Talk:George Fruits

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Does this person deserve an article? It was created by someone named User:Fruits, which makes me think it's his/her ancestor. RickK 03:01, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You are correct that it is one of my ancestors. Indeed, one reason that I started the entry was because facts/myths/folklore surrounding this individual. (Someone has even written a musical!) I figured Wikipedia was the best forum for the collection of information and the separation of wheat from chaff. (Indeed, you should see some of the near-superhero power ascribed to him that I excluded). In fact, but-for this article, I would have never know of the Bakeman/Gray/Fruits debate.  : Fruits 15:14, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
If George Fruits truly lived until 114 in the 19th Century, that's remarkable enough to justify an article (IMO). However, it does raise the probability of the article being nonsense. -- hike395 03:13, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Fruits did not make the list at centenarian. Considering 114 would qualify him for supercentenarian status and they are so rare, it is unlikely that he is an actual supercentenarian. I would, however, vote not to bin the article until further research supports this. --Ed Cormany 03:41, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Unless it's faked, there's a photo of George's headstone at http://www.geocities.com/sdf1778/fruigeor.html which substantiates the claim as to his age. RickK 03:52, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
INCORRECT! Headstones only show what age a person was 'thought to be' at death...they do not PROVE a person's age. Records of birth are needed for that.Ryoung122 04:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to withdraw my objections. Some Googling shows him in several places, and he apparently showed up in the Guiness Book of Records. The last survivor of the American Revolution rates an article. RickK 04:04, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
For your information, the person most often named as the last veteran of the American Revolutionary War is Daniel F. Bakeman. I can't find any article mentioning both Fruits and Bakeman, which I find suspicious. In any case I oppose mentioning either of them at the centenarian article, as it should be reserved for people who gained fame for a reason other than because they became a centenarian. 213.73.161.245 04:21, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This is easy to check. Death dates of possible candidate last veteran of American Revolutionary War:
Daniel F. Bakeman --- April 5, 1867
John Gray --- March 29, 1868
George Fruits --- August 6, 1876
So, it looks like Mr. Fruits has the others beat. Your opposition to Mr. Fruits in the centenarian list is not consistent with others on the list (e.g., Margaret Booth). Let's take this discussion to Talk:centenarian. -- hike395 05:01, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Most places seem to indicate Daniel F. Bakemen was the last Revolutionary War veteran. This site [1], "There was always some controversy that I heard (hearsay) that the George Fruits in Bunker Hill Cemetery is the son of George Fruit." I don't know exactly what to make of this make of this. Oldest ____ always seems to be a hard thing to prove. M123 08:29, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
What if we had an article on oldest surviving veteran of the American Revolutionary War, and merged the various folks with claims to the title into it? Of we could merge this info into Daniel F. Bakeman, if we were sure that the Fruits claim is bogus. Martin 09:16, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Other than holding a seance, how can we be sure of anything about Fruits? :-) FearÉIREANN 01:17, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What makes these claims more difficult to establish is that George Fruits purportedly never filed a claim for a pension. One of the articles (I think) states that the VA produces its list from pension claims. Thus, the VA "dataset" suffers from a sampling bias. One may ask why veteran would never claim a pension (I sure would)? According to the info I have, George Fruits only participated in "mopping up" toward the end of the war. Perhaps he (a) did not feel entitled to a pension (b) did not think he'd get one, and/or (c) calculated that it'd be so small the the effort of claiming and collecting it exceeded the amount he'd receive. I don't know. Again, as mentioned above, I believe this is an excellent forum for engaging in research/debate. : Fruits 15:14, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Remember also, some people have moral, ethical and religious objections to taking out pensions; some see a pension not as a right but as a state subsidy to those who cannot take care of themselves. Others in such situations where the pension is because of their participation in a war, have the attitude of 'I just did my duty. I didn't do it for the money. I'm not taking your money'. All these problems cropped up with some veterans of the Irish war of independence who refused on a point of principle to apply, and when given it anyway, sent it back. Similar things happened in France in the last century over pensions. So just because Fruits did not get a pension doesn't mean he wasn't involved in the war. It just annoys the hell out of the bureaucrats who like to try to organise things and find some people's lack of interest in filling out the required paperwork frustrating, their attitude being that 'unless you fill out forms A, B, C1 and D in triplicate, you aren't 'real'. And remember also, one of the reasons old people don't sign forms is because either they can't write or their eyesight is so poor they can't read, and they don't want to draw attention to the fact because they find people knowing about it humiliating. (Eamon de Valera was blind while President of Ireland, but spent the 14 years pretending to see, pretending to inspect statues, read documents; all the while an Army aide was whispering in his ear telling where to 'look', etc.) Most people today see pensions as a right. Many past generations didn't.

Personally I have no problem with this article. I think the issue of the last survivor of the War, or even one of the last survivors, is absolutely encyclopædic and should not be left out. It is damn sight more interesting IMHO than crappy articles about some minor band's discography or David Beckam's hairstyle. FearÉIREANN 01:17, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I removed from VfD - RickK withdrew nomination above, which I didn't spot. Martin 20:09, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that the George Fruits case was a case of fraudulent identity ('impostor') where a son claims to be his own father, for the purpose of attracting attention to oneself. The creator of this article is a family member, and that violates the Wikipedia rules about creating articles of one's own friends/family. Certainly we cannot get a fair view. A thorough, non-partial review of this case by noted researcher E. Ross Eckler, Jr clearly and factually established that George Fruits died at age 97, not 114, and was not a Revolutionary War veteran (which is the easiest explanation for why he did not have a pension). My own dad claims his grandfather lived to be '108' but he said '98' at other times, so people must understand that family folklore is not always correct.

If this article is encyclopedic, it is only because a claim was made and accepted by some, but not all, authorities at the time. This case would best be served by adding it to a 'longevity myths' category, since it's been disproven. 69.180.8.87 05:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Correction: A Ross Eckler, Jr 69.180.8.87 05:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._Ross_Eckler_Jr