Talk:An Jung-geun/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Ito Hirobumi did not lead the Japanese annexation of Korea. He opposed it because he realized that the dying patient was not worth the direct rule. The annexation was promoted by civilian officials in Tokyo who did not know the actual situation and military officials who believed that the direct rule was essential for the defense of Japan from Russia. --Nanshu 23:04 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The article seems to be rather POV, author keeps labeling subject a hero: "His first commitment for his country was made in the field of education, but later he changed direction and joined the armed resistance for justice. He is regarded as a hero not only in both South Korea and North Korea, but also all over the world", etc.

I agree with the POV comment. I'll work on it, as well as the English. JFHJr () 11:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The movie of North Korea

Japanese title | 安重根と伊藤博文
made year | 1979
director | 巌吉成
scenario | 白頭山創作団
Japanese publisher | 松竹ホームビデオ(Shochiku Home Video)

Objectman 01:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Appleby, no matter how many times you search on the WEB, you will not discover it. North Korean Informations are restricted in S.Korea. if you want to know about this movie, you have no choice but to get it in Japan. (However, it is also difficult because it is old and unfamous in Japan.) By the way, do you have a source that An Junggeun is regarded as a hero in North Korea? Objectman 00:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

not only korean POV but also Japanese POV!

OK? Objectman 06:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a encyclopedia, not your personal blogspot. If you feel that he is a "stupid guy who killed an old men", please add that to your livejournal, not wikipedia. Thank you. Deiaemeth 05:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not my individual POV but a Japanese general POV. Objectman 11:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

terrorist comment

I deleted 'terrorist' comment because he is not regarded as a terrorist by the majority of historians both Korea and Japan.

Would you call someone a 'terrorist' if he was a French and assasinated a Nazi official during the German occupation of France? Would you describe him as a 'terrorist, tried to achieve a political insistence and the ideal by violence'?

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Crmtm 06:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone considers him to be an activist, then quote the person and show the sources. If someone French assasinated a Nazi official then the Nazis would call them a terrorist, and the French would could them an activist. If you are Irish the IRA are activists, if you are English then they are terrorists.

He most certainly was not a peace loving Ghandi type. He murdered someone in cold blood.Sennen goroshi 05:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

so, is he a terrorist, a murderer, a hero, an assasin, a activist, or all of the above? i personally find terrorist to be accurate, and also activist. however to show a NPOV perhaps something along the lines of "was considered by some to be a terrorist, while others considered him to be an activist" might be best.

Murderer is also open to less interpretations, as it just states that he committed murder. Sennen goroshi 15:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to a request for a Third Opinion. The best way to solve the issue is to sidestep charged qualifiers. Something along the lines of:
Ahn Jung-Geun or An Jung-Geun (September 2, 1879 - March 26, 1910) (Christian name: Thomas) was a Korean nationalist. He is best known for his assassination of the first Prime Minister of Japan, Itō Hirobumi, following the signing of the Eulsa Treaty, with Korea on the verge of annexation by Japan.
This is following the example of Gavrilo Princip. Hope this helps.--Dali-Llama 18:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


can someone provide an accurate translation of the Japanese wikipedia entry please?Sennen goroshi 05:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Obvious need for cleanup

I'm surprised this article hasn't been officially tagged for clean-up. The emboldened section at the top of the page reads like it's been vandalized. If there's POV suspected, then add it to the discussion page to generate some warranted talk. The article also is blatantly lacking in any thing remotely detailed on the actual events of the assassination. Erikkukun 07:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dissenting opinions

I removed the emboldened text that appeared at the top of the article, since its claim is obviously POV, and felt that its clout would be better served in the discussion page. There doesn't appear to be any indication of who left this, either. Erikkukun 07:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The content of this article is biased claim by Korean. In order to see a viewpoint of Japanese, please translate Japanese Wikipedia into English. The following link leads you to a Japanese version.  ja:安重根

This article also draws heavily on second-hand information and provides very little references as well. Erikkukun 10:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the present state of this article, JPOV editors are beginning to attack it. You aren't helping by leaving "murderer" on the article. Good friend100 14:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 ? You know where the edit button exists, so feel free to remove it yourself. You aren't helping by back seat driving, either. Erikkukun 05:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Describing him as a "murderer" is POV because thats only the viewpoints of Japanese people and what they think of him. Even though he is technically a "murderer" since he killed someone, he killed an important figure, which would be an assasination (sic). By your logic we would have to assume that every American who killed somebody during WWII should be labeled as murderers. Good friend100 15:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What and to whom are you referring? All I did was remove the embolded JPOV header at the beginning of the article and put it in the discussion page. It's obvious that the word murder is part of the POV language that continues to colour the article. Erikkukun 05:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling him a murderer is not a POV, it is a fact. He killed someone without having legal justification to do so, according to the laws of the country he was in. That is all there is to it, terrorist/activist are more difficult because he would be both/either depending on your viewpoint, but there is no confusion regarding him being a murderer. Even if you think he was justified in committing murder, it doesnt make it anything other than murder.

and no, someone American (although I dont know why it matters to you if they were American or not) who killed someone in WW2, would not be a murderer, as they are a combatant.Sennen goroshi 15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Tell me the legal justification necessary to kill someone. (Wikimachine 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
no that is not nonsense. legal justification to kill someone includes but is not limited to euthanasia where legal, war involving uniformed enemy combatants, armed police carrying out their duty, capital punishment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennen goroshi (talkcontribs) 15:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

So you can never assassinate someone legally? Who defines what's legal? (Wikimachine 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

the law defines what is legal. wikimachine you seem very biased and your comments make no sense. "his life wasn't all about assassination. independence activism was, and assassination was only a part of that & he did that only once," is what you said after reverting my edit, however the wikipedia entry clearly states that he was best known for assassinating someone. well which is it? are you trying to say that every murderer and criminal should be known by their career or their hobby, rather than the crime they are famous for? and why exactly were my comments regard the Japanese opinion of him removed? should only the Korean opinion be stated here for some strange reason? come on....I tried to compromise and put assassin instead of murderer or terrorist, but you cant even accept a fair compromise, perhaps someone with no reason to be biased should edit this page, instead of you.Sennen goroshi 16:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
What law? Japanese? Then it's JPOVish law. No he's not best known for assassinating someone, you better learn more about him before making reverts like this, and you can't cite a Wikipedia article in Wikipedia. (Wikimachine 16:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

You are the biased editor. Adding a The content of this article is biased claim by Korean. In order to see a viewpoint of Japanese, please translate Japanese Wikipedia into English. The following link leads you to a Japanese version. is totally wrong and unaccepable. Your argument is not NPOV because of the fact Ahn was not only an assasin but he isn't considered an assasin by anyone else but the Japanese. This makes it POV. Good friend100 16:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not put "The content of this article is biased claim by Korean. In order to see a viewpoint of Japanese, please translate Japanese Wikipedia into English. The following link leads you to a Japanese version." into this page, that was another editor, feel free to have an admin run an IP check on my account and compare it to the IP that posted that, it WONT be the same, because quite simply, that wasnt me. and of course he was an assassin, the page talks about him assassinating someone, so therefore he is obviously an assassin, that is not POV, that is just an obvious fact. you may think he was justified in assassinating someone, fair enough, and there are obviously different opinions, regarding whether he is a terrorist or an activist, but assassin is not even worth discussing, thats as obvious as saying my shit smells bad. BTW, Im not Japanese, so its not only the Japanese people who have that opinion of him.Sennen goroshi 16:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
GoodFriend100 you have misunderstood this portion of the thread. It seems you have taken the emboldened portion in this thread as someone's POV - it isn't. It merely represents what I removed from the original article. I was the one who removed the emboldened JPOV header in the article (as already mentioned in my edit, which I tried suggesting in creating the 'dissenting opinions' header -) and instead placed it in the discussion forum to a) clean up the article b) document my edit and c) create room for discussion about the obvious JPOV that blankets the article. Erikkukun 05:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

can someone explain to me why a Korean viewpoint ie. he is regarded as a hero, is allowed on this page, but a Japanese viewpoint ie. he is regarded as a murderer/terrorist is not permitted? many thanks.Sennen goroshi 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is already biased. Somebody pointed that out before. You're not making things better by making it more biased. justifying that "Assasin" should be used simply because its a fact is wrong. Even if he did assasinate someone, wikipedia doesn't desrcibe him that way. Even if it is a fact, the word "assasin" is only a viewpoint taken by Japan (or any anti-Korean, I suppose). Read WP:NPOV. Good friend100 16:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's NPOV policy states that it is not within our position to call him either a hero or a murderer. Leave it as neutral: he assassinated xxx. It's up to you to decide if he was a murderer or a hero. (Wikimachine 16:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC))
that sounds fair, but if you want NPOV, and because of that you object to terrorist, then surely activist is also unnaceptable. He should either be called an assassin, or change the entire first part to
"Ahn Jung-Geun or An Jung-Geun (September 2, 1879 - March 26, 1910) (Christian name: Thomas)  is best known for his assassination of The first Prime Minister of Japan, Itō Hirobumi, following the signing of the Eulsa Treaty, with Korea on the verge of annexation by Japan."

that would show total NPOV. as far as Im concerned calling him an activist, is the same as calling him a terrorist. that is just Korean POV vs Japanese POV. he should be called an assassin, nothing, or have something along the lines of "is considered to be a activist by some and a terrorist by others"

also, what if the fact that he is considered to be a hero etc in Korea should either not be mentioned or what he is considered to be in Japan should also be mentioned, I see no reason why the Korean POV should be stated, while the Japanese POV is deleted.Sennen goroshi 16:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

When he's life was about independence activism, not assassination for big money or anything, it's POV to emphasize assassination & then to depict his act in a negative way. Also it's different from terrorism. Terrorists attempt to terrorize & kill the whole population, it's indiscriminate mass killing. Assassination's against 1 person. (Wikimachine 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

then why does the page state he is most famous for assassinating someone? and it is not NPOV to state that he is considered to be a hero. he is best known for being an assassin, so why not call him an assassin? that is what he is famous for, that is why Koreans consider him to be a hero. He might not have spent all his life killing people, but neither did Tim McVeigh or Lee Harvey Oswald, however they are known for the most famous/notorious act they committed.

and I still dont understand why the Korean opinion of him is allowed ie. he is regarded as a hero, but the Japanese opinion is not.

shall we request mediation? as we dont seem to be making any progess at the moment.Sennen goroshi 17:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article is biased, then fix it so that it has no POV. And regarding mediation, I'm considering one but because the problem is so ridiculous and that your justifications are totally mind blowing (such as saying that "activist" is biased too), I'm not going to, because nobody is going to accept this. This is simply a problem with the editor (you), not the content. Good friend100 17:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the problem is not with me, it just seems as if some pro-Korean people, cant accept anything that does not make their beloved hero anything other than a hero, even if that is against NPOV, but dont worry about it, I will remove any and all POV from here.(however Im sure some pro-Korean/anti-Japanese racist will revert my edits)Sennen goroshi 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That isn't true, buddy. How many times to I have to explain myself? "Assasin" is ok for you, it isn't ok for anyone else because it has negative tones about Ahn. Saying that "activist" is biased just shows how biased you are, by claiming ridiculous statements. I don't see how the word "activist" is biased. It doesn't suggest anything bad about Japan, christ. Good friend100 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC

you might have to explain yourself a few more times, if you want to to agree with you that someone who assassinated someone, is not an assassin. and activist is just as biased as terrorist...face facts he was a dude who killed someone in cold blood in order to achieve his own political goals. that is an activist or a terrorist depending on your POV...therefore neither should be mentioned, or both should be mentioned. Sennen goroshi 17:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is unacceptable for you to take something out in order to emphasizing something else. Assassin is someone who professionalizes in the act of assassination. And I already explained that he wasn't a terrorist, either. I personally don't care if he killed the minister in cold blood or hot blood. (Wikimachine 18:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

wikimachine, was there a reason for you removing my edit? I was asked to fix it so that there was no POV, which I did. I tried to remove anything and everything that could possibly be considered to be either pro or anti-Korean, yet you just undid my edit? I am trying to understand your reasons, but at the moment its hard to imagine you have any reasons other than a pro-Korean POV, which shows that you are unfit to be editing this page. If you have pride in your nation, thats really nice, but perhaps you should show your pride in a myspace page or something similar.
oh and..assassin read it and learn.

Sennen goroshi 18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What I restored is neither anti-Korean nor anti-Japanese. He was an independence movement activist. That was his life. Why would you delete that from the intro? (Wikimachine 18:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

mediation? compromise?

Is there any point in discussing this any further? I am more than willing to come to some form of compromise, just as I am more than willing to edit this entry so that it has a NPOV. however both of those options seem to be going in circles, if wikimachine or goodfriend have any suggestions as to how we can resolve this, please dont be shy...but otherwise, mediation might be the best solution.. thoughts?Sennen goroshi 18:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm responding to the third opinion request.

