Talk:List of last World War I veterans by country

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

China and Japan[edit]

The last veterans of China and Japan have been added. However, they are unsourced, and according to their articles, while they were WWI veterans who lived to be quite old, there's nothing that says they were the last surviving veterans.Bkatcher (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • As for China, According to this link, one Zhu Guisheng (1896 - 2003) served in the Chinese Labour Corps during WWI. Not only was he the last surviving member of the Corps and but if his service is legitimate he might also be the last Chinese Veteran. Should the last member of this unit be considered the last soldier to serve on behalf of the Chinese government during the First World War? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemunz (talk • contribs) 00:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a different note: according to his article on the Japanese wiki , there was a soldier named Ito Shinobu (March 15, 1895 - November 17, 1995) who graduated from the Japanese Military Academy in 1915 and lived eleven days longer than Matsuda Chiaki. Lemunz (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another veteran who lived longer than Chiaki would be WWII Lt. General Hiroshi Watanabe, (Nov 14, 1894 - Jan 19, 1997) at 102 years old. There are not many sources for him that I can find yet, just a short bio on his WWII service [1] and another that further outlines his military career [2]. He was born in the Yamaguchi Prefecture, graduated the military academy on May 25, 1915 and was comissioned as a lieutenant in December. During WWII, he served in several positions, including Chief of Staff of the Fourth Army. Lemunz (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today I came across a Japanese article [3] from Sept 15, 2004 about a 106-year-old man named Yasuichi Sasaki (佐々木安一) of the Yamaguchi prefecture. It states that he was born Jan 10, 1898 and, when translated, says "in 1916, volunteered for military service at the age of 18. In the following year he married with his wife of the same age. It was convened by the Siberian soldiers in 1919, but it was immediately decided to withdraw and escaped from Siberia. Within a year after that, he was discharged as a corporal corporation and returned to his house. "I thought of becoming a soldier because I did not like farmers very much, but when I went to Siberia at that time, I guess I was going to have a different fate than before." This article [4] reports that he died July 26, 2006, the oldest male in the prefecture. This sounds like he could be one of, if not the last Japanese WWI vet. Lemunz (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jiroemon Kimura - probable last surviving veteran?[edit]

According to gerontology researchers who thoroughly examined the life of Jiroemon Kimura (1897-2013) (see this link [5] ) who at his death was the oldest verified man in the world and last known man to have been born in the 19th century, official government records show he served as a conscript in the Imperial Japanese Army with a communications unit on three brief occasions, from April 1–June 30, 1918, from September 1–September 21, 1919 and finally from September 1–September 21, 1921. This would make him the verified last surviving veteran of World War I, not Florence Green.
- Aumnamahashiva (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough. What are the links to these records? Moreover, what does "education conscription" mean? Ravenswing 01:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The specific reference in the paper to Kimura's army service cites Kimura's "Official employment record by the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications" which may not have been digitized. The biographical details in the paper, which mentions his posting during the war at Nakano, Tokyo, strongly suggest he was a member of a communications unit in the Imperial Japanese Army Telegraph Corps (mentioned here in a period document [6]) "Education conscription" likely refers to a specific category under which he was conscripted, probably due to his earlier education at a posts and telegraph school in Kyoto.Aumnamahashiva (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, then, let's see them before we make any changes. This is not some minor thing; Green being the last verified veteran is an internationally reported fact, supported by numerous high quality sources. There hasn't been any such media attention for Kimura, which you'd think would've been the case for the oldest verified man in the world, nor had there been anything of the sort in his article before you inserted it. As we say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Ravenswing 02:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True enough. It appears the researchers were granted singular access by Kimura and his family to review his personal records in detail. Extraordinary claim, to be sure, but does this peer-reviewed study on its own (presuming it is WP:RS) at least merit putting a footnote on this article noting Kimura's possible status, that Green may not have been the last veteran, or something to that effect? What further proof would be preferable? (as I see one or two of the references for other presumed last veterans are perhaps questionable) Aumnamahashiva (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say a footnote such as you describe is certainly called for, probably hanging off of Yasuichi Sasaki's name in the list, to the effect that there is credible evidence that Kimura may well not only be the last surviving Japanese WWI veteran but if so, the last surviving veteran of the entire war. I dropped a line on the Longevity WikiProject, figuring they'd be the best resource to help resolve this. Ravenswing 07:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and thanks. Interested to see where this goes from here.Aumnamahashiva (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elegantly done. Ravenswing 17:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blank rows[edit]

