Talk:Albert Woolson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/nation/8889332.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp (archive)
- In Albert Woolson on 2007-08-21 12:17:44, 404 Not Found
- In Albert Woolson on 2007-08-29 21:43:01, 404 Not Found
The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: [1]. --Stwalkerbot 21:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GAR membership
Does anyone else find it interesting that he was named senior vice commander in chief in 1953? Of course in 1953 there had to be less than a dozen Civil War vets left, if not fewer, so it is no wonder he was so high in the organization! --Daysleeper47 18:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Census research links needed
They are available here
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/5991
Ryoung122 02:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"In mid-2006, new census research indicated that Albert Woolson was actually only 106 years old, being listed as less than 1 year old in the 1850 census. Previous research in 1991 has suggested he was younger than claimed, although this does not affect his veteran status." ----- As most of you know the census took months, and many times D.O.B. could by off be one to three years. I maintain he was born in in 1848. The original claim was 1847. (PershinBoy)209.244.188.174 (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Such a comment is completely stupid. The census did not take months, and it certainly did not take 2 years. Further, the census taker asked questions such as 'age as of May 1, 1850'. 3rd, if Albert Woolson was listed as 3 months old in the 1850 census, how is waiting 3 months to take the census going to make him born in 1848? Ridiculous logic. 4th, the census record is more accurate the closer it is to the birth event, so 1850 is likely correct. 5th, Woolson had a reason to lie about his age...claiming to be older so he could join the army. The fact that he was made just a drummer boy suggests that the Union army didn't really think he was an adult...age 14 in 1865, instead of 17, makes sense. If he were 16 or 17, he would have been more likely to be in a combat role. Neal (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC).