Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I

Jozef Kowalski

Jozef Kowalski is 112 years old as of last Thursday. How is he doing?108.132.12.51 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

He's still alive [1]. Hut 8.5 11:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That's good to know. It's great that a news outlet in his homeland gives him the credit he's due as well. Burbridge92 (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep and for all 112 of those he hasn't been a veteran of World War I. He probably knows that even better than us because he would remember the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and Treaty of Versailles which wrapped it up allowing the Polish-Soviet war to be pursued, from start to finish, as something outside it and its causes and its original combatants and participant nations (of which Poland simply didn't exist prior to the end thereof).Wataana (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Per the discussion above, I would like to propose that we turn this page into something such as "Last 50 surviving veterans of World War I" or something that re-incorporates all that have been lost. Ideally, this would allow it to be re-nominated and pass a Featured List Review, and continue to provide a vital piece of information for people who might not know much about the war. Ideally, going back and taking the information which was removed and placing it back onto the page along with death information would be the way to do it, but I really do not think redirecting an article that was once a great article is a good way to remember these veterans. This idea has been brought up before, but I do not have time at the moment to find it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think having a "Last xx..." not only lends itself to endless disagreement about who qualifies and who deson't but serves no useful encyclopedic purpose. Previous discussions are here, here, here and here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Then arbitrary limits will work. I would hate to see a page with such historical value being redirected into another article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There's already a last veterans by country page, and the last veterans are already listed under the years of their deaths. I really think a last XX veterans list would not add anything. Czolgolz (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would serve a great purpose, for instance Claude Choules was the 2nd to last verified veteran of the war (and the last combat veteran) yet he is not listed at all on the last veterans by country page since the last veteran of the war was from the same country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.19.20 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But he IS listed on the 'veterans who died in 20XX' page. We have the last thousand or so vets listed on those pages already. Czolgolz (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of Claude Choules into a list because he was the "second last..." serves no prupose. It would also start endless arguments of why 2? Why not 3/5/10/20/50/100? However, a list of last by service would include Choules as the last naval serviceman, which is not covered elsewhere except incidentally. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Kowalski

Hi all,

If Kowalski never served in World War I, how come he's in this list? "World War I-era" isn't the same as actually serving in the war, is it?

Hope someone can clarify this, thanks. 118.100.84.131 (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It is explained quite clearly in the lead paragraph of the era veterans section. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Time to make a decision ...

The nom of the 4th AfD did have a valid point; that we were dragging our heels on deciding what to do with this list. Especially given that a number of folks (myself included) were always uneasy about the inclusion of Josef Kowalski, continuing to hold it open a one-man list (when that man is not, after all, a WWI vet) indefinitely just begs for more AfDs, which will sooner or later result in an outright deletion. Either we make a decision here, or one will be made for us at AfD.

So. I think we've got two valid proposals on the table:

1. Option A: Merge and redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country;
2. Option B: Merge and redirect to List of veterans of World War I who died in 2009–12.

Which'll it be, folks? My vote is for Option B, but I'm amenable to either. Ravenswing 09:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Option A Mithrandir1967 (talk) 12:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither. Rename to (or redirect to a new article) Last veterans of World War I to be a collection of the last veterans by branch of service and status (combat, trenches, wounded, theatre) as this information is not available in a single article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 18:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing prevents you from starting such an article, y'know ... Ravenswing 19:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

...except time/work... DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd go with option A, which makes more sense at this time. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've argued for A in the past, but on reflection I'm going to go with B. Someone who is looking for surviving veterans ought to be sent to a list of the last few veterans to die, which corresponds much more closely to the second list. I suppose we could turn it into a dab page as a compromise. Hut 8.5 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Option B isn't really an option presently unless he is or will be dying this year, in which case could be added afterwards if he does. Option A would be the most reasonable place to be merged to. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Failing someone having the time/inclination to follow Derby's recommendation, I think A is my option of choice. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 21:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Vandalism redirects have just been reported to WP:AIV. Ravenswing 04:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Option A, the whole Kowalski thing was interesting vis-a-vis giving some context to the number living (e.g. there are 3(2,1) WWI vets, but... also one from the same era...) With all WWI vets (known) gone, redirecting to the 'Last living' provides more info to an intereste reader. Kowalski's not gone, far as I can tell, there is an article about him, and he's described in the appropriate conflicts.Cander0000 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• With three days since the last legitimate opinion was registered, it looks like there's a clear consensus for Option A. I'll do the redirect now.

  Rest well, old soldiers. I hope we've honored your service and your memories. Ravenswing 23:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• If it is any consolation, and after a long abscence of posting I agree with the final redirect. Over time I was one of the few to actually research for one way or the other on a couple of veterans whilst people like RYoung would do the work for many of them. I was always uncomfortable to Mr Kowalski myself, but I always defended the inclusion vociforously as anyone that has spent any time researching WWI will know that drawing a line in the sand is not as straight-forward as it could be and related conflicts are not readily separated (Armistice vs ToV to name but one). He was an important footnote to us that researched this area and deserved inclusion whilst the list was "active" (sorry to sound so mercenary; it isn't at all what I mean). Wikipedia is educational, anyone that is interested can look at version histories or chat pages the moment they realise it is not so straight-forward; the redirect is a concise if somewhat brutal tale of the tape for those that just need "facts" and it can serve no better to make people look at what is a veteran if they every query a barracks waitress.

RichyBoy (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Even though the redirect was done, no mention of Józef Kowalski is currently listed there though. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Nor should he be. Ravenswing 22:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• He is though still mentioned at List of last surviving veterans of military insurgencies and wars. That-Vela-Fella (talk)

• Indeed he is, as a veteran of the 1919-1921 Finnish-Soviet War, which he is. That's quite proper. It still doesn't make Kowalski a World War I veteran, which he wasn't. Ravenswing 19:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

George Ward of Fayetteville

I was just searching to find records for my uncle. There was a question on the old discussion page (see below):

"Does anyone know the status of George Ward of Fayetteville, NC? He was alive as of 2004 at the age of 103 or 104. If he's still with us, he may be the most decorated surviving WWI vet, as he received the Distinguished Service Cross. I can't find an obit or a SSDI entry. Acctorp 23:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell us what more you know about Mr. Ward, Acctorp? Can you direct us to any articles about him? There were no George Ward's listed in the SSDI dying in North Carolina in 2004, 2005, or 2006 that could possibly be a WWI veteran. I would say there's a good chance he's still alive, as the SSDI records 95% of all deaths in the U.S. → R Young {yakłtalk} 14:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)"

The George who was alive in 2004 was his son. Uncle George Blain Ward of the Distinguished Service Cross died October 14, 1963 in LaGrange, North Carolina. He was 63 years old. I always remember him laughing--a real belly laugh. We adored him. Both of his sons were also war heroes. Tommy Ward was a Ranger in Korea (read about him in Rangers in Korea by Robert W. Black) and Jimmy Ward, also in Korea--returned a hero at the age of 15. He lied about his age and joined up at 14. (See article in Life Magazine, February 26, 1951.) Jimmy had to go back to Middle School--but then reenlisted as soon as he was old enough.

We are, needless to say, very proud of them all. They were wonderful men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.93.171 (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)