Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

WWI vet from Brazil

Maximiano Jose dos Santos (22 February 1893? - 25 April 2006) is said to be a possible WWI vet.

On WOP, user jaferandés said:

"In general it is difficult to validate Brazilian cases, but this one seems different. The Lieutenant Maximiano José dos Santos was allegedly born in 1893 and died in 2006. He was incorporated in the Navy in 1913, so he should at least be very close to 110 when he died. He fought in the first and second world wars and has a ship with his name.

Here are reports about his life and the about the ship."

-Sources:

• http://www.tre-ms.gov.br/noticias/noticia928.html (in Portuguese)

• http://www.mar.mil.br/menu_h/noticias/Com6DN/Navio_de_Assistencia_Hospitalar_Ten\ente_Maximiano_e_incorporado_a_Armada/NaviodeAssistenciaHospitalarTenenteMaximia\noeincorporadoaArmada.htm (in Portuguese)

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick, why are you mentioning this here? He died in 2006, so is obviously not one of the surviving veterans of WWI! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the place that would receive the most attention. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's no excuse. This page of is for living cases who are at least claimed to be veterans. It is not a messageboard for posting irrelevant cases. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So? You're scarcely a rookie, and ought to know that the purpose of the encyclopedia isn't to plump up attention for things you think are important. If that's your goal, create a webpage and memorialize whomever you please.  RGTraynor  12:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just move this discussion to Talk:List of veterans of World War I who died in 2006 Hepcat65 (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Claimed LIVING 110 yr old WWI vet!

Kashi Ram Rai claimed to have celebrated his 110th birthday on January 1, 2010. He was born in Nepal, and moved to Manchester, New Hampshire. Coincidentally where 114-year-old Mary Josephine Ray had resided prior to her departure from life, sadly. He had been in a British/India Gurkha regiment sent to France and had fought there in the war, returning home to Nepal in 1920. He emigrated to Bhutan in 1928.

I found SOMEONE named Ram Rai who had enlisted in the British Army during World War I on Ancestry.com here (scroll near bottom of page till u come across a Ram Rai): [1] Now, call it what you want, but it seems somewhat believable.

Other Sources:

• http://www.friendsofnepal.com/
• http://www.unitedkiratrai.org/new_england

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be in unverified claims but if it is him on ancestory.co.uk then he should be a verfied veteran.--Del Boy (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The claim seems plausible but we should await consensus before adding him. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the claims of his age have not been verified, let alone whether he actually was in the British/Indian Army. Have you got a source for the claim, Nick? I couldn't find anything in the Media, but I might have missed it! I saw a mention in the comments on the Union Leader - but comments aren't RS. As for Friends of Nepal (and I'm not sure that they count as RS), if you read the article they have about him: When I was talking with Kashi Ram, he surprised me by telling me that he had been in a British/India Gurkha regiment sent to France and had fought there in the war, returning home to Nepal in 1920. He emigrated to Bhutan in 1928. So the NYT was wrong. - no actual proof about this, just his own claim (and no press coverage about him can be found). Again, I'm not sure if the United Kirat Rai is a RS, but even if it is, they make no claim on their website about his service - and none of the photos (which are of his 110th birthday celebrations) include any of him in the Army.

I looked at the National Archives for his medal records - but if he did figh, he didn't earn any medals for his service. With regards to the Ancestry records - if you narrow it down to military records (see here, there are 3006 results. None of them are for "Kashi Ram Rai", but a couple are for "Ram Rai". They are both for a "Nand Ram Rai", both of the Gurkha Rifles - and I can see no evidence that either is the same person (see here):

Medal card of  Nand Ram Rai 
Corps: Gurkha Rifles 
Regiment No: 1668 
Rank: Rifleman 
1914-1920 WO 372/14  

Medal card of  Nand Ram Rai 
Corps: Gurkha Rifles 
Regiment No: 1638 
Rank: Rifleman 
1914-1920 WO 372/14 

Personally, I would want to see this reported as a claim in a newspaper before counting it as an "unverified" claim. At the moment, there are no sources at reliable sites. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In a Newspaper or not it is still a claim and unverified claims section is for any claim it is not just for claims in certain articles.--Del Boy (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

With respect, Anthony, the press is an essential part of the unverified claim section - it says: These are claims that were included in the press, but have not been verified by a government-sanctioned body or actual records located. To be a claim there must be at least a citation. (emphasis mine) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I found a Ram Rai who fought for the British Army during World War I here (1st person mentioned): http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?gl=39&rank=1&new=1&so=3&MSAV=0&msT=1&gss=ms_r_f-39&gsfn=Kashi+Ram&gsln=Rai&_81004010=1900&msbpn=5162&msbpn__ftp=Nepal&msrpn__ftp=Manchester%2C+New+Hampshire%2C+USA

--Nick Ornstein (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look into it, you'll find that this one (plus the next one on that list) are the two I mention above - both called "Nand Ram Rai" - neither of them called "Kashi Ram Rai". Which one of the two above (Reg. Nos 1638/1668) do you claim that Kashi is? Where is the evidence that Kashi Ram Rai was called Nand Ram Rai? There are no reliable sources about Kashi Ram Rai (none of the ones mentioned above are RS, and none of the others I found were - flickr and a comment on an article about someone else). The criteria for inclusion on the unverified list is that it should be mentioned in the press (which it isn't). For inclusion on the verified list, a government body needs to confirm that they are a veteran. At the moment, there is no proof that Kashi Ram Rai is one of the two individuals mentioned at Ancestry (and through them, at the National Archives in the UK). There is no claim in a RS press location (web or print). As such, Kashi Ram Rai does not qualify for inclusion in this article. Unless a claim in the press is found, or proof that *this* person is recognised as a veteran, then there's nothing else to be said. I saw the mention on the World's Oldest People mailing list, and looked into it. No reliable sources means no inclusion on this article. Sorry -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It is possible that "Kashi" is not a given name, but a form of address like "Mr." or a nickname like "Sacha" for Alexander in Russia. I know nothing about Nepal, so I'munable to confirm this. This claim should not be disregarded but does require more research. 66.84.209.156 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)J271

This is a possibility, and I did try to find out, but could find nothing to indicate this. It is used as a name of people (e.g. Kashi Paudel) and as a place (generally called Varanasi). I have not disregarded the claim - I have done research, as shown above, and can find no reliable sources of information for this claim. I can't even find a press mention of it. You are,of course, welcome to find reliable sources for this information - especially if those reliable sources show that this Ram Rai is one of the two Ram Rais listed at Ancestry/National Archives. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some photos of his 110th birthday: [2]. Also, a blog article about his birthday (doesn't qualify as a reliable source by Wikipedia though): [3] SiameseTurtle (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Blogs and Flickr pages aren't considered reliable sources by anyone, let alone Wikipedia.  RGTraynor  06:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Blogs" can be different things.. Nobody claims Joe Nobody's personal blog is a reliable source, but when an organisation has a homepage where info is regularily put can be reliable, if the organisation can be considered reliable. Think GRG... Here we have an organisation for Nepalese in america, Friends Of Nepal and another organisations website, United Kiratrai New England - I don't know where these are on the scale from Joe Nobody's blog to GRG, but I insist this is the third milennia & newspapers hasn't got monopoly on being reliable news distributors anymore. Hepcat65 (talk) 08:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, when you've managed to get wikipedia to change its policy on blogs let us know. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It does appear that this Friends Of Nepal, with the presumption of them as a legitimate organization, uses a type of Content Management System that allows them to maintain their site as seperate articles. I'm not sure you can lump them in this category called Blogs without revisiting the legitimacy of any organization whose website allows dynamic publishing. This one is not neccessarily the most polished, but polish of their website is not necessarily equivalant to verifiability.Cander0000 (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Then, please tell me why GRG is considered a reliable source at all the supercenetarian articles? And if they are, where goes the limit for organisations web pages no longer considered to be reliable. My point is: An organisation's website may not always be considered as a blog. I suppose these questions can be debated & a reasonable consensus can be reached for this article, too. Remember, No fixed rules. Hepcat65 (talk) 11:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

On the List of living supercentenarians page, Yahoo Groups is being used for references, a few blogs are used, and Twitter is used for Lady Mona Agnew, and facebook was used for Lillian Leblanc prior to her death in February 2010. So why can't we use these references then?

Whether those references are acceptable has been disputed, and that article is on the whole fairly slack as far as referencing goes. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that we should keep a list of people that are said to have served in World War I that are living on this page just so that they don't slip our minds. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of wikipedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The GRG and the WOP are not blogs, by definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blog

Neither are "personal journals" and certainly aren't styled as such.

Wording aside, I think we should list this case on the "unverified" list with the "Friends of Nepal" site which appears to be more notable than simply a personal website.Ryoung122 00:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Friends of Nepal may or may not be counted as a RS, but in this case, the "story" is basically "we have been told by this person that this person to0ld him that he served...." - OK, this is not a court, so hearsay is not a problem per se, but where is the mentions in the press? As so few veterans are still around, I would have expected the press to leap on any possibilities (it's a good exclusive for a local paper, which may well get picked up by a national, making lots of money for the local paper, as well as kudos). Also, as someone else mentioned, If this claim had been made in a newspaper story about him (and I couldn't find any mention of him at all, let alone this claim) then I would say that it should be in the unverified section. However, at the moment, the only place this claim is made is on the FoN website (and as I say, that's in the form of "Doug told us that Kashi Ram told him that he has served"). This is believed to be the oldest Nepali living in the world today - and yet there's no press coverage of him, which is surprising. I'm sorry, but I don't think claim of a claim is sufficient to warrant an entry on the list. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the Gurkhas were withdrawn in their entirety from the Western Front at the end of 1915 and served in the campaigns in Palestine and Mesopotamia for the remainder of the war. If this claim is true then Kashi Ram Rai would have had to have enlisted at the age of 14 or 15 in order to have fought in France. This is by no means inconceivable but is to my mind a factor, in addition to those given above, that militates against its validity.

Additionally, is there any evidence that Mr Rai is actually 110, rather than merely claiming to be? Certainly, from his photographs he looks a good age but it is extremely unlikely that this is verifiable by reference to Bhutanese vital records. A couple of years ago I unearthed a case of one M'Lthiria Mukaria who was reported in King's African Rifles Regimental Association website as as WWI veteran at the age of 114. At that time it was (in all probability quite rightly) dismissed as a longevity claim. Is the Gerentology Research Group aware of Mr Rai's supercentenarian status? Brucexyz (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt that this claim is going to be verified. However, right now we DO have an unverified claim to being a WWI veteran. The question is whether this case should be listed on the main page, or just left here for discussion. The GRG is aware of the age claim but no evidence has been sent. Given the claimed date of birth (January 1, 1900) that seems to be just a round number (a guess, essentially) and that indicates that no one knows when Mr Rai was born. One comment about the war service: one does NOT need to be a "Western front" veteran to qualify as a WWI veteran. If he served in the British armed forces against the Ottomans (the French fought the Ottomans in Syria; the Australians suffered at Gallipoli, etc) then that still counts...if any real evidence of war service emerges.Ryoung122 09:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that sevice against the Ottomans doesn't count, but pointing out that if Mr Rai fought in France, as he claims, he would have had to have done so at the age of 14-15 as the Gurkhas weren't in that theatre after 1915. As it stands we have a claimant whose age and military service are unverified and, for me, he should stay on the discussion page pending further information coming to light.Brucexyz (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Indian subcontinent mobilized about 1,500,000 troops for the British in WWI and therefore it seems that somebody should have still been alive after 1998. I realize that life expectancy varies with national living standards and that India and it's surrounding nations were among the pooorest and/or least stable in the world during the 20th century (oftentimes lower than even sub-Saharan Arica in per capita G.N.P.). However, even a ridiculuos odds of 10,000 to 1 against a man from there living to his 100th birthday and 50% annual mortality rate afterwards would yield about 5 members of that force having lived to 105. Finally, extreme longevity (i.e. supercentenarian) is so rare among males that it could happen anywhere, regardless of living standards; as proof consider the two longest lived veterans: Emiliano Mercado Del Toro (a sugar cane farmer in Puerto Rico), and Moses Hardy (a black man from Mississippi). India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka between them probably had fewer living WWI vets than Canada when they started these lists, but there's no reason they couldn't still have one today while Canada doesn't. Good luck in resolving this one way or another.JeepAssembler (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

theres no point in even arguing on this about supercenteniens being veterans cos its not like there gonna add them is it--Del Boy (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I say go ahead and list him as an Unverified Vet. He'll probably never be verified, but his claim shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Andrew76 (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew76/Anthony: find a reliable press source which says that he makes this claim (and/or proof that Kashi Ram Rai is one of the two Nand Ram Rais listed at Ancestry/National Archives) and I'll add him to the list of unverified vets myself. Just being a supercentenarian does not make one a veteran automatically - lots of people were unfit to serve. To be included on the list of verified vets, there needs to be an official recognition by the relevant government that the person is a vet. To be included in the list of unverified vets, there needs to be a claim made in a reliable press source. As I said above "Doug says that Kashi said" is not a reliable press citation. I have been unable to find any evidence that Kashi's age has been verified anywhere. I can find no evidence that Kashi's actual name is "Nand" and hence one of the two listed on the National Archives Medal Cards (and unlike service records - which suffered an approx. 60% loss during the Blitz - I believe that the Medal Cards are pretty much complete). At the moment, I fail to see that there is any evidence that this person served as claimed by Doug. There is no evidence that he said this to Doug (other than Doug's own claim). I know that some people here are determined to get people added to the list, but the fact is that Kashi Ram Rai does not meet the criteria for inclusion as either a verified or unverified vet. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If National Archives Medal Cards are so complete then why doesn't someone cross reference them with the names of men old enough to have served who died in years 1999 - 2004?JeepAssembler (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

They aleady are (unless there was significant press coverage etc of them elsewhere in which case this is used) - I did this 2-3 years ago.Brucexyz (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

SOLDIER PORTUGUESE SURVIVOR - "MILHOES"

Recalling the world war I: The ' milhais ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrimar (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

He died in 1970 for goodness sake!Check his profile Please stop wasting everyone's time by posting information without researching it first!Brucexyz (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Whom are you writing about? Is it the potential Brazilian listed earlier in this discussion?JeepAssembler (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the links and added a tag. This is a Portuguese soldier, a different person to the Brazilian mentioned above. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but can anyone read Portuguese to shed light one way or another about the Brazilian case? Let's not just forget about him since he died in 2006; he could still be added to the Died In list for that year if officially verified.JeepAssembler (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)JeepAssemblerJeepAssembler (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Douglas Edward Terrey Claim

i think douglas terreys claim as a bicycle courier should be looked more into because i have read the article on him and it sounds very convincing that he is a WWI vet by the article.Tony winward (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tony, we need some Government source saying that he is a veteran. The only place where it is claimed that he is a veteran is in the newspaper article - and he says it himself. There is no medal record for him, I can't find any service records for him - I can't find anything official that says that he was in the armed forces in any capacity. The newspaper that reported the story about him hasn't done a follow-up: they would know that if he was indeed a veteran, then he's the last male one living in the UK. I can't find anything (apart from his own say-so) which indicates that he was in the armed forces. I'm afraid that saying that "it sounds very convincing" is not enough to meet WP:V or WP:N. Also, personally, I didn't find it very convincing! Who's to say that you or I are right? Basically, it says it on the article here: These are claims that were included in the press, but have not been verified by a government-sanctioned body or actual records located. The claim is in the press, but not verified. As such, Mr Terrey will need to remain in the "unverified" section. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

i wasnt trying to tell you to put his name in verified veterans or anything all i meant was i think some more reseach needs to be done on him.Tony winward (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, Tony! Any suggestions where we can look? I've looked in the normal places (Ancestry.co.uk Service Records; National Archives service records and medal records; Google Books/Scholar/News) and I can't find anything. I can't think of where else to look, but I'm happy to do so if you can give some suggestions 18:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

i have found this site here www.1914-1918.net were it says "Research a Soldier" there might be something on there.Tony winward (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and you'll find that almost all of the items on the list there are basically to be found at the National Archives (or through Ancestry). The other items do not include Terrey (for example, he wasn't an officer, or a PoW, he wasn't in any of the areas where the Absent Voters lists are available, etc). He wouldn't have earned any gallantry awards (or if so, there is no mention at the National Archives) It might be possible to get hold of the operational records of his unit - but they hardly ever mention people by name (and if they do, it's always the officers - for example, my gr-gr-uncle who died in WW1 comes under the category of "casualties" in the war diary for the regiment, as one part of a number - he isn't named anywhere) - and not all of them are available. If we knew his exact regiment, etc, we could look that up though.... and that's everything that is mentioned on that site. It's a very good site (I've used it before), but there are no leads from there, I'm afraid. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

here is [4] [5] two articles i have just found with douglas terrey in that i havernt seen before, i thort i would show you them incase if you can get any new information about him or anything.Tony winward (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those, Tony. I had actually seen those when doing research on Terrey, but they don't add anything to what we already have. The Sky News one says Mr Terrey, of Marchwood, near Southampton, Hants, began his routine of a fry-up a day when he joined the Army as a dispatch boy, aged 13. "When I got my first job in the Army I would go to work on a good breakfast and I knew I wouldn't get hungry," he said.; The Daily Echo doesn't make any mention of his Army claims. If Mr Terrey was notable enough for an article (which he is not, currently), they would add a couple of details, but they don't help with verifying that he was indeed in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There has been previous discussion of Doug Terrey's claim (see Archives 6 and 7). I wrote to Dennis Goodwin, Secretary of the WWI Veterans' Association, to seek any additional information he might have at the end of 2008, and his response (transcribed at the top of Archive 7) was that he had been unable to establish if Terrey had served or not, and that the MoD was unconvinced. This does not necessarily mean that the claim is false, only that it cannot be 'officially' verified.

Long-time contributors to these pages will recall previous debates on what constitutes proper verification of claims, and newspaper articles alone were held to be insufficient (although a large number of those who appear in the 'Died In' pages are actually only there on that basis). The inference from Dennis Goodwin's letter is that the army is unable to find any official trace of Terrey's service, most likely because any records have been lost or destroyed, and is unwilling/unable to take his word for it, making formal verification difficult.

Without wishing to open up previous discussions, there is also the question of whether a 13-year old boy delivering letters on a bicycle in Southampton really qualifies as a WWI veteran, even if in uniform. Boy Scouts were recruited for the same purpose, and would not be considered such.Brucexyz (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have found this [6] website that you might be able to find information about Douglas Terrey. Tony winward (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Tony, but are you being serious? Why would the Connecticut State Library have any information about a British person? If you find a source that you think might have information, may I suggest that you look yourself for information. If you find any, then come back here with the link and the information. Please don't find a source and leave a message saying "this source might have some information" - I have looked pretty thoroughly for information, and while you might be able to find some information somewhere, I would expect you to actually do the research yourself, rather than assuming others will do it for you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found a Douglas Terrey on acestory.co.uk and i am not sure if it is him or not. Here [[7]] is the link. Tony winward (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose removing Mr. Terrey from this list, unless someone comes up with proof that he was a veteran. He has been on this page for quite some time, and I feel it would be inappropriate to remove him on my own, but something should be done one way or the other. I propose removing him from this list in 30 days if no proof is established by then. Thoughts, anyone?Mk5384 (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts are that although there is no verification of his having served in the armed forces, claims were made by the media (as per the given citations). The criteria we use is These are claims that were included in the press, but have not been verified by a government-sanctioned body or actual records located. To be a claim there must be at least a citation. and as such this should be included. However, I have no strong objection to it being removed, so unless there are any such objections, go ahead! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK then. As I have said, I will wait until 3 April. If no one provides proof or strong objection by then, I will remove it. I should stress that my preference would be for someone to provide this proof. I certainly do not want to deprive Mr. Terrey of his claim to a part of history. However, I believe that accuracy is what is most important here, and the claim has been posted here long enough for those who would to have the opportunity to verify it. I would welcome comment from anyone else with an interest or knoweledge in this area.Mk5384 (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You might as well remove him now because i have been trying to verifiy mr terrey for several months and it seems impossible to get any proof that he served--Del Boy (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think his claim should stay. The problem really is that records are sparse even for those who actually served. Some 'verified' people had no records at all. I suspect it's unlikely a teenage bicycle courier back in the UK would have such records. Nevertheless though, he still claims he served. Wikipedia is supposed to discuss controvertial subjects, and I think his claim should be given a mention like all the other claims listed in the past. SiameseTurtle (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussing controversial subjects does not mean that we should give creedence to them if they are unsubstantiated. But as I have said, let's wait and see who says what over the next few weeks. One other thing that concerns me, is being the youngest on the list, he stands a good chance to survive the others. (Although anything can happen, especially at the advanced ages of these fine people.) What happens if Mr. Terrey remains indefinately, and he winds up being the last surviving veteran?Mk5384 (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I too am inclined to think that the claim should stay listed unless it is completely debunked, which I acknowledge could be difficult! It is, and will, unless otherwise proved, remain an unverified World War I veteran claim, unless Mr Terrey were to one day say "Oh no, I didn't join the army, my mistake, sorry," which is equally unlikely. The only other thing I can think of is to write to the Royal Logistic Corps Museum, as successor to the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, to ask if as a general rule, a 13/14 year old courier could possibly have been deemed to be a member of HM Armed Forces at the time, or whether it would be more approprate to think of him as a cadet or even just as a civilian employed by the army. As there do not seem to be any actual records of Mr Terrey serving, maybe it is better to seek a general ruling on such a person's status and then apply the test to the individual. If the Museum were to say that as a rule, such a person could not be considered to be a member of the Armed Forces, then the claim should be delisted. Were they to say such a person could be considered to be a member of the Armed Forces, then the claim would still have to remain as unverified,not to say unverifiable. Moldovanmickey (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion. As I was the one who proposed deletion, I guess I should be the one to take up this task. I wish to clarify that I am not out to remove his claim, per se. My preference would be to have Mr. Terrey's claim authenticated, and remain. I just think that for the sake of the clarity of this encyclopedia, as well as out of respect for Mr. Choules, Mr. Buckles, Ms. Green, Mr. Kowalski, as well as all of the deceased veterans, we should do our best to verify or nullify it; especially since, as I have stated, Mr. Terrey does stand a fair chance to outlive the others.Mk5384 (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

is douglas terrey going to be deleted on the 3 April.--Del Boy (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No. I merely proposed deletion if no one objected. Since then, Moldovanmickey has weighed in, opining that it should remain. Siamese Turtle has also opined that it should remain. And whilst the other two editors who opined did not have an objection to removing it, they did not come out in favor of it, either. That was just my 2 cents. I would never unilateraliy make a decision like that. I have been it contact with Moldovanmickey, who was kind enough to provide me with some advice on how to go about attempting to prove or debunk Mr. Terrey's claim. I am very busy with my personal life at this time, and so I am unable to undertake that project at the moment. ( I am only peeking in on Wikipedia on occasion.) However, as soon as time allows me, I will attempt to follow through on it. So just to reiteriate, I will not be removing Mr. Terrey on 3 April, and I would hope that no one else does either.Mk5384 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

douglas terrey shouldnt even be on because bicycle couriers dont get counted as veterans.--Del Boy (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As a veteran is someone employed by the Armed Forces, yes he would count as a veteran. SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As SiameseTurtle says, there is a claim in the press that he was in the Armed Forces. This means that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

french veteran

http://www.lanouvellerepublique.fr/dossiers/journal/index.php?dep=37&num=1503413&xtor=RSS-13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.153.63.237 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, no mention of military service. More time wasted. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but someone needed to waste the time. What if it turned out to be another Mrs. Green, then it wouldn't be a waste of time. I guess what you are saying, is that the people that bring up these names out of the blue, need to do a little research first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.10.1 (talk) 02:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible new veteran

Found this lurking on the article for Jim Kendrick - "Jim joined the United States Army in 1917 and was in France during World War I." That would seem to have him as a claimant - not seeing any references to military sites, so probably not verified yet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cander0000 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 2010 March 24

Also from the article: "At age 48, Jim died in his hometown of Waco, on November 17, 1941, as the result of a stroke". He's not a surviving veteran. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch - I was confused when I saw him in the Living people category. Removing that now. Cander0000 (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Henry Johnson

Whilst making a cursory search for more information on Kashi Ram Rai earlier I came across a List of Surviving Veterans of WWI [8] in the Simple English Wikipedia (for children and those learning English) started by Nick Ornstein (?) earlier this year. In addition to the veterans shown this page it contains a mostly unreferenced list of unverified and 'Era' veterans already discounted here.

One name, that of Henry Johnson, does bear further investigation however[9]. If he is still alive (the article is over two years old) there is a reasonable chance that, like most of his generation, he left school at fourteen and was conceivably 'sailing the seven seas' from 1916/17, but the article makes no mention of any war service. It would be great if anyone is able to undertake further research on this, even if only to eliminate him from enquiries.Brucexyz (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions NOTHING about serving in the war. Being in the merchant marine is not like being in the navy. This is just another case of "somoene who is old enough to have been in the war so I think we should check even thought there is NO evidence so far". If there is no suggestion then there is no point bringing it to this page, although a number of users seems to think that this is a forum for such queries. It isn't. Unless there is at least a suggestion of military service then this is just wasting everyone's time. Again. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with DerbyCountyinNZ here. I'm also going to look at the Simple article, and weed out those that are inappropriate -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And, really, I'm militantly disinterested in "OMG he's old so he might have served!!!" suggestions. Given the torrent of media interest over the last couple of survivors, I wager that the CV of every male supercentenarian in the world has been pored over by researchers.  RGTraynor  14:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I just thought that his case had slightly more credence than the others on the Simple list. The lack of reference to any war service in an article is telling.Brucexyz (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, you can't just say I created the article. Go to the history tab, and see who was the 1st to edit it. Sorry bout your luck. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick, apologies.Brucexyz (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Bruce, it's all good. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

http://oldestinbritain.webs.com/oldestlivingbritons.htm According to this source, Henry Johnson was alive as of March 7, 2010. I have not found any mention of him being a war veteran. 208.104.52.232 (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)J271

i have found a henry johnson on ancestory.co.uk here [10] is the link.--Del Boy (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Dr Alexander Imich again

I wrote here about this remarkable man already in 2008, Talk:List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I/Archive_5#Dr_Alexander_Imich, but noone wanted to discuss the case then, just discussion about era veterans in general. But we still have columns for era veterans & for claims, so I think he should fit.

Back then I didn't have access to the book where his claim was published, but now I have. Here is the quote about his involvement in Poland's ww1 era wars: 'Mystic Souls' (2002) by Lyn Harper, published by iUniverse -preview at Google books

"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 he taught me to drive a big truck, but in the next several months the Bolsheviks were repelled and we all went back to school."

I checked the history book - the war with Russian bolsheviks didn't start until 1919, when Imich was 16. But the war with the short lived West Ukranian Peoples Republic started in november 1918,Polish–Ukrainian War and lots of young poles volonteered to fight, like the Lwów Eaglets. I saw in a recent blogpost that Dr Imich is alive & well, so there started my original research. (shudder, I know it´s a sin at WP, but bear with me..) I got his e-mail from the blogger (Yes, he is emailing at 107. Oldest on the net?) and asked him in a mail what he remembered about his experiences during the war. This is his response from march 25: "History was always my weak point because of bad memory. I served in an Automobile division of the Polish army in Czestochowa driving a Packard truck (that I cannot identify from the pictures you send) in 1918, so it must have been war with Ukraine. (---) My interest was always in the future and in the events of extraordinary importance, but not accepted by the mainstream science. Best regards, Alex"

So he may have mixed the two wars together, and as the Polish-Russian war lasted longer, perhaps it was what stuck in his mind. Then, what to write in the list of veterans.. Must be what's in the book, but just the part of it that could be true, like "Claims to have driven a truck for the Polish army in 1918". If any records were kept by the just emerging polish republic I don't know - and if there were, then they were possibly lost in WW2.. But Imich age can perhaps be checked - here's another quote from 'Mystic Souls' mentioned above: "Just two years ago my nephew went to Krakow University to check my work {from 1929} because I thought maybe now I will publish it and I have those color plates. He told me that my official papers were still there, but apparently, my thesis had been stolen. Probably, somebody saw the date of my birth and said, Imich, born 1903 - he must be dead by now - and approptriated the work for himself." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hepcat65 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally i think he should be in world war I-era but because it has not been verified i think he should be in Unverified veterans at the momment.--Del Boy (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I have only got a few mins to look at this, so this will necessarily be a quick initial response - I'll respond in more detail on Monday or Tuesday when I'm able to look into this in more details, but for the time being, some quick questions:

1. Has the claim been made in any media? The book in question appears to be a book where 19 people wrote about themselves, but with no evidence. Normally, for a "unverified" claim to be included, it needs to be mentioned in a newspaper or magazine. (Next week, I will look into this book in more detail)
2. Is there any evidence (other than a blog, which are not generally counted as reliable sources) that he is still alive?
3. Is there any evidence that he fought in an action which is recognised as part of WW1, as opposed to an unrelated battle or war?

