Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I/Archive 5

Harry Patch heart warmer
A slightly more unusual activity here, guest of honour at a pub re-opening. Harry Patch is certainly mischievous!

http://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/latestheadlines/display.var.1873433.0.last_ww1_survivor_is_guest_of_honour.php

RichyBoy (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

First they call him the last trench veteran and then get his age wrong. The first mistake could be explained by British-centrism, but come on, do your research. Sometimes I wonder why we bother. 80.2.16.73 (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Captain celery


 * Heh well, I wouldn't treat wiki as anything more than light reading. You'd be bonkers to do any proper research around it. RichyBoy (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Carmelo Bertolami - no cite?
I went to add Carmelo Bertolami to the list of Recent Deaths for November 4 2007, but in the process realized that there is no independent cite for his death anywhere. Does anyone have one? Should he be reinstated? Thank you for your help! Susan Gleason (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The same thing happened to me. I wouldn't reinstate him, since he's been taken off Genarians, but maybe they're taking their cues from here. 80.2.16.73 (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Captain celery


 * Thanks, Cap'n Celery. It does get circular sometimes! Susan Gleason (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Russell Coffey
He was removed from the list and death date Dec, 20 2007 appeared on his wiki page, but no one ever add him to 2007 WWI veterans death list. Are there any references for his death? His name have to go somewhere - or here or on on death list. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.105.211 (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NEWS13/712210402 would be a good reference for his death. RichyBoy (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK then. I've just put him on 2007 deaths and changes total numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.105.211 (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive Volume 4
I've archived the discussion page as it was getting a bit long, if there are any subjects that you wish to re-discuss please copy and paste them out of the archive back onto this page. RichyBoy (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

J. Russell Coffey Memorial Service
Today I attended the Memorial and Funeral Services for J. Russell Coffey; the Memorial was preceded by a one hour socialization period at the funeral home and the burial was preceded by a seven gun salute (each of the seven American Legionnaire gunners firing three shots with an M-14 rifle). Attendance was sufficient but not enormous; consisting mostly of people who knew him as a College Professor or Rotarian as well as the local American Legion Post and of course, family members. Intersetingly I learned that his 84 year old daughter had died about two months ago. I felt a bit out of place as I was merely someone who had learned of him through the media and then went and visited him. I did meet the director of the Bowling Green, Ohio Rotary Club at the socialization period; I had called that diector on the telephone earier this year to talk with him about Mr. Coffey.

In many ways Mr. Coffey was the textbook example of what one would expect of a centenarian based upon literature on that subject. He was small bodied (probably no more than 5'5" tall; 1.64 meters for those used to SI measurements) and thin (probably only weighing about 115 lbs. or 52 kgs.), of course all elderly people shrink so he may have been bigger when younger; nevertheless he fit the general physical profile of someone who lived a long time. He kept active as long as possible; only in the last two years was he forced to really rest. A small body is simply easier on it's organs while activity keeps the organs in working order for a longer period of time. He also fit the general psychological profile of most known centenarians; the people delivering the eulogies commented about his easy going manner, sense of humor, spiritualism, and desire to help his community. A less stressful life is easier on ones health.

Some interesting coincidences: He lived for 109 years and 110 days. I first met him at 12:30 P.M. (Eastern U.S.A. time) on May 4th, 2006; at that time I was 13,108 days and 13 hours old. His birthdate of Sept. 1st, 1898 made him 39,326 days old on May 4, 2006; but if he were born at 9:30 P.M. on Sept. 1st, 1898 then he would have been 39,325 days and 15 hours old at the time which I met him, exactly three times my age down to the hour at that time! But as I don't know his time of birth I'll just settle for knowing that he was within one day of being thrice my age. Finally, his death on Dec. 20th, 2007 was the day before the Chrysler plant where I work (where Dodge Nitro, Jeep Liberty, and Jeep Wrangler vehicles are made; hence my chat-room handle) shut down for holiday break; giving my co-workers chances to comment since they all have heard me talk about him during the past 19 1/2 months. On my first day off I go to the Memorial services. Several months ago it was predicted by others in this chat-room that he would be among the next WW1 vets to die; that he wouldn't last beyond 2007. They were right, but he probably lived a few months longer than anyone expected.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Serioli dead?
Battista Serioli passed away aged 107 according to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czolgolz (talk • contribs)
 * Yes indeed, apparently so, but when exactly (the forum message posted dates from December 22nd)? Extremely sexy (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I found an Italian news alert page article of the same date over here, but still no exact date of death, although it does state that his funeral was to take place the very next day, Sunday 23rd. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________ Just a quick update on Robley Rex. As of December 20th he was alive, and he can still write a lengthy several page letter at 106. However, the answer to my question has been avoided about what year he joined. Though this is no proof, I believe he let the cat out of the bag when he said he joined at age 18. Hence 1919. (PershinBoy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.188.174 (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Last German veteran dead
Dr. Erich Kästner died 1.1.2008. Here is his death notice: http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/2530/file5573fl9.jpg

(ChrisW) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.230.171 (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone prematurely blanked Germany...Kunsler's still alive, unless anyone know's differently. Kaster was the last German veteran, Kunsler fought for Austria-Hungary. Czolgolz (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Erich Kästner it is the last german veteran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.194.128.107 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.207.161 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it amazing that Australia, which only mobilized 400,000 troops still has vets while Germany, which mobilized 11,000,000 doesn't.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair to the stat you mention there has only been one Australian alive for quite some time - the rest were born in Britain and later emmigrated. Also I don't think they recruited below the age of 18, unlike 16 for other countries - two years sadly makes a lot of difference. RichyBoy (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is - finally - a big article on Kästner in Spiegel Online: http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/1280/der_leise_tod_des_letzten_veteranen.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.188.39 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Last polish veteran dead
Stanislaw Wycech died on the 12th. I'm surprised it took this long to get to us, since he's a national hero. If Frederic Mathieu is correct with his Russian service theory (and it's a big if given that he was 15) then in two weeks we've lost the last of 11 million German troops and the last of 12 million Russians. And still very little attention is paid. Amazing. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Louis de Cazenave & Raymond Cambefort dead
Louis de Cazenave has died.  The last French veteran living is Lazare Ponticelli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.229.209.33 (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean last verified veteran. There could still be controversy over Ponticelli's state funeral if the likely anonymous vet outlives him. I wonder how much mention will be given to his Italian roots and service. I suppose since he has lived in France for a century he's pretty well integrated by now.

On a side note, if Antonio Fernandes is a true case then there were 14 supercentenarian men again, for a couple of weeks. That seems to be something of a ceiling. Obviously Ponticelli isn't verified either, but I think we can be fairly sure of his DOB.

It's been a bad month. My doom-mongering during last winter's (sans Australia) numbers collapse proved incorrect. But because of it there aren't that many left for this summer to sustain. It'll be interesting to see how the Gompertz Tail will play out. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Captain celery

One thing that should be mentioned is that death rates are said to increase in winter months; and we are here discussing some of the oldest people in the world. By looking at the tables it does seem that fewer die in the summer months; We will probably total in the single digits by the 90th anniversary of the Armistice.JeepAssembler (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent article on William Olin
Finally, someone has done what some so-called researchers should've done - dig into the William Olin story.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/lifestyles/726781,2_5_AU06_STORYTELLER_S1.article

Matt Hanley's article gives excellent background to this case & it's still up in the air about his service - there IS no proof - but lists the reasons why that MIGHT be.

The article does mention one thing that someone might be able to look into - Olin said he enlisted in Kentucky - does that tally with any wartime service records - say, on Ancestry?

Yours, RDO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.135.30 (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Unlike Orin Peterson there is no call-up card or roll that a "William Olin" appears on (at least, not when I checked it out when I was a member of Ancestry). There are myriad possible reasons for this:
 * Was never a veteran
 * Lied about his name to enlist, meaning we'll never find the roll
 * Lied about his age to enlist, meaning we'll never find the roll
 * Name was mangled by recording officer to something awkward like "Bill Owelin" or "William O'lynne"
 * Roll was destroyed
 * Enlisting location is incorrect - eg, he wasn't in Kentucky at all
 * Enlisted without being added to the roll because of age (someone broke the rules)
 * Enlisted in some capacity that we don't understand or know about which meant he wasn't a normal veteran (Ambulance assisstant, but that article mentions the division that he said he served in which means there should be a roll-card).

The history of the 32nd red arrow division makes it clear about a few things:

The 32nd Division was created by combining the Michigan and Wisconsin National Guard. Wisconsin provided about 15,000 soldiers and Michigan provided 8,000. Later 4,000 National Army troops (selectees or draftees) from Wisconsin and Michigan were assigned to the Division before it left for France.
 * Regarding the above, replacements troops where sourced from any state, not just Wisconsin/Michigan so it isn't a guarantee.


 * 32 Division is a somewhat vague - what unit was he attached to? The Wisconsin Ambulance Company No 2 for instance?

Tantalisingly they have a list of deaths of all enlistees - but only go as far as the sirnames with the letter g! That would have perhaps revealed the truth (or maybe not, considering some of the comments I make above).

Sadly I doubt if we will ever be able to corroborate the claim. It happened in England as well - people lost their medals (Henry Allingham lost his medals in The Blitz if you read his story) and the national records office was also bombed and set on fire during The Blitz - but unlike America, all of the World War I rolls were eventually recoverable and are on micro-fiche now (even though they were thought to be irrerperably damaged until quite recently).