The article does seem slanted and incomplete. I don't know enough about history of the region to recommend how to revise the article, but I do think that bringing in a fresh perspective for mediation would be helpful. VisitorTalk 18:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that your edit makes a compromise. Ahn's main focus was on independence activism, not patriotism - there's a clear difference - independence as in resistance against oppression of the Japanese colonization & patriotism can be part of that, but that resistance links directly to the assassination. It doesn't make sense to say "John was a patriotic American. So he assassinated the Prime Minister of Turkey." What? (Wikimachine 03:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
I'm not sure I understand the difference--I certainly understand the difference between patriotism and nationalism. That's the word I used: Nationalism. My intention was to use a word which describes someone who was patriotic to the point where he would be willing to take matters into his own hands. This is taken, again, from the Gavrilo Princip example. Do you feel that doesn't accurately describe him (again, I'm a total newbie to this subject).--Dali-Llama 03:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You can be nationalistic but you don't have to kill someone b/c of that. But if you're an independence activist than you have a reason to assassinate an important foreign political figure. In other words, he's best known for his independence activism, & to Koreans he's known to have been patriotic because of his works in independence activism. Look, all this problem came about b/c someone wanted to call him a murderer. I think it's best to leave it under my version. (Wikimachine 04:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
I should point out I'm not against your version, andI only interceded in response to a request for a third-opinion, so feel free to revert it if you feel the other party will not oppose.--Dali-Llama 04:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
to be honest, I do oppose it, if someone wishes to state that he was an activist, then fair enough, but perhaps a good compromise would be to call him an activist and assassin. thats the nature of compromise, both parties give a little. Also if you wish to state what he is regarded to be, by Koreans, then it is only fair that what he is regarded to be, by Japanese is also stated - either that, or remove what he is regarded to be, by Koreans and have no mention of how Japanese consider him to be. thats my opinion, if there are any other suggestions, along the lines of compromise, im more than happy to hear them. and in the spirit of compromise, I wont edit the page for a while, so that I can see if any other good suggestions are made, before people get upset with the constant reverts.Sennen goroshi 13:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You know you sound POV. He wasn't an assassin, but he did assassinate someone. My version includes both - that he was an independence movement activist & that he assassinated someone. (Wikimachine 14:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
so how about it, no mention of murderer (although legally he was) no mention of terrorist (although he was as much a terrorist, as an activist) and merely add "and assassin" ? Sennen goroshi 13:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Lawyers often say that a compromise that neither side is happy with means that it's a good compromise. It's a good point that it is customary to put what a person is mainly noted for in the introductory sentence, even if it is not what they did for much of their life. For example, check out the Christian martyr articles. They usually don't start out, "Maria was a Italian farm worker. She is best known for being a Christian martyr," even though the main thrust of her life was farm work. This article is similar. I think both "murderer" and "independence activist" are likely too charged. The nationalist compromise, which with both sides seem somewhat unhappy, might be a good one. I might also suggest we work the first two sentences together into one sentence--"...was a Korean nationalist best known for his assassination of..." --Cheers, Komdori 14:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Umm... that was the compromise, & Komdori you're really going no where with this. Your "suggestion" leaves out the fact that he was an independence activist. (Wikimachine 14:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
agreed 100%Sennen goroshi 14:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I did take Komdori's suggestion of combining the 2 sentences, & Dalillama seems to agree, so... Sennen - don't try leaving out the fact that he was an independence activist. (Wikimachine 14:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
If you state it in that way, it sounds too one-sided, glorifying the assassination. This wouldn't really be acceptable. Before inserting it, let's figure it out here. I actually agree much more with modeling it after the articles that Dalillama mentioned. I don't want to see this guy's intro start off with something clumsy like, "a criminal and independence activist" to balance it, but if you insist on inserting that phrase into the intro that's where it's headed. --Cheers, Komdori 15:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
perhaps it should stay how it currently is, or if people insist on having activist on there, then having 'an activist and assassin' would be good, as they seems to be the 2 things he was best known for, and to tell the truth, out of the two, he was more notable for being an assassin than an activist..but activist being on there makes people happy.Sennen goroshi 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll answer both here, but first, Komdori you're a Japanese from bottom to top so you can quit the wikiproject if you want. 2nd, that he was an independence activist who assassinated xxx doesn't glorify anything & it doesn't go one sided. I wonder how describing him as a "nationalist" which has several negative connotations carried with it would "balance it out." You know I'm right, Komdori, this POV guy just wanted to make him a criminal & that's where it all began. And it will not remain here, I assure you. And I don't want you, Komdori, settle it as an acceptable "compromise" b/c it's not. (Wikimachine 16:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
Again, his independence activism was a big part of his life - why shouldn't it be in the intro? Just to satisfy your Japanese nationalism? Hell no. (Wikimachine 16:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
I could illustrate the point easily by reciprocating the incivility, but we can try another way first--surely one group of people think him a hero, another group think him a villain. It's not our place to prescribe which, wikipedia describes, instead. I agree with the others on this page (and others) that the word "nationalist" captures the essence of the idea in a neutral way, and while you can take as many oaths as you like to the contrary, your insistence won't outweigh the consensus opinion. Instead, try to work with it in a way that we can make a version no one will object to (much). It's not easy, but it's possible. --Cheers, Komdori 16:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)\
The fact that he was an independent activist has nothing to do with being a hero or a villain & you even take, not only NPOV, but also describe/prescribe to the next level, don't you? Your attempt to distinguish whether he was a villain or a hero is in itself a POV framework of thinking. Where in "independence activist" does "hero" come in? Do you seriously think that I will return what I'd consider vandalism & a racist attack with the French burgeois tongue currently popular in our Wiki? No sorry. (Wikimachine 20:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
the thing is that if people want to label him with everything that is correct it will end up saying "he was an independence activist, terrorist, freedom fighter, convicted murderer and assassin" it will also say "some Koreans view him as a hero, some Japanese view him as a murderer and some people really dont care" it's all more than a little childish. therefore, a compromise has to be the only way to go..well either that or delete the entire entry. I was more than willing to compromise, I dont personally think independence activist is NPOV, much the same as terrorist..however if it makes people happy that's fine..however I dont see wikimachine offering anything. You want certain things to remain in exactly the manner you desire, and are not willing to move one mm to accomodate other peoples opinions. So leave it neutral. Nationalist is fine. no mention of activist, because that implies he was justified in doing so, because if he was not justified he would be a terrorist. No mention of murderer, because that has a negative image.