I found this article from 2007, which mentions nothing about WW1 (and even the mention of WW2 says he fled the district rather than fought) and this article from 2005 which mentions neither of the wars. I'll look through the various book hits and reply in more detail during next week -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't the enthusiastic 15 year old triggered by his classmates, all of them joining the army, anymore when he fled with his wife in 1939. As a very rare sort of centenarian who still have lots of interests of importance to him and others, this few months in 1918/19 probably doesn't seem important enough for him to mention. As he is quoted in the New York Time article on another subject; "That was a hundred years ago,” he said. “Who remembers what happened?”. As for your points - see Imich's wiki article too. #1:A publication of a claim - why would a newspaper article be the 'only' way? Why not a book? #2:He is still listed in the New York white pages, (and I have had mail conversation with him a few days ago, as I wrote above) #3:Why would he have had to fight in any action to be included? Buckles was driving vehicles behind the lines. I don't know how near the action Imich was. If you start questioning the inclusion of participants from Poland's wars in this list, then I ask why Josef Kowalski is on the list? The war he participated in was possibly later than Imich's war. By the way, I wonder how Kowalski got verified? I see a mention of his regiment in one of the newspaper articles, but has he been verified by the Polish authorities or in any archive? Hepcat65 (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reasoned response, Hepcat65. Unfortunately, if these few months in 1918/1919 aren't important enough for him to mention, it makes it very hard to evaluate whether he should be included on the page! Obviously, the timing of his membership of an armed force has a bearing on whether he is included. As to the numbered points, I'll respond in the same order!:

1. To be honest, I'm not sure about whether his inclusion in this book is sufficient to be included in the list, but as you said, he seems to be talking about the Polish-Ukrainian War. However, I notice that he only mentions volunteering to be in the army. Now, I know this is being picky, but he doesn't actually mention serving in the armed forces in the paragraph and "the Bolsheviks were repelled and we all went back to school." To be honest, I'd be more impressed if the book was by a recognised expert, rather than a college professor of Religious Studies who interviewed him to produce a book.
2. Mail/email/blog conversations are not generally counted as reliable sources! I'm not doubting your word, but I would prefer to see independent verification of his still being alive (e.g. in a newspaper, etc), as this would be verifiable by others.
3. That was my mistake - I should have worded it as Is there any evidence that he was a member of an armed force during the time scale in which we look at - bearing in mind my comments regarding #1

I am still not convinced that Dr Imich has been shown to meet the criteria for inclusion - to be honest, I really would expect there to be some press coverage in reliable sources - the press are aware of how few veterans there are, and anyone who is a "near-veteran" could be expected to get some coverage. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

New York City is full of people with stories, but only so many pages in the paper. Had he lived in a smaller city, or had he been back in Poland (& perhaps of polish ethnicity) then I'm sure he would have had many more articles written about his life story. I'm not talking about including him in the present WW1 era group, I'm talking about either a new category unverified WW1 era claims in analogy with Doug Terrey's group, or, if Kowalski's service turns out to not really be based on government-sanctioned body or actual archive records, then both should be in a new unverified ww1 era claims. As for your new points, volonteering means going to the army, and there he claims in the quote he found his brother responsible for the automobile division & joined him to learn to drive a big truck. The conflict started in november 1918 & Imich is insistant it was that year, probably because he remembers what class in scool he was in. The conflict staggered on during the winter - the Ukranians weren't pushed back by a polish offensive until may 1919, so as he claims being with his brothers division until the enemy was pushed back, he would have had plenty of time to first learn to drive the Packard truck & the rest of the time perhaps help the army with supplies. As for the author of this book where the claim is found being just a college professor - Do we have any special minimum demands on reporters writing articles referencing for let's say the other claimant? You asked if there are any evidence that he was a member of any armed force - No, he is still an unverified claimant. If you're worried the page will be cluttered full of unverified claimants, should we allow this guy, then I think you can be calm. All the wery old people some editors find & put here just because they are old won't be included, since they are not claiming they are any kind of veterans. But Imich is - if somebody asks him. But he doesen't elaborate on bad things from the past - his mind is out levitating into the future. Guess that's why he is getting so old (+ reduced food intake, as he has said in interviews. A practice with some evidence from lab experiments) My point answering your question whether he is still alive was his inclusion in the white pages. He talked about perhaps moving to his niece in the 2007 NYP article, in the white pages now it seems like he has. (houshold W.Imich) Hepcat65 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind what I said about Kowalski perhaps not verified - in his polish article there is a reference to the medal he got for his war services on his 110:th birthday - from the president! I'll add it here, too. Finally, to paraphrase Cato the Elder; Moreover, I advise that Imich must be included Hepcat65 (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

