Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surviving veterans of the First World War

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (more detailed analysis on discussion page). Robert T | @ | C 22:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC) (amended by David | Talk 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Surviving veterans of the First World War[edit]

A list of people notable only for being alive. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Strong Keep" It should be kept as a homage to those who fought so bravely. It costs nothing to keep, and means a great deal to many people.--Gibraltarian 10:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Strong Keep"
  • Strong Keep, I say keep it - these people are living links to the past, and this page maintains that list (This anonymous vote as by 82.41.36.238 (talk · contribs)) - Dalbury (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, soon enough this period of history will slip from living memory so let's keep it living as long as we can. (This anonymous vote is Interista (talk · contribs)'s first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and boot User Zoe for disrespect. Why don't you tell that to the face of a WWI vet. This isn't just about "known for being alive," it's about part of history. That's why they have to be a WWI veteran to be on the list. The number of surviving WWI veterans worldwide is less than 80, while Japan has 1,540 people aged 105+. Clearly, it's NOT the same thing.Ryoung122 07:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:No personal attacks. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - And what do you think a comment such as "notable only for being alive" is, when in fact they are notable for being WWI veterans (the second-worst war in history)? Clearly, that's a low blow.Ryoung122 08:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being a veteran of WWI is not a claim to notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, but they are notable because of still being alive more than 90 years afterwards, meaning after the beginning of World War I in 1914, hence. Bart Versieck 11:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even living to the age of 110 or so isn't a claim of notability. I daresay many thousands of people have lived to the age of 100, and many of them fought in a war sometime in their life. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • But this is the internet, so we can now keep up with them, man. Bart Versieck 12:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment. Just because we can doesn't mean we have to. - Dalbury (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment To the nay-sayers: we see thousands of news stories, and Dick Cheney included Emiliano Mercado del Toro in his speech. The Queen of England also thinks they're important. But since you're more important than the vice president, I guess you know better.Ryoung122 20:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RETURN OF A HERO Mirror.co.uk, UK - Nov 11, 2005 It was in the dark days of 1918 when 109-year-old Henry Allingham said goodbye to France. Yesterday he went back..to remember comrades he left behind. ... Smell of death 'stays with you always' BBC News Britons fall silent for war dead BBC News A rare moment to reflect together on the price of freedom Independent BBC News - ic Wales - all 87 related »

ITN Queen will lead war dead tributes Scotsman, United Kingdom - 12 hours ago ... Henry Allingham, who at 109 is the country's oldest World War One veteran, is expected to be among the former servicemen who will gather to remember the heroes ... Queen leading war dead tributes Scotland on Sunday all 120 related »