The facts are that he was a murderer, an assassin and a nationalist. I will settle happily for any or all of those 3. Nationalist would seem to be the best choice as far as your opinion is concerned.Sennen goroshi 17:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right, he wasn't a terrorist (=indiscriminate killing of the population), he was a freedom fighter, and he was convicted of murder but he wasn't a serial killer of which "murderer" carries the connotation of (most importantly "murderer" is Japanese viewpoint, even then many Japanese don't consider him so, just the very few extra proud extremist nationalists who go around burning flags on the streets). I love how you threat with "if you don't call him a nationalist, you have to call him a murderer". What kind of screwed up logic is that? I can easily go for mediation on this & Komdori you slipped this time, this discussion is a clear evidence that you're POV & has skewed intentions. (Wikimachine 20:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
There's not a lot of point to even more name calling; it's telling that you are so gone in your views that yet again when someone strives for neutrality you view it as "skewed intentions." All I said was we should strive for neutrality, and I discouraged biased terms glorifying or vilifying his actions. You have rejected every compromise so far; so where's your great idea to address the obvious POV problems? --Cheers, Komdori 21:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is name calling on my part, & Komdori, you're no longer shielded by civility & NPOV b/c I've got enough evidence & you've got enough slips. Komdori please answer directly: "Where in "independence activist" does "hero" come in?" Nowhere. In fact, I love how admin Dekimasu settled the Lake Heavens dispute, I'm going to call him & ask for his opinion on this. (Wikimachine 22:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
Calling me "a Japanese from bottom to top so you can quit the [Korean] wikiproject" is certainly not being civil, it's false, racially-based incivility.
Back on topic--perhaps you are not a native speaker, but calling someone an "independence activist" or "freedom fighter" has very strong connotations of something positive. Calling them a "cold blooded murderer" has negative ones. Either is inappropriate (remember, we describe, not prescribe). The "hero" bit was due to the article (awhile back) being written extremely from one side, calling him "recognized as a hero the world over," or some such nonsense.
(I was going to leave you a private note, but since others may respond here as well, just a friendly warning to please take a look at WP:FORUM, and stay on topic. We want to improve this article, not talk about how you plan to go running to others about "evidence" of whatever. If you want to talk to someone or report someone or request arbitration or whatever, go do it, don't clutter up this page. It's both discouraging to new editors and inappropriate.) --Cheers, Komdori 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not really, I thought it was very clear to you that ppl already think that you're not a Korean - & then you should know, more than anyone else here (except me)that An Jung-geun wasn't a murderer or a terrorist & that simply describing him as an independence activist is good enough. "If you state it in that way, it sounds too one-sided, glorifying the assassination" - I don't know how much you know about this guy to say such a thing, ask any Korean & s/he'll reply that you've got to be a Japanese nationalist. And then you still failed to answer my question - you know you're wrong. It's no racially-based incivility - I've got no problem w/ Japanese nationalists, they exist, Korean nationalists exist, who cares? And I didn't use the term "Japanese nationalist" in a negative context (i.e. a better equivalent should be "nigger" for African Americans). But I just have to get that NPOV mask off of your face- through many other disputes I've had with you I know what you claim is untrue & that it's a lie - I have a moral obligation to get that matter (whether you're Korean or not) straight. I am morally obligated to see that you leave the wikiproject when I perceive that you've joined it just to make yourself be more "hey I'm on your side, but I'm a neutral Korean". I think that you've joined the wikiproject for your own ends & I am obligated to prevent such wrong doings in Wikipedia.
I've never read WP:FORUM, but today I will, thx for the note. But maybe you're the main cause of me getting off the subject b/c you don't try to directly answer my questions & divert off the subject & focus on stuffs like racial attacks that I didn't even make. If you try, I can remain on the subject 100% of the time. So let me repeat the question again. "Where in "independence activist" does "hero" come in?" I'm asking if I can put "independence activist" into the intro b/c that's what he was. I'm not talking about putting in "hero" or "cold blooded murderer here. (Wikimachine 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC))
wikimachine, i do love the way people have given words new meanings here first of all assassin was someone who kills for money, and now terrorrist is someone who indiscriminately kills the population.. wikipedia is a wonderful thing, why dont you check the meaning of those words here, or use a dictionary, instead of making up your own meanings?Sennen goroshi 04:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
See who's talking when the first line on your user page is "i need help on English". (Wikimachine 21:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC))
Please read WP:NPA, and (again) please get back on topic. --Cheers, Komdori 21:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't have to be taken as a personal attack - I'm pointing out a hypocrisy. On the other hand, I've said all I'd like & I'm still waiting for your reply. (Wikimachine 21:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC))
You mean you need a help to use a dictionary? >Wikimachine Northwest1202 22:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Nay. "Where in "independence activist" does "hero" come in?" I'm asking if I can put "independence activist" into the intro b/c that's what he was. Wikimachine 23:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
An "independence activist" did an independence activity. But An Jung-geun assassinated Itō Hirobumi who opposed the annexation, therefore at least the annexation was rashed by his doing. You keep your eyes off of it? I think he was a nationalist but not at least a meaningful independence activist. And probably he did adverse action of independence activity. I regret this fact, so then we should write as it was. Northwest1202 00:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No, he was more like a sock puppet, not some sort of a hacker (~assassin) No, I don't remember that Ito Hirobumi opposed annexation, I know that he did it for the cause of liberating Korea (as it is widely accepted) & of course he was a nationalist but that shouldn't mean anything for an NPOV editor like you, & the rest of the article describes his participation in the pro-independence guerilla fighting groups. I mean, if you don't get it, I can provide you all the links to very interesting articles. Do you go to Northwestern, hey? I don't think that you know enough about Korean history to make opinions on this, just don't mind this & move on to another article or a project. I'm in process of gathering our reliable admins here for their opinion - they're good in finalizing stuffs complicated like this one. (Wikimachine 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Thus I got 1 admin so far who's replied - user talk:LordAmeth & he agrees w/ me. We'll see what other admins think. (Wikimachine 03:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