i was looking on the list of surviving veterans of world war I edit history and there was a article of the same page but in another language and it had Alexander imich under unverified world war era veterans so should he be put on this wiki page. here is the link to show you. sv:Lista på levande krigsveteraner från första världskriget --Del Boy (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because another Wikipedia has an article, is does not automatically follow that we need to have one on the English Wikipedia. Every Wikipedia is independent, and have their own standards. Also, looking at the references that svwiki uses for his actual article are the book and the NY Times article we discussed above. I'd appreciate some of the other regulars on this page making a comment on this issue - so that more of a consensus can be reached. If several editors agree that he should be included, then I'd say OK - if several editors say nay, then we leave him off the list, which is what I think. I am going to leave messages on some of the regulars on this page (more than 10 edits, not IPs, and with last edit in 2010) asking them to look at this thread and comment (and that's all I'll say to them, they can see what I think when they look here!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• My vote would be on neither the verified or the unverified lists. Steve's take is exactly right: if there's not even a claim for Imich beyond his own unsupported word, that's not even enough for the unverified list. What, do I get on the unverified list simply by making a public claim that I'm a surviving WWI vet?  RGTraynor  16:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have left messages on 13 people's talk pages.-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, the swedish article was by me, so I wouldn't count that as an extra vote for Imich :)
Mr Traynor, I was just going to say that claiming publicly in the press was just what Doug Terrey has done & came to the unverified list - but then I checked the first reference - there was actually a local warrant officer who endorsed Terrys claim at his century birthday - that makes him at least partly verified in my book. Well, back to the point here - inclusion criteria for being a claimant. First is appropriate age - there's probably where your eventual claim would end, mr Traynor. Several earlier www1 and era veterans has been listed as unverified on just a claim in the press + appropriate age. I myself got mr Rönnbäck born as late as 1905 listed a few years ago, as the last participant on the white side in the finnish civil war. Moreover, I advise that Imich should be included. Hepcat65 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly I notice that Mr Imich does not (from the book provided) claim to have taken part in WW1, he claims to have fought against a Russian invasion of Poland in 1918 a year after Russia surrendered. So whatever was he is referring to (and he does not seem sure) it was not WW1. Secondly WW1 ended on 11th November 1918, the Polish–Ukrainian War started around a month after that, so it was not part of WW1. So if Mr Imich is a vetran of that he is not a Vetran of the great war. At the very best he is an unconfirmed vetran of either the Polish–Ukrainian War or the Russo-Polish war. But as we cannot be sure which putting him in either is a stretch. But he is not (and has never claimed) to be a great war vetran.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, nobody claims he was part of WW1. Perhaps the article should be renamed - as I write below, this article started including "era" veterans sometimes in 2006, then it was american veterans who joined after 11 11 18 but before Versialles. Later in 2007 Kowalski was included as an era veteran, and the definition was expanded to "related conflicts" & veterans from the Finnish civil war was included. All this has been debated to death, but Kowalski has stayed in the list. If you want to exclude him, or change name of the article, please start that debate in a new section - this sections debate is about how reliable source we have for Imich's claim - current era veteran inclusion criteria consensus is assumed. Hepcat65 (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am against inclusion as there is insufficient evidence that he was actively involved in a conflict that relates to this article geographically and temporally. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice words, Derby :) For an unverified claimant all we need is a reliable source reporting this claim from a person who reasonably could have been there and then. Imich's claim as being born in Częstochowa in 1903, and joining a Polish war in late 1918, at 15, doesn't seem unreasonable, given the general rush among youths at the time to fight for Poland - see the Lwów Eaglets for example. This article has included Kowalski and the Polish-Soviet war (wich began in feb. 14 1919) since sometime in 2007 - thousands and thousands edits later, Kowalski is still here. Are you claiming he shouldn't be in the article, or are you claiming like Slatersteven that the article ought to be renamed, should this inclusion continue? Hepcat65 (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there any claim made by him or the press that he joined the polish army prior to 1919? What we would need to include him is a reliable source saying that he was serving (or might have been) in the era specified, not that a Wikipedia editor thinks that, that is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the beginning of this talk section. For Dr Imich, his claim is in a book. By the way, this discussion here, claiming a press reference would be acceptable, but a book reference isnt, would be considered strange indeed by my old school teatcher - books would make more of a lasting reference for most people. If you're talking about Kowalski, his claim is endorsed by the president of Poland, so his claim should be verified enough. His war began in february 1919, no reason to believe he joined up after Versialles, since he was age 19 from the beginning of the war. Hepcat65 (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No the book claims he served in a war against the Russians, not when he served (nor does it indicate which war, as you yourself point out). To be acceptable a source has to say what the text says, the text of the source does not say he joined up before 1919. That is what the question is, for inclusion he has to have joined up before June 1919. The President of Polands letter says that Mr Kowalski served in the battle of Warsaw in 1920 (the only date pre-WW2 abd battgle mentioned, as such its logical to conclude this was his first action), so using your logic its just as likely he joined up as the Russians attacked Warsaw to defend his city (and the presidents letter does seem to say something like along those lines, that he joined up to defend Polands boarders against the Russians). So to claim that he could have joined up before June 1919 is OR based upon an interpritation of source material that could just as easily be interpritated another way (and one more in keeping with what the sources actualy say).Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll cite the book on Dr Imich again: "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 he taught me to drive a big truck, but in the next several months the Bolsheviks were repelled and we all went back to school." To my eyes there's indeed a claim to have joined the army before june 1919, it says in 1918. Your comments on the time of mr Kowalski's entering the army would fit better at his section below. Hepcat65 (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The soviets were not repeled until the battle of warsaw (August 12–25, 1920) if there fore (as the source says) he joined up only a few months before this that would mean sometime around the middle of 1920. Moreover the soviots did not attack Poland until 1919, so he is claiming to have joined up in response to an attrack that was a year away. |It seems to me he is saying that he joioned up is response to the Soviot invasion of Poland (which actualy occured in 1920), that his training had not finished beofre the end of the conflict (well he actualy does say that, are you sugesting his training took 2 years?). It seems to me there is too much doubt here to include him.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If you assume the "Russians" part is correct, then two other parts of the quote must be wrong, namely 1918 and age fifteen, since Imich was born februari 4, 1903. I assume just one thing is wrong in the quote, namely confusion after more than 80 years of the enemies nationality. I suppose my approach follows Occram's razor better. He claims in the quote to have been with his brothers automobile division for a few months wich follows the historical records well for the conflict with the Ukrainians. Btw, the Ukrainians called their short lived republic "West Ukranian Peoples Republic" - sounds a bit bolshevik to me?? Hepcat65 (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Or the date is wrong and he joined up at 16 17 (I bleive school leaving age was 16), thats the problom, there is confusion in the source about this. The book in quesation is published by an online vanity publishing house, as such I do not bleive it to meet RS requirments.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The publishing house discussion may be relevant - I'll check on that. The book does have a ISBN number, though. Well, next time he is interviewed he'll hopefully remember my mail about the Russian/Ukranian issue. If he's ever interviewed.. Migrated veterans within the same culture, like England - Australia - United States gets articles in the press, but old veterans from other cultures like Ram Rai and Imich has less interest to the local readers, I guess. It's the same in Sweden with Saro Dursun's claim being born 1899 - no article. Hepcat65 (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this situation is a disgrace (particulaly Ram Rai who (if his claim is ture) should have recived coverage in this country). All we can do is wait to see if better sources come up.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I'm fine with the evidence that he is still alive. While we do need reliable sources for everything, I feel that any reasonable claim to someone being alive should be treated seriously per WP:BLP, and a good application of WP:IAR is to treat people on Wikipedia as living even if it's posted only in a blog, such as to raise the appropriate protections of WP:BLP. Having said that, I am also against adding Imich, given everything that's been presented here. Also, the unverified section is called "Unverified World War I veteran claims" not "Unverified World War I-era veteran claims". If we called it the latter, we'd probably have many more to add to that table and it would shift focus away from the real point of the article, which is "who took part in World War I and is still alive?" It then becomes "here's a list of people who took part in conflicts related to World War I... maybe". The era-veterans are an interesting part of this article, but is not (or should not be) the focus, otherwise it starts to become too trivial and unsuitable for Wikipedia per WP:SALAT. Canadian Paul 22:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. you don't want to include a new section "Unverified World War I-era veteran claims", since "we'd probably have many more to add to that table". Do you have any evidence or reason to believe anybody more than Dr Imich could potentially be included in such a category? (Kashi Ram Rai, if the source of his claim is accepted, would go in the regular unverified category) Hepcat65 (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a List of Surviving Veterans of World War One and I have never been in favour of including "era" veterans, but content to go along with the wishes of the majority. Neither Messrs Kowalski nor Imich served in WWI and should not, in my view, be on this page (Hepcat65's comments elsewhere on the former are absolutely correct - he was put on about three years ago to general acceptance, but without proper verification it would seem and no-one has bothered to check). Ram Rai's claim needs more evidence to support its inclusion, but I doubt that any will ever be found.Brucexyz (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be hard pressed to find anything that would make me comfortable including this gentleman. I would like to add, that this is just my opinion, and others who have contributed far more to this article than I, may disagree.Mk5384 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

rename

Given the fact that there is one (and an attmept at inserting another) person who is not a vetran of the great war, but of a war around the same time I would sugest that this page is either renamed living WW1 era vetrans or (my preferd choice) surviving vetrans of wars 1914-1919. Or we should remover all persons who are not vetrans of the great war, and catergaries created to enable their inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A new name to reflect what the article really covers seems fair. Surviving veterans of wars up to 1920 perhaps - but I don't think there are any veterans left who entered in 1920 anyway, so ´19 may be OK, too. A redirect from the current name & kept history is naturally needed. Hepcat65 (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

when will the name be changed--Del Boy (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - World War I is a pretty well-documented and notable war, and who is a veteran of it fairly well-defined in the article - albeith not without challenge. Widening the scope to the timeframe would inherently have to take on the topic of defining 'war' and which conflicts counted as a 'war' in that timeframe. No disrespect to veterans of that era - they should have their own article if sufficiently covered - while that doesn't necessarily make their particular conflict a good candidate for a "list o' X" article.Cander0000 (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Because some claimed veterans don't meet the criteria is not a justifiable reason to redefine the criteria. Adding dubious and fringe claims merely devalues the genuine veterans and does nothing to improve the article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Then how come that veterans of wars other then WW1 are in the article, at the moment the title says one thing and the text has something else. Its like calling a page the Moon landings and including satalites that orbit the earth.86.165.100.232 (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with renaming the page. The criteria for "era-veterans" is quite specific - it's not like your Moon landings analogy at all. The era-veterans are for those who were not part of the main conflict (i.e. up to Armistice Day) but who were in the relevant armed forces before the Treaty of Versailles (which is the legal end of the war, whereas the Armistice was the practical end of the war). The criteria for "claims" is also quite specific - there must be a claim in the media that they were a member of the armed forces before the Armistice, but there is no recognition of this status from an official body (either the Government, or a Government-recognised official veterans' agency). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with phantomsteve because it quite specific that it is "era veterans" --Del Boy (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Polish-Soviet War took place before the Treaty of Versailles. It is therefore considered to be an offshoot of the Great War, and loosely, a part of it. I think that this qualifies Mr. Kowalski for inclusion here, and no special renaming should be necessary.Mk5384 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

