather ambiguous. It could mean A, he was drafted into the Army, but found to be ill and was therefore discharged shortly after. Or, B, He was taken as a civilian to be treated in a military hospital. At first sight B would appear to be unlikely, but as a skilled technical draughtsman, I think it may well be possible, that he was valuable enough to the war effort to be treated in the local military hospital, which may well have had the best facilities in the area. It would be very helpful if one of our German contributors could read through these (and others - found about 1/2 dozen on my trawl) articles, as there may be nuances of meaning, that Babel fish and google translator miss. On an irrelevant note, nice to know he is the inventor of the hammer pliers, one of which lurks in my toolbox, Thanks SRwiki 08:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

fair enough i didn't assume that anyone over 105 would be a veteran its just more likely with germany then say australia. Webbmyster 12:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Thalhofer should at least be listed in the unverified veterans section. His claim is much more credible than some other claims in there, e.g. the quite far fetch claim of Mr. William Olin having enlisted at age 13. Or do we apply double standards?

I think you misunderstand the situation. Mr. Olin 'claimed' to be a WWI veteran, and although unlikely, we can cite a newspaper source. No one..NO ONE...has claimed that Mr. Thalhofer is a WWI veteran, yet. Should that come to pass, it will be a different story. However, 'claim' and 'speculation' are not the same thing, so, yes, there are different standards.Ryoung122 04:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Possibility of Surviviving Japanese World War 1 Veterans.
I am astonished not to see the names of any service personnel from Imperial Japan on these lists from 1999 onwards. Given Japan's alliance with Britain at that time and its reputation for human longevity it would be an absolute shock to me if there were none still alive during this time frame. I therefore think investigation into this issue is in order.JeepAssembler 00:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler 00:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is something I've wondered about as well. During World War 1 Japan had an army of around 800,000 (more then Australia and Canada), and as you said, combine that with Japan's large numbers of centenarians and supercentenarians (especially among men). Japan also didn't lose a very high percentage of their population in World War 2, which was the case for many European countries. The problem is that Japan has no correspondent to track such things. But I agree, I think it's very likely that Japan has probably 2 or 3 World War 1 veterans still alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.44.93 (talk • contribs)

Do you mean WWI? Japan lost a HUGE number of their population in WWII...in fact the firebombing of Tokyo resulted in the largest number of civilian casualties of all time, killing several million persons. Of course then there's Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I do wonder, however, what Japan's involvement in WWI was. This isn't a list of simply any veteran living at that time; it's a listing of the surviving participants of WWI.Ryoung122 01:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

A Japanese news article on Henry Allingham

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.afpbb.com/article/life-culture/life/2065565/609024&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25E3%2583%2598%25E3%2583%25B3%25E3%2583%25AA%25E3%2583%25BC%25E3%2581%25AEallingham%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1B3GGGL_enGB231GB232%26sa%3DG Well, there was just over 700,000 International War Medals struck for Japan - compared to a British mobilisation of Approx. 5.4 million - with 7 veterans left. That stat doesn't mean a damn thing as there is no correlation, but the intersect of supercenterian and war veteran obviously reduces when there is a smaller veteran population to start with. In reality the oldest Japenese male isn't much older than Henry Allingham, and veterans are not going to be younger than 106 or so.. I don't think there is a good reason to believe 2 or 3 may still be around with the relatively small veteran pool (although I'll be delighted if there were). Another aspect is that the Japanese may have no interest in this conflict. They helped with the naval escorts, and occupied some provinces around China (I forget exactly what without looking it up). With only around 1,300 deaths or so WW1 just may not be on Japanese radars at all. Russia has been the same as well and they had a mobilisation of 12 million - WW1 just isn't something of interest to them. Stalingrad Yes, Warsaw or Galicia, No. RichyBoy 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can use statistics to prove anything. Since there are no Russians left out of 10 million survivors (unless you're optimistic - Jozef Kowalski, or really optimistic - Boris Efimov) then it doesn't seem that Japan (or India) should have living veterans. But then they had more vets than Romania, Australia and Canada. Gheorghe Panculescu only died this year. Perhaps he was an extrordinary case and maybe John Ross aswell, but the same cannot be said of John Babcock. This seems to suggest that they should do. I think it may well be off their radar, but this only stresses why it deserves investigation. Not that I'm not volunteering. 89.241.190.13 23:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

There should be thousands.
Based on actuarial calculations; there should have been a grand total of about 10,000 World War 1 Veterans still alive at various places in the world in the year 1999. Yet I see a total of only 1,531 names on these lists (through July 18th, 2007); with ridiculously low numbers for Russia, Germany, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and even the United States prior to 2004. Of course the passage of time and change of national borders could have hindered accurate record keeping. Also, not a single case is named for Japan, India, China, Brazil, Greece, Bulgaria, or the Ottoman Empire. Admittedly those nations were all less developed at the time and so a life span of 100 years in them would probably be equivalent to someone living 105 or perhaps closer to 110 years in the west. Nonetheless it seems that at least a few cases should still have been alive in those nations in 1999.JeepAssembler 00:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler 00:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to dig up the names and add them no one said the article is complete. With wiki's rules of having sources and with the nations you mentioned at that time and place record keeping wasn't top priority let alone retaining them and making them accessable 90 years later. --Xiahou 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to subtract from the starting total the number of deceased, and we can't expect the mortality rate for the multiple millions wounded to be the same as the non-wounded. Also, while I agree these tables are far from complete, they should be viewed as 'works in progress.' So far nations like Russia and Turkey have shown little interest in revisiting what was for them a disaster.Ryoung122 01:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I may be able to look into the Indian cause, I know somebody in Bangalore who may be prepared to correspond with me on our behalf. As a note of caution I'm fairly certain that when the Sikhs participated for the first time in the 1998 Poppy Parade at Ypres there where sadly no known living Sikh veterans.RichyBoy 18:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Good news on this front; my contact is going to look into this for me. I wouldn't expect anything for a couple of weeks but importantly he's prepared to go to the appropriate authorities on our behalfs. This means any information he returns will be citable and verifiable. RichyBoy 10:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Beyond which there is a huge difference between 1999 and 2007 when you're measuring living centenarians. I'd be far more interested at what actuarial calculations state for how many should be alive today, not eight years ago.  RGTraynor  18:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Anton Bohdal, part II
Greetings,

I received this word about Anton Bohdal:

RE: [KarlFranzJosefvonHabsburg-Lothringen] Re: Anton Bohdal - last K.u.k vet??

According to Glenn Jewison of the Austro Hungarian Land Forces Discusion Forum, the gentleman, Anton Bohdal, does not appear on the Army List for 1918.

Leo Sweeney 698 Twin Oak Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15235-2632 412.795.7340

Again, it appears doubtful that Mr. Bohdal served in WWI. Speculation amongst some over-eager people seems to envision any man over the age of 105 as a WWI veteran. However, as this list grows thinner, the standards for acceptance must increase. With only 23 known veterans left worldwide, it becomes paramount to focus on the proven veterans and not on the speculative, wishful-thinking entries. We are only keeping tabs as there have been a 'small' number that have turned out to be true (i.e. Harry Richard Landis) but more often than not, have come up short (i.e. Robley Rex, Merlyn Kreuger, Orin Peterson, etc).Ryoung122 06:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How Many Should Still Be Alive Today?
Last year I looked in an old Veterans Administration Statistical book; it published data on the number of living veterans of America's various conflicts through July 1959. It stated that at that time the average U.S. WW1 veteran was 65.2 years of age, which would imply an average (50th percentile) birth month of May, 1894 (like George Johnson). It gave no corresponding information on veterans from other nations; but considering that the U.S.A did not enter the conflict until April, 1917 while the war actually began in August, 1914 it seems sensible to subtract the difference (2 Years and 8 Months)from the U.S. average to get the average for the european nations and their then colonial subjects. This would yield an average birth month of September, 1891 (almost like Emiliano Mercado Del Toro) for their WW1 vets; I justify this by the fact that the overwhelming majority of WW1 service personnel were from europe and it's colonies. A grand Total of 65,000,000 troops were mobilized for that war; of which 14,000,000 died. That means that 51,000,000 would have survived beyond November 11th, 1918. An average birth month of September, 1891 would mean an average age for the entire cohort of 115 Years and 10 Months right now (July 19th, 2007). The odds against someone living to their 116th birthday are approximately 3,000,000 to 1; therefore about 17 of the 51,000,000 survivors should still be alive. One final word, Statistical models generally lose their accuracy when the sample size is less than 30; the variance is to great.JeepAssembler 23:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler 23:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There's certainly one problem with this. It must be 3 billion to 1 rather than 3 million. I heard that there are about the same number of people living today as have ever died. Don't know if this is true, and I'm no expert on odds either, but this suggests to me that there should have been 2 116 olds in history. In fact there have been at least 7, but it is close especially considering the point about sample size. If it was 3 million then we would have hundreds over 116. If I am wrong I apologise but I don't see how 3 million to 1 could be true.