RichyBoy (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that Olin's family disputed his claim aswell? Of course that doesn't mean he is wrong, but it doesn't exactly help his claim. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

If you dig round in the archives you will discover that according to some of his younger relatives William Olin is prone to exaggeration. For my part, whilst I do not intend to re-open the "should we include him debate" (I am perfectly happy to leave him as an unverified claim) I am massively sceptical, given his age and what little evidence we have, contradicting his claimed service record. SRwiki (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If he went in 1917 I don't think he could be - they didn't ship abroad until Feb '18 and it is presumably only from that point onwards where draftees/enlistees from other states entered to replace those troups that had been killed/immobilised. RichyBoy (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fate of the remaining veterans
On March the 3rd the youngest veterans will be 107-years-old. The mortality rate has sadly started to creep back up. Unlike 2007 this year could realistically see the death of the last known veteran globally. According to the GRG list Henry Allingham in one year has leapt from 68th to 28th place in the living validated super-centenarians list (not that the list pretends to be exhaustive; they estimate possibly 300 are living world-wide, eg, Lazzare Ponticelli isn't in the list although he is over 110 now). This time next year 6 of these 16 veterans would be on a list which sees mortality expressed in percentages of over 60% where male entries have been lower than 10% (although at the moment it's about 1-in-6). Hopefully though the winters stay mild and the summers stay cool wherever they live, and we'll get to see some make it to 2009. RichyBoy (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7199127.stm [please see this link for info on 2nd last French vet.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.92.72 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC) ____________________________________________ This month has taken a toll. However, I still think four or five will make it to 2009, and one or two until 2010, and possible one like John Babcock could make it to 2011. During the Civil War there were around 12 veterans living in 1952. In 1954 only one verified veteran remained- Albert Woolson, and he died in 1956. It is possible all could go by the end of this year, but I think  last veteran could make it to 2011. I also think as we get close to the final few, we will have some fictious claims come forward. As in the Revolutionary war, and Civil War. (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, 6 down in a little over a month isn't a good portent. I also think that a couple of veterans will continue on into 2009 - and maybe further. It was more a statement of reality - this year is the first year that it could become a reality - but I hope it doesn't. RichyBoy (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible all could go this year, but I would seriously doubt it. Jan. of this year looks pretty sad. However, from July 25th to Sept 30th of 2007 none of the WWI veterans died that we know about. (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I get what you are trying to say, but with the deaths of Lazare Ponticelli and Yakup Satar, I think that there may be five veterans alive by 2009, but I find it highly unlikely that one could make it to January 1, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.59.63 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Heck, Frank Buckles can still march in parades; I doubt he wil die any time soon.JeepAssembler (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope Buckles will be the last (I guess me being an American is my reason) and make it to at least 110. However, as I've said before, at these great ages they could do cartwheels one day, and be gone the next. The body just wears out. (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk)

Robley H. Rex, died 1/8/2006, age 105s (Still alive and well Dec. 2007)
According to this web site, the veteran Rex is death http://www.ocalamagazine.com/specPubsNews/templates/default.aspx?a=909&template=print-article.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.250.118 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We know he was alive a month ago so that is a mistake, but thanks for bringing it to our attention anyway. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

(Edit conflict) For many reasons, that site does not appear reliable at all to me, the most obvious being that it considers Rex to be the last surviving World War I veteran, which is clearly false. Also, the information is not substantiated by the SSDI, which covers 95% of all deaths in the United States. Cheers, CP 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any internet archives of Kentucky (Where he lived/lives) newspapers to check?JeepAssembler (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if your willing to take my word for it, he wrote me a long letter and sent me several photos dated dec. 2007 (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a featured list - but I'm curious, what will happen to it once all the veterans are dead?
I don't know if this issue has ever been raised before. Thoughts?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean, articles are constantly being removed from the list with each new death, so that once the last one dies (and it's not gonna be that far off now at the current rate - my guess is 5 years from now), there'll be no need for this list - and it cannot be a featured list once this happens. Featured content is not temporary - right?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the last death article will be the main one then. I'm more optimistic than RichyBoy. I don't think there's much chance of it being 2008, but 2012 is a brave prediction given the last few days. If one of them 'does a Mercado' then it'll look quite conservative. The centenary is possible. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
 * I'd still like more people like Canadian Paul and Bart Verseick who are interested in this area to offer their thoughts on this issue I've raised about this list.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This list was never intended to remain as a featured list forever - it will break wiki guidelines in the end and I knew that when I went into the process of making this a featured list. At some point it will be reviewed again and it won't meet the criteria - although I would point out it was accepted that although ultimately transitory in nature the list had sufficient durability to not be excluded (eg, of considerable interest and likely to be around for a few years). There is currently a more simple list elsewhere describing the last veteran of each nation. The compromise would probably be when there are so few veterans left that the page becomes an article rather than a list (perhaps about 6 veterans or so), at which point the other list has a prominent role and could be made featured. Again this list would never have been featured if there were hundred-plus veterans with content changing on a near-daily basis (as it did indeed a few years back). RichyBoy (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know (or care) much about wikipedia's procedures; but if this list must be removed from wikipedia then it would be nice to see it transferred elsewhere in cyberspace. More veterans should be found posthumously (Remember Bruce's comment about us only presently knowing about 2/3 of living WW1 Vets) and some cases could be proven fraudulent (As examples John Sallings was proven not to be a U.S. Civil War Vet and the claim of Jones Morgan being the last Spanish-American vet also looks dobtful). I happen to think that the whole era from 1911 to 1922 was so significant in shaping the world we live in (whether politically, socially, scientifically, or technologically speaking) that this information should not be discarded. As for my own part I have contacted the Japanese and Bulgarian Embassies in Washington D.C. to try to find out when those countries' last veterans died. I know it will be very difficult if not impossible to find anything though.JeepAssembler (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What would be transferred elsewhere? If the list is removed, it'll be because it's entirely empty, because there are no surviving veterans remaining. So I'm not sure what you expect to transfer anywhere else. ;-) All the information that was here will continue to gradually move from this page to the various 'WWI Veterans that died in ...' articles until there is simply none left here to transfer. --Maelwys (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that removing the list implied deleting the entire article and everything that was ever in it.JeepAssembler (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It does mean deleting the entire article, but it doesn't mean deleting everything in it. That information can still be held elsewhere on wikipedia, just not here since they would no longer be living. aremisasling (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the list would be rejiggered as a "List of the last surviving veterans of World War I". But yeah, this is one of the few featured lists on Wikipedia with a built-in expiration date. --Golbez (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War (Resurrected in light of recent deaths)
In looking at this list as it slowly dwindles - which I suspect may still take a few years yet, my mind turns to the next major conflict that effected the Western World. Which, to my mind is the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). Incidentally, it started on my birthday (July 17th, 1936), so it is of particular interest to me. In looking at the Spanish Civil War page here on Wikipedia I've noticed that there is not a similar page of surviving veterans for that conflict - although surely there can't be thousands of them still left? (Or maybe there is?) I'd be interested to know from one of the statisticians who visits these pages (JeepAssembler?) how many veterans it could be estimated that there still are from that conflict - and raise the question of at what point it is perhaps appropriate to start up a more rigorous page documenting the last 100?200?500? veterans of the Spanish Civil War.

Is anyone aware of any current resource that tracks this sort of thing in relation to the Spanish Civil War?jkm 05:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

My suspicion is that it is too early to start digging (could be wrong) as the youngest vets are in their mid eighties but I could be wrong, I would welcome a statistical opinion on this before I start doing any digging - luckily for the UK there appears to an International brigade trust who may have a handle on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SRwiki (talk • contribs) 09:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish Civil War effectively ended in April, 1939; slightly more than 68 and one-half years ago. To compare with the same time span after WW1 would have been July, 1987; although I have never seen an estimate as to how many U.S. WW1 vets were still alive at that time a reasonable guestimate would be in the neighborhood of 150,000 out of the 4,735,000 who served (about 3% of the total); considering the V.A.'s estimate of 321,000 in March, 1983 and the 1990 Census count of 65,000. Of course one would have to know the total number involved in the SSW (Spaniards and Foreigners); their average ages at the time, and their actuarial life expectancies (a lot were killed in the aftermath).JeepAssembler (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

i read that in 1990 there were roughly 39,000 british servicemen left from 1914 - 1919. thats out of 6 million so should still be a lot left! Webbmyster (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the last Welsh veteran has already died, but there weren't many in the first place. 80.2.16.73 (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Captain celery


 * Given the fact it was a Civil War, I can't believe that there would at least be that many foreign veterans left - as Captain celery's comment would indicate. All those that are left would presumably be in their 90s by now - can't imagine many teenagers going off to fight in a foreign Civil War!jkm 04:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkmccrann (talk • contribs)

I wanted to resurrect this discussion in light of the recent deaths that have occurred in relation to World War I veterans. Again I will ask, is anyone aware of any tracking, most obviously in Spain and in Spanish, of any lists with regards to Spanish Civil War veterans? Given the number of combatants of the Spanish Civil War was a small fraction of that involved in World War I, the number of veterans remaining at this stage would surely be similarly small in regards to World War I the same distance out from that conflict. Regards. 202.139.104.226 (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any tracking yet, but I would reckon it is too early to reliably track the Spanish side of things. As of 2006 USA had 3.4 million living service men that served in WWII and that's only a maximum window of +6 years from the end of the Spanish CW, however I know that isn't the same thing. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3908529.stm is a article describing the international force that totalled only 45,000 - they are probably candidates for tracking now due to the small pool. This as well: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040301/ai_n14567474. If the total combatants was something near a million in total then I don't think you could even countenance it until the youngest would be 95 - that's some ten years off. RichyBoy (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with RichyBoy, it is too early to make a start (though if anyone wants to, good luck) Another (possibly terminal) difficulty, is the nature of the conflict itself, in that it was fought largely by paramilitary bodies, with weak record keeping. I would hazard a guess that the Fascist vets are reasonably well documented. But I also suspect that the records for the Republicans, Communists, Anarchists etc will probably be sketchy at best. So this could well be bedevilled with undocumented or just plain spurious claims. SRwiki (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