Please explain exactly what purpose including blank rows serves? Bkatcher states that "this is a concise list of every combatant nation". Except it's not. No African nation is listed, apart from South Africa, and a number of the entries weren't countries (i.e., Czechoslovakia, Armenia, the Hejaz [which was never a country, then or now], and until a few minutes ago, even a country that stopped existing in 1867, for God's sake). It seems this is a list of whatever we want it to be. Parsecboy (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: - it would be helpful if you'd actually discuss the issue, rather than simply revert it with a non-argument. Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would've been helpful if you'd waited more than a few minutes to see if I would. Ravenswing 21:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is already mentioned in the article -- if you'd troubled yourself to read the notes -- entities such as Czechoslovakia, Poland and Armenia were accorded belligerent status at the Paris Peace Conferences. So was the Kingdom of the Hejaz, which gained its independence in 1916, and fought as a co-belligerent with the British against the Ottomans thereafter. As far as no African nation being listed other than South Africa, there were only two other self-governing polities in all of Africa at the time: Liberia, which was a token member of the Allies that did not see combat, and Ethiopia, which was neutral. And far from "no longer existing," the Austrian Empire and the Hungarian Monarchy remained legally independent entities under the personal union of the King-Emperor, which is why the Austro-Hungarian military (as well as many civil institutions) utilized the term "Kaiserlich und königliche."

    All that being said, I'm at a loss as to how an editor who's been doing work on WWI military history articles is either ignorant of all of this and/or unwilling to read the source material to learn of it. Ravenswing 21:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being awarded belligerent status does not a country make. If the yardstick for measuring whether African veterans should be included or not is "self-governing", tell me, exactly how self-governing was Czechoslovakia or Poland during the war? Or is this just another example of systemic bias?
No, the "Austrian Empire" ceased to exist after the Ausgleich. Cisleithania was indeed legally distinct from the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen (which was not the same as the Kingdom of Hungary), but it was not the "Austrian Empire". It was formally "Die im Reichsrat vertretenen Königreiche und Länder". If you had spent as much time reading up on Austro-Hungarian politics as you apparently do cooking up insults, you might have known that.
But as to the meat of the issue, can you explain why blank rows are useful here? Could we simply not state in the prose that the oldest veterans of Greece, etc. have not been identified? Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It already is; what does "unknown" mean but that? Now if for some reason the word "unknown" bothers you, and you'd prefer it to read "not identified," eh, whatever. Ravenswing
Please, don't insult me with obtuse non-answers - you very well know that's not an answer to my question. I'll repeat it: what purpose does blank rows in the table serve that could not be more simply stated as a single sentence in the lead? Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parsecboy:, I raised a similar issue years ago at Talk:List of last World War I veterans by country#Imperial dependencies. I am still frankly baffled by Ravenswing's arguments about the status of colonial territories which are simply wrong. You are right that it is rather ironic that we are apparently still waiting for a reliable source to tell us who the Hejaz's last surviving veteran was, but ignoring the fact that reliable sources do tell us, for example, the last surviving West Indian veteran. It would seem that the views of one particular user carry rather disproportionate weight on this page. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly seems as though there's an WP:OWNership issue at play. Perhaps it's time for a wider discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy:, the problem is, I think, that this is a rather low-traffic article which seems to encourage this kind of attitude. I'd certainly welcome a more open discussion about what we expect this article to include. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what an RFC is for. Or at the least, a post at relevant wikiprojects for broader input. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it 'ownership' as I'd call it something that's already been discussed in detail (which of course don't mean it can't still be discussed and changed). I've written the Bulgarian and Greek embassies asking if they have any information on these last veterans, but never heard back. The last Chinese veteran slot was open for years before someone found a good source. It's an article in progress, and hopefully someday we'll be able to fill in the last few blanks. Bkatcher (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I dunno, reverting anyone who disagrees with you and posting stone-walling non-answers (like Ravenswing did above) is sort of textbook OWN behavior.