As for the missing 8,500 you mentioned further up that should have been alive in 1999, I have no idea if your earlier method was correct, but I'm sure that there are many that are not listed. Ders des Ders had Huseyin Kacmaz as the last Turkish vet dying in 1998 (and I added him on the Wikipedia page) so there is some basis to the lack of Ottoman vets in our lists. If you extrapolate to the nearby Balkan region, then the scarcity of Serbians and Romanians, and absence of Greeks, Bulgarians and Montenegrins seems reasonable.

As for Japan, when you see the reams of Japanese female supercentenarians, you think that there would be some male vets left. But maybe they could afford to only deploy experienced troops rather than sending a lot of teenagers as some of the countries felt necessary. This would make it less likely that they would survive until today, although I agree that there should have been more 9 years ago. 89.241.188.24 00:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Well by my maths there are approx. 44 million mobilised troops that these pages "track", and there are 23 confirmed veterans. (Africa, Austrailia, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, The Caribbean, French Empire, Germany, Britain, Greece, Italy, Montenegro, New Zealand, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, South Africa, USA). We can arguably ignore South Africa as I don't think we know, the rest we have strong indicators on through official means. Certainly some of these countries have complete records and we know there are sadly no veterans left, from as long ago as 8 or 9 years. Linear maths would state we know 2/3rds of 'mobilisation', so we are 12 veterans short. However Russia and Turkey/Ottoman Empire were badly hit (officialy we know the last one but clearly it isn't a accurate list for Ottoman/Turkey), perhaps down to 7 or 8 by the maths of suriving ratios compared to mobilisation. The sample set is large enough for stats to be realistic. Greater Russia is not reknowned for verified longevity (it changes a bit torwards Central Europe however) and Turkey - well I wouldn't like to say, along with the Ottoman. Perhaps down to 5 or 6. In my view you probably won't find anyone, these countries lack the interest. We'll be picking up a couple of Germans for a few more years yet, maybe an Amerian or two (demob procedure was a bit haphazard with various agencies involved), just perhaps a Indian (or Sikh).

Your certainly right that we haven't picked up on countries where there should clearly be indentifiable survivors - but unless somebody audits each case from 1902/1903 birth or before that lived to 1998 onwards (a monstrous task) then we will never have a complete list - except for places like Canada (and even then there are arguments over the number of conscriptions desipte the alleged full service record availability).

You can also argue that the figures for Western Europe (et al) are slightly skewed because a number of WW1 veterans fought in WW2 and perished, but I'm not sure how much difference it would have made in this extreme long-run. RichyBoy 01:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For South Africa we have Norman Kark dying in 2000. Also from that year Gershom Browne of Guyana, which I imagine you included as part of the Caribbean. Although it's not an island it is part of the West Indies as the Cricket World Cup showed.

I mentioned Japan beacause of their longevity and quite high troop numbers. The Indian subcontinent had higher numbers, and the biggest population in the world if it was still a single country, but like Russia is not noted for longevity. China also has a huge population and Brazil a fair few aswell, but not good longevity either, and I don't know how many troops, so probably not that many. Therefore India does look like the other good (but not ideal) candidate, along with Japan.

Ideal I would say would be the US. It has a big population although dwarfed by India and China. It had high troop numbers although a lot less than Russia. And it has high longevity. And despite this only three veterans that we know of. So I agree that there may not be a goldmine of undiscovered vets, maybe just a seam. As for Germany, it would be good for their sake if Georg Thalhofer was part of that seam, since the Central Powers are down to 2. 84.13.10.198 03:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Morning all, just a little note on the idea that the numbers now living equal the number now dead, the first time I heard this was about 10 years ago and it doesn't stand up, as it reguires that the human population doubles over the period of an average lifespan (say, for the sake of argument, 50 years when all of human history is taken into account) going back from the 6 billion today, you get 3 billion in the 50s 1.5 billion in the around 1900, 375 mill 1800 and so on until you reach 2 people around about 400ad. Theres a good article on this at http://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns?id=lw208 which gives an absolute best estimate of about 1/10th of humanity currently being alive. SRwiki 07:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I was about to answer the point on number of living/dead but I see SRWiki has beaten me to it. I can confirm this is indeed untrue, unfortunately it's one of those things that has been quoted so often it has become accepted fact. Best estimates I've seen are that 9-10% of those who have lived are alive today. If anyone is going to try to apply a mathematical model to the number who should still be with us, Is there a recognised model of lifespans of a population? For the remaining vets, and trying to predict the future, the numbers will probably follow a geometric distirbution (much like a radioactive half-life) but I'm not sure of the rate of this. Has the GRG got any stats on the chance of a centenarian/supercentenarian being alive in another year's time? As to applying this to the past since 1918, I've no idea what distribution would be valid. Sanctuary73 09:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I've read my Iliad and Odyssey so I have to say that we've been around longer than 1600 years. Based on the 10% mark, that means that about 54 billion people have died in history. If a 116 year old life throughout history is 3 billion to 1 then that would suggest 18 of them, and we have 7-10. Of course there may have been some that were missed such as the Finnish lady whose records were destroyed in WWII. It wouldn't work if it was 3 billion to 1 today, because in the past there were surely longer odds because quality of life was worse, although there were still some impressive civilisations. I don't think it is because that would suggest that only 2 of the current population will make it to 116. Since 2 people did so last year that seems hugely pessimistic. 89.243.10.21 11:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Greetings,

Just some numbers: consider in Okinawa, the average age of living centenarians is 101.6. That means someone at age 100, even in the island with the longest average life expectancy anywhere, can expect a half-life of about 1 1/2 years. By age 110, the death rate is about 50% annually. I already mentioned that the death rate so far this year exceeds expectation. However, we have to remember that:

A. While 905 of people aged 110+ are female, all but one of the remaining WWI vets are male.

B. Several of the survivors had a tough go at life and aren't in as good of shape as, say, a civilian like Aime Avignon who didn't serve.