With an international force of 45,000 - would it be right to assume that most of those veterans would have been in their early-mid 20s to be going and fighting in a foreign civil war? Surely that means comparisons with the conscription of younger recruits for the World Wars means that these veterans are going to die out well before, relatively in terms of length of time from the conflict, than veterans from the World Wars. Someone who went to fight in Spain as a 23yr old in 1936 would now be 95 - the age you mention above. In a cohort of 45,000 - how many survivors were there? And what proportion of that 45,000 (or whatever number survived) would be expected to live to the age of 95 anyway? Can't imagine it would be too many. As for the Spanish veterans - the diffifulties in verifying these I would have thought makes it more important to get on top of finding out and trying to verify possible veterans as soon as possible. 58.175.240.247 (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's those very difficulties which means it isn't worth worrying about until there are more manageable numbers. Depends why you are interested of course - if it was just numbers the Spanish government probably do produce a list but as already mentioned above it's likely to be of dubious value, rather, it can't ever be truly accurate. Also, if you are interested in tracking the last veterans to find out who truly is the last one then you need to throw 1936 and 23yr old out of the window - 1939 and 18 is much more like it - not to say that a 1936 vet can't out-last the younger ones but you need to track the youngest who joined up latest - anyone that is older at that point will pop up anyway where as a few years earlier and he would just be one amidst many. For the record about 16,000 died of that 45,000 or so in the International Brigade (website here) http://www.international-brigades.org.uk/ - I did some digging around and discovered that 2,400 British soldiers joined the International brigade, and 526 of those died. In the year 2000 some 40 of these 1874 were still alive - I think they are down to their last handful now, inerestingly Jack Jones is amongst them. For the International Brigade it is probably time to track, there are probably less than 150 or so now. The Spanish in the civil war is going to throw up a lot of 15 years old fighting I would imagine and survivors are going to rank in their thousands still. RichyBoy (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree that there will be plenty of Spanish veterans who were fighting in this war as 15yr olds - no doubt - and it is very tough to verify who these people actually were, but I guess I was being more concerned particularly with International Brigade veterans. You brought up Jack Jones, and it just so happens that he was a 23yr old when he went across to fight - kind of illustrating the point I was making in terms of International Brigade veterans. Sure, there would have been 18yr olds and 19 yr olds who went across to fight in a foreign civil war - just as there were in Bosnia in the 1990s, but of the 45,000 quoted, I think that it would have been a very low percentage of that - under-represented in that figure. At a pinch I think the mean age would skew higher than conflicts like WW1 and WW2 (or the Spanish veterans themselves - which would have a mean age skewed younger), with I still believe, the majority of International veterans being aged in their 20s, from perhaps 22/23 at the time of the start of the conflict. The vast majority.
 * I guess a secondary point to be made is, you guess there may be 150 International Brigade veterans left out there - but how many are actually verified? Wouldn't be many I wouldn't have thought. So if there is a list put up on a place like Wikipedia (along the lines of this page), then that can become something of a central reference point, which can help pull some claims out of the woodwork, or people who may have heard of a claim, and then some kind of verification process is more likely to be undertaken to test the veracity of the claims - as this page does. I wouldn't claim to have the expertise to do this myself, which is why I raise it here - but I would be interested to know how many International Brigade veterans are left from this conflict - and just where they come from and live today! Very interested (I do love a good Hemmingway which may be one reason I say that).202.139.104.226 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well there is always going to be "possible" service cases to be considered that never made it onto a roll (we should be uber-dubious about these from the get-go IMO) but I believe there are complete and unfettered rolls for these armed forces members. Statistically WWII didn't really knobble the stats on older people living longer but we all know WWII knobbled the armed forced. 40 alive today should be nearer the stat just for the UK when it is probably 5 or so - so my 150 people view is IMO highly pragmatic, I don't think you will find more for this moment in time. I believe I could enumerate the UK veterans and the recently departed but I don't think I have time/resources to do any other nation (tacitally, we have agreed the international brigade needs some attention, but forget spain until 2015 say). Not least of all, the WWI list is here because of the French government awarding the legion du honneur in 1998 and making it markedly easy to track troops which were on French soil - this time around explicit co-operation with governments is likely to be required. RichyBoy (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On July 15 2006 there were 24 of those British veterans left alive according to The Times (a quality UK daily newspaper - not a tabloid). http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2270636,00.html Subsequent deaths can be tracked through the obitiuaries on the Ineternational Brigade website - I've a feeling over a dozen still live based on a brief flicking through correlated to those numbers - but there we go, it's a start. The webpage could begin based on this alone. RichyBoy (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good Daily Mail article
The Daily Mail (a UK daily newspaper) has a very good article on page 37 (I will try and scan it in an upload it somewhere later). It makes a great ado about the last German veteran Erich Kästner passing away unnoticed (coincidentally his biography can be expanded a little bit now, for instance he has a civilian medal) and it also discusses the French veteran Louis de Cazenave passing away at the weekend. It's main focus is on Europe so it gets the veteran numbers a little wrong and it still amazes that the parochial UK press miss out the fact that half the remaining British vets live overseas, however it was good to see the rest of the article covering reasonably good detail. RichyBoy (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Der Spiegel also had a good article in its English-language website:    RGTraynor  16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with the death of Erich Kästner media coverage has exploded, and many of the articles refer to this site. Here are some more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=509925 (Daily Mail)

http://news.scotsman.com/world/Germany-silent--as-last.3705297.jp (Scotsman.com)

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/25/veteran.obit.ap/index.html (CNN.com)

http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/1280/der_leise_tod_des_letzten_veteranen.html (Spiegel online)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/default.htm?tag=Dr.%20Erich%20K%C3%A4stner (Daily Telegraph)

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/01/23/kastner.html (CBC News)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/01/24/last-ww1-german-war-veteran-dies-aged-107-89520-20296162/ (Daily Mirror)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/080123/world/world_kastner (Yahoo Canada)

http://www.anorak.co.uk/anorak-editor/179737.html (Anorak News)

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=433219&no=381554&rel_no=1 (OhmyNews Korea)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080125/ap_on_re_eu/obit_last_german_veteran (Yahoo News) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.231.22 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.231.183 (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(ChrisW) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.214.200 (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how many of those articles claim that only four European WWI vets are still alive. Obviously they all cherrypicked from the same article, and didn't bother to check facts.  RGTraynor  18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Kuntzler
Someone keeps deleted Kuntzler's entry without a reference. Is he dead or are they confusing him with the last German guy? Czolgolz (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

His Name ist Künstler, please. I phoned today because of inquiries for a contact to Franz Künstler with the one of the persons which works with Künstler and helps him sometimes. Accourding to her Franz Künstler is still alive and in good chape. --Statistician (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If this nonsense keeps up, perhaps we need semi-protection for a while; most of the reverts come from anon IPs.   RGTraynor  20:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"In training"
Why are soldiers listed as "in training" part of the list? Is that really fair to label them as VETERANS?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It is true to say that with only a very few exceptions that every member of the armed forces that was on the side of the Allied Powers who joined up to and including the date of the Armistice was awarded an Allied Victory Medal (each country struck their own from the basic design) and are conisdered veterans by their governments (including merchant seamen). Furthermore most governments awarded this medal and additionally offer(ed) war pensions for anyone that signed up before the Tready of Versailles as well in 1919 - it's only the romantisist/populist view of the war that believes that a veteran must have been somebody that went "over the top" - this list doesn't attempt to dissambiguate 'combat' veterans for two reasons - Wikipedia doesn't allow for synthesis (eg, making up your own arbitrary rules) and also simply because most governments didn't either (France and Italy had different views on this).