By Whome? There is not even a recognised start date (Dupey and Dupey for example say 1920).Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The date discussion is covered and referenced in the Wiki article on the war. "While the events of 1919 can be described as a border conflict and only in early 1920 did both sides realize that they were in fact engaged in an all-out war, the conflicts that took place in 1919 are closely related to the war that began in earnest a year later. In the end, the events of 1920 were a logical, though unforeseen, consequence of the 1919 prelude. The first serious armed conflict of the war took place around February 14 – February 16, near the towns of Maniewicze and Biaroza in Belarus. By late February the Soviet westward advance had come to a halt. Both Polish and Soviet forces had also been engaging the Ukrainian forces, and active fighting was going on in the territories of the Baltic countries (cf. Estonian War of Independence, Latvian War of Independence, Lithuanian Wars of Independence)." "In early March 1919, Polish units started an offensive, crossing the Neman River, taking Pinsk, and reaching the outskirts of Lida. Both the Soviet and Polish advances began around the same time in April (Polish forces started a major offensive on April 16), resulting in increasing numbers of troops arriving in the area. That month the Red Army had captured Grodno, but was soon pushed out by a Polish counter-offensive. Unable to accomplish its objectives and facing strengthening offensives from the White forces, the Red Army withdrew from its positions and reorganized. Soon the Polish–Soviet War would begin in earnest. Polish forces continued a steady eastern advance.[11] They took Lida on April 17[11] and Nowogródek on April 18, and recaptured Vilnius on April 19, driving the Litbel government from their proclaimed capital."
So there were considerable action going on before june 1919, but as has been said, we have no source saying exactly when future liutenant Kowalski joined the XXII regiment Uhlans. Hepcat65 (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The same artciel says that

"Other points of contention are the starting and ending dates of the war. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica begins its article with the date (1919–1920), but then states "Although there had been hostilities between the two countries during 1919, the conflict began when the Polish head of state Józef Pilsudski formed an alliance with the Ukrainian nationalist leader Symon Petlyura (April 21, 1920) and their combined forces began to overrun Ukraine, occupying Kiev on May 7."[10] while the Polish Internetowa encyklopedia PWN[11] as well as some Western historians—like Norman Davies[13]—consider 1919 as the starting year of the war. The ending date is given as either 1920 or 1921; this confusion stems from the fact that while the ceasefire was put in force in the autumn of 1920, the official treaty ending the war was signed months later, in March 1921."

So whilst it can be said ther was fighting before 1920 it can also be said that they were not the same war, there is debate about the start date. You quoted text by the way says that the actual war started in 1920, the events of 1919 were a prelude, and whilst linked to the war of 1920 were not part of it, and thus by inferance was not part of the Great war (after all only the prelude occured before June 1919 not the actual war).Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's trying to say that they were truly the same war. But as I have said, it is considered to be an offshoot and loosely, an extension of it. With that having been said, I don't have a big problem with removing Mr. Kowalski, if it comes to that. I'm just not in favor of the rename.Mk5384 (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And I will ask again who considers it losley part of (or an ofshot of) the Great War?Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ghurka

Is there a reason why Kashi Ram Rai [11] is not here?Slatersteven (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To be in the verified section you have to be recognised by a government body - or found in the archives. Mr Ram Rai only has a partial hit in the archives (which are incomplete due to bombings during ww2 btw) so he should belong in the unverified section if any reliable source will publish his claim. The Friends of Nepali website his claim is published in now seems too much like a blog for many of the protectors of this page. Hepcat65 (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term "protectors" is not constructive. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's descriptive & I'm also a protector - but I may not agree with the majority in that question. The press is in decline, and this is a web encyclopedia - we should value new emerging media. A website for an organisation should in my mind be regarded as a more reliable source than just any blog. Let's hope we'll all be constructive in our editing. Hepcat65 (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is discussed above here -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I was unsure, although there is mention of a New York Time articel I cannot find it. It seems that the only source for this is the Friends of Nepal site.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This case SHOULD be listed, at least in the "unverified" section. There is a claim...what do you think the "unverified" section is for? Simply for British cases only?Ryoung122 18:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in the conversation linked to, the only mention is "Doug told us that he was told..." - this is hardly verifiable or reliable. If Doug was to have written an article for a newspaper, following a proper interview, then that would be different - but Friends of Nepal have not verified it, and I can find no way to verify that the claim had been made. The military records do not conclusively back up the story - and the location where it is claimed that he was fighting does not fit in with where the regiment was at the time. Unless we can get some kind of verifiable information, beyond "this person told us that he was told that..." - yes, a press story is basically "our reporter xxx was told by the subject xxx that...", but a reporter can be questioned and his professional reputation is on the line: if a reporter states that the subject said something, and then is found to be lying, then his employers (current and potential) will know this. If Doug is lying (and I am not saying that he is), then no one loses out apart from the reputation of someone who does not make his living by reporting stories (oh, and the subject of course!) Believe me, if this claim is anywhere near true, then I would expect the local newspaper to be all over it - it is a big exclusive to be able to say "we have found another WW1 vet" - and even a local newspaper would be able to make a lot of money out of it by selling it to the nationals and internationals. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on that - as I wrote in the Imich section: Migrated veterans within the same culture, like England - Australia - United States gets articles in the press, but old veterans from other cultures like Ram Rai and Imich has less interest to the local readers, the editors think, I guess. It's the same in Sweden with Saro Dursun's claim being born in 1899 - never an article, not even a mention in the largest paper when a Swedish born, Maria Eriksson, turned 110 the other day & was referenced as Sweden's oldest. Hepcat65 (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Try as I might I can't find any other referances to him.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Third afgan war

Shold we include survivors of this war, it did begin before June 1919?Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the Third Anglo-Afghan War shouldn't be included, as it was not connected with the Great War, however "era-veteran" seems to imply that it could be. Do you have a possible veteran from that conflict in mind? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope I thought I did for a while, but my main point is to demonstrate that the rather vague ciritera that seems to being applied (that of wars that started before the treaty of Versailes) can include all kinds of war that have nothing to do with the Great war. The situation that seems to being almost susgested (war realted to events before June 1919) is even dodgier.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it again needs to be clarified that the Polish-Soviet War is loosely considered to be a part of the Great War, whilst other conflicts may not be.Mk5384 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

By whome is it claiified as such?Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not explicitly clarified as such. Historians of World War I, generally speaking, loosely consider the overlap of the Polish Soviet War to be part of the Great War itself. That's what I was attempting to clarify.Mk5384 (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Frank Buckles

The information about Mr. Buckles being eligible for burial at Arlington is covered in the notes next to his entry. I do not see why it belongs above the list. I have not removed it as of yet, in case there is a plausible explanation for this formatting.Mk5384 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this should only be mentioned once. I have no particular preference as to which one is retained. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed it, as it is covered in the notes alongside Mr. Buckles' entry. Retaining it above the list itself seems to give preferrential treatment to Mr. Buckles.Mk5384 (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Józef Kowalski

i think Mr Kowalski should have his own article because he is the last WWI era veteran also he is the last veteran of the Polish soviet war.--Del Boy (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, Anthony, find reliable sources that show that he meets the Notability Guidelines and create a well-sourced, well-written article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And note that an unreferenced WP:BLP is likely to be nominated for deletion if not speedy deletion. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Everybody who writes on this talk page should know there are references for mr Kowalski here, and that he is Polands oldest man & thus should be notable enough. The WP way is to help others edit and add what we know, so that's what I did. Hepcat65 (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Again (am I missing something here) WW1 ended in November 1918, how therefore can a man whoes service began in 1919 be a vetran? It might also help to have these sources translated as none of them seem to mention 1919, the earliest date appears to be 1920. Unless a source can be found that states he served before June 1919 his name should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are new to this article? As I wrote in the section above, this inclusion of era veterans from related conflicts started years ago and has reached a consensus. I think it would be fair to rename the article & include era veterans - to split the aticle would leave too few veterans for each list. Hepcat65 (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be left as it is --Del Boy (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me but in order to be included he would have to have been (or claimed to be) active prior to June 1919. None of the source provided seem to say that, the closest seems to say that he joined the 22 Uhlans after the end of WW1, but gives no date. Even if it has been decided that ww1 era is a valid category it still has to be demonstrated that to be included he must meet the criteria for inclusion, at this time he does not.Slatersteven (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

hes been on the list for years so at the time of when he was put on someone must of found evidence that he started service before june 1919--Del Boy (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This evidance has now been removed?Slatersteven (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

it will be in the history of the discussions--Del Boy (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be an inline citation within the article, I cannot find when the citation was removed. It does not amtter if its in the discusion it needs to be in the article. As such can the person who found it please insert it.Slatersteven (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

if it is not found then will he definatly be removed after all these years?--Del Boy (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material must be removed no matter how long it has been established.Slatersteven (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

there must be a source out there somewere that says he served for his country before june 1919 because he would never have been added on to the list in the first place without that evidence--Del Boy (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A look thrugh the talk page archives has thron (so far) up no source. But a lot of questioins as to why he is here.Slatersteven (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

duno maybe back then wikipedia rules about finding evidence about certain things was different back then to what it is now--Del Boy (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

if no evidence can be found that he served before june 1919 maybe he should go under unverified.--Del Boy (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but no press report has claimed he is a WW1 veteran, and that is the criteria for inclusion. No press report has claimed he served before 1920, this is all synthesis and OR. It is a users opinion that he is a WW1 Era vet, there is no supporting evidence for anything other then service against the Russians. This seems to follow the pattern in the talk page archives, various compromises being proposed to keep Mr Kowalski on this page, either as a place holder (pending better sources) or as a WW1 era vet and now this. Its been 3 years and no evidence has been produced for anything other then he fought the Russians in 1920.Slatersteven (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

so does that mean he should go under unverified?--Del Boy (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No because no one off of wikipeida has made any claim that he is a WW1 Veteran, or that he joined up prior to 1919. There is n o reason why he is still on this page other then the utter unwillingness to confront and admit he had no place on this page in the first place (or the determination to have a Polish veteran here). If no source can be provided he should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

ok, so should i remove him?--Del Boy (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say yes.Slatersteven (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My take on this is, if there is no evidence that he was a member of a relevant armed force prior to the Treaty of Versailles, then he should be removed. If there is evidence that he was, after the Armistice and before the Treaty, he should be in the "era-veterans" section. At least none of us are claiming him as a WW1 veteran! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

After three years of waiting for the evidence it has not emerged, at what point do we say we have waited long enough. This is turning out like every other discussion of Mr Kowalski, there is no evidence but lets leave it for now. I have tagged his entry with Cn. Its been reinstated (I have to ask why as its an unsourced claim?).Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is the criteria that have been set for inclusion on this page. The decision to extend the period for inclusion from the Armistice to the Treaty of Versailles was originally made with only veterans of the Allies and the Central Powers in mind, but over the years this condition has been stretched unchecked to include participants of related or 'spin-off' conflicts that followed in the aftermath of the Great War.

The Polish-Soviet War was fought from February 1919 to March 1921 so, by our own conditions, those serving in its first five months can be included here whilst those involved in the last twenty months of the same conflict are ineligible. This, I'm sure you'll all agree, is ridiculous (and part of the reason why I personally think the page should be limited to WWI vets only). It would appear that, on the basis of the information we have, that Mr Kowalski's service falls into our second 'ineligible' period. Let's set a deadline of two weeks - if a sourced claim can be found that demonstrates that he served before Versailles then he stays, if not, he goes. It's rather late in the day now, but let's not include on this page anyone else found unless they have a claim to service in WWI itself.Brucexyz (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. WW1 ended on 11/11/18, that is when we celibrate its end. Only those who were in service before this date should be in this article. Having sais that I would wait a month to allow those who support Mr Kowalski's inclusion plenty of time to find a source that supports his inclusion under the current criteria. Unless we can all now agree that no such sources exisit.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that a month is a fair amount of time for people to find a source. I am happy to have "veterans" being those who were in the relevant armed forces before the Armistice was signed on 11th November 1918 - and I also am happy for "era-veterans" for those who joined the relevant armed forces (i.e. those countries and regiments who were directly involved in the Great War) between the signing of the Armistice and the signing of the Treaty of Versailles (the former being the end of hostilities, the latter the "legal" end of the War). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've not spoken on here for a while now but there are a number of complications. We are not allowed to synthesize or manufacture our own terms of references; wiki has strict rules on this. Each country has different terms as to what qualifies as a veteran - a French 'hairy' has to have served 6 months for instance. This makes the task of describing a veteran a complicated one, eg the public perception of the British is 11th November 1918 and that you were posted overseas. However nearly all governments treat the ToV as the official end of the war and decorate members of the armed forces accordingly. More complex still is where governments hand out WWI medals as late as 1920 and are considered veterans - but it isn't for us to synthesise our own cut-offs. The problem with era vets is that some people insist on technicalities and this is why you end up with Brazilian field marshals on the era list, which is of course a nonsense, which I've said before and as Brucexyz says this is just a "stretching" of the truth. When the list was much larger it was less of an issue to be concise about certain veterans, Kowalski being one of them. However the Polish-Soviet war is considered to be a very large appendix to WWI by most historians and it would be somewhat churlish to not consider them as era veterans when victory medals where still bein handed out deep into 1920. Saying that though I'm pretty easy on it, as long as the reasons are all understood before coming to some sort of decision. As for Kowalski himself clearly if there are no citations then that solves the issue although I'm pretty certain it was actually me who found the unequivecoble reference, that is, we didn't know if he was WWI or Polish-Soviet for quite some considerable time until an article was found (which I partially translated) which implied Polish-Soviet. Must be in the page history somewhere anyway heh. RichyBoy (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC) (Note: I ended up properly referencing everyone on this page when there still must have been 30 or so left on the list, a monumental task at the time heh). RichyBoy (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Claude Choules: no more interviews

Some sad news here[12] of Mr Choules's declining health, and that no special commemorations are planned after after his death by the British or Australian governments. I can kind of see why, as he is not the last Australian veteran and as he isn't living in the UK, his death could not be a trigger for the (already held) UK National Memorial Service. I do wonder if the service would have gone ahead last year if Florence Green's status had been known about at the time. Moldovanmickey (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's hoping that Mr. Choules' death is still a good deal of time away, and that whatever time he does have left here is peaceful and content.Mk5384 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)