For the moment, if we presume the average age of the remaining vets is 107 and the death rate is about 45% annually, from the start of the year (51 veterans), we can expect 23 deaths and 28 to make it to 2008. Sorry, the opposite is true: we've already had 28 deaths and just 23 remain. So, throw the rule book out the window. We can expect the numbers to continue dwindling rapidly, but there will be a 'survivor curve' at the end. Note for the U.S., a huge death rate early and no deaths since March...the U.S. is now in a 'survivor curve' (i.e. the weak die off first, leaving the survivors).Ryoung122 09:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Elaboration on and Criticism of Actuarial Calculations
Yesterday I posted in this forum in which I estimated about 17 WW1 vets should still be alive; which clearly is wrong, so I feel the need to elaborate. First off I inferred that the average birth month for all military service personnel was Sept. 1891; this is probably pretty close considering that the average age for U.S. service people was 26 when WW2 ended in 1945, so maybe 1892 would have been a better estimate. But that would only have been the Mean (Sum of all people's birthdates divided by total number of people), not the Median (Date when exactly half were born before and half after), nor the Mode (Year or years in which the largest number of people were born). And so 1893,'94, or even '95 might have been a better choice (especially if a large percentage of teenagers were either conscripted or forced by economic circumstances to join). This would revise the average age of the surviving cohort down to as little as 112 years; which the odds against living to are only 140,000 to 1; leaving room for about 364 still living, which is clearly incorrect. This points to a second problem, the actuarial data which I used is for U.S. males. It states that the odds against an American man living to age 100 is 250 to 1, at which time expectancy is 2 years through age 104; 1 and 1/2 years until 107, 1 year until 110, and 45 to 1 against a 110 year old American man celebrating his 115th birthday. So the odds against an American man living to 104 is 1,000 to 1, 107 is 4,000 to 1, 110 is 32,000 to 1, and 115 is 1,440,000 to 1. Yet Americans, Japanese, Italians, and Norwegians seem to live longer than British, French, and Germans; who in turn outlive Russians and Poles. So actuarial data from those nations are needed. Actuarial data can yield other ridiculous results too, for example if the odds against living to 115 really are 1,440,000 to 1 and 20,000,000 people were born in 1891 (The same year as Emiliano Mercado Del Toro) then 7 men (assuming 10,000,000 each of boys and girls born that year) and 70 women (female supercentenarians outnumber males by 10 to 1)should have been his age or older. There could be more than one Mode Year of birth (1892 may have been one but so could have 1899 if populous nations like Russia, the U.S.A. or Germany experienced a "baby burst"). I will also acknowledge that a list of surviving veterans (Or participants in anything for that matter) is inherently on the conservative side, demanding a high standard of evidence and thus likely to exclude people who for whatever reasons are not able to meet the standards even if they really are legitimate. Finally, I have read it estimated that about 75,000,000,000 have lived on this planet, of which only 6,600,000,000 (or about 9%) are alive today.JeepAssembler 23:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler 23:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As you state, your estimates for living veterans are wrong. I appreciate you've gone to lengths in your comments but you need to stand back a bit regarding the maths becuase you've over-simplified a few important areas. Firstly, probablities are only 'accurate' around the standard deviation of a data set (which is 68% of the data set). Once you are two standard deviations outside probabilities become wildly inaccurate regarding data outside of it (anything outside of 95% that is). I wouldn't like to think what percentage of the population is 107 or over but I would think it's in the 5 standard deviation range, remember it has to be the percetnage based on the population at the time of birth, not now. The additional complication is that you don't know what the *actual* data set is.. the number of living people is a moving target, what we really need to know is how many people were born between 1895 and 1900. The number of people still alive from 18-hundred-and-something has been estimated recently by RYoung at around 3,000 or so and that's a world-wide figure so if we knew the births we would know that percentage at least. Even then though that would only tell us about the population of that small slice of mobilised forces, these are the youngest veterans. Working out exactly what percentage of the population fought and the then statistics of this is a nasty little differential equation to solve, not straight-forward at all. We could make some assumptions though and fathom it out along these lines: The global population in 1900 was estimated at around something like 1.65 billion and anyone that was mobilised in the war must have been born no later than 1900. A mobilisation of 66 million is 4% of that 1900 population - 4% of 3,000 remaining from 18XX is 120 surviving veterans. If we say 25% of the population at that time was a combination Europe/America and a few percent from elsewhere, then 66 million makes 16% of the population being mobilised, but actually there are 9 million miltary casualties, 9.5% of those that were mobilised, so it's actually 14.5% we need to worry about, 435 people from 3,000. A rough and callous calculation of 50% because men fought and not woman, this takes it down to 217. We only dropped under this figure at the end of 2004, only a little over 2.5 years ago. I'd argue that there aren't missing swathes of people at all, and in all likelyhood with proper population calculations/standard deviation statistics/civillian casualties and so on this figure would come down again (despite the fact I've assumed 1900 is a cut-off and it isn't), as with such a small number living from 18XX those that are not from war countries must be substracted, and in fact, the calcuation for girls/boys needs to be examined as there are far far fewer men. So it still stands - we're probably missing a small few, but not a great many. RichyBoy 02:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good places to look for more
Since these lists start in 1999, and the record life span for any recorded veteran was about 3 weeks shy of his 113th birthday for an Italian man with last name Todde who died in January, 2002 it seems that the earliest birth year to use would be 1887; allowing for a 112th in 1999. The U.K.'s population increased from c.33 mil in 1887 to 37.8 mil in 1901; including deaths there were probably 8 mil Brits and Irish born in this period. In the lists for the U.K. and Ireland it is noted that almost 1,200 more men of WW1 vet age died in those countries between 1999 and 2004 whose status was not checked; of course not all would served (Indeed some probably didn't even live there between 1914 and 1918). But if 1/3 did; (a reasonable assumption considering that 5.5 million Brits served; the rest of the Britsh Empire's total mobilization force of 10.5 mil must have come from it's colonies) then that would leave almost 400 undiscovered British Islers. In addition, if the Veterans Administration tables which I read giving May, 1894 as the average birth month for U.S. personnel are correct and the odds of an American man living to age 105 and 1/2 really are 2,000 to 1 then at least theoretically 2,300 of the 4,600,000 "Doughboys" and WW1 era U.S. vets should have been alive in November, 1999. The lists have a total of only 570 American names though; There were probably 1,500 to 2,000 more. There are probably a few hundred more undiscovered German cases from 1999 onwards. France (Which places a high relevance on the war and therefore probably keeps better tabs on it's surviving vets than the U.K., U.S.A., or Germany), Italy (which only mobilized about half as many troops as Britain or Germany but has good longevity), and the lands which comprised the Austro-Hungarian Empire (most of which were devastated by post WW1 chaos and again during WW2 but still have good longevity) would also each probably yield dozens more. Those would seem to me the best places to look for more World War 1 Veterans still alive from 1999 onwards.JeepAssembler 17:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler 17:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your completely over-estimating the case and perhaps not cognisant of all the facts. The are several reasons why certain lists are more complete than others and why you won't find more than a handful of missing veterans for certain countries. The 1998 Légion d'honneur roll-call for any combatant that fought on French soil (most governments conducted a review of their veteran lists), and the fact that there is a complete roll-call for all mobilised forces for certain countries such as Canada, Austrailia, New Zealand and Britain which all have complete records (although for Britain the records were thought destroyed in a bombing raid in WWII but they've since been added to micro-fiche, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/DisplayCatalogueDetails.asp?CATID=13388&CATLN=3&FullDetails=True is the complete roll-call of all British WWI personel the WO 329 war medal catalogue, see also the War Graves commission). The US have excellent records, what went wrong was the very last stage when they upped the tempo of mobilisation but in the subsequent de-mob different government institutions handled the process and not everything was recorded that should have been, also these are the guys that didn't make it onto the Légion roll-call. Almost everyone on the Legion D'Honour roll of 1998 of living veterans has also been tallied as well although some French veterans eluded it because of the service preclusion of 3 months (see further up this chat page for untallied Légion personel). I'm unsure of the Italian register I'd have to look that one up, again 6 months is a hinderance here. Basically, pretty much anyone on the Western Allied Powers side of affairs has been tallied, big numbers simply won't happen even though not everyone went to France. It's Japan, India, Turkey/Ottoman and Russia that contain swathes of missing veterans (and even then I'm very doubtful about India). RichyBoy 18:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of this article from derdesders about a turkish veteran: http://dersdesders.free.fr/bio_veterans/satar.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.15.153.16 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

