|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on December 22, 2004, December 22, 2005, December 22, 2006, December 22, 2007, December 22, 2009, and December 22, 2010.|
It is hardly NPOV to say that the assassination provoked the annexation of Korea. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:46, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
This ito Guy is japanese. He has Stolen Over Hundred Things From Korea. then was assassinated by Joong - Gun Ahn. - Dgun Sniper
- That doesn't mean he's not a figure in Korean history. --Golbez 09:26, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
The Japanese language version gives his rank as 公爵 (kōshaku), which is translated Prince (or sometimes Duke) Nik42 08:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Prince implies a relation to the royal family! But he was in no way related to the royal family. Duke is a better choice. It is really not correct to think of Ito Hirobumi as a prince at all! 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a book from university of columbia that recognizes him as Prince, however an encylopedia from cambridge said he is a Count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexw6 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ito Hirobumi was a Samurai. He is not the royal family. 公爵 (kōshaku) means Duke. But Japanese 公爵 is translated as Prince in the Japanese official English translation. It is the same as Prince of Monaco.--ぶりぶり (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
it says that he and hsi assassin shared the same birthdate but according to both of their biographies on wikipedia, the clearly dont.
- Various birthdates appear online. Here are no less than 5 I've found - 2 September 1838, 2 September 1841, 16 October 1840, 14 October 1841, 16 October 1841. I don't know how we're sure we've got the right one. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Deleted the title "terrorist" on An-jeung-gun. He was not a terrorist. Oyo321 15:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah he was."All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public". "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where that quote came from, but may I suggest you first read these two articles? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Jung-geun Sorry if I'm not following the proper procedures for using the talk page. 2602:306:3592:8310:183:5F4:9ED2:2E49 (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- You cannot reference Wiki against itself. The point is that the article has a valid source for the claim, this has been fought over repeatedly and we don't need to get into it again. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The article says that "Itō was born as the adopted son of Hayashi Juzo," which is kind of an odd thing to say. Was there some formal arrangement with his birth family before he was born that he would be adopted by Juzo upon birth? Or can we change this merely to say that he was adopted as an infant? --Jfruh (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Please consider adding this external link to the entry on Itō Hirobumi
- The Diary Junction Blog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikle (talk • contribs) 09:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Prime minister's box
While I appreciate Therequiembellishere trying to add in good information, it's very confusing to state that Sanjo proceeded Ito in the various boxes on this page. Sanjo's office was not equivalent to the Prime Minister of Japan as it currently is, or even as it was under the Meiji constitution. Further more, looking at other pages, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Walpole shows that even if there were people holding offices that were similar before hand, they are still not noted as such. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually there are many evidences showing that the Korean Emperor Gojong didn't agree to the Eulsa Treaty and not sign it, and he sent many letters which inform the treaty is illegal to other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VforVendetta1 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hello VforVendetta1, and thanks for your comments. Although I'm aware of some documents in which scholars have argued the treaty was signed by force and thus it was invalid or even illegal, it would be best to keep that argument out of this article. And your point can be made in another articles in "Eulsa Treaty" or "History of Korea". In this JoongAng daily news article, there's no mention of Prince Ito or his direct involvement of forcing King Gojong. And for the cited Korean book, we couldn't verify from which context it was written without having quotes or actual copy of that book. To be able to include a politically sensitive point of view, the contributor is advised to provide reliable sources, preferably written in English or if no English source is available with proper translation for relevant text.
- The current version of "Resident-General of Korea" section chose not to mention the nature of treaty, and just described a historical fact. (i.e. a treaty was signed.) It would be best if we describe the event in a neutral manner. --- PBJT (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please remember that your contribution is always stored in the server, and that your contributions can be included at any time once consensus among users is made. So please be patient, and it is always a good idea to leave a comment at talk page whenever you disagree with others. Many thanks for your contributions and comments. --- PBJT (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion. However, I can't agree that we can say what you said above like "i.e. a treay was signed." is neutral, in historical fact, Gojong did never sign the Eulsa Treaty, so according to your logic if anyone wants to say the treaty was 'signed' or 'made', he or she also has to provide some historical evidences which proves Gojong signed it and so the treaty was made or signed. Furthurmore, you know maybe the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea in 1965, and actually about the interpretation of one provision of the treaty, Korea and Japan has been opposing to each other. Korea interpreted it as the Eulsa Treaty and the other 'illegal' treaties was orginally invalid from the time when the treaties were 'illegaly made', but Japan interpreted it as the treaties had been vaild from the time they were made to 1945 which Japan was defeated, and has been invalid from 1945. Therefore, I assert that the expression such as "treaty was signed" is not neutral. added by VforVendetta1 —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC).
- I'm sorry, but that doesn't exactly follow in English. Illegal or not, the treaty was signed by someone. IIRC, while it was signed by the king/emperor of Korea, it was 'signed'. Currently you would normally say "signed under duress" or "forced to sign". Given the lack of sources to the contrary, signed would be the neutral vs "was glad to sign" or "was forced to sign". The treaty was signed just notes the facts as they currently stand. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I know exactly what you're talking, VforVendetta1, but let me add my opinion on your comment. This is the article for Ito's biography, and it should focus on his life and legacy. His involvement in some historical event could be mentioned in separate pages, and it already has links directing at those articles. Second, even without additional expressions like "~~ by force", "~~ obliged to sign" or "~~refused to sign", people can read between the lines. Most regime changes or collapse of dynasties came with some form of violence, and many are aware of early 20th century Imperialism and its violent nature. It would be best to let the readers judge the nature of the event. Last, I'm afraid that Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea in 1965 doesn't support your argument. It actually does the opposite: ROK and Japan couldn't make a consensus back then, and both government's official position haven't changed until today. Please understand that wikipedia is not the place for interpreting history. It is just an encyclopedia. --- PBJT (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks likewise, VforVendetta1. I appreciate your interest in wikipedia project, and many thanks for your contributions. Your knowledge and opinion is absolutely valuable, and it would be better if you learn some of wiki markups Wiki markup Guide (in Korean) and use it in your contributions. It's actually very easy ! As a courtesy, you can always sign your comment with ~~~~. Those four tildes will show your user name and signed date. All in one, Happy Wiki editing ! --- PBJT (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Biased language under "Evaluation in modern Korea"
- Itō proclaimed[when?] that if East Asians did not closely cooperate with each other, all three would fall to the victims of Western imperialism. Gojong and the Joseon government believed these claims and agreed to help the Japanese military. However, the opinion of Joseon soon turned against Japan over Japanese actions, including confiscation of lands, drafting civilians for forced labor, and executing those that resisted. Ironically, his assassin, An Jung-geun, strongly believed in a union of the three East Asian nations in order to counter and fight off the "White Peril", since the European countries engaged in colonialism. He hoped the union would restore peace in the region.
The above last paragraph of section "Evaluation in modern Korea" states that it is ironic that both Itō Hirobumi and his assassin An Jung-geun wanted a union of China, Korea, and Japan in order to shield from Western imperialism. This completely ignores history and motivation. Itō Hirobumi wanted unification of the three countries by way of Japan's absolute rule, imperialism, and slaughtering of thousands of innocent Chinese and Korean citizens. According to An Jung-geun's "On Peace in East Asia," he says he wants Pan-Asianism by way of interdependence, alliance, and friendship of the three countries. There is NO WAY that their both wanting a union is ironic. It's like saying Nazis wanted a union of Europe just like how E.U. exists now.--Zaytin (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)