This version of the article is pretty NPOV, I believe. And to answer a question asked by someone way up above, and assassin is generally reserved to identify someone who assassinates multiple poeple. Yes, it can also be used to identify someone who killed only one person, but it's generally less POV to indicate that someone assassinated another rather than calling them an assassin. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I think that's the best compromise you guys will get without a protracted period of time waiting for the RfC.--Dali-Llama 04:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above users (Dali-Llama, Nihonjoe, Komdori, Northwest1202, etc., etc.) It's about as NPOV as you are going to get. Actually looking at LordAmeth's page, he also agreed with the use of the word nationalist. And Wikimachine--tone it down a bit. Saying "I don't think that you know enough about Korean history to make opinions on this, just don't mind this & move on to another article or a project." is a clear violation of WP:OWN. —LactoseTIT 10:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
OWN or a disguised OWN accusation? It was a very simple & friendly recommendation - I never said nobody else could comment on it, but simply he's not learned about Korean history enough to make such comments..... I mean, I opened the RFC to get more comments. Maybe some people are playing innocent here (I mean seriously). Nihonjoe, I'm not sure if you read the entire discussion, but the previous version of the article described An as a independence activist. I think that's a much more descriptive, informative, and NPOV term than "nationalist" or "assassin". What do you say? LactoseTI, you can't possibly assert that "nationalist" is better than "independence activist". (Wikimachine 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC))
Umm...I don't see a problem with the word "nationalist". I don't think it has any negative connotations at all. It just means he was very much for an independent Korea. Period. "Independence activist" smacks too much of political correctness. Next thing you know we'll be calling Hitler an "Aryan apologist". Give me a break. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
(nationalist" has neg connotation as "they" 're thought to be overly proud of their own country, arrogant, too assertive at cost of other countries & cultures, etc.) We're not talking about political correctness here, but what he did - his work, job. Your "Aryan apologist" example doesn't fit (actually it does for me, not you) b/c that was Hitler's "political philosophy", but his job was "German chancellor". Ahn's equivalent (that would be targeted by your "political correctness" arguabiltiy) would be Korean nationalism, etc. In fact, under your framework, "independence activist' would be a better fit than "Korean nationalist". (Wikimachine 03:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
You guys don't get it - it never had to be murderer or nationalist. It's just like trying to describe George Washington as the 1st US President & the commander in chief during the American Revolution - except some racist dude comes out & says "from now on we're going to call him a rebel against the British Empire" And when I protest "No, he was the commander in chief..." And then the racist dude replies "Fine, then we'll call him a murderer. It's your choice." It never had to be this choice. Just as George Washington is what he is known as today, An Jung-geun is what he was - an independence activist & I don't want you guys making wrong compromises and stuffs just b/c of this racist dude - you guys simply don't know about Korean history enough to make the right decisions based purely on neutrality (which was completely misused, to begin with, coming with lame compromises) (Wikimachine 23:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

I didn't expect Nihonjoe to reply like that, & I didn't expect that this discussion had to go so in depth into the most basic things:


  1. Wikipedia - Nationalism is a term that refers to a doctrine[1] or political movement[2] that holds that a nation—usually defined in terms of ethnicity or culture—has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community based on a shared history and common destiny.[3] Most nationalists believe the borders of the state should be congruent with the borders of the nation.[4] Extreme forms of nationalism, such as those propagated by fascist movements in the twentieth century, hold that nationality is the most important aspect of one's identity and attempt to define the nation in terms of race or genetics.
  2. Google define:
  • patriot: one who loves and defends his or her country
  • devotion to the interests or culture of a particular nation including promoting the interests of one country over those of others; "nationalist aspirations"; "minor nationalistic differences"

Here's the one that's relevant.

  • an advocate of national independence of or a strong national government

I can only guess that what you guys mean by "nationalist" when you put it in the Ahn Jung-geun article is this def. Then why don't you want to put a more clear form of this def of "nationalist"? Especially when he wasn't simply an advocate, he participated in the independence movement. "Activism", heard of it? (Wikimachine 03:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Personally I don't think including a definition in the first sentence is needed or appropriate as English speakers will know the meaning. Non-English speakers can feel free to look it up, and the rest of the article will further it more by clearly describing all the notable activities in his life. As for your question on WP:OWN, see the first example of an inappropriate ownership comment: "Are you qualified to edit this article?" Your comment, "Do you go to Northwestern, hey? I don't think that you know enough about Korean history to make opinions on this, just don't mind this & move on to another article or a project" is the same thing. —LactoseTIT 03:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't think that there is any need for you to oppose the previous state of his description as the "independence activist", & I'm not talking about non-English speakers - if you've learned proper English, being more precise is almost always better. No, you don't need need to frame what I said that way, that was just a very kind & subtle WP:SOCK accusation. The sock puppet master should know better. (Wikimachine 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
As for my opinion, I agree with the others on the page and the third opinions Wikimachine obtained: "nationalist" is fine, and "independence activist" sounds like trying to be a bit too PC. In addition, after the thorough discussion, the consensus opening has the added benefit of flowing/reading quite well. --Cheers, Komdori 19:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