2002 Time Almanac with information regarding veteran statistics
In early 2002 I bought a World Almanac (evidently affiliated with Time Magazine); at that time I was more interested in things like terrorism, presidential elections and space exploration. Veterans statistics were not even on my radar at that time. Nonetheless, after I started becoming interested in them 2 or 3 years later I looked them up (page 373) and it stated that the U.S. Veterans Administration estimated that 2,503 U.S.A. WW1 vets were still alive in May, 2001. (For the record it also gave living veteran statistics of 5.4 mil for WW2, 3.9 mil for Korea; many Korean conflict vets also served in WW2, 8.7 mil for Viet Nam, and 1.7 mil for Desert Storm). These statistics for later conflicts seemed to agree closely with Census Bureau data and accouting for natural deaths; in the 2000 U.S. Census it was reported that just under 5,800,000 American WW2 Vets were still alive. So I would tend to give credence to the Almanac's statistics. I also came across an article pertaining to either the Great War Society or the Portland Oregonian Newspaper about Mr. Howard Verne Ramsey, a U.S. WW1 Vet who died in early 2007. The article wrote about Mr. Ramsey's speech to The Great War Society's Portland, Oregon meeting in the May, 2001 (The same month for the almanac's statistics), which stated that Mr. Ramsey was one of fewer than 500 U.S. WW1 Vets still alive at that time whom had been deployed to France. But only about 2 million "doughboys" actually made it to the western front, out of 4,355,000 total enlisted by Nov. 11, 1918 (don't know what the proportions for other allied nation's were though). The point being that only about half of America's WW1 Vets actually made it "over there". Thus the French government's recognition of foreigners who helped their country in the "Great War" should only be used as a starting point to determine who was still alive after 1999. JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler 20:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you still got it, please? Extremely sexy 21:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the 2,503 soldiers were either an estimate, or the number of WWI veterans in receipt of a pension. People like Mr. Coffey and Mr. Landis were most likely not included in this list. The VA office still has no clue in how many are alive. For the last couple of years they seem to be depending on this site for information.(PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 21:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The 2003 World Almanac says at page 206 that as at September 30 2002 there were 347 WWI veterans. It also says that there were 5 veterans from the Mexican Border campaign 1913-1916 still in receipt of a pension implying that the 347 were in receipt of a pension. I do not have the 2004 or 2005 editions and the 2006 edition only mentions veterans back to WWII. Interstingly the 1994 World Almanac says that there were only 34 WWI veterans(!) (and 42 Mexican Border veterans for the record)Mithrandir1967 21:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth is that this is the only 'public' resource known that tracks surviving veterans or indeed those since the 80 year armistice (GRG doesn't *really* track this kind of stuff). Anything else has been a hotch-potch of figures and snatched stats. For the last 18 months interested parties and authorities themselves have begun to regard this article as a valuable resource, if not definitive. I don't know about this Times magazine article but it sounds like it was the same one that used the figures to say that no veterans would live beyond 2006 (or was it 2007). Without wishing to push this article into WP:NOR realms this article is the only serious attempt there has been to categorise in encylopediac terms the numbers of living veterans and where they live/fought etc. We would all welcome very much knowledge of living veterans, and indeed information on veterans yet to be tallied. Just be wary of the "Western World" allied powers lists - they are more accurate than you may give credence for (I acknowledge the USA will be missing a number of vets between 1998 and 2003 say.). RichyBoy 01:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also I must add Ders des Ders has done a very good job these past few years, we're not the only one which tracks veterans. I missed some of my point with the previous soap-box, the USA for a while now has relied on our lists' contributors such as an undisputed expert like RYoung to reveal new veteran cases. There has been a nationwide appeal for veterans of WW1 as far as I understand for the USA, being a Brit. This list hasn't been constructed in spite of the US vets association, it's the almanac which is more dubious than this article. RichyBoy 02:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

National Census data could help
Instead of just arguing over actuarial calculations, lists of living and deceased, or the number which the VA or other entity should have been alive at a certain time; why not appeal to a more encompassing authority. Namely, how many men of available age a national census says were alive at a particular time. In the 2000 U.S.A. census it counted just over 14,000 male centenarians (and 57,000 female centenarians). In the veterans statistics almanac for 1959 which I referred to several days ago it stated that 84.6% of the U.S.A.'s WW1 vets were then between 60 and 69 years old; since the data was for July, 1959 that would imply birth months between August, 1889 and July, 1899. During that time frame the U.S. population increased from 62.0 mil to 74.9 mil; a difference of 12.9 mil. Assuming a 2 to 1 ratio of birth to deaths would yield 25.8 mil births; just over half being boys. So about 13 mil boys were born in the U.S.A. during that time frame. There was a grand total of 4,734,991 U.S. service personnel between April 6th, 1917 and December 31st, 1919 (I know this later date would mean including people who were not really WW1 vets; but this sight includes such as WW1 era vets anyway). So 13 mil boys were born in the U.S.A. between August, 1889 and July, 1899; 84.6% of 4,734,991 is 3,980,233 or 30.6% of the 13 mil in that age group. I don't know what percentage of the 14,000 male centenarians in the U.S.A. in 2000 were really supercentenarians, but it must have been small since most estimates put the number of superC's in the whole world at only 300 - 400. So let's then just reasonably assume that almost all were under 110. A calculation of 30.6% of 14,000 is 4,284; even assuming that armed service veterans generally come from less fortunate socio-economic backgrounds and therefore have lower life expectancies than most of the population and reducing this estimate by 50% to account for this fact would still yield 2,142 alive at that time (April 1st, 2000). Because of the fact that the U.S. census uses April 1st as it's guideline it would not have recorded as centenarians people whose birthdates were later; I think Russell Buchanan would fall into this group, not to mention Frank Buckles. Also, the 1959 vet stats book would have included those born after July,1899 in the 50 -59 age group (Only 2.7% of U.S. WW1 vets at that time; obviously this percentage would have increased by 2000). My point is that at least at a theoretical level there should be about 2,000 more U.S. names on these lists. Looking at census data from other nations (I know the U.K had a census in 2001) should yield more relevant probabilities. Finally, I know that the U.S.A. (my country) has not been very kind to it's WW1 vets, such as denying them their bonuses during the depression and generally ignoring them (Maybe the passage of time and the political, economic, and social effects of later conflicts caused this neglect) and so the VA's reliance on actuarial data to estimate the number still living rather than actually counting may be part of this. Maybe there really weren't very many more, but logic and common sense tells me that there were.JeepAssembler 15:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The UK has a complete veteran record (the problem has been ascertaining if a living person was on it or not). You should look at the question another way around - Great Britain had a slightly larger mobilisation than the states, and yet there are similar death stats since these pages track them. UK is also higher up the longevity charts, although I don't know about that when it gets around the centenerian mark. One thing you could do is look at the history of the 'died in' pages and discover who has added the bulk of the data and where it has come from - that's probably the revealing one. RichyBoy 22:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

For your info I've decided to try to find out about the factual data of USA WW1 vets. It appears that in 1997 that the Dept of Veteran Affairs issued a count of 1,300. Your census bureaux apparantly had 65,000 alive in 1990. Apparantly your 2000 census has 50,000 centenerians living in the states (as reported by the veterans office). According to the office they track veterans by those that claim the war pension and by no other means (no actuarial guessing here then) - the current veterans *aren't* claiming pensions or at least were not at the time of discovering them, so there is scope that there are others out there - but I don't think it is really going to skew things by much, not considering it is in line with UK figures as well. All of this is available on the USA veterans web site if you look hard enough for it. RichyBoy 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A gentleman and a scholar?
Evening all, just out on one of my periodic Jim Lincoln trawls (it's a very quiet evening) and I have found another snippet on his polymathic skills. http://theblognut.net/2006/04/ the relevant bit reads:

"We get the feeling that the Spudnut-Asthetic hasn’t changed a bit since it opened 37 years ago. Linoleum floors, vinyl stools, and plenty of neighborhood comfort, Spudnuts exists in its own time and its own dimension. The walls are lined with original paintings by friend-of-Spudnut Dr. Jim Lincoln, a 107 year-old Oregon native who reportedly helped take some the earliest photographs of DNA and once played Chamber music with Albert Einstein. We could have stayed all day."

It just amuses me, some of the claims this guy makes. Though on a more serious note, the generally accepted story for the photographing of DNA is that it was first photograped (as an X-ray diffraction) in 1951 by Rosalind Franklyn in Oxford (UK), this image set Crick and Watson on the trail. Oddly enough any credit for Dr J is strangely absent. Though to be fair if the paintings on the wall of this particular Spudnuts are by Jim Lincoln, then this could represent the first verifiable fact about him. SRwiki 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Jim Lincoln and William Olin
It seems like those two fellows have what I call "Brushy Bill Roberts Syndrome", after an elderly man by that name in Texas in 1950 who claimed that he was Billy The Kid in his youth; that Sheriff Pat Garrett let him get away instead of shooting him 70 years earlier as commonly accepted. It seems like every conflict has old men who claimed to have participated but really didn't; I guess wanting to construct a more heroic past for oneself is something which no age group is immune to.JeepAssembler 14:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Look hard enough?
In the footnotes for lists of the U.K. and Ireland from 1999 to 2004 are admissions that a grand total of 1,189 men of age's records were not checked and that Scottish and Irish records were not checked either; it seems like someone else needs to do more invetigating. Oh, by the way, the U.K. mobilized about 80% of it's military age male population during WW1; 80% of 1,189 is 951 more potential vets; and thats not even including the Scots and Irish! Although any Irish survivors may be embarrased to admit that they served The Crown at that time, with the 1916 Easter Uprising and all. JeepAssembler 15:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

80%? Way too high...I seriously doubt it...80-somethings send to war, yeah right.Ryoung122 02:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I estimated 80% of the MILITARY AGE male population, based on the U.S.A.'s 30% figure. 4.7 M Americans vs. 5.6 M British Islers; 1.2 times as many Brits as Yanks would give absolute figure of 36% of U.K.'s male population. Yet U.S.A. had a total population of 100 M at that time compared to 45 M forU.K. and Ireland. A ratio of 2.2; 2.2 times 36% is 79.2%; thus my very casual estimate of 80% mobilization. For the record, the U.S.S.R. mobilized 97% of it's 17 - 21 year old males in WW2; just for comparison, so 80% is not an unreasonable guestimate.JeepAssembler 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler 00:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Evening All, I have occasionally wondered about the possibility of still living Irish Veterans (please note this is NOT an attempt to re-open the previous discussions about the Easter 1916 uprising)and the comment above has persuaded me to do a bit of digging round. Ireland, did not have conscription, but produced somewhere between 210,000 and 350,000 volunteers depending on which website you read. This discrepancy may not be as bad as it first appears, the 350,000 figure may be referring to the whole Island of Ireland, whilst the 210,000 could be referring to the nation state of Ireland (or Eire as officially known) on the partition of the Island of Ireland, roughly 1/3 of the population ended up in the province of Northern Ireland. So you would expect roughly 1/3 of the veterans to end up there as well. Any veteran living in Northern Ireland would almost certainly be known about.