For more information please read the comments in the archive - it's been discussed at great length before and there are a lot of interesting arguments/counter-arguments to consider. RichyBoy (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Consider also that WW1, unlike WW2 did not bring about the complete conquest and unconditional surrender of the defeated side. While in retrospect it is obvious that The Central Powers were in a hopeless position in October, 1918; it still seemed (at least to the general public) like they had enough military power to continue on for longer. In fact I have heard that the Allies were planning a decisive offensive for the following spring. A recruit should not have held against him enlisting at the end of the war because someone in training at that time figured on going to the trenches.JeepAssembler (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a crucial point actually - the sheer weight of American enlistees influenced the demeanour of the rank-and-file German soldier to such a point where surrender was 'more' expediently bought about. This is referenced in several books that I don't have the time to reference now (Denis Showalter et al istr) but the WWI articles on the wiki do cover this in a reasonable amount of detail. Less conscriptees posted oversees or otherwise would have equated to prolonging the war. RichyBoy (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a great list and wonderful source of information on these heroes. On the subject of veterans who were only "in training" at the time of the Armistice being included, personally I would like to see Era vets (ones participating in the actual Great War effort as opposed to those participating in related conflicts, important as those men are) to be included in the "regular list". I understand the necessity to separate those serving prior to the Armistice from those afterwards, but informally I find no reason to make a great distinction between a Robley Rex or even a Floyd Matthews from a Frank Buckles. As has been mentioned, the First World War ground to a halt, not all-but-decided by a small number of defining events as the Second World War was. Were I to hear Rex introduced or honoured as a veteran, I would take no issue with it. He was part of the war effort and even served in Europe before the Treaty of Versailles (if I remember correctly), which legally ended the War according to many historians. A decade ago I might have challenged his service, but with only three men left who participated in the U.S. war effort, and similar small numbers internationally, I really feel that he and the other era vets deserve greater and public recognition. Nothing wrong with "inclusion with an asterisk" for military service, in my opinion. State funerals, etc, can be decided by the authorities for the individual countries, but recognition at large should be for all those who participated in the effort, whether before or slighly after November 11. Snowdog81 (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)snowdog81

Frank Buckles
Today Frank Buckles will turn 107 years old; considering his "youth" (relatively speaking of course) and health (he travels, marches in parades, and as far as I know still lives in his own house); I wonder if he will be the planet's last verified veteran of the First World War?JeepAssembler (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as we have then and now pictures, I am amazed at how little he has changed in 90 years. You don't need to be told that you're looking at the same person. He's a good candidate but the others 'over the pond' are too. Gladys Powers has the advantage of being female, John Babcock seems to have relished his new status, and Harry Landis looks after his wife. Interesting that Erich Kaestner's wife was also a centenarian. Longevity attracts it seems. Over here, Bill Stone is doing well apparently, and Franz Kuenstler is still working, despite people who can't read thinking that he is dead. I hope he is the last one since he was on the frontlines. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

== Józef Kowalski Today Józef Kowalski will turn 108 years old http://www.zachod.pl/articles/view/niech-zyje-200-lat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.30.166.105 (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd say most of us have our favorites as who we wish or think will be the last. However, once you get to these great ages, you can have good health one day, and pass in your sleep the next, as several have done. I believe staying active like Mr. Babcock, he has a great chance. I also think some of it has to do with your outlook. Harry Landis says they will have to shot him, to get rid of him. Harry Patch said he would make 109, but not 110 (Patch stated this in his book, but perhaps he has changed his mind, and sees 110 possible - I hope so). Bill Stone hopes he is the last. Gladys Powers is in very poor health. I thought Lloyd Brown had a great chance from seeing him in an interview and pictures, but he had a short sickness and was gone. At this point it really could be any of the 15. (PershinBoy)209.247.21.167 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Those people who think that Franz Kuenstler is dead must be confusing him with "Kastner" since the names were so similar. As for Harry Patch, I hope he lives at least until June 17th and becomes a Super-Centenarian. I probably am biased towards Buckles as he is an American; but it is true that the British (within the U.K. and overseas) simply aren't dying off at the same rate as everyone else is; we will just see.JeepAssembler (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry Patch has said that he hopes to see 110 - was either in his book or a interview with the BBC late last year, can't remember which. Claude Choules is still in very good health as far as I can recall (I've added a reference on his page for his birthday last March). Although what Pershin has said is very true and I'm purely second guessing, I would think the veterans that can still walk moderately well right here and now are most likely to continue the longest, which I think are Künstler, Choules, Buckles and possibly Stone(he certainly used too, although since he broke his hip I've not seen any photos of him without a wheelchair). Unsuprisingly they are pretty much the youngest as well. RichyBoy (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am biased towards Harry Patch after seeing him on 'The Last Tommy'. I like his accent and he spoke very lucidly about it all. But I have to admit that Frank Buckles has a better chance given his age. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it could be any of them. A lot of people think Tanabe is going to take the male record whereas they don't think Henry Allingham will. I think he would probably need to, to be the last.

I do agree that our guesses aren't even that educated really. Josef Kowalski has reached 108 and Delfino Borroni 109 which shows how the body can be fine even if the mind reportdely isn't. If I was going to back a Brit I would have gone for Bill Stone. But if Claude Choules is still doing well then he has a better chance as the youngest than Stanislaw Wycech did, what with the Australian climate (is that a stereotype?). Perhaps the same could be said for Syd Lucas but I don't know about him. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Turkish Veteran Mentioned; No Further Information
I was searching back through these archives (Archive 1) and noticed that sometime between September 27th and September 29th of 2006 it was mentioned that the last known Turkish veteran at that time (before Yakup Satar) died sometime between late 2003 and early 2005. I wonder why he isn't listed on these death pages? Is his name and/or death date unknown? Or is that case hard to really verify?JeepAssembler (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

http://dersdesders.free.fr/turquie.html Could be one of them listed on there. I don't know if they are reflected on the death lists or not. RichyBoy (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Could refer to Omer Hoyuk. It seems that there were 8 War of Independence vets alive this time 5 years ago, but then 2 years ago he died and 5 of the others already had. Veysal Turan died last year but he was only an era-vet. Also Hoyuk was sort of the last Turk if not the last Ottoman, in the same way that Kaestner was the last German, because Satar was born in modern day Ukraine as Kuenstler was born in modern day Hungary. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

No, that isn't correct. Künstler was born in hungary, but is birth place is now a part of romania. He was a solder of the austria-hungarian force and there he can't be a veteran of a german force. But Satar fought for the osmanian empire and so he is the last ottoman veteran.--Statistician (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK so it's Romania not Hungary, but I was right about everything else. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

No, you aren't. Künstler isn't a "german" veteran of the WWI because he served for the austrian-hungarian army and not because he wasn't born in germany. Romert Meier wasn't born in germany, too, but serve for a german army so he was a german veteran. It's not a question of nationality, it's a question of serving. --Statistician (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Can Anyone Translate This Article Into Foreign (Non - English) Languages?
Just for the sake of curiousity; I looked at the German and French versions of Wikipedia to see if this article was on either of them and it wasn't. It may be a simple matter of me not properly phrasing "Known Surviving Veterans of World War 1" in French and German. I did look in my German - English dictionary to find the words and then called a German language professor at one of the universities in my area to get her opinion on how to phrase it. After typing "Uberlebende Soldaten des 1. Welt Kriegs" in the German Wikipedia page search box their were several articles mentioned; including one on the battle of Verdun, so I must have been on the right track. Similarly, on the French Wikipedia homepage I typed in "Survivant Veterans de la Premiere Guerre Mondiale"; which I copied from the Ders des Ders article on Yakup Satar. I am sure that both of those nations have good accounting of their last veterans; my reason for investigating was to see if anyone outside of the English speaking world is similarly tracking. I think that if this article could be translated into foreign languages it would be a big help in finding veterans in places where there probably were some in the past three or four years but that are not on these pages (Japan, Russia, and perhaps other ex-Soviet Republics). I suspect that least some of the names on these lists were found by individuals and not by government or media organizations.JeepAssembler (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually this article has been translated into other languages and are available in their local wikis (certainly german and french), but they don't tend to be as up-to-date and there certainly isn't the discussion that we have, the lead is taken from here. As a tip though if you are searching for non-english articles you must be aware that each country called WWI something different - the concept of WWI simple doesn't exist for some places where they call it the 'great war of independence' and so on, there is no intersection with our usage of WWI whatsoever, so if you search on that key you will get nothing. RichyBoy (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be no Problem to translate the article in german. But if you would try to start it in the German Wikipedia it would be immediately deleted. Because this topic is not relevant. It does not belong to an encyclopedia. This is not my opinion but the opinion of the ruling class in German Wiki. Try it and you will see how many stupid and simple-minded people there are in Germany. By the way the correct translation would be: Überlebende Veteranen des Ersten Weltkriegs. --217.87.190.159 (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Harry Landis dead, Frank Buckles update - US down to 1
http://southshore2.tbo.com/content/2008/feb/06/1-known-wwi-veteran-left-after-sun-city-center-man/

See article above.

Cheers, Richard J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.135.30 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The link doesn't work, but if you search for 'Landis' on the site, you'll find the article. Czolgolz (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jDa5mt0aTjS9lpSru-MHHRROyM9QD8UL38G81

That's the Associated Press release, for reference. RichyBoy (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone shed any light on Jim Lincoln and William Olin? Are they still alive. Both have been on the unverified list for two years. I doubt they are WWI veterans, but I wish these could be resolved so there would be no doubt that Buckles is the last U.S. veteran. (PershinBoy)162.114.40.31 (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Whilst Wikipedia contains a lot of rubbish, I like to think that this page is an exception, and if people follow our article they'll be accurate. And indeed they must have done because we've not seen Lincoln and Olin mentioned, or Rex and Matthews (who's recently turned 105). By all accounts this death is a bit of a shock, but that's how it goes when you're 108. Good for Buckles to be the last, since he came over. Still 2 resident in the US, which drops below the UK and Australia, but level with Italy and perhaps France. And like last year we're averaging 1 fatality per week. I'm sure that won't go on as long though. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery


 * I would expect that the press take their lead from the US veteran affairs department (or whatever it is called) that will be able to tell them that only one person is left claiming a war pension from this conflict (the war pension being how they track them). It doesn't preclude as yet undiscovered veterans, but it does preclude the unverified based on the evidence as far as that department is concerned - they've already said no. Nobody is arguing about Mathews or Rex, they are both era veterans (the only intrigue about dates being from Rex himself). RichyBoy (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This article, from before Landis died, claimed that Matthews was one of three living veterans. So the media does tend to give credence to even those who are demonstrably not veterans. 71.42.216.100 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's like a Google search. If you include the terms 'WW1' and 'vet', even if you have 'era' in between, they're counted as vets-proper. That article actually makes more sense now, because you could include Rex. At that time Babcock would have been the 3rd one. Also strange that they mention Matthews' 105th birthday over a week before it happened. I think Buckles will be the last verified because I believe Peterson was the anonymous vet. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Jim Lincoln
Jim Lincoln hung out at Horsehead, a bar in Eugene, fairly frequently from what I've been told, and from what I read in an early-2006 article in the Oregonian newspaper. However, when I was in there a few weeks ago and asked about him (I didn't know he'd died), they said he was still alive but didn't come in as frequently anymore. He died January 5th of this year. Hmmm. ''James Lincoln

''Dr. James Edward Lincoln of Eugene died Jan. 5 of cancer. He was 109. A celebration of life will be from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. June 21 at Cozmic Pizza in Eugene.