  • Keep. A useful link list containing more than a fair number of notable people. Sjc 07:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are notable for being alive despite serving in a war ninety years ago. I also do not think it is abusive to point out when someone is being disrespectful. Laszlo Panaflex 08:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I don't get it: they are of a generation soon to dye out, so it's very important to honour them from a historical point of view at least by not deleting this very important page. Bart Versieck 09:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Informative list, but it's going to be quite a job trying to keep it updated... Grutness...wha? 09:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm extremely ambivalent about the value of this page. In my opinion, a list should contain intrinsically useful information on its own, or serve as a useful navigation resource for Wikipedia. The information inherant in this list seems to be a negligable value (it's just a group of people who found in a war and survived to this day), and indeed it is dated (and thus transient) information, which, in my view, makes it less encyclopedic.
    On the other hand, there do happen to be a number of people on this list who are indeed notable for other things (and thus have WP articles), so this article does have some (albeit somewhat idiosyncratic) value as a navigation aid. If this were rewritten to be a list of people who have or need their own articles, with brief summaries of who they are, then I think I'd find myself abstaining from voting, on the grounds that this would be a useful but somewhat idiosyncratic list. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Information for a world's record or trivia book, not an encyclopedia. It would be very difficult to maintain, as they are dying rapidly. Also, it isn't Wikipedia's place to honor anyone. -- Kjkolb 11:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but your comment really is disrespectful. Bart Versieck 11:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry you feel that way. However, AfD is a place for brutal honesty, and I don't think anyone who voted delete is trying to be disrespectful. They're just trying to explain their reasoning, however offensive some may find it. We have to decide what is and isn't encyclopedic, regardless of whether the subject deserves recognition or honor.
        • Okay then, but I have to say we are maintaining and updating it regularly though. Bart Versieck 12:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't believe someone nominated this. Marcus22 12:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose someone definitely not interested in history. Bart Versieck 12:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or because this is a list of mostly non-notable people, and that this is random unencyclopedic trivia. Please don't speculate about the motivations of others when they are present for you to simply ask them. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree with your suggesting mostly non-notable people. Bart Versieck 12:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Surviving WW1 is not notable. Living to beyond 100 is not notable. Combining many non-notables does not make one notable. 130.159.254.2 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, sometimes it can. Take, for example, Jim Abbott, who (as his article admits) is primarily known for being a baseball player and being one-handed. His notability would be much reduced if he was only one of the above. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. &mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small> 13:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Notability is rarely something achieved simply by being oneself. For example, World's Tallest Midget is not our game, although Dwarfism and Acromegaly are. WW1 gets ample coverage. Surviving the war and then the years that follow is always something to be rejoiced in, but it is not encyclopedic. (And my grandfather was a WW1 vet.) Geogre 13:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there should be then millions of names in the list. It's unmaintainable. Renata3 14:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The list is maintained. It is kept up to date. If the list was for all WW1 veterans then it would be unmaintainable. It is not. It is for those veterans who are still with us. Contrary to being unwieldy, it is a small and dwindling list. In fact it will delete itself in the not too distant future! Marcus22 14:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, ok, my mistake. But then again it will delete itself. And honestly, I don't quite see a purpose of it. It's a list of some unknown names. Maybe just a number would be useful, but not the whole list of names. And how about other countries involved in WWI? Like Russia for example. So it's POV, incomplete and will delete itself. I agree it's all very sad, but... Renata3 14:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is it POV? Incomplete because it lacks Turks maybe. But how so is it POV? These people are alive and they are surviving veterans. Those are NPOV facts. As to the missing info. - by all means try to find out the names of those Turks and Russians. Then add them to the list. It would be better for their inclusion. Marcus22 17:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The article is NOT POV. If Iran or Russia have living WWI veterans and put them in the news, then we'd surely add them to the list. Clearly, the English-language Wikipedia has 800,000+ articles, some languages have less than 100,000. Is that POV because the other languages aren't adding material? It would only be POV if we "refused" to accept, for example, German WWI veterans...clearly, that is not happening. Also, when the last survivor dies, the article could be renamed "last WWI veterans," so it doesn't necessarily have to be deleted. Civil War histories of the last Civil War veteran claimants (Walter Williams, John Salling, Albert Woolson, etc) are still read, and included in newspaper and encyclopedia alike.Ryoung122 21:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep It is not exactly exhaustive though is it? Surely there are some surviving Iranians, Russians, Turks or Japanese? A very westernised list, the only non-westerners are an Algerian and a Serb who both happened to have fought for the French and 3 Poles, 1 of whom fought for the Germans. I vote to keep based only what David (below) says about their "notability as a class". (This anonymous vote is by 82.13.187.66 (talk · contribs)) - Dalbury (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not entirely that surprising. For a start, war rolled over European Russia and the Balkans repeatedly since WWI, whereas France had two comparatively short periods of combat and an occupation, and the UK was essentially untouched bar some bombing, after WWI. In addition to these higher mortality rates through warfare - a lot of those young enough to fight in WWI and still live today would have been called up in WWII, especially in the German or Russian militias in 1941/5, or gone into various resistance organsiations - there's the massive death rate of the early USSR to consider, or the high Japanese civilian deaths of 1944/5, the occupation of Poland... and after all that, there's the simple matters of bureaucracy (if no-one in the country knows you fought in WWI bar your family, it won't be known to the world), which is understandably worse in countries where documentation has been damaged or lost by war or political upheaval, and of medicine - medical care in the West is substantially better than in most other countries, suggesting that a higher proportion would survive to an advanced age (100-110 without good medical care is pretty unusual). I'm not saying they're all listed, but I do think that it's fair to expect some skewing... come to think of it, Japanese participation in WWI was low numerically, pretty much only the navy, so you'd not expect many veterans there, and I suspect Western Europe had higher conscription rates than most other participants generally. Shimgray | talk | 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm voting Keep on this one. Fighting in the Great War does not itself make one notable, nor does becoming a centenarian, but the surviving veterans of the Great War are becoming notable as a class: the 1999 French decision to confer the Légion d'Honneur on all surviving veterans who fought in France means something, and the surviving veterans are now the focus of so much media activity to try to record all their memories of the time that some of them are becoming known more generally. Without trespassing on WP:NPA territory, it isn't exactly good public relations to nominate this article for deletion on Remembrance Sunday. David | Talk 14:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David. I believe that people who are still honored today for a war which they fought 90 years ago are notable. - Mgm|(talk) 15:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The last surviving veterans of an old war become notable as the only remaining people who can give a firsthand account of events. This makes them significant to historians and media. Early motion pictures recorded the rebel yell of surviving confederate soldiers and their reenactments of battle actions. The last four Civil War soldiers were interviewed on the early days of television. Such knowledge is not codified soon after events. As historians ask new questions these can be the best people to answer. Durova 16:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose I should add that I do have a degree in history. I am also a war veteran. I had relatives who fought on both sides of World War I. Their oral history brought immediacy to accounts of the war. To offer one example, a popular German slogan was "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). My grandfather used to grin and hold up his hands, describing how the soldiers in his company taunted: "Yeah? We got mittens too!" There are still a few people who can bring such moments to life for the rest of us. The ones who remain are a treasure. Durova 23:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. We're talking about a major period of history that is more than 90 years old. Damn right this is a case of being notable for just being alive. If a big deal can be made for the last surviving Civil War veterans 60-70 years after that conflict, we owe it to these people to do the same for WWI. 23skidoo 16:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I agree with 23skidoo. Also, this list shows the inevitable death of personal connection to the time period of the war. Emersoni 19:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A topic of enormous interest. This is precisely the sort of knowledge for which the Wikipedia is the best repository. I can't believe that this is being considered for deletion. yeastbeast