So lets assume for the sake of argument that the 210,000 figure refers to enlistments from what later became Eire, as far as I can tell the Irish regiments suffered a fatality rate of approx 10% so this means that roughly 190,000 Irish veterans returned to Eire

However the supply of Irish volunteers came almost to a dead halt after Easter 1916, this means that the average age of any potential Irish veterans is likely (I think) to be 2 years older than the average age of the vets here.

This means that Eire started with a relatively small pool of veterans at least 2 years older than the average. So I doubt if there are any veterans remaining in Eire. SRwiki 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The last known Irish veterans - Thomas Shaw (Northern Ireland) and Robert Ruttledge (Republic of Ireland) - both died in 2002 (see entries on the Died in 2002 page). 86.129.77.209 19:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Bruce

William Young 1900-2007
Young has died http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article2141036.ece

if you see the Times Obituary above.

I'm afraid I have to rush off to work now so can't complete the wiki pages in full, I'm hoping someone can just tidy up after me, thanks.

A sad loss, the first British veteran to die for a while.

RIP

Richard J


 * Thanks for the update, albeit a very sad one indeed, but I will update all the pages right now, my friend. Extremely sexy 13:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Will Young. I remember him from The Last Tommy. Coming two weeks after Mr Seegers we're now below one death a week this year, unless you count the era vets, in which case we're still above. Australia is now below France, Italy and the US for resident vets, level with the UK on 3. Only one saw action so maybe it's more like Poland, or the US. The UK is level with Italy on 6 overall vets, but only 3 were in combat, which is level with France, without knowing more about Mr X. 84.13.23.67 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

i didn't think he was on britains last tommy? Webbmyster 10:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Have a look here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/last_tommy_gallery.shtml

Captain celery 23:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

yes i saw that and that was the first place i heard about him because i didn't see him when it was on. also he wasn't counted at the end when they said out of the 27 alive in 2003 only 4 remain, (alfred anderson, george rice, harry patch and harold lawton).Webbmyster 18:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it turned out that William Young was closer to the action that I had been previously led to believe. If a shell came within 3 feet of hitting him, then he was a combat veteran. Note also that his father's name was 'Robert Young'!

On the other hand, Australia hadn't lost a veteran yet in 2007 (can't remember the last time one died...) and I had picked Mr. Young to be the next to go, based on photos. I think Delfino Borroni, J Russell Coffey, and Justin Tuveri are all candidates to be next, based on photos and recent reports. Of course I do hope that the first two make it to 109, as they are both within 6 weeks...Ryoung122 05:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Last Australian death was William Allan in October 05. It's been a while. Captain celery 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

93rd Anniversary Tomorrow
Apart from you folks on the other side of the Atlantic, it's now the 27th, so tomorrow is the anniversary of Austria's declaration of war on Serbia. The alliance system lead to an August of declarations and therefore the First World War. It makes me wonder whether any of the vets will be alive for the centenary, or in 2014 period. Lazzare Ponticelli would be ideal since he saw action in 1914, but it would need a world record (sans Izumi). Even for those who served later underage, Choules and Wycech, it still requires Del Toro standard longevity for them to reach their own personal centenary, but not for 2014, so it's eminently possible. It would be somewhat distasteful to say 'place your bets', so, discuss. 84.13.23.67 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

I would say it's very likely. Remember, there are still and estimated dozen or so World War 1 veterans out there that haven't yet been discovered. In the next couple years, we will be left with the last handful of veterans that will just live forever (figurativly of course!). If you check records it happens with nearly every single war's final veterans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.44.93 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

One thing, though: there will be a few holdouts, but it may not be the 'ones' we'd like them to be or expect (especially if they are non-combat and/or nonrepresentative of the war). On a 'world' level, we have holdouts, but consider this:

last black veteran, Moses Hardy, died Dec. 2006. last American female veteran...died Mar 2007 last American 'combat' veteran, already dead. Germany could soon be without a veteran (which would be unexpected given the numbers). Ryoung122 05:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the ones with the most romantic stories may not be the very last ones, but I also think we expect this. And judging by photos entails a certain amount of expectation. On Genarians there is no photo of Erich Kastner but if Franz Kunstler is included for Germany, his job would indicate that he has a few years left in him. Of course there are probably museum guides dropping dead all the time, but it gives him a better chance than the other vets. Captain celery 03:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Turkish WWI vet discovered!?
Greetings,

A bombshell:

http://dersdesders.free.fr/bio_veterans/satar.html

Yakup SATAR, 109 ans, ultime vétéran de l'Empire Ottoman, et dernier survivant turc de la Première Guerre mondiale Il est le dernier vétéran de l'Empire Ottoman et l'ultime survivant turc de la Première Guerre mondiale. Yakup SATAR est né le 11 mars 1898 en Crimée. Son père, Zeki Bey, fut un des chefs tartares qui combattit pour l'indépendance turque contre la Russie. Yakup s'engage dans l'armée turque ottomane en 1915. Après une période de formation militaire à Istanbul, des officiers allemands le sélectionnent (avec 200 de ses compatriotes) pour suivre un entraînement spécifique. Le 20 octobre 2003, Yakup Satar confiait à un journaliste du quotidien turque "Hürriyet" : <<Nous portions des uniformes particuliers. Les allemands nous fournirent des masques. Nous plaisantions souvent entre nous à cause des masques que nous portions sur nos visages. Plus tard, nous apprenions que notre compagnie était surnommée "gazcilar", les "soldats du gaz". Les Allemands nous ordonnèrent de lancer des gaz sur l'ennemi. Ils nous avertirent qu'il fallait alors maintenir la bouche fermée. Nous ne pouvions même pas parler de notre entraînement si particulier à nos familles dans nos lettres. Après cette phase d'entraînement, 50 d'entre-nous furent envoyés sur le front de Bagdad dans un train spécial constitué de nombreuses troupes militaires>>. Yakup Satar ne connaissait pas la destination d'arrivée. Le vieil homme reprend : <<Après un long voyage nous arrivâmes à Bagdad. Nous stationnions dans des tentes, en plein désert. Nous dûmes attendre des équipements durant un mois. Nous n'étions pas autorisés à parler avec d'autres soldats. Six mois plus tard, nous recevions les ordres d'Istanbul : "notre troupe avait interdiction d'utiliser les gaz." >> Au même moment les troupes britanniques atteignaient Bassora. Le soldat d'infanterie Yakup Satar aurait été fait prisonnier lors de la 2ème bataille de Kut-el-Amara le 23 février 1917 sur le front de Bagdad par les forces anglo-indiennes. Il rejoind les forces nationales de Mustafa Kemal durant la guerre d'indépendance turque (de 1919 à 1922). Il quitte l'armée comme sergent chef. Véritable héros national, il vit aujourd'hui à Eskisehir en Turquie. A ce jour, il est un des 14 derniers vétérans au monde à avoir connu les combats de la Première Guerre mondiale.

[Rédigé le 25 juillet 2007 par Frédéric Mathieu]

Now, I realize that cases like this carry with them the suspicion of a Tour de France drugs-cheat...old men claiming to be war vets or extreme ages is quite common, and to 'emerge' at this point is also a bit suspicious.