''He was born June 21, 1898, in the Territory of Alaska to Edward and Mary Lee Lincoln. He married Angeline Symans.

''Lincoln was a medical doctor who worked in medical research and in the field of electron microscopes. He served in the military in World War I and World War II.

His wife died in 1988. So whats the story? Anybody have any updates? --Ragemanchoo (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've only just notice that he has been removed from the page. The obituary URL is here: http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/dt.cms.support.viewStory.cls?cid=55020&sid=16&fid=1 RichyBoy (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that his obituary states everything that hasn't been proved yet, in one final act of defiance. I mean this with all the greatest respect in the world, but thank goodness he wasn't the last surviving WWI veteran - I think it might have been a bit embarrassing to have someone who had no proof as the last veteran -

The SSDI report also lists him as 109, interestingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.135.30 (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that might have been the one fact about him that was actually notable. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Someone ought to check and see if even his claimed age was real; if it's really possible.JeepAssembler (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"EMBARRASSING TO HAVE SOMEONE WHO HAD NO PROOF AS THE LAST VETERAN" - Yes, that is what concerns me about William Olin. (PershinBoy)162.114.40.31 (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There was once a man named Charlie Smith who died in Florida in 1979; he was able to convince Social Security that he was born in 1842!JeepAssembler (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If the obituary is correct in that Jim Lincoln held an MD, it should be possible to find his doctoral thesis and see if there is any information on his birthdate in there. (ChrisW) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.131.237.228 (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Which veterans is most in shape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.209.146.27 (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

From watching videos of Babcock and Buckles they seem to be doing quite well. In general I'd say the ones in the best shape are the six youngest on our listing. However, in saying that, Mr. Allingham though he is slowing down seems to be like the energizer bunny. Mr. Stone was doing great until late 2006, he broke his hip, but he recovered and is doing better. (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Which veterans is least in shape? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.209.146.27 (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What a morbid question! Czolgolz (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.209.146.27 (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm morbid myself, so to answer the question, Gladys Powers is reportedly in poor health. In terms of the men, Delfino Borroni has been seen as the 'next to go' since before he turned 109, which was over 6 months ago. Amongst the era-vets, Josef Kowalski has been described in the same way. As for good health I agree that 5 of the youngest 6 are doing best, but only because they've had a few less years. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

I am not even sure that "Jim Lincoln" was his real name. I checked on Ancestry.com and found several entries with names similar to his; including a James Lincoln who also lived in the state of Oregon and died in 2001, a James "Doc" Lincoln (remember his claim to be a Doctor) who lived in either Arizona or Arkansas, and several others with names similar to those he claimed for his parents and wife. Most disturbingly, he claimed to have been born in Alaska at the time of the Klondike Gold Rush (when boom towns sprang up practically overnight and therefore reliable birth records unlikely). His claimed birthday was June 21st; if you are far enough north on that date it is light all 24 hours; some light ought to be shed on this case to either prove it's falsity or unlikely truth.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can complement yourself the biography of John Ross ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.194.133.142 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I searched Ancestry.com under "James Edward Lincoln" as was given in the obituary.JeepAssembler (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikhail Krichevsky
Mikhail Krichevsky is definitely a claim although the below article contains a lot of mistakes (e.g. it states that Lazaro Ponticelli living in US(!) is the only other WWI veteran):

http://novosti.dn.ua/details/58826/

Is it sound or not - that's another question. Therefore, observing recent fight on this page, I suggest a compromise: he should be added to "unverified claims" until his military service is documentally proven. And PLEASE don't make grammatic mistakes when editing the page, especially in verb tenses.--81.190.205.149 (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well its a claim of sorts I suppose, at least on a par with the Jim Lincoln claim so he should be in the unverified until proven otherwise I think (even though personally I suspect this claim will not hold water) SRwiki (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The entry criteria for wikipedia is being citied by the press, arguably we shouldn't remove anyone from the list who has been cited but has been proved otherwise; it's only our job to point out the facts of the matter. In any event this looks sound enough from a google language translation point of view; I'll add him Saturday to unverifides if he hasn't been added before then. RichyBoy (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I agree. I have already reversed the latest edits (incl. Krichevsky deletion)--81.190.205.149 (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason for us not to put him on unverified. Unlike with Olin, there'll surely be a few who conveniently outlive him, since he would also be in the top 10 oldest men if confirmed. But as with Guzman Garcia, there's a reason why Ukraine and Colombia aren't on that MEDC list. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Boris Efimov
He is not a WWI veteran, of course, but can't we treat him as an era veteran? After all, he served in the Red Army during the Russian Civil War in 1918 (as an artist, not a front line soldier, but still...). I know there have been a lot of discussions on this page but still I can't understand why he is discarded altogether... --81.190.205.149 (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me say to 80.66.246.102 in Russian: Коллега, эта статья не игрушка. Не путайте 1МВ с гражданской (Ефимов), а на Кричевского представьте доказательства его службы в 1МВ (газетная статья недостаточна).--81.190.205.149 (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest that Boris Efimov was ever in military service of any kind at this or any other time, it is not mentioned in his official biography and he makes no claim either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SRwiki (talk • contribs) 17:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. In fact, I only see his military service mentioned in the English version of Wikipedia, not in the Russian. Well, then I agree that he should not be included. So - Krichevski as unverified and no more changes?--81.190.205.149 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Russian Veterans
Can I remind everyone of the list I previously posted of verified Russian WWII veterans who were old enough to have served in WWI and alive as of 2005, according to Russian website Pobediteli. Whilst it does not indicate that any of these men served in WWI there is a high probability that a proportion of them did; and given that this list is only 3 years old there is a sporting chance that handful of them are still alive.

Perhaps our Russian speaking correspondent can make a search of online Russian language news reports etc. to see if this is the case and if so, whether any reference is made to service in WWI or the Russian Civil War?

1 These duplicate birthdates suggest that Pobediteli’s researchers were working from incomplete (military?) records. It is assumed that these men were alive on these dates rather than actually born on them.

2 From other online sources it is known that Petr Lelchuk served as a medic in the Russian Civil War 1918 – 1922. He was later a renowned Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Rostov.

3 Shlema Livshits actually died in the USA in 2004. He was a Russian Civil War veteran.

4 Verification of super-centenarian status, obviously, required.

Thanks

86.141.57.111 (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Bruce Alas, I can't find anything more - the same info on Lelchuk, that's all:-(--81.190.205.149 (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Which are the last survivors of trenches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.194.49.208 (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Harry Patch and Lazare Ponticelli are the last survivors on the Western Front. Ponticelli was also at the Italian front and I believe that Borroni and Chiarello were too. Kuenstler was on the opposite side, although I believe he may have been in the cavalry. The one I'm not sure about is Yakup Satar, but maybe we'll learn more when he reaches 110 in a few weeks. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery


 * Just to add to Captain Celery's note Trench warfare was really only a feature of the Western and Italian fronts, though the Gallipoli campaign probably comes into that category. In general the Eastern and Ottoman fronts where simply too long to become fully entrenched. so the 4 mentioned above are very likely to be the last trench veterans. SRwiki (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So to confirm, you think the 4 are Patch, Ponticelli, Borroni and Chiarello, and not Kuenstler and Satar? 80.2.17.47 (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery


 * To Confirm Captain thats the 4 I was thinking of not Keunstler and Satar. SRwiki (talk) 08:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Let us pretend that all 49 Russians were in fact WWI veterans in addition to being WWII vets, and that all were alive as of 2005. Well, in the United States from 2005-2008 we have lost (that have been verified) 48 WWI veterans. So the chance that any of these Russian vets would still be alive and a WWI vet would be even more slim. Perhaps one may be alive, but I wouldn't rest much hope in it. However, listing these soldiers here is a good idea! (PershinBoy)162.114.40.31 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite so, but there were also 49 verified British veterans alive half way through 2004 and 6 of them are still with us. Any more than 1 or 2 though, is a long shot I agree.81.151.90.108 (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Bruce


 * There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. Although those two are good ones. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Matthews, Floyd 'Skipper'is dead —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.194.49.208 (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Was there any information on extremely old Soviet WW2 veterans living in other ex-Soviet Republics? Ukraine has 1/3 the population of Russia so they should have had some also. Of course the Ukrainian and other non-Russian republics may be unwilling to acknowledge the service of someone in a military whose ultimate purpose was to preserve Russian interests.JeepAssembler (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Pobediteli has lists of veterans from Belarus (one shown above) and Moldova, but none of the other former Soviet republics.86.129.77.33 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Bruce