  • Obvious Keep. Veterans of the Great War who have survived to the 21st century are eminently notable and deserving of a list at Wikipedia.--Nicodemus75 18:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This information is too ephemeral for an encyclopedia. And don't accuse me of disrespecting veterans, I served my time in Vietnam. Wikipedia is not for memorials. - Dalbury (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!!!How can you even consider removing it? It sickens me that people would want to remove something that reminds us how close the First World War really was. If we remove this. We might as well forget Remembrance altogether! And having laid a wreath today I can tel you, that is something that you just cannot do! (This unsigned vote is 172.212.127.170 (talk · contribs)'s first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a list which contains our last living links to the Great War--and, granted, some of them, such as Allingham and Flocquet are still very much 'with it'. Soon enough this list will disappear. There are omissions and gaps. However, if you consider 'supercentenarians' and their study 'ephemeral' to the human sciences, then by all means delete. (This unsigned vote is Bacre (talk · contribs)'s first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. OK, let me try THIS discourse instead. It's something called "commemoration." IF you were a history major, you'd know what that is. Some people become notable as witnesses to history (oral history). As commoners, they may not have been important individually in 1925 (instead as a group). However, by 1998 (80 years later) the French government decided that it was time to commemorate and honor the surviving veterans of WWI. And don't tell me about Vietnam. We all know about Vietnam. Do you realize that more than 10 million died in WWI, far more, but for many young people today, they know nothing of the "Great War." Even among US soldiers, the war dead (118,000 in less than 2 years) far exceeded the less intense Vietnam conflict, which saw 58,000 deaths over the course of 11 years. Hence, from a historical perspective, this becomes important as "living history." With the current number of worldwide surviving veterans less than 100, and with the major news outlets deciding that their deaths warrant inclusion in obituaries, this becomes encyclopaedic. In fact, the article helps because although not everyone in the list is important enough to get their own article, together a little can be said about each one. This also helps to balance out the media tendency to "pick one person and run with it." I'm not saying that Lloyd Brown deserves his own encyclopaedia entry, but clearly a list of 80-odd surviving veterans is not too much to ask.
    Also, this is an educational tool: it teaches younger people about cohorts, generations, and demography.
    As for maintenance, that is a non-issue: many people have maintained it. And for ephemerality, you're missing the point: when the person dies, their death is recorded and moved to a separate list. I note that during the 1950's, "surviving Civil War" veterans was a popular topic. Several were featured in news publications such as the NY Times. Beginning in 1949, the NY Times included dozens of obits for "surviving Civil War veterans." If you want to re-name the article, "last veterans of the First World War," then one could divide the list into those who are still living, and those who died in the last 5 years or whatever criterion is used.
    Considering that everyone on the list from the US has been featured in a newspaper, I question what is wrong with keeping track, rather than blindly keeping people in the dark.Ryoung122 21:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of very wide interest. Carina22 21:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very interesting to many people which is what an encyclopedia is about. There are plenty of people who can and do edit it. Adrian (This unsigned vore is 80.2.178.115 (talk · contribs)'s first edit) - Dalbury (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should not be a collection of random facts. Ejrrjs | What? 23:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is not a collection of random facts. To be listed, someone had to have served in WWI and still be living in the 21st century...a very exclusive club, currently with less than 100 members still living.Ryoung122 00:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should have stressed the word random. To die in a certain year is NN by itself. It probably follows some probabilistic function. Unless you can prove there is some non-random factor about it, like some serial killer targeting some specific veterans, a plague, etc. Ejrrjs | What? 07:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you sure you're posting to the right discussion? The nomination above this one is for WWI veterans who died in 2004. This is for the ones who are still alive (and therefore the last remaining people who can remember the war firsthand for the rest of us). Durova 08:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me just add that the probability of belonging here is exaclty 1 minus the probability of being in any of all the other lists (from 1918 to 2005). Ejrrjs | What? 19:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete An article on this subject could be encylopedic. This is not that article. Perhaps if it looked at how these men, or some of them, had influenced the public perception of war or so on. If we do keep, what do we do in a few years time when the 'club' dwindles to zero? Dito for survivors of the 2nd WW, etc. Ben Aveling 01:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Very good educational value. Coming from the Far East, I've heard very little about WWI before I chanced upon this website. I used the individual names of the surviving veterans on Google search - which throws up a lot of media reports and historical anecdotes of their personal experiences. They are not only moving, but also inspire me to read more about the WWI in general e.g. the major battles of Ypres and of the Somme. (This unsigned vote is from 137.132.3.6 (talk · contribs)) - Dalbury (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep
  • Comment: won't this article effectively delete itself in a few years? -R. fiend 04:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, regardles of the outcome of this article, most of the individual people's articles should be deleted or redirected. People seem to confuse newsworthy with noteworthy. -R. fiend 04:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why wouldn't you want to recognize these individuals? It may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing...in fact this is the only list I've ever found of surviving WWI vets, so why take it away? It's a good starting point for research and deserves to be kept. -User: the5thhorseman (This is this user's first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless list that will, by virtue of its subject, disappear in a few years anyway. Dottore So 14:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep! Of very wide international interest (This unsigned edit from 82.221.53.156 (talk · contribs) is the user's first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious Keep For its reference value alone, if for no other reason. Despite searching for several years this is the only list of surviving WWI veterans I've found, including inquiries to such sources as the US Veterans Administration and the Great War Society web page. Given the incredible significance of the conflict, it escapes me how one can say that tracking the few remaining living eyewitness is not relevant or of 'encyclopedic worth.'Frank Womble (This is this user's first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our basic policy is that if someone is notable, we have an article on them. If a group of people of minor notability are closely related, we merge them into a list and break out to individually notable ones (Harold Lawton, say, or Henry Allingham) using links. Being splashed across national media for two or three days each and every year is pretty much a good definition of minor notability; this is a textbook example of how to write such a list, though probably a couple of individuals could be merged back in. (I also have strong views on the time this was nominated, but for the sake of politeness I'll class it as an accident.) Shimgray | talk | 16:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, as to "unmaintainable"; this page has existed maybe ten to twelve weeks, and had two hundred edits; that's multiple edits a day on average, which is a pretty good indication of it remaining maintained. These people do tend to get at least short notices on the news wires when they die... Shimgray | talk | 16:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Its the least we can do to show our gratitude to all the men- both dead and alive- who fought in such dreadful conditions for our freedom. Very useful and informative page, too. (This is user 88.108.87.158 (talk · contribs)'s first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We seem to have sockpuppets at work here. I realize this is a very emotional issue to many who have posted here, but the anonymous votes and votes from brand-new accounts are tainting this discussion. - Dalbury (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is no "David Wong" discussion! These first-time voters likely accessed the Wiki page and noticed it was to be deleted...is it fair to assume people register to vote without telling them in advance when there is to be a vote? Second, unlike the David Wong dispute (where there was obvious evidence of sockpuppetry), many of these first-time editors actually signed their name but didn't know how to post the message (which you went back and corrected). Surely a sockpuppeteer would have known how to post a message!131.96.15.39 00:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I just see a lot of unsigned votes, and votes from newly-created accounts. I might note that discounting those votes will still leave "no consensus", so I'll just let the closing admin sort it out. I will continue to identify unsigned votes and first edits. - Dalbury (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Surviving the First World War is not notable. Surviving well into your hundreds is not notable, although impressive, unless you become the oldest person ever or something. Wikipedia is not a memorial for people who aren't dead yet. I think I've made my point. Lord Bob 20:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep
    These people were not only witnesses to events of great historical importance - they were also participants. Their actions helped enable the events to unfold that have given us the lasting legacy of those people, places and impacts that are now deservedly ensconsed in the pages of history.
    These living links, to what is for most of us is a distant past, are invaluable - just by living and being acknowledged - in their ability to bring that history alive and relevant. The list of real, living participants in these key events that directly lead to the modern western world, cannot help but pique the interests and curiousity of those who otherwise may have had limited awareness or interest in this key historical event.