However, given Frederic Mathieu's track record (even organizing the meeting between Henry Allingham and Robert Meier) and the fact we have a non-Turkish source, I say we should give the benefit of the doubt, for now, and add Mr. Satar to the page. Note we see not just a birthdate but dates of service, which begin in 1917, making an assertion of actual WWI service.Ryoung122 01:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings,

As happened with cases like Maria Capovilla, on hindsight we find that Mr Satar was in the news prior...in a foreign language, in a foreign country, not connected to the 'Western' AP or Google-News wires. But now I find:

http://www.kenthaber.com/Arsiv/Haberler/2005/Mart/18/Haber_52556.aspx

107'lik gaziden ilginç anılar Türkiye’de hayatta kalan en yaşlı 3 İstiklal Savaşı gazisinden biri olan Eskişehirli Yakup Satar, gençlere nasihatte bulunarak, "Biz bu vatanı çok zor şartlarda kurtarıp size teslim ettik, kıymetini bilin" dedi.

Eskişehir’de 71 yaşındaki kızı Zekiye Satar ile birlikte yaşayan 107 yaşındaki Yakup Satar’ın savaş hatıralarını dinleyenler, tarihin bu canlı şahidinin hafızası karşısında hayretler içinde kalıyor. 1. Dünya Savaşı’nda Bağdat-Musul’da savaştıktan sonra, İstiklal Harbi’nde de yer alan 6 çocuk, 48 torun sahibi asırlık gazi Yakup Satar, hatıralarını anlatırken duygulanıyor. 106 yaşına giren Satar, İstiklal Gazisi madalyasını gururla taşıyor.

Bir asrı geride bırakan Yakup Satar, Dünya Savaşı’nda Kerkük, Bağdat, Musul cephelerinde harbe katıldığını belirterek, "Son Osmanlı Padişahı zamanında İstanbul’da askerdim. Bizim taburdan 50 kişiyi Irak’a gönderdiler. 1. Dünya Harbi’nde yanlarında yer aldığımız Almanlar, zehirli gaz ürettiler. Biz bu gazla düşmanı öldürecektik. Düşmandan korkmuyorduk. Ancak, Türkiye işgal edilmiş, haberimiz yoktu. Mermiler başımı sıyırıp geçiyordu. Savaşta kolumdan vuruldum. Bağdat’ta İngiliz kadın doktor beni tedavi etti. Bağdat’tan İstanbul’a, her yerin mayın döşenmiş olması sebebiyle en uzak denizleri gezerek 22 günde geldik" dedi.

107 yaşındaki gazi Satar, Irak’ta kendisini Alman’a benzeten bir Arap Askerle arasındaki geçen hatırasını da şöyle anlattı:

"Bana ’German’ diye hitap etti. Ben de ’Ne German’ı, ben Müslüman’ım Türk’üm’ dedim ve Yasin-i Şerif’i okudum. Arap şaşırdı. Ondan sonra onunla arkadaş olduk ve her gece bana bisküvi getirirdi."

Kurtuluş Savaşı’nda da Atatürk’ün yanında tecrübeli asker olarak görev yaptığını belirten Yakup Satar, "Savaşta hiç eline silah almayan gençler askerdeydi. Ben tecrübeli olduğum için bütün ağır işler bana veriliyordu. Attığını vuran komutanımız, bir asker 10 düşmanı öldürmezse ona asker demem diyordu" diye konuştu.

Çanakkale Zaferi’nin 90. yıl dönümünde Türkiye Muharip Gaziler Derneği Başkanı Ertuğrul Özkütük ve Yönetim Kurulu üyeleri de, asırlık gazi Yakup Satar’ı evinde ziyaret etti. Dernek Başkanı Özkütük, tarihin canlı şahidi olan Yakup Satar ile gurur duyduklarını ifade etti.

Note that we can see that he was '107' in a story from March 18 2005...which accords well with a March 11 1898 birthdate (as I mentioned, age '107' often seems to be the age of discovery). Also note he is wearing medals...suggesting official sanction. Thus, we should give him the benefit of the doubt (something clearly not done with Michael Rasmussen in the Tour de France).Ryoung122 02:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Morning All, turns out there are possibly 1000's of articles in Turkish on this guy. So he looks real to me. There is some doubt on his true age (up to 115 according to some articles) I have dug out an English translation of one article - http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=90188 - which dates from 2003. The sory he tells is so unglamourous - working in a poison gas unit, and being captured - that it has the ring of truth (If I was inventing a WW1 past for myself, I don't think I would be claiming to have worked in a poison gas unit)

I suppose on the age discrepancies dotted through the articles, I would guess that record keeping in the Ottoman Empire was not what it could have been. So we have to allow some leeway. One thing the articles seem to agree on is that he is the last known Turkish WW1 vet. SRwiki 09:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I've taken an interest in the location of Russian veterans I hadn't looked at Turkish/Ottoman possibilities at all. The only thing that gives me a slight cause for concern is that some articles I've loosely translated say that he was a prisoner of the English for 5 years - and some sources claim he fought in the 1919-1922 war as well. If he was a prisoner of war in theory we should have a record of it under the Mesopotamian campaign as it was known, but I don't know where we would locate such a record. Anyway I get the feeling he is the genuine article, not withstanding some 'muddling' of facts. RichyBoy 15:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Tour de France goes, two riders test positive and that's the biggest scandal in sporting history? The media are idiots.

As for Mr Satar, looks like our Central Powers numbers have just gone up 50%. What price now a Bulgarian to complete the set? If he enlisted in 1915 and the Liberation War finished in 1922, it is possible for him to have fought in both, and be a prisoner for 5 years. Not necessarily muddling there. We do need to get a handle on his age though. This is not like the other Ukrainian case of Mr Nestor. The 1915 date gives us a minimum of a 19th century birthdate, and some sources would have him surpassing the doyen, or even the doyenne. Robert mentions Maria Capovilla, so this is not without precident. Captain celery 21:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Captain celery


 * He was taken prisoner in 1917 though - the timings become tighter but you are right, far from impossible. More likely than not 5 years in a press article is referring to either a 5 year sentence, commuted, or a 4.5 years served that they just rounded-up. RichyBoy 23:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the only source that cites a birthdate is the French one, let's go with that. Note also the Mar 18 2005 article in Turkish lists him as '107' which suggests a '107th birthday' story. The other age citations seem less reliable.

Note he could become another 'Pawel Parniak' but I doubt it. The age claimed right now, 109, is not out of line with expectation for enrollment in 1915...he would have been 17 years old at the time, and almost 19 when he was taken prisoner in Feb 1917. Thus, there does not appear much room for age exaggeration.Ryoung122 22:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the articles are forcing the Parniak label on him with their inflated claims. I agree that the Ders des Ders birthdate tallies, but given that George Francis contends that he is 110, Mr Satar could possibly be older. If his story is true, he was pretty unlucky. He served in WW1, was imprisoned, and when he got out had to serve in another war. Then again there must be so many similar stories which died with their tellers. Captain celery 23:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Two More Turkish Veterans?
Greetings,

Another news article appears to say that Yakup is '111'. However, because Muslim years are only 354 days, it could be a confusion of units (although 109 'Christian' years equates to '112' Muslim years).

Perhaps more significant, there are possibly two more veterans. However, given the ages (105), they may have been veterans of the 1919-1922 'war of Independence' instead of WWI:

http://www.aksiyon.com.tr/detay.php?id=22724

Kurtuluş’un son şahitleri

‘Ya şehit ya gazi” olma düşüncesiyle çıktılar yola. Arkadaşları savaş meydanlarında şehit düştü. Onlar ise gazi olarak evlerine döndü. İstiklal Harbi gazilerinden geriye sadece ‘üç kahraman’ kaldı: Yakup Satar (111), Veysel Turan (105) ve Ömer Küyük (105).