As for leaving entries blank in the hopes of enticing other editors to fill them seems pretty flimsy. Has that worked? And how exactly would it be any more effective than something like {{incomplete list}}? Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(nods to Bkatcher) This has indeed been discussed over many years, as a simple look at the archives would tell. Eliminating the rows altogether deters people attempting to fill in the blanks. As far as my arguments about the status of colonial territories go, no, they are not wrong. Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa, Australia etc were self-governing dominions, pure and simple. No British territory in the Caribbean was, pure and simple, and it is no more appropriate to add every Crown Colony to that list than it'd be to add every state in the US to it. Ravenswing 18:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One surely realizes that the "self governing territory" is an arbitrary bar, just as any other limit would be. The question is, what's the reason for setting it there? And why is it better than any other limit? Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also explained why a crown colony cannot be compared to a US state above back in 2016. Ravenswing declared that s/he could "see no particular reason to debate your revisionist POV" and bluntly ignored it. —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No blank rows. WTF? Just include what sources say are the last living veteran from each country. If there is no source/info then it cannot be included in this article. Armenia actually declared independence on 28 May 1918, before the end of WWI, so I don't think it's unreasonable to include. (t · c) buidhe 15:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, do you have a view about the criteria for inclusion of "countries" on this list? I presume so based on your edit summary here. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only countries that existed prior to the end of the war and actually fought in it, where the last veteran is known in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 17:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised on the apparent scope of this article, from the title (overlooking the war in question) I would have assumed it was list of any extant veterans of a war. Instead we have the last of those to die (due to natural luck and health?). Is this actually a notable topic or a list of notable people? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this might be an issue for another article with a similar scope, but I think the commemorative culture around WWI makes it notable in this context. There is certainly plenty of press coverage cited. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sort of surprised by this list and its scope too. There is the distinction between "military veteran" and "war veteran". Coming here, one would expect to find "war veterans", but this is not the case. We need to rely on the sources as to who goes into such a list. Part of the problem is the time lag between the two events (ie the war and the "last deaths"). If there are sources that say "X was the last veteran of WWI from the Czech Republic to die", then we would acknowledge this, noting that they probably served under the Austrian Empire (the sources should tell us). The modern Republic of Poland was divided between Prussia and Russia at the time of the war. There are then, potentially multiple ways in which it might be claimed to join this particular list. On the issue of the blank lines in particular: blank entries for The Hejaz etc are "predicting" that sources exist, now or into the future. WP is not a crystal ball. To me, this also has an element of WP:SYNTH - though the list should make explicit the inclusion criteria (ie that this is what is known per the sources and not what might be known). We also have the example of Yasuichi Sasaki. He is apparently the oldest man and questionably, the oldest veteran (see section above Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#World_War_I). There is a source to verify he is the oldest man. That source refers to his service in the Japanese Army during the period of the war. The source does not claim that he was the last surviving Japanese veteran of WWI, let alone in the world. This appears to me to be a matter of WP:WEIGHT (verging on SYNTH). We should not ignore the source but nor should we make a claim in the WP voice that he is the last veteran in the world to die. We should be more circumspect. Inclusion in this particular list is somewhat "exceptional", yet inclusions are generally supported by only a single sources. IMHO, I would think that there should be some consensus in sources for such a claim that the consensus in the sources can be demonstrated to our readers. Florence Green and Claude Choules both have a claim to be in a list such as "last surviving veterans" but for different reasons. This particular list is so narrowly defined that it fails to capture the nuance. I think that List of last surviving World War I veterans is much better at doing this. This list (herein) appears to be a parallel list. Perhaps we should consider how to deal with two such similar articles? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other list contains a lot of speculation and veterans from the 'era' from nations who were not combatants (such as Finland and Brazil). This article is unique and cited frequently. I say we continue to research this, using the same rigid standards as other longevity articles. Bkatcher (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see an actual explanation as to why the narrow criteria is preferable - just assertions that amount to "we've always done it that way" (which is, frankly, faulty logic). Can you explain how readers are better served by this list than the other one?