    Lastly, for all of the positives of keeping this list, to what or to whom, does the maintenance of this list detriment? User: gr8f8 17:57, 14 November 2005 (There is no Wikipedia user named User:gr8f8. This is from 157.127.124.134 (talk · contribs)) - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 02:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is just no encyclopedia topic here. This is WikiNews material. It might make it into an almanac. As a society, we should honor our veterans but that's not the proper role for an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep These individuals are lauded by presidents, royalty, and fellow countrymen, who regard them as heroes and living treasures. They are widely covered by the media. The simple fact that they are honored by so many makes them notable. Acctorp 02:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. I agree with Durova --FRS 02:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I recommend that this article be kept and that all users who voted to delete it suspend their notions of what Wikipedia is and is not, procure a new notion which includes the permanent presence of this article, and then proceed to edit Wikipedia again. Seriously, some people are so far off track that it gives me concern for the project. What is going on here? silsor 07:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's going on here is that Wikipedia is being used to honor people (who, to be fair, do deserve to be honored), instead of document ideas and knowledge. I don't see the difference between this and using Wikipedia as a memorial or genealogical resource, both of which are called out specifically in WP:NOT. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would we post a list of everyone who served in WW1? WW2? Why honour these people above all the others? My Grandfather served in WW2. Why should the fact that he died 10 years back make him less worthy of honour than the people on this page? What about those who died in the war? Why honour these people above them? Ben Aveling 07:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. This is part of why Wikipedia doesn't honor poeple; there are far, far too many people for this project to honor them all, without neglecting the primary purpose of making an encyclopedia instead of a memorial. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are overlooking the fact that these people ARE notable. For example, as they die, their deaths are reported in the national press. If you or I die, our deaths will probably not be reported in the press. Why the difference? We are not notable and these people are. Similarly, many of them are also reported in the press whilst still alive; if they attend a service it might be reported. If they fall ill and go to hospital; it might be reported. And so on. Why is it reported? Because these people ARE notable! Marcus22 10:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are confusing "notable" with "momentarily newsworthy." You may want to read WP:BIO. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nope, you are confusing "momentarily newsworthy" with "notable". Marcus22 11:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • That doesn't make sense. I am saying that not every person that is momentarily newsworthy is notable. Please, do read WP:BIO; while this list is marginal, individual articles on someone who is merely a surviving WWI veteran are clear-cut cases. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A Man In Black, I disagree that this list is meant to honor, 'per se', these individuals. The fact that they are honored worldwide makes them notable. It's this notability, not a desire to honor them, that warrants their inclusion. Indeed, many of these individuals are minor celebrities and had their own Wiki pages before this list existed. Acctorp 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons above. --Merovingian 07:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely. My only question is what happens to it when the last vet dies. I suppose we could convert/redirect it into a chronology of WWI vet deaths. Everyking 09:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Delete this after the last World War I veteran dies of old age. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, that's the problem I was thinking of. In my mind, an article should never be temporary, awaiting deletion at some future time: if we're going to have it, we need to either plan on keeping it forever or have some idea for redirecting or moving it. Everyking 10:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is incorrect: many wikipages address current events or are dynamic in nature. Acctorp 17:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't dispute that. I just dispute the concept of a temporary article. I'm saying it's fine as long as we have an idea of how to convert it into a different kind of article (move and rework) or redirect it somewhere else. I can think of rational ways to do that; I was just raising a point that occurred to me. Everyking 06:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's a useful list. There are so few now that they are notable. --Amortize 11:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Information is information. The only way to be unbiased is to keep all the information we can - removing information is like trying to censor history.
  • Comment Some thoughts on what is being said in here. There are claims that someone is notable because his or her death is reported nationally. My first wife's death went out on the national wire services, and was printed in newspapers all over the country. Does that make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article? I don't think so, as her chief claim to fame was that she was the first woman "of color" to be elected a national officer of NOW. Her death was "momentarily newsworthy". What is notable is that only a few veterans of World War I are still alive. Their individual names are not notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. It has been claimed that these people are notable because of the conjunction that they are veterans of WWI and still alive. By that reasoning, can I start a List of veterans of both World War I and World War II? My grandfather would qualify for that. An encyclopedia is not supposed to include everything imaginable. I recommend everyone read Encyclopedia as well as What Wikipedia is not. - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 12:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactor into something more easily maintained with a name which does not compell us to delete the article in a few years. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, and, yes, this article will eliminate itself within 20 years. I do think Zoe's comment was a little insensitive, not to mention untrue; the notability argument rests on both their age and the fact that they fought in WWI. Still-living witnesses to major historical events accrue notability as they become rarer. &mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small> 13:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Heroes though these people may be, this is not the place for them. Also, the list is obviously going to reduce every year. --StoatBringer 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and as it reduces, the members of the list become even more notable. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Do not abandon history and the memory of what these individuals have done to make the world we live in. --165.247.223.239 19:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Mike H. (First edit by user User:165.247.223.239)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless these people are individually notable, they should be summarised in an article. There is a difference between respecting what they did and thinking they individually stand out. People are not *entitled* to a wikipedia article, and it is not disrespectful to suggest that an article should not be written about them. --Improv 20:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a debate on deleting pages of individuals; it's a debate on deleting the summary article covering them all... Shimgray | talk | 20:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say keep it, & please ensure this valuable resource is updated regularly. Mark Denton (First edit from 87.254.67.141 (talk · contribs))
  • Move to something like Veterans of the First World War who survived until after 2005. Wikipedia articles should specify a time period - this article will otherwise keep getting smaller over time. Imagine the 1911 Britannica having a comprehensive List of veterans who survived the Civil War, and kept updating it each time more people died until there was eventually no article left? ---- Astrokey44 22:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the arguments for Wikipedia over Britannica is that we can continually update our articles to reflect current changes; so, no, I can't imagine 1911 Britannica doing it, but why shouldn't we? &mdash; Matt <small>Crypto</small> 23:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There just seems something wrong or disrespectful with this article. Its sort of like the comment above "ensure this valuable resource is updated regularly" which pretty much means crossing people off as they die. So its like you hear over the news that a wwI vet passes away - ok better go cross him off the wikipedia list. There is some policy I believe here that you should use the date rather than terms like "now" and "surviving" - I read it somewhere, cant find it now. It sets a bad precedent too, lets start: Surviving 1920s jazz musicians, Surviving athletes from the 1904 Olympics and be sure to keep an eye out for the news so you can cross them off as they die, and eventually delete the article completely. Why not a whole Category: Surviving people Astrokey44 00:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have suggested that this article could be re-named "Last Surviving Veterans of WWI". That word construction is ambiguous enough that it could include living and recently deceased WWI vets (since if they died in 2004, for example, they'd be "one of the last surviving veterans of WWI). In that case, the question becomes, what is the cutoff point? Someone has suggested Jan 1, 2001 (start of the 21st century). The alternate plan is to leave it as it is, and th deaths are being migrated to lists such as "WWI veterans who died in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005...)Ryoung122 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds better, and also mark them as deceased but leave them on the list when they pass away, so that the list doesnt disappear. Could you make the cutoff point 2005 and just say that it has been arbitrarily chosen? Astrokey44 11:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could someone explain to me how votes from new accounts are somehow "tainting" this discussion? I didn't notice anything in the FAQs about how long I have to have an account before I can vote on an article.Frank Womble 14:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet, and especially the Section near the bottom on Meat puppets. - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 20:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Preaky 18:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to various reasons already stated above WCX 19:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just about as strong a Keep as it is possible to have. I came across this article because it has exactly the information I was looking (and more). Well, gee. Wikipedia has information a user needs shocker! Then I notice that some numbskull has chosen Remembrance Sunday to propose it for deletion. Breathtaking. Just breathtaking. Icundell 14:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed so, I honestly cannot agree more. Bart Versieck 14:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