Ryoung122 05:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if they were veterans of the Independence Wars, 1919-1922 - then that would qualify them as World War I era Vets, given the connection between World War I and the Turkish War of Independence - so they should still be added, albeit in the 'supplementary' section, should they not? 58.160.125.76 12:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if Ders des Ders is to be believed http://dersdesders.free.fr/turquie.html then these two are already dead. Anyway, that page lists the last known 7 veterans of both the first world war and the 'liberation' war. Yakup Satar is still alive and fought in both, the rest are dead including the two listed here. Omer Hoyuk (13-01-2006) is also a veteran of both wars and I believe the rest are 'liberation' war veterans. With the last Gallipoli campaign soldier dying in 1998, and out of those 8 listed only 2 were WW1 veterans it does make you wonder if those three in total are actually the last three and we're not missing the swathes I thought we might be. (when I say swathes I was thinking perhaps a dozen or so between 1998 to-date). RichyBoy 16:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well then we can add them to the '2006 deaths' and '2007 deaths.' The question is whether the second (died in 2007 is just an 'era' veteran or a WWI veteran. Also, I assume you mean last 'Turkish' Gallipolli veteran, I think Australia had some after 1998.74.237.28.5 19:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your right. The last veteran of Gallipolli died in 2002 at I believe age 103. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.44.93 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed so: his name is Alec Campbell. Extremely sexy 04:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok I added the two (died in 2006 and 2007) but for the other five, we don't yet have even a death year, so no need to add them unless we get more information. As per Frederic Mathieu, I put the 2006 veteran as "WWI" and the 2007 vet as "WWI-era" although if he was 108, I do wonder if he could have served prior to the war's end.Ryoung122 22:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny that a few weeks ago, with no source, most people said that no Turkish vets would be found. Now we have a source stating that only one is left and people think that there might be more. It's a case of waiting ages for a bus and wanting two to come along at once. But I suppose there's nothing wrong with optimism.Captain celery 03:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Captain celery

Personal Vendettas on Wikipedia?
Greetings,

I questioned the downgrading of this article by 'Errabee':

[edit] Assessment of 'Surviving Veterans' Article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I

Greetings,

Please explain your downgrading of this article's rating. I do not believe that the "B" class description is the most accurate, and it should be upgraded or at least undergo 'peer review.'

Ryoung122 01:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The above comment did not seem inappropriate or disrespectful. However, the response was to nominate the entire article for deletion (which failed) and also included a personal attack on my person (i.e. Errabee nominated my own article for deletion):

Robert Young (gerontologist)

I also note that those pushing for the deletion---such as "Aboutmovies"---were also upset when I questioned the believability of the Mary Ramsey Wood claim to age 120. It is indeed ironic that persons who claim to be objective are, in reality, often so petulant and biased. An article about Mary Ramsey Wood is in itself marginal. However, the question right now: should I have my own article, or not? You can all vote and I also welcome commentary.

Sincerely Robert Young Ryoung122 18:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My own take on that issue will be on the AfD, but in any event, I'm not sure how this talk page is an appropriate venue for discussing it.   RGTraynor  19:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well we are all aware of the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia. Sadly immaturity, self-righteousness and piety are rampant and there isn't much you can do about it but hope one is mostly unsullied by these kinds of people. Regarding the downgrading I don't have a problem with it per se as long as the person gave concrete reasons why, because this article is extremely, extremely close to MoS and something more specific should have been mentioned (the only thing I can obviously see is that the introduction needs strengthening to support a potential headline article on Wiki as A class articles must provide). RichyBoy 08:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Harry Patch info
His book was released on hardback yesterday and my copy has duly arrived, The Last Fighting Tommy ISBN 978-0-7475-9115-3 published by Bloomsbury. I've only read the introduction so far, but it mentions there are around 8,000 centurians living in Great Britain, compared to 102 in 1911, according to the Office of National Statistics. The book also mentions he is the 2nd oldest man in the UK. Just for info, as we're all interested in that kind of thing. RichyBoy 11:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yakup Satar and Maybe Two More!
It is very good to have discovered Turkish WW1 vets (if they prove authentic). A total of 2,850,000 Ottoman military personnel served in that war; of which 325,000 died, leaving 2,525,000 surviving the Ottoman surrender of Oct. 30th, 1918. I haven't seen statistics as to how many Turks died in the next 4 years of war until 1922. But if one would use the 2,525,000 figure as a survivor baseline, assume an 1892 average birth year for them (since the Ottomans entered the war in Nov. 1914), and give the odds against a Turkish or Arab man (since the O.E. included Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine) living to age 100 as 1,000 to 1 then about 2,500 would still have been alive in 1992. Assuming a 50% yearly death rate after that would lead to 1/128 th of that number still alive in 1999, or about 20. Just call it a couple dozen to make it simple. And these are probably conservative estimates, considering that after 1922 Turkey had very little external military action and a repressive government to maintain internal stability under Kemal Ataturk and his successors.JeepAssembler 00:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler 00:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

25 SuperCentenarians and Counting.
With Aarne Armas Arvonen due to reach his 110th birthday today, the number of supercentenarians on these lists will total 25; no doubt with more to come. As an example, it seems that Frank Buckles is healthier at 106 1/2 than Russell Coffey was at that age. No doubt also that some World War 1 Veterans who lived to age 110 or longer are not on the lists, since many participants in that conflict were born in the middle 1880's and would not have still been alive in 1999. Looking ahead to say, the year 2037; and considering the even larger baseline of WW2 survivors (About 85,000,000 total WW2 military personnel were still alive on September 2nd, 1945 versus just over 50,000,000 total WW1 military personnel still alive on November 11th, 1918)and the fact that most countries life expectancies (And therefore probably incidence of longevity) probably increased between the 1890's and 1920's; does anyone seriously doubt that at least 100 WW2 vets will reach SuperCentenarian status. Barring nuclear war, giant meteor impact, or some other global cataclysm of course.JeepAssembler 16:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler 16:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Picture of JeepAssembler with J. Russell Coffey
Image:Mr. COFFEY.JPG From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Image File history File links

No higher resolution available. Mr._COFFEY.JPG (400 × 275 pixel, file size: 12 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

[edit] Summary This is a picture of myself with J. Russell Coffey taken at his nursing home on June 29th, 2006. It should be in the discussion page for Surviving Veterans of World War 1.JeepAssembler 14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler 14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

File history Legend: (cur) = this is the current file, (del) = delete this old version, (rev) = revert to this old version. Click on date to download the file or see the image uploaded on that date.

(del) (cur) 17:18, 4 August 2007. . JeepAssembler (Talk | contribs). . 400×275 (12,104 bytes) (This is a picture of myself with J. Russell Coffey at his nursing home; taken on June 29th, 2006 by a nurse employed at the facility. ) (del) (rev) 14:17, 3 August 2007. . JeepAssembler (Talk | contribs). . 400×275 (12,104 bytes) (This is a picture of myself with J. Russell Coffey taken at his nursing home on June 29th, 2006. It should be in the discussion page for Surviving Veterans of World War 1.JeepAssembler 17:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler 17:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

Upload a new version of this file Edit this file using an external application See the setup instructions for more information.

File links

No pages on the English Wikipedia link to this file. (Pages on other projects are not counted.)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mr._COFFEY.JPG" Category: User-created GFDL images

ViewsImage Discussion Edit this page History Watch Personal toolsJeepAssembler My talk My preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out Navigation Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article interaction About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes File upload wizard Contact Wikipedia Make a donation Help Search Toolbox What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Printable version Permanent link

This page was last modified 14:17, 3 August 2007. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers

Archive and general tidying-up
As most of these comments have been inactive for a while I've pushed them out into the archive. If somebody feels that a point should remain current then feel free to hook it back out from the archive. I've also changed the template to what is (now) the standard archive template for wiki. AndI've added the proper mutli-old-afd template as well. RichyBoy 15:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I like the new look, much more navigable. Your hard work is much appreciated. Canadian Paul 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes: great job. Extremely sexy 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Creation of a new page
I've spent some time creating a new page called Last_veterans_of_World_War_I which I've been meaning to start for quite a while now. I would think that it is the long-term successor to this page in some shape or form. It needs a lot more work yet and some may wonder as to why I've used tables for what are one-line entries - that's because in the fullness of time the article would be expanded to capture an entry for the last soldier of a particular force, for instance. However, I noticed after I started that somebody else (Captain Celery) has also started a similar list Last_World_War_I_veteran_by_country. I've also spent some time reading through various wiki portals, I'm quite likely to put enough time in to get this article properly rated and so forth. RichyBoy 01:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

These two should probably be merged.Ryoung122 04:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed: I agree. Extremely sexy 14:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree -- Rehnn83 Talk 16:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Last Surviving British Veterans
Further to the above discussion and the entries on both the Last_veterans_of_World_War_I and Last_World_War_I_veteran_by_country for veterans from the Home Countries of the United Kingdom, I've done some additional research and would comment as follows:

England According to the England & Wales Birth Index 1837 - 1983 and Canadian newspaper The Globe & Mail, all six surviving British veterans were born in England.

Scotland The last surviving Scottish veteran was not Alfred Anderson, as was widely reported at the time of his death in 2005, but William Young who passed away last month. Young was born in Carluke, Lanarkshire and lived there until the age of 13 (see and  for verification). I have updated their respective entries.