Even if none of those listed are still alive, if they were WW1 or WW1 era (including 1920 Polish War) and were alive three years ago then at least their names can be added to the lists of deceased.JeepAssembler (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Floyd (Skipper) Matthews
Mr. Matthews died earlier this week. Here's an obituary. I'll let someone who frequents this page make the necessary changes. http://www.legacy.com/timesdaily/Obituaries.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonID=104296874 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.44.5.136 (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY SIR CHOULES!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.194.49.208 (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some additional references
Echoing the above birthday wish I've checked out the news for the recent and up-and-coming birthdays. I've added a new reference on Claude Choules' biography about his birthday (it has a picture as well), and also updated Yakup Saturs' biography who was released from hospital recently after an infection. I've also changed all the remaining veterans articles so they have auto dates on them thus: 125 years, 140 days. RichyBoy (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have removed all of the autodates because it is a violation of WP:V. By saying that they are exact ages, we are claiming that the fact that they are still alive at that exact age is a verifiable fact. Unless you happen to have a reliable source that says that checks to make sure they are alive every day, autodates inherently contain unverifiable information. Also, the style you used for their dates of birth was a violation of WP:DATE. Note that this applies to counts that give their age in years and days NOT ones that give their age in only years - because if we don't update the years, we are claiming that they are deceased and, unless we have evidence for that, it is an equally unverifiable issue with WP:BLP. Cheers, CP 00:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What a load of old bollocks - the year isn't invariant either; what happens if someone dies the day before that changes then? That's why people need to get their heads out of their arses. RichyBoy (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As Im not a regular contributor or editor of this page so I'll leave the debate on whether auto-dates should be added to others, but just one observation is that what time zone are the auto dates set to? I only ask because I checked the page in the morning of Henry Allingham's last birthday, and it did not update until later in the day (I'm in the UK). Not sure if this was done manually or automatically at the time. If there is going to be auto updating it should be 'veteran-centric' as opposed to Euro, US or anywher else-centric.Sanctuary73 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, RichyBoy, please observe the policy of no personal attacks. We've all had hard work reverted, but that's something you have to accept the possibility of every time you submit something to Wikipedia. Second of all, in the case that you describe, we have to observe WP:IAR. If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it. That's why I don't mind bigger lists like List of living supercentenarians having years and days because it makes sense to have it there, even if eventually it's likely to be incorrect at one point or the other. Years are assumed "unless proved otherwise" (because to state otherwise would be an unverified assumption of their death). Aside from being unverifiable, exact ages in individual biographies of living people serve no purpose (with very rare, arguable exceptions such as the oldest living person in the world), and thus violate WP:BLP's standard of absolute verifiability.


 * To answer Sanctuary73, it's technically supposed to update at 00:00 UTC, but sometimes I gets wonky for reasons I don't understand. In any case, that's part of Wikipedia development, so there's no way to make the changes "individual-centric" as far as I know. Cheers, CP 17:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't take it as an attack on you personally it isn't; it's an attack of the vanity and pomposity of wikipedia editors as a whole, people that are happy to spout wiki rules all day long but their edit logs are a list of minor correganda and never anything that contributes more knowledge to a subject - if you find your edit logs are full of MoS and not content you've got it all badly wrong. I care little for the reversion of dates; I'm exasperated that anyone would get involved with pettyfogging trivia about a day count being unverifiable, but somehow just quoting the year makes it suddenly all ok. That's vanity; not wiki policy. RichyBoy (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way CP, for goodness sakes, you've actually undone content edition on Claude Choules' page. If that doesn't prove my point entirely about editors being more concerned about policy minutea than content. RichyBoy (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well if you notice, I'm admin. That means that it's my job on Wikipedia to make sure that things conform to policy (a janitor if you will) - I obviously can't fix everything, but I have to fix what I see. So calling me (or any other admin) out for doing what the community has asked them to do is a bit unfair. Furthermore, people who do minor corrections are just as valuable as people who write entire articles, whether or not they are administrators. Furthermore, a brief look at my user page shows that, at the very least, I've contributed several Good Articles and even more B class ones that I either wrote or rewrote from scratch. A more careful look will show you why I don't do that anymore. Cheers, CP 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Two birthday's today. Yakup Satar and John Campbell Ross. I wonder what the odds of that would be? (PershinBoy)209.247.21.167 (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ponticelli
So is Ponticelli dead? Could someone site a reference? Czolgolz (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that he is dead, thanks for the source. Czolgolz (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This one's not going to go unnoticed given his perceived status. On Harry Patch's article it quotes his disbelief at being the Last Tommy, but now he's the last Western Front trench veteran worldwide. The question now is whether Laurent Toussaint still has that ace up his sleeve. We found out about Bernard Delaire's death within 3 weeks despite him being anonymous, so presumably we would have found out about the other anonymous vet if he had died. It's possible that the news hasn't filtered through yet, since France has suffered the dreaded numbers collapse this winter. But otherwise, sometime after Ponticelli's state funeral, the French government are going to regret taking credit for the discovery of Riffaud and Jaffre. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Captain celery


 * He was the last 1914 veteran as well, and I think he saw battle before England got bogged down at Mons, meaning he would have fought before trench warfare (Mons was the last 'open' battle of the opening phase). So that's it - the last true link to the start of WWI has passed away :-( RichyBoy (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In that sense it is the end of an era. Of course we still have a Western Front veteran remaining in Patch and Alpine Front vets in the 2 Italians. Kaestner was the last of the Central Powers on the WF and maybe Kuenstler for the AF despite being in the mounted artillery. If not him then I don't know. Boris Klovsky was the last Russian and was also in the cavalry. He may have been the last Ally on the Eastern Front. Some Poles outlived him but they later fought against the Bolsheviks. Presumably they would have opted to fight for Germany as the lesser of 2 evils. Wilhelm Remmert may have been the last Central vet on the EF, although he died before Rudolf Christmann. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

I think Ponticelli's death was a big blow, and it appears he was the last to have been in service every year 1914-1918. Well, I'm glad to see Borroni is still with us. Who knows he may end up being the last Italian Veteran. The British seem to be hanging in there with 6 out of the 13 remaining! Did anyone see the news clip showing Buckles going to Washington where Bush greeted him (I don't know if he gave him an award or anything). (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the "he's not long for this world" boat for Borroni has long since sailed. It also irritated me when they said John Babcock was unable to attend. Makes it sound like he's at death's door. Washington State to Washington DC is a hell of a journey for anyone, let alone a 107 year old. Conversely, Buckles' home in Charles Town is only 80 miles away. A lot more realistic.

When Harry Patch didn't go to Buckingham Palace last summer the doom-mongers were out again. Admittedly Wells to London would only take a few hours along the M4 motorway, but it's stupid to take chances when you're 109 and not 100%. Even I could be too ill to attend, although obviously that's unlikely, but then I'm in my twenties and he's in his hundreds. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

I agree with the two above comments. Mr. Patch stated last year, that each time he travels, it wears him out a little more each time. Travel is rough on people twenty years younger than these veterans. If Washington D.C. has any type of award to give to Mr. Babcock, they should go to him. (PershingBoy)162.114.40.31 (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken Article
While looking for confirmation of Yakup Satar's 110th birthday on google.tk, I found this interesting article from Australia (I have no idea why it showed up on news.google.tk) that enumerates what are supposedly the last nine veterans - it leaves off Syd Lucas, Gladys Powers, William Stone and their own John Campbell Ross! If anything, I thought they would have missed the non-English speaking ones, how strange. Cheers, CP 05:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The same thing happened to me. Gladys Powers is understandable because some people don't count women. The men didn't see action, but neither did John Babcock and they included him. Ross is especially surprising considering he's Australian born and his recent birthday. He and Lucas live in Victoria, not the outback. But compared to a lot of stuff online the article was really accurate. No-one seems to understand that men can attain 110. People criticise Wikipedia but we've got our facts right on this one. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

Please let us know of any updated articles on Birthdays like Yakup Satar's. Does anyone have information on Francesso Charrello health wise? We seem to have some information on all the others. (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gladys Powers - I stumbled upon this article, it's good to see a bit of recognition for one of the lesser talked about veterans. RichyBoy (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And she's been said to be in poor health. Perhaps, as with Borroni and Kowalski, reports of her demise have been greatly exaggerated. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

I wonder how that would take, if she ends up being the last one. Being a woman, I would say she has time on her side when considering ages of those ratio for men to women, close to and over the age of 110. (PershinBoy)63.3.10.129 (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, being completely incapacitated and isolated in a room in a nursing home could actually lengthen one's lifespan; since she would not be expending any energy or contacting germs from other people.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but isolation can shorten one's lifespan also. I'm sure there are nurses and family visitors. I think 50 sit-ups a day like Buckles does, or walking everyday like Babcock is the way to go. I personally would want to die if I was incapacitated and isolated - I would have little reason to go on. Anyway, point taken. Plus and negative to both views. (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

U.S.A. vs. A.H.E.?
According to my encyclopedia at home; the United States of America declared war on the Austro-Hungarian Empire on December 7th, 1917 (An easy date to remember, exactly 24 years prior to the Pearl Harbor attack). Although I have long known of the state of war between the two nations (Just not the date on which it was declared); I have never read about combat between American and Austro-Hungarian troops. I am curious for information on this subject; were American troops deployed to the Italian and/or Serbian fronts against the A.H.E.? (Even if only in small numbers in reserve or support roles). Perhaps more realistically, were A.H.E. troops deployed against the Americans in France? Given the huge mobilizations of both France and the A.H.E. (roughly eight million each) and centuries of rivalry between the French and Hapsburgh's prior to WW1 it would seem logical that they would have clashed yet again. It's too bad that France has no more veterans; given the magnitude of fighting on it's soil.JeepAssembler (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Veterans will still be alive on November 11th, 2018? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.197.52.119 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Even Claude Choules and Frank Buckles would have to attain an age that only 4 women and no men have before, although none would have to be as old as Jeanne Calment. The centenary of the outbreak of war is more plausible, but still needing very rare ages. 78.145.3.12 (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

It would be cool if one could make it until 2014. However, to be realistic we'll be lucky to have 4 or 5 make it to 2009. I think it is possible 1 or 2 could make it 2010-2011. (PershinBoy)162.114.40.31 (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The odds against living each successive year at these ages are only about 50% (and perhaps less); a man celebrating his 109th birthday has at best 1/16th chance of living to his 113th. It should not be surprising that there where more supercentenarians on these lists two years ago than today, as probably five million or more WW1 veterans were born in each of the peak years of 1892, '93, and '94. By contrast, only about one million were born in 1900 or later. There is no purely physical reason why Buckles or Choules could not live until August, 2014; but it is statistically very unlikely. By the same token, it shouldn't surprise that Del Toro, Hardy, Johnson, Floquet, etc. lived to the ages they did; considering the year's they were born in. Anomalies can happen, Antonio Todde died just weeks shy of his 113th and was born way back in 1889; but I wouldn't count on lightning striking twice in this regard. Anyway, my original purpose in this post was to find out if anyone has knows about or could direct me where to find information pertaining to military conflict between the United States and Austro-Hungarian Empire (or was there none, with the U.S.A. merely declaring war on and severing relations with the A.H.E. and seizing any Hapsburgh assets it could).JeepAssembler (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Evening all, as far as I am aware the only major engagement between the USA and AHE was the battle of Vittorio Veneto - see here http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/vittorioveneto.htm for a brief overview, and even there the USA involvement was limited. As far as I am aware the AHE only fought on the Eastern and Alpine fronts, and certainly by the time the USA declared war the AHE was in no position to be sending soldiers to the western front, in fact Germany was having to prop up the AHE on the Alpine front by then. Hope this helps SRwiki (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You, SRwiki.JeepAssembler (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Living WW2 vets ?
Sorry folks, I know this is a bit off topic ... but out of interest, how many living WW2 vets are out there ? What date would you predict that the number of WW2 vets may have gone down to the numbers of WW1 vets that were living when this listing was first started. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.250.180.50 (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, without really thinking about it - World War II started in 1939, which was 25 years after World War I started. This list was started in 1999, which would make the logical starting point around 2024. But then you have to consider that World War II ended 27 years after World War I ended - which would push that year out to 2026. Then, you also have to consider the fact that a generation later, life expectancy has risen throughout the developed world (which comprised most of the soldiers to fight in World War II) - so the life expectancy of a World War II vet was likely to be longer than that of a World War I vet.
 * As well, you also have to take into account that there were many more soldiers that fought in World War II than in World War I. Given all that, there would probably not be much call to start up a similar list regarding World War II until well into the 2020s, but another thing to consider on that front is that as technology evolves, starting up a list - no matter how long, may become more and more likely given increasing ease of using tools like Wikipedia. So really, impossible to say, but there's certainly no hurry at the moment.
 * In a slightly related field, I have decided to put up a "Surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War" page on Wikipedia. It may appear that a war fought from 1936-1938 may have a similarly long time to wait as World War II to warrant an article, the big difference is though, despite the Spanish Civil War having a deep and abiding effect on many field of Western thought, in terms of International involvement, that was limited to perhaps 50,000 foreigners who fought for the International Brigade / Republican side and also (According to the Times Online) (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article687933.ece), 60,000 Italian troops sent by Mussolini to fight with General Franco. At the very least, I think it is well time to start finding out exactly how many of these approximately 110,000 foreign troops are still around. There could well be less than a few hundred in the entire world. (Espeically given the fact many would also have fought, and died, in the subsequent conflict of World War II.202.139.104.226 (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


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


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

Numerous Germans "Hitler boys" joined regular forces at age 14 or 15 in 1945. Given increasing live expectancy, it shouldn´t be surprising if one of them makes it until ca. 2040. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.150.82 (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you might mean the "Hitler Youth". Boys as young as 12 were drafted into the militia in 1945. RichyBoy (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939)
Ok, I've finally done it, I've put up a rudimentary page relating to Surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War. It can be located at Surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War. I would encourage all the usual visitors to this page to do some research if you feel like it and identify and verify as many veterans - particularly of the International Brigade (Including the Soviets) and the Mussolini forces from Italy - to ensure this article gains some depth before the inevitable "well-meaning" busy-bodies attempt to delete it. I think the respect shown to this page is ample evidence that there is a place for this sort of entry on Wikipedia. There would be those who argue that the Spanish Civil War is not as important as World War I or World War II for that matter and that there is therefore no need for such an article. I completely disagree with that relativistic and simplistic assesment of the conflict. The literature and myths - and indeed long-term effects, of the Spanish Civil War have reverberated down the decades, and indeed had a strong influence on the conduct of World War II. As such, I would again urge all interested parties to take part in fleshing out this article so that it does not become an easy target of those who will inevitably try and argue for and perhaps achieve its deletion. I have saved a copy of the Wikipedia language version of the page in case of this to make for easy re-instatement.

Thanksjkm 08:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

So yes, after all the searching for his 110th birthday, Kuenstler stands alone. The people who said that his national hero status would ensure prompt news of his death were quite right. It appears only to have happened a few hours ago. There must be relatives who don't know yet so I feel quite priviledged that I do. Don't know about Bisaro yet though. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
 * I thought the calendar switch was a matter of days, not years. Czolgolz (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe I'm getting a bit confused. I remember the Mohammed el Mokri controversy. He was 116 in Egyptian years but 112 in our years. Of course he wasn't actually a supercentenarian at all but you see the point. But then that was Egypt 50 years ago, not modern Turkey. I'm grasping at straws to explain it really. 80.2.17.47 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

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

Morning All I think Henry Allingham joined up summer 1915 SRwiki (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some sources seem to be under the impression that he signed up in 1914, but his mother told him not to. In 1915 he did so with the RNAS which had been formed just before the start of the war. This meant that he wasn't one of the poor bloody infantry. A wise decision, especially as he's the only founding member to see the 90th anniversary of the RAF on Tuesday. Since it was the Naval Air Service I wonder if aswell as the last airman of the war, he counts as a seaman like Choules and Stone? 80.2.17.47 (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Well, Franz Künstler definitely saw combat. He was drafted on February 06, 1918 (it was possible for all young Austro-Hungarian men who were at least 17 on January 01, 1918 to be drafted). After six weeks of training he joined the 5th Hungarian Artillery Regiment and fought at the Italian front near the river Piave until November 1918. So it was hardly eight month of real service.
 * http://www.networld.at/index.html?/articles/0802/10/194078.shtml (article in German)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archive volume 5
We were overdue an archival so I've done that for us. As usual, if you think something should become a current discussion point again please copy and paste it out of the archive. RichyBoy (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

I wish that they would consider it. A state funeral for Künstler for historical reasons. In the U.S. the last Confederate was given a large funeral. There is a differance, but hopfully you can see my point. WWI was a war waiting to happen, for many reasons, but very few good reasons. It shouldn't have happened in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.167 (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Time heals all wounds. I'm sure the last veteran of Nazi Germany will be given a state funeral in 2035 or whenever. Czolgolz (talk) 14:38, 6

May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Künstler, Franz Knows that he is the last veteran of Central Powers ? (Sorry for the orthography mistakes, I am French) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.15.21.223 (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

At this late date, I doubt it. Even so, a verifiable record would be non existant. This isn't negative talk, just realistic. The youngest is 107. However, your smart to bring up subjects like this. It's wise to check out. (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from the lack of present-day mass media and swift transportation, and the fact that the Ottomans were generally perceived by Muslim contemporaries as irredeemably corrupt, this comes down to a basic: no reliable sources. Demographically, there'd probably be someone still alive out there, but with no verifiable evidence, it's a moot point.    RGTraynor  14:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Lists of known World War I veterans' deaths by year
The links for pages for 2007 and 2008 have somehow become detached. Does anyone know how to fix them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.103.252 (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Henry Allingham - 112
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7439117.stm The article is nothing special, straight out of wiki, but the video interview is rather good - Henry is extremely lucid and talking rapidly and in fact looks/sounds in rather fine form. Happy birthday! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichyBoy (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's a mention of this gentleman at.

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

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

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

See this link also from AFP

The article translates as follows:

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

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

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

Yep, when it comes to French Veterans, Frederick Mathieu's word is good enough for me SRwiki (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too, but there is still another one left who is even older (at 109) and wants to remain anonymous regardless. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Allingham is one of those oddities. He may make 115. I think Stone wants the record, as the last British WWI vet. and may get it. I was very glad to see Patch reach 110, but seriously doubt he will make it past 2008. (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is he frail? Extremely sexy (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, from the video I have seen of him from the last few years, he seems very weak at present. He is still alert, but I'm afraid a "cold" will do him in, from the last video I saw...... However, as I stated about a year ago, I believe any of these remaining veterans (now 12 perhaps 13) could be the last. We have been given reports of the ill condition of Gladys Powers, but at her last birthday (last month!) she was dancing around (with a walker), and having a great time. All I have is a guess based on my judgement. I think Buckles or Babcock has the best chance to be the last........ Only a guess. I suppose the best we can do, is what has taken place over the last month or so- 1 to 3 new possible veterans may have been found. Great work (PershinBoy)209.247.22.75 (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I played it as well and he's definitely got a sore throat, since he sounds very hoarse indeed (speaking extremely soft). Extremely sexy (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

 

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

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

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

"Following the war, he returned to England."