I have made some changes[edit]

Good Morning, all, I have made a some changes in line with my suggestions (see some things we need to decide?) I have moved Orin Peterson to the WW1 era category, as this seems to be the direction the evidence points. I have moved the Romanian and the anonymous French Vet to the Unvalidated category - with a note on whats "missing" as it where. My understanding of the Unvalidated category, is that unvalidated does not mean false (though some of them, noticeably the 13 year old veteran almost certainly are)rather they do not have full verification, by a sanctioned body, and none of these cases would appear to have such a verification. One final note is that I would suggest we create some sort of "pending" category for new cases, and I received a bit of support for this: thoughts anyone? SRwiki 10:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, man. Extremely sexy 14:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The page looks great! I probably missed this, but weren't there two anonymous French Vets? What happened to the other one? Anyway, nice with the reorganization. --Brianmccollum 18:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the other one died. Anyone site a source? Czolgolz 19:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Young mentioned his death the other day. Extremely sexy 23:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It was reported to me that the other one died in December 2006, aged 106. I have requested for a release of the name and birthdate as well as death date. If/when that becomes available, the update will be posted on the 2006 deaths list, as this person is no longer relevant to the living list. I was told his first name was "Raymond." Again, these cases come from the same source that produced several other cases, such as Rene Riffaud, Francois Jaffre and Louis Legournadie.
Sincerely,
Robert Young
→ R Young {yakłtalk} 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________________