In any event, the other one seems like a much better list, as it includes details about each individual, rather than the simple list here. Presumably, one ought to be merged into the other (though it occurs to me that a list of "veterans who lived a really long time" seems a bit WP:CROSSCATy, so there probably ought to be a discussion as to whether this is even a suitable topic for Wikipedia). As for "speculation", where individuals make notable claims (i.e., in that they've been repeated in reliable sources), I can't see any reason not to include them.
As for related conflicts, I'm less fussed with those. But one could make a reasonable argument that conflicts like the Finnish Civil War that were directly caused by the war (and the Germans directly intervened in) should be included. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remember there was a huge media to-do when the last American, the last Australian, the last UK, and the last Central Powers veterans passed. Do the smaller country veterans not deserve to be noted? Or if they passed before the advent of the internet? Bkatcher (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this is a response to my CROSSCAT comment; that something was widely covered in the media is not necessarily justification to have an article about it. If one wants to refute the idea that this list (and the other one) is a CROSSCAT problem, pointing to some unrelated topic is not how one does that. Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, could you weigh in here? I've been told this man is notable BECAUSE he's had a lot of media coverage, and only for that reason. Bkatcher (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the link I posted. It has nothing to do with notability of individuals, but the concept of a list based on a cross categorization of two unrelated aspects. By way of example, List of highest-grossing Vijay films was deleted as a CROSSCAT (along with other reasons), despite the fact that Vijay is notable, as are the films in which he starred.
To be clear, I'm not saying either of these lists definitively is a CROSSCAT, but if we're opening the lid on a discussion about which of these is the better one, it's something that should be considered. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since discussion on this has stalled, and consensus seems to indicate that blank rows are not appropriate, I'm going to go ahead and remove them. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, never mind - I had missed Buidhe's edit earlier this month. Parsecboy (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy, I do agree a merger with List of last surviving World War I veterans. Neither article is perfect but I think the broader premise of of the other article is ultimately more useful. Perhaps this might need an RfC with broader notification than we have atm? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, an RfC is probably needed to determine a broader consensus. Parsecboy (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The proposition would seem to be fairly simple: to merge this article into List of last surviving World War I veterans. Does it need to be more complicated than that? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a false start, a merger discussion has been started at Talk:List of last surviving World War I veterans#Merger proposal. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The merger has been completed, given the lack of any opposition and the apparent consensus in favor of merging, which I also support. This is now just the talk page for a redirect, but I have left it here since apparently that is the policy at WP:MERGETEXT. So the merged article has a talk page at Talk:List of last surviving World War I veterans, then there is this page, Talk:List of last World War I veterans by country, on the redirect left over from the merge, and an archived talk page for this same leftover redirect from the merge at Talk:List of last World War I veterans by country/Archive 1. Assuming that the merge stays in place, I think what is supposed to happen is this talk page and its archives should be preserved for future reference, and of course the edit history prior to the merge is still here on this redirect for people looking to edit the merged article at List of last surviving World War I veterans (which has a better page title than this article did, so was clearly the correct merge target). —yetisyny (talk • contribs) 07:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_last_World_War_I_veterans_by_country&oldid=1182569965"