All right, I'll leave the dispute settled with "nationalist" - it's no big deal for any one of us, including me - it's just that I'm really disappointed - I thought it would be so obvious to ppl when somebody tried to make this guy a murderer, that you shouldn't let this guy have it his way & that always there's room for improvement, but I see how some ppl frame the discussion in a way so that if I disagree, then I'm going against consensus & thus I'm being POV or too stubborn - when it's very obvious that my suggestion is a simple net gain in neutrality & quality of the intro & that the consensus itself can change, but ppl aren't willing to do that. I'm also disappointed at the admins. (Wikimachine 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

I still disagree, just filed an RfC. Lobbying to add "Korean terrorists" and "nationalist" is certainly not done with the best faith for editing. "Independence activist" is a neutral word that can be agreed by everyone. Don't understand why its so hard. Good friend100 03:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Intro wording: murderer, terrorist, freedom fighter, nationalist, or independence activist

Intro wording: murderer, terrorist, freedom fighter, nationalist, or independence activist !! reason=Should the intro of this article name the subject, An Jeung-geun, as a murderer, terrorist, freedom fighter, nationalist, or simply independence activist?

Rather than repeat myself, please see my comments above. The short version--this version seems to have a great opening line in terms of NPOV and content. —LactoseTIT 03:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
"Nationalist" or "independence activist" make sense to me, as they are both neutral-sounding terms. "Murderer", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are all unacceptable, IMO. Lurker (said · done) 13:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Why can't you call him a "nationalist"(neutral), then allude to his controversial nature by using sourced references to "murderer/terorist" and "freedom fighter" For example "XX, a _______ nationalist, considered by his supporters (YY) to be a freedom-fighter, has also been labeled a terorist by ZZ." Murderer and terrorist are acceptable for NPOV if sourced and balanced without undue weight. -Diego Gravez 00:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

His major notability stems from his assassination of a political figure. It would be ridiculous not to mention that in the lead. May I suggest "assassin" or "political assassin" as an alternative. It has to be in there though, otherwise who would care to read about this guy?Verklempt 02:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

racist dude

im now getting confused, wikimachine, you keep mentioning things about a 'racist dude' that has something to do with this wikipedia entry. who is he, and what racist comments did he make here? Sennen goroshi 14:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Figure it out for yourself. (Wikimachine 15:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC))
if you are unable to answer, may I assume that you are full of it? Please allow this discussions to remain on a civil and mature level, I find your comments re. 'a racist dude' to be childish and provocative. if you would like a discussion on that sort of level, may I suggest going to yahoo chat and peddling your 'everyone is a racist, unless they agree with me, HUGE chip on my shoulder' comments there? if you are going to play the race card try to use it a little more subtly.Sennen goroshi 15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

dont be a dick

m:Don't be a dick

the above made me smile a little, I'm sure it is totally off topic, however it's nice to lighten up a little and not be a dick. (not that I would ever dream of suggesting that anyone was acting like a dick) just a random link, with a random meaning, directed at no one in particular.Sennen goroshi 13:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Execution of An

The article states he was executed in Chiba prison. Does this mean Chiba in Japan? I thought he was hanged in Port Arthur. Phonemonkey 21:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are right. He was hanged in Port Arthur (旅順). I have no idea why it is written as "Chiba".--Watermint 03:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Jūshichi Chiba (千葉十七) was a jailer for Ann, when Ann was in the Port Arthur prison. Probably, "Chiba prison" is confusion with him. --Nightshadow28 04:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Disagreement over whether "nationalist" and "Korean terrorists" is NPOV. 02:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

  • "nationalist" and "Korean terrorists" are biased because they are descriptions that would be used only from the Japanese side. To Koreans, he would be a "hero". As a compromise, the description was "independence activist", a word that is most certainly NPOV and agreeable. Yet, several users continuesly edit war to change the article in a biased manner. I also asked these users for their reasoning but have not given any. Good friend100 02:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This dispute appears to be between "nationalist", "independence activist" and "terrorist".