I think you have done a great job on the changes! I also think there should be a pending section, or at least a way to notify us that there may be another WWI vet. but at least keep him or her in a pending state until we can get some good source info., and not just someone saying he may be one, and listing it without anything to back it up. 209.240.206.201 06:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have 3 French vets been moved?[edit]

I am just wondering why 3 of the French vets, have suddenly moved into the unverified category? After much discussion, in December I thought we had come to a reasonable consensus, about who was listed where, and my understanding was that all 3 were recognised as vets in our definition rather than the stricter (and western front orientated) French definition. The moving of the Italian vet who is living in France suggests that who-ever has taken it upon themselves to do this, doesn't understand how the page is laid out. If this vet has been moved because he has not been verified by the French Government, then there is no reason why he would be, he is a veteran of the Italian army - people do move around. Can whoever has done this moving please explain their reasoning? thanks SRwiki 18:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In France, there are only three official WWI veterans.
  • De Cazenave, Louis
  • Grelaud, Jean
  • Ponticelli, Lazarre
The other one do not have the right qualifications to be on this list... I didn't know where to put this other vet so I put them in the last part of the article
Paris75000 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, but I think you are using a different definition of a vet to the rest of us. As far as I can tell the official French definition accepts only those with more than 3 months service, on the Western Front. The definition we are using here, is service anywhere, for any length of time up to 11/11/1918. I suspect the official French definition, is for the purposes of who gets a war pension, rather than who is a veteran.
If you scroll through this discussion page, you will see we have discussed this in great detail
In the case of two of these Vets 1 served in Syria, and one for less than three months, so although not on the official list, are still veterans. The Third vet you moved is an ITALIAN, who just happens to now be living in France, he is never going to be classed as a French Veteran, because he was never in the French Army. But he is an undisputed Veteran of the Italian Army.SRwiki 07:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Finally I notice that Charles Brunier, was awarded service medals for World War 1, but was stripped of them when he was convicted of murder, so another reason he may not be on the official list is that it would be very embarassing for the French Government, if they ended up giving a full state funeral to a convicted murderer. SRwiki 08:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SRwiki"

Hi
I just made some modifications to show exactly what are the official and non official living WWI vets in France. I hope you will enjoy them (I think I striked the right balance)
Sincerily
Paris75000 09:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Tuveri be included as a veteran of Italian army?

Greetings,

There are several issues here. First, Tuveri moved to France and is a French citizen even though an Italian vet. There is also the issue of a Canadian living in the U.S., Brits living in Australia, etc.

That is a separate issue from the 'official' French government list. For one, I don't give much credit at all the the 'official' list. As someone mentioned, it seems designed to exclude (and thus to possibly save money by denying a pension). Second, the 'official' listmakers didn't do any research (but claimed credit for 'discovering' Rene Riffaud and Francois Jaffre, who appeared on the Wiki article months earlier). Third, the Italian list also doesn't include 'official' vets, either. I think the issue of 'verification' is one of existence and service, not government sanction. Fourth, the official lists changed the rules to include Rene Riffaud (and thus the rules don't seem so important as their marketing efforts). As noted, there is at least one anonymous French veteran not yet releaved. So, the French gov't may be embarrassed if the anonymous vet outlives the three 'official' veterans.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC) _____________________________________________________ Why is it that when we get the list in pretty good shape, someone comes along and does something totally off the wall. I was for removing the "unverified" French Vet. until a name was released. However, to remove a vet because he has not met the french requirements of so many months service is confusing and does not make sense. Please put them back in the list. As a person stated above, if you will read the comments of the other members you should understand why this is not the correct thing to do. (pershinboy) 209.240.206.201 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Media reports have Charles Brunier joining in 1918, aged 17, and wounded in combat in Syria. However, I'm certain he will NOT get a state funeral. His military honors were stripped in 1923 (after being convicted of murder), why would they be restored now? Further, the French gov't only recognizes "Western front" veterans (a sort of Euro-centric bias, yes). Third, because he was wounded, Brunier served only two months (less than the three-month requirement). Let's not forget that the information on Brunier came from independent sources that were not aware of this Wiki article.

The bigger question is: if the French gov't gives a funeral for the 'last' veteran and then another one emerges, what then? As stated, there is at least one remaining anonymous veteran (alive this month). However my contact dropped contact Jan 16 so I can no longer vouch for the continued existence of this person. My contact did report, for example, Rene Riffaud months before the French gov't noticed, as well as Louis Jaffre.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Klöpper[edit]

Don't just delete a veteran with no explanation. Give a reason for the deletion.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I also added him to this year's deceased World War I Veterans list, but I didn't know his exact date of death at the time, hence. Extremely sexy 21:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems he died in 2006, not 'this years's list.' In any case, it seems the case is now resolved, but I think we should get more details about deleting someone presented as 'living' who are in fact not. Thanks.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 06:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: "last year's list", but his death has only recently been known. Extremely sexy 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Rene Riffaud[edit]

With the death of Rene there is a ever growing chance murderer Charles Brunier is up for a state funeral. Will he get it?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.23 (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Interesting Character Charles Brunier, as far as I can tell, he enlisted with the French Navy, towards the end of WWI, the war in Syria, was I believe actually fought in 1919, and was more of a land grab, in which France carved the nascent states of Syria and Lebanon, out of the defeated Ottoman Empire, jailed for murder on Devils Island, and more relevantly for the purposes of this discussion - stripped of his military honours. Claims to be the basis of Papillon, escapes from Devils Island, fights in WW2, is arrested, and sent back to Devils Island, but is finally pardoned for his role in WW2. It's quite a story, and I imagine there is a reasonable amount of paperwork to back this up.
But whether ever makes it onto the list, depends on whether the pardon, trumps the honors being stripped. My guess would be no. I really can't see a coffin carrying the body of a murderer, being paraded down the Champs d' Elysee.

One other thing that has occured to me, is that the French Navy was one of the biggest in the world at the time. I just wonder if in the focus on the Western front, some of these sailors may have been overlooked. SRwiki 08:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What you did above is a 'thought crime'. Killing someone in combat is NOT murder. It is self-protection.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, and that is all that matters for the sake of this debate the answer is no. Being realistic, this is a rather hypothetical debate, as this will be a matter for the French government to decide. For myself I just can't see it. can you?SRwiki 07:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Right. The French Government has made a decision, and he in no way will be considered as the last, nor will they honor him. Can't blame them really.(PershinBoy)63.3.7.1 23:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Butcher[edit]

A while back, a poster here (I forget the name) attacked me for the "vandalism" of removing Stephen Butcher's name, from the living veterans list, even though he was deceased (and I had seen a local newspaper's obituarys section) and demanded proof.

Aside from confirmation from Dennis Goodwin, the UK veterans "guru" as it were, then I repeat below what is held at the London Births, Marriages & Deaths Index for 2005.

Stephen Graham Butcher b. 2 Jan 1904 d. Dec 2005, Portsmouth. (volume Bon-Col Deaths 2005 p 577, entry 4971e)

I hope that now satisfies as enough proof (as I can hardly make up all that information), and with the above information a death certificate can also be obtained should there be any need.

Very shortly, the online versions of these indexes will be updated for online verification as well.

Thanks, Richard J —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.144.160 (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No: thank you, my dear friend. Extremely sexy 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Engh[edit]

M165.234.180.59 19:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Mathew Engh 1899 August American USA Resides in Grand Forks, North Dakota

This was posted in the Unverified section the other day incorrectly by the poster. Would someone be kind enough to format it the correct manner. Just seems to be an honest mistake. Does anyone else know anything about him or could find any further info? --Brianmccollum 04:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

This claim is too early to determine if its a claim or a hoax. The user who posted it appears to be an established Wikipedian...too bad no news citation was provided. However, the Jim Harrison case (1896?-2004) might be a hoax also...→ R Young {yakłtalk} 08:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ancestry website reveals no Matthew Engh living in North Dakota or any history of a Matthew Engh. Me thinks it is a hoax........

I couldn't find anything either - no newspaper article, Ancestry listing, anything. There are 5 hits for Mattew Engh on Google but none of these could conceivably be a Vet. I would argue that this name shouldn't even be on the unvalidated list - as it doesn't even have a citiation SRwiki 09:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SRwiki why bother saying that? There are higher forces over here on this page. As long as they don't agree with you, Engh's name will remain on the list and people like Mr. Young will bash at you for wanting to make the list shorter

Re the above unsigned comment, the fact that you failed to sign is an indication that what you said is just 'sour grapes,' and without merit. The name is off the list and I didn't try to restore it, did I? So you were wrong. Excuse me for supporting a little investigation. Last I checked, cases like Robley Rex are STILL unresolved. We are still waiting for someone to produce his army draft papers...→ R Young {yakłtalk} 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I have been through US public records & the following Engh's live in Grand Forks, North Dakota: Adam Engh, aged 28; Clarence Engh aged, 35, Robert M Engh, 82, Tim D Engh 35 and that's it.

This is clearly a fake and I shall be deleting it as such. Otherwise people will accept any old nonsense written on the site.

Mr Young can bash away if he likes - but this entry has no substance behind it AT ALL

And so, I was right after all, because I had deleted him immediately, since there was no reference at all, and, moreover, it was indeed an addition by an anonymous user, not an established one, as claimed by Robert Young. Extremely sexy 00:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bart, you 'cry wolf,' writing 'vandalism' for every change you don't agree with...for example when someone deleted the redundant 'oldest woman' box from the Maria Capovilla page. Yet that was not vandalism, it was a difference of opinion.

Also, I never said it was a real case, I said we need to give time to investigate first...and a little investigation turned up no evidence of existence, so deleting was the proper recourse. That doesn't make me 'wrong' because I thought the case should be checked out thoroughly.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 00:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'ship' is sinking[edit]

Sad to hear that Robert Meier, seeming in good health, passed away. It does seem that, finally, a LOT of big names are falling in the last 12 months...Emiliano Mercado Del Toro (115), Moses Hardy (113), George Johnson (112), Maurice Floquet (111), Ernest Pusey (111). Even the USA, Italy, and Germany are finally seeing their numbers down to 8, 7, and 6...not good...→ R Young {yakłtalk} 14:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sad yes, but considering the average age is now 107, not altogether unexpected. --Maelwys 14:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this month, January up to today the 30th, 6 WW1 Veterans have passed away..that is exactly one every 5 days.. If this continues.. sadly,there comes a time....{User Redpepper1952} 13:00 30th January, 2007
But Meier is a sad exception, since he died not long after suffering a bad fall, otherwise he would have made 110. Extremely sexy 00:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a real tragedy for someone so old as Meier 109 yrs. to have a bad fall, Very serious, but at least he did not suffer long. (User Redpepper1952)19:14, January 30,2007

Konstanty Jung[edit]

  1. 1 november 1901-
  2. 105 years old
  3. http://miastolublin.pl/?m=news&d=17&nr=6626
  4. Surviving veteran? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.30.161.111 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Definitely 105, but there's nothing in that news report that signifies that he is a veteran of World War I (or indeed, any war). Not every man now alive over 100 fought in WWI after all...