Interestingly, of the last five known surviving Scottish veterans only Anderson died in his native land: William Young and Bill Burnett (2004) died in Australia, William Elder (2005) and Alfred McEwan (2004) died in England.

Wales After cross-referencing the entries in the 'Died in' pages with the England & Wales Birth Index 1837 - 1983, it would appear that the last surviving Welsh veteran was Walter Humphrys, Private, 15th (County of London) London Regiment (Price of Wales's Own Civil Service Rifles), born 5th September 1897 in Cardiff, died 16th April 2003. I've updated his entry accordingly.

Ireland The last surviving veteran living in Northern Ireland was reportedly Thomas Shaw (d. 2 March 2002). Given the comparatively small population of the Province and the absence of any subsequent 'William Young' style accounts from elsewhere in the UK or abroad this is very likely to be correct.

Tracing the last survivor living in the Irish Republic is more problematic. For reasons discussed recently elsewhere on these pages, service to the forces of the British Empire was not something to be widely advertised even 80 years later. I came across the obituary of Robert Ruttledge (d. 12 January 2002) in the Irish Times (link to free version attached here ) which, despite the fact that he was a career soldier who served in two World Wars, focuses on his eminence as an ornithologist.

The contemporary political situation notwithstanding, Irishmen volunteered to fight in WWI in significant numbers and there is a possibility that one or more less notable veterans survived Ruttledge and died later, either in Ireland or (given emigration rates) the USA, without reference being made to their war service. The best we can say just now is that Ruttledge is the last known survivor from the Irish Republic.

I hope that this helps. Good luck with the 'Last Veterans' pages, I think it's a great idea.86.129.65.183 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Bruce


 * Might not the Welsh veteran be (Jack) John Oborn? He died in 2004. If you are sure it isn't, I'll change it to your suggestion on the 'Last Veterans'. RichyBoy 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought so too. Extremely sexy 18:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Although he died in Porthcawl, Glamorgan, the England & Wales Birth Index 1837-1983 shows that John Richard H Oborne was born in Bath, Somerset in Quarter 2 (April-June) 1900. There is no-one else of that name in the entire index so we can be certain that this the same John Richard Henry (Jack) Oborne who died on 23rd October 2004 aged 104.


 * Actually, Jack Oborne wasn't even Porthcawl's last WWI veteran; he was survived by George Hardy who died on 22nd January 2005. Alfred Finnigan was the last veteran to die in Wales, in Llanglydwen, Carmarthenshire on 11th May 2005.  However, like Oborne both Hardy and Finnigan were English, born in Hull and Greenwich respectively.


 * I cross-referenced the surviving UK veterans, then those who died in 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003 with the 1837-1983 Birth Index and Walter Humphrys was the most recently deceased Welsh-born veteran to appear, so he's definitely your man. It's a pity that in light of this distinction, his passing seems to have gone unreported at the time.86.129.65.183 23:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Bruce


 * It occurs that in addition to being the last known WWI veteran born in what is now the Irish Republic, Robert Ruttledge was also feasibly the last known WWI veteran of the Indian Army, having served in the 34th Prince Albert Victor's Own Poona Horse (to give it it's full name). At that time the officer corps of the Indian Army was entirely British with Indians restricted to the ranks.


 * I've updated Ruttledge's entry to this effect, and I'd be interested to know if Richyboy feels that he qualifies for inclusion as the Indian Empire's entry on the 'Last Veterans of World War I' page.86.129.70.243 21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Bruce
 * If he was an officer in that particular army then he would merit a listing for being the last one - but under the UK and Ireland entry. It's one of the inadequacies of making lists like these - how do you sort them? By birth place, by service nation? 'Surviving veterans' concerns itself with the country a particular veteran is currently residing and thus manages to side-step the problem. We want to 'super-sort' not just within the table, but across every table itself, basically there needs to be relational integrity as you would get with a database. I don't know how programmable wikipedia actually is, it may be possible for me to pre-load each entry into a javascript array and then we can manipulate until our hearts content. RichyBoy 00:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Polished Henry Allingham's biography
I've spent some time today polishing up Henry Allingham's article. Some more work is still required here, I have however added a photograph of him which although not free-use we should be able to keep under fair-use (photographed wearing all 4 medals which he doesn't normally do), I've added to the info box, I've expanded on a number of points and added a section on war medals as well as starting to reference things up properly. As a matter of note it's probably worth including a medal section on the vets pages as we tidy up as it adds a bit more substance. RichyBoy 14:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Orin Peterson
I know he has been discussed in the past (I re-read the arguments in the archives) but as I've just signed up for a trial account on ancestry.com I've decided to look him up (as he was recently pointed out as not having a citation).

He is clearly listed in "World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918" and he was drafted on September 12th 1918, which makes him officially part of the third and final draft. I've taken a screen-shot of the record if anyone is interested; leave your email address on my talk page and I'll mail you a copy (I'll remove your address from the talk page afterwards no fear).

Enlisting oneself doesn't mean he immediately went on to serve in the military and I suppose from his own words he didn't start with the army until after the Armistice, well maybe I will find his military record as well to finalise the point. Anyway, it is still important to note he signed up in the third draft. RichyBoy 12:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, how does his case stack up against J Russel Coffey and Harry Richard Landis in comparison? What is the difference between their cases (especially Harry Landis as he was a draft enlistee) and his? RichyBoy 13:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Good find! Gives us a couple of problems here. I think we need some-one who knows how the drafting and enlistment process works in the USA. When you are drafted does that mean you have enlisted (in which case Orin Peterson counts as WW1 vet)or does the draft card put you on notice that you will be enlisted in due course? (in which case he may have enlisted in 1919 as his nephew writes) I must confess I don't have a clue how this process works in the USA, and at what stage you are officially in the Armed services. SRwiki 08:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if enlisted in 1919, this proves why we need a 'WWI-era' listing...because persons like these were drafted AS PART OF THE WAR EFFORT AND BECAUSE OF THE WAR. Even Robley Rex, banging away on his typewriter in France, went to France because of the war. The peace treaty wasn't signed until 1919. Work after the Armistice included cleaning minefields and guarding German soldiers.Ryoung122 13:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ders des Ders have Peterson listed, so it's easy to see why there is some confusion. It would be amazing if Spokane had two veterans since they already have John Babcock. Captain celery 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, until Will Young died, Perth had two with Claude Choules. Then again Perth has 1.5 million people whereas Spokane only 200,000. Babcock and Peterson are 214 combined. Will Young died a few days too early for him and Choules to have reached 214 aswell. I don't know what the record is for an Edna Parker/Bertha Fry style meeting of veterans. Henry Allingham and Robert Meier must have come close to 220. Can anyone beat that? Captain celery 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

have henry allingham and harry patch met recently as im sure that would beat it?Webbmyster 10:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If Harry Patch had gone to Buckingham Palace this summer then that would definitely have been 220 and a few weeks. But if they make it next year then it'll be 222. If Emiliano Mercado and Moses Hardy met it could have been 228 or 229, but that's more than the Parker/Fry record so can't have happened, which isn't surprising especially since Mercado was from Puerto Rico. Similarly, I doubt Antonio Todde in Sardinia would have met, for instance, John Painter, which could have been 224. 89.241.253.167 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Captain celery

Last African veteran?
I've come across the attached death notice for one M'Lthiria Mukaria who served in the 33rd (Kenya) King's African Rifles in WWI, and died in May 2007 aged 114(!). The source is the King's African Rifles Regimental Association website which gives the claim some credence but it is otherwise unsubstantiated.

I've created an 'Unverified Veteran Claims' section on the 'Died in 2007' page for for Mukaria for the time being. Perhaps others with more time could reseach further. 86.129.80.101 22:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Bruce

IF he was 114 then he'd slot in between Mercado and Tanabe for oldest man. And he'd have been in the top 3 overall, possibly displacing Emma Tillman entirely. But I suppose it's just speculation at this point.

By the way, thanks for pointing out that Will Young was the last Scottish veteran. Somehow I never made the connection. Everyone has a blindspot. I also added Walter Humphrys to my page (even though it may be merged). Captain celery 23:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is a longevity claim. Extremely sexy 22:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe so, but as you know an inflated age declaration doesn't necessarily invalidate the claimant's status as a WWI veteran. I've emailed the KAR Regimental Association asking for more information and will report back as and when details are received.86.129.80.101 23:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Bruce


 * Lovely: keep us posted, but this is the talkpage for surviving veterans, and not for the ones who died in 2007. Extremely sexy 23:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)