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

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

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

Verified veterans of the First World War—12 veterans
Which veteran knows another veteran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.222.246 (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Verified veterans of the First World War—12 veterans
Which veteran knows another veteran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.28.222.246 (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Source: Short biography in german here

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

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

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


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

Interesting point indeed, I think this is at least worthy of a footnote somewhere on the main page. I doubt if there are any other royal children in uniform still around - though I don't know enough about the offspring of the last Ottoman to be definite SRwiki (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, there are many other examples. Just about every British royal is honorary "colonel-in-chief" of one regiment or another.  Queen Elizabeth held a colonelcy in the Grenadier Guards during WWII (and before she became colonel-in-chief of the regiment upon her ascension to the throne), but I doubt she's considered an army veteran in that conflict.    RGTraynor  12:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it a 'generous definition' at all. Maybe some people on the list didn't see combat or serve in a glorious capacity, but they were all members of the armed forces and supported the war effort.  We've agreed not to include veterans of the Russian Revolution or Finnish Civil War here.  I think it's absurd we'd even think about including some toddler who got to put on a costume and play soldier because of his birthright.  Czolgolz (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captain, After digging round in my random piles of paper I have discovered you are right, I will write to Dennis Goodwin again, to check - it is possible he has made a mistake. SRwiki (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope this will be resolved very soon. Extremely sexy (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if we take him off we'd be admitting an oversight, but perhaps the error was not ours. 89.242.32.64 (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

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

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


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


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


 * Józef Kowalski is included in the WW1 era group for fighting bolsheviks at the end of WW1. Dr Imich may have done something similar?
 * There were irregular units of students and child soldiers, the Lwow Eaglets fighting invaders from Western-Ukrainian People's Republic already at the end of 1918. I have ordered a cheap copy of Lyn Harper's book and will write what I find. (may take a week, someone else who can look at it sooner?) After living in the US for more than half his life, dr Imich may well have lapsed in identifying the Ukrainian revolutionaries as Russians. Hepcat65 (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

IMHO "WWI era" should only include wars fought at the same time as WWI (i.e. before 11.11.1918). There is no other logical deadline. Therefore - no Polish uprisings, no Civil War in Ucraine, no Polish-Soviet war. BTW last year, during the "Vistula Wonder" anniversary celebration, Polish President Kaczynski handed orders to several "veterans of Polish fight for independence in 1918-20", of which only S.Wycech was mentioned in this article; unfortunately I failed to remember the names but they can certainly be found on the net. And I can't understand why those called up "after the Armistice but before the Versaille Treaty" should be included in this section. IMO only Arvonen should be left here - or the section should be deleted altogether.--81.190.205.149 (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Continuing discussions has resulted in the current inclusion criteria. Check archive 1, subject #26 for a referendum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.150.6 (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm... I see it was a Soviet-style voting as only one option concerning WWI-era vets was given to choose from: "Listed here are those that joined the armed services after the Armistice date, or where there is debate on their join-date but for some reason are considered WWI-era vets by some authority.", which is BTW different from the eventual formula you can read on the page.--81.190.205.149 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to be sarcastic. This has been discussed and debated here literally for years. Czolgolz (talk) 20:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just amazed by this sort of discussion to be honest. Who are we to point at a somewhat "arbitrary" date and say if you joined the forces before that date, and perhaps never even made it to the front line - we can classify you as a "World War I Veteran", but if you joined after that date and perhaps found yourself at the front-line under enemy fire - but because it was only a "related" conflict to what has come to be accepted in the West as "World War I" - ie the Polish v Soviet conflict, or the Finnish "Civil War" or indeed many other conflicts that spun off around Europe (or elsewhere) at that time - you are not a World War I Veteran!
 * The cheek of that presumption frankly amazes me! By the way, just when was World War I defined properly - and when was it even commonly known as World War I - in order to be able to be defined! I certainly know that it didn't happen at the Treaty of Versailles for instance did it!?! In fact, I believe it was known as the "Great War" for many years - and what is the exact definition of the "Great War" for instance - is it the same definition we use for World War I today?
 * Frankly, I think this list should strive to be inclusive - but obviously being extremely careful to check and verify claims as completely and accurately as possible - but not spend hours, weeks, months, years etc. nit-picking about exactly which conflicts qualify a Veteran or not for inclusion - to me that is frankly shameful, it is in effect arguing, "my conflict is better/more important/more relevant than yours - yours doesn't really count - not enough people died." What a crass argument.58.175.240.247 (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you're rehashing old debates. We're certainly not saying one colflict is more relevant than another...we're simply defining which conflicts were actually part of WWI.  The Russian Revolution, the Polish vs. Russia War, and the Finnish Civil War were certainly wars with real veterans, but weren't part of the Allies vs. Central Powers War which defines the great war.  If we include those conflicts, should we also include veterans of the Mexican Revolution, which happened at the same time?  African tribal wars?  South American infighting?  No one is saying these old soldiers aren't veterans, they're just veterans of other wars.  I bet this debate gets more heated when discussing the second world war, when we'll debate over the merchant marine, underground organizations, and other combatants who were not in an official standing army. Czolgolz (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

November 11th 2008
veterans for the ceremonies of eighty tenth birthday of the armistice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.15.91.239 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

Morning All, Bruce you need to write to Mr Dennis E Goodwin, 24 Amberley Drive, Goring-by-Sea, WORTHING BN12 4QG. I would enclose an SAE if I where you. SRwiki (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But an "SAE" = what ? Extremely sexy (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Self Addressed Envelope! DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my friend. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

94th Anniversary of World War I
World War I started on July 28, 1914, but today is July 28, 2008! Don't you think we should celebrate the 94th anniversary of World War I?72.144.115.163 (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is actually for discussing how to improve the article NOT for celebrating anniversaries or birthdays or idle speculation and "what if?"s. DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Pierre Picault
On 'Living National Longevity Recordholders' someone replaced Fernand Goux with a Pierre Picault, born February 27th 1899. Derby Fan reverted it since it was uncited. He's listed on the French Wikipedia but only because there was no citation for Goux either. It appears that he's been put forward by someone who knows him. Even so, could this be the remaining anonymous French vet that Bart has mentioned? 84.13.31.119 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
 * He is indeed: confirmation by Laurent Toussaint. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * I may be wrong, but I have a feeling his name has been brought up before (somewhere) and someone pointed out this his age claim has been debunked. (Might have been another Frenchman though...). DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Must be another guy. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


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


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


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

Pierre Picault: WWI veteran?

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

Any updates, Laurent?

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


 * I have removed the citations in Picault's entry. I have done this because one citation links to a website about football, and the other links to a website that references this list as its source of info for its assertion regarding Picault.  Both sources, as a result, are inappropriate for this article.  I do not know who Laurent Toussaint is, but until citations for reliable sources can be added that show Picault is a surviving French veteran of WW1, I recommend that Picault's entry is removed from the article.  Please also note that the article on Picault has been nominated for deletion.  This is because the article does not prove that Picault is a WW1 veteran, and thus the article has not established notability.  The discussion regarding this nomination can be found .   JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

Ned Hughes - WWI Veteran
After SRwiki kindly provided me with Dennis Goodwin's address I wrote to him concerning Ned Hughes (with an SAE!). I have now received a reply which reads as follows:


 * Dear Bruce


 * Many thanks for your letter regarding our recent recruit to the ranks of veterans 1914-1918 vintage. I have been to see Ned and I also talked to his nephew and had no hesitation in welcoming him to join his fellow centenarian warriors of yesteryears.  Ned plays down his role but I told him he was ready and able to face active service but was not called upon due to the completion of his training coinciding with the end of the war.  Whether or not he will be able to be included in our activities remains to be seen but I have invited him to the Remembrance Service at the Cenotaph, Whitehall on 11th November 2008.


 * Many thanks for your interest in the veterans.


 * Yours sincerely etc etc.

You will agree that Dennis Goodwin's word is more than good enough so I have moved Mr Hughes to the 'Verified' section of the page. I hope that he is able to make it to the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day.

81.129.154.59 (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Bruce

Top work Bruce. What a refreshing change for someone to make a positive contribution to this page. Also, this indicates that we'll have an answer on Bob Taggart in a couple of weeks. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery

It gives hope that maybe 2 or 3 more unknowns are out there!!!! Great work (PershinBoy)04:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.75 (talk)

Third French Veteran
In response to the question of a third French WWI veteran besides Goux and Picault; I seem to remember an "anonymous" case either this year or last who was posthumously identified as Bernard Delaire, born on either March 23rd or 28th of 1899. I hope this helps. JeepAssembler (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He was discovered last year and that would be March 28th in fact, my friend. Extremely sexy (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Delfino Borroni 110
No-one thought he would make it, but he has. Congratulations Signore Borroni. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery
 * I'm glad he has: the last Italian. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It was deemed that he would be the next to go back in 2007. Well, he made it to 110, and he now represents the last remaining Italian from WWI, and a true veteran of war! (PershinBoy)162.114.40.32 (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He is still on top of that list. Extremely sexy (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)