Cheers, Richard J

Rudolf Seim[edit]

Can anyone backup his move to the 2007 deathlist and confirm his passing? I'd just like to know if it was done by a legit poster because there is no day of month or citation. I hope it is not the same person from the whole Matthew Engh nonsense. --Brianmccollum 15:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Engh came from "user 165...". This came from "User 87" and appears to be legitimate.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 01:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I have been told by a German colleague that calls to a nursing home were made, but they wouldn't release the date. This is not confirmed but it seems likely that Mr. Seim must have died recently. Notably, he would have been named the oldest man in Germany on Jan 29 2007 if still living. → R Young {yakłtalk} 00:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was I. I phoned the nursing home in the case of Mr. Velten, not Seim - sorry, I didn't say that clear. There was a little Note in a newspaper that he died a few days ago, We hope we can find the exact date out. Statistician 01.02.2007 10:59 (CET)

A poster on the Yahoo! Group Worlds_Oldest_People claims Rudlof Seim died on 09.01.2007 --Brianmccollum 16:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a source and a date for Rudolph Seim. Please stop deleting it.

For you people who think it is equivalent to Solinski: comparing apples and oranges simply won't do. We had someone tell us that Seim had died and a phone call was made. Now, someone found the obit in the newspaper. Far more than we saw people do with the Polish cases.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 05:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I must respectfully disagree on this point "Far more than we saw people do with the Polish cases" . I have made continued written enquiries about Solinski (previously, and recently again) to his local town asking for more information about him. I'm not sitting on my arse deleting Solinski & saying "I think he went in 2005", I'm trying to do something about it. I accept, and have done so from the start, Seim is dead, but please don't belittle other people's efforts simply because you don't like them.

I AM working on it & hope to produce the evidence one day to confirm it. Please give it time and please have some patience, and less of these little "asides", hmmmm?

Richard J

Has Gheorghe C. Panculescu died?[edit]

Afternoon All During an idle moment whilst pretending to work I Googled Gheorghe C. Panculescu and the following came up as a Wikipedia link:

General(r) Corp de Armata Gheorghe C. Panculescu(n.26 martie 1903-d.9ianuarie2007) decorat cu Ordinul Steaua Romaniei in grad de Mare Cavaler(1991) si multe ...

But the link doesn't seem to go anywhere Unfortunately my knowledge of Romanian is non-existent, so I couldn't plough through the Roimanian branch of Wikipedia to track it any further. but it does rather look as though he may have died on the 9th Jan. Has any-one else come across anything to corroborate this? Thanks SRwiki 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who added this case in the first place? I would assume he died Jan 9 2007 unless someone else says otherwise. Also, with the claimed date of enlistment (May 1918) I think we should add him to the WWI vets who died in Jan 2007. Any objections?→ R Young {yakłtalk} 01:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... not certain. There's nothing in the Romanian press about this. All there is one (defunct) wikipedia page.

Not saying he's not dead, but I can't see why there's one rule for Panculescu & another for Solinski. Neither have any PROOF they are dead for certain, after all.

No one said that Solinksi was dead, no one offered a death date. They just said "we didn't see a birthday story this year." If you will, we can make a 'limbo' list for cases where deaths are unconfirmed.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 01:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more point: the article was written in Romanian, making it less likely to be a hoax. Also, the writer of the article was apparently unaware or didn't bother to edit the USA version, again making a motive of deception less likely.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But where is this particular link though? Extremely sexy 16:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naum Djordjevitch[edit]

In the France version of the Wiki you can find Naum Djordjevitch. Anybody knows if this claim is validated? Or is he dead? http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derniers_poilus#Encore_en_vie Statistician 02.02.2007 20:33 (CET)

According to some other sites, Djordjevitch died some time ago, around 1999, I believe.

Can you post one? Statistician 03.02.2007 14:32 (CET)

Antonio Pierro[edit]

Mr Pierro passed away this morning, Feb 8 2007. This is confirmed.

Please update accordingly.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn: exactly 1 or 2 weeks before turning 111, so another old man gone. Extremely sexy 19:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I believe Frank Buckles made it to France as well. I remember reading in an article this past Veterans' Day that he sailed over on the Carpathia, the ship that rescued the Titanic survivors. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

Last living/dying Canadian veteran[edit]

The Canadian government recently announced (in reaction to an online petition) that when the last surviving Canadian WWI vet dies, he would be given a state funeral, as a way of honouring the memories and sacrifices of all the Canadians who fought in WWI. Should this be mentioned somewhere on the page, either in the header or in the Canada section right above that table? --Maelwys 16:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if Mr. Babcock ends up being the last? He was born in Canada. Did his training in Canada. However, not only has he spent most of his life in the USA. He is a United States citizen. Will this bother the Canadians? I Imagine he will wish to be buried in the USA. 209.240.206.209 11:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He served in the Canadian military during WWI, so he'd be honoured on behalf of all the members of Canada's WWI military, regardless of where he lives now. Anyway, I didn't bring this here to discuss if it was right or wrong, just whether or not we should mention it on this page. --Maelwys 13:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say place it on there in a brief sentence. It's an interesting tidbit that regular viewers who come across the page aren't going to learn about otherwise.--Brianmccollum 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interesting tidbit, but does not belong on the main page. If so, we could probably add another 50 or 60 more interesting footnotes and so on. By the way, the three Canadian veterans say they are not interested in a state funeral. I guess they can be honored, but it sounds like all three want a private funeral... No it shouldn't be listed in the main section. 209.240.206.209 02:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Surviving_veterans_of_the_First_World_War&oldid=1146466940"