  • "Terrorist" is a subjective term and certainly not neutral in this instance.
  • Both "nationalist" and "independence activist" are neutral because neither terms carry positive or negative nuances when used in this context, so in terms of neutrality, both are equally acceptable.
  • However in An-Jung-geun's case, his activism predated Japan's 1910 annexation of Korea, so "nationalist" is preferred over terms such as "independence activist" "secessionist" "seperatist" for the sake of accuracy. Phonemonkey 10:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Good friend100 happened to not see the section [1] right above where we addressed this issue both with an RfC and significant discussion a week or so ago because of his indef block at the time. —LactoseTIT 12:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I missed it as well. It seems this RfC is virtually identical to the one above. Phonemonkey 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a clear evidence of your POV. You couldn't & still can't directly answer my question: why not use "independence activist" in place of all those derogatory terms? The last RFC did not draw that many editors into this page (~2), Good friend100's new RFC is legitimate. (Wikimachine 21:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
The last Rfc was about the intro, by the way, not categories. I will include this as a part of the currently ongoing arbitration at Liancourt Rocks. This is a perfect example of team play & your solid JPOV & Japanese nationality. (Wikimachine 21:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
Actually, it drew in quite a few; they simply replied to the main discussion rather than in the RfC category on the page. —LactoseTIT 22:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think it should be changed back to the original. Ahn was fighting for independency, even though 1909 was when Korea was independent. Why would he kill a random Japanese leader when Japan didn't annex Korea yet? Because he knew Korea was going to get annexed so as an attempt to prevent it, he killed Ito. Good friend100 01:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're talking as if, and giving the impression that Ahn's sole purpose in life was being an assassin. He wasn't, he was a teacher before who joined resistance fighters against the Japanese. Good friend100 01:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
His teaching is not notable in general, at least not on par with his other activities. Many ordinary people do extraordinary things, and they are known for their extraordinary actions. —LactoseTIT 02:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Lactose, it is true that he is only notable because of the assassination. However, to simply call him "assassin" in the intro is not as descriptive as "nationalist" "seperatist/independence activist" or whatever because the latter terms also describe his motives behind the shooting. The fact that he is notable because of the shooting is already qualified in the first sentence.
  • There are two equally opposite points of view - a terrorist, or a hero. Quite clearly neither are NPOV.
  • Someone who commits actions to try to prevent their country from being annexed another cannnot quite be described as a seperatist (since their activities take place before annexation). That's why I think "nationalist" is the most suitable label. Isn't it both accurate and NPOV? Phonemonkey 12:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Phonemonkey, I completely agree; I don't think I would ever suggest replacing the opening with "assassin" based on the reasons you suggest (by my comment I simply meant the assassination and related activities are much more notable than his teaching). I think nationalist most clearly defines him, and is the most neutral term. Other terms in the opening would tend to hint him being a "hero" or "villain." —LactoseTIT 15:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
So why is Category:Terrorists needed? The category page clearly cautions users to include certain people and you definitely did not. All you ever say is "go read the rules" and thats it. Give me reasons as to why Ahn is a terrorist. He didn't kill innocent civilians (and Ito is a political leader, not some common person on the street). Good friend100 22:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Goodfriend100, this section is about whether An should be described as a nationalist, terrorist, or a seperatist. (The discussion about whether Category:Terrorists is needed (I don't think it is) is down below).Phonemonkey 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalisms masked as POV issues

This is absolutely ridiculous, I'll block anyone who furthers this assassin/terrorist stuff in any of these articles about Korean independence activists using VandalProof as a legitimate vandalism.

The other article LactoseTI categorized as assassin & terrorist is Yoon Bong-Gil. I will later work to delete those categoreis because nearly all of them are irrelevant & inapplicable. (Wikimachine 21:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

In fact this doesn't even entail an RFC. A straight forward block is necessary. (Wikimachine 22:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC))
Please see Wikipedia's definition for category inclusion. Which of the criteria do you believe is not satisfied for inclusion? This is a very lenient categorization, basically grouping together people who make political statements with violence. It's not the same as opening the article with "this guy is a terrorist." —LactoseTIT 22:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To you its not the same, but to others it is. Its POV because only pro-Japan side editors would agree with that, which means you. So thats why it should be deleted. And your reason is wrong. Yoon or Ahn were not terrorists. Terrorists go around bombing civilians and killing innocent people with machine guns. Yoon or Ahn didn't do any of that. Good friend100 01:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of terrorist may be people who do those activities, but it's not the definition used for category inclusion here. Please see the category definition. If you disagree with any of the criteria listed there, we can discuss it. —LactoseTIT 02:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Categorization policies

  • Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy. If the nature of something is in dispute (like whether or not it's fictional or scientific or whatever), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed. Most categorizations are pretty straightforward, though. (WP:CATEGORY#Category_naming)
  • Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals"). Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic (Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue)

  • Be aware that mis-categorizations are more sensitive for articles on people than for articles on other topics. Example: Categorizing a politician involved in a scandal as a "criminal" would create much more controversy than categorizing a behaviour or act as "criminal". (Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimachine (talkcontribs)

Have you looked at the criteria? If you would like to dispute it, just state which of the inclusion criteria you dispute; this makes it easy to discuss objectively rather than subjectively. —LactoseTIT 04:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Give me the link. (Wikimachine 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

I'll test if your edits are vandalous or not by reporting your edits to WP:AIV through VandalProof if you rv again. (Wikimachine 04:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC))

At best it's a content dispute, not vandalism. In fact, though, it's sourced information that you are removing. For the link, just click on the category page itself and follow it to the definition. I'm fine with removing it if you show how it doesn't follow the criteria, but you're not even attempting to find out how Wikipedia classifies inclusion to that category. —LactoseTIT 04:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Be aware that mis-categorizations are more sensitive for articles on people than for articles on other topics. Example: Categorizing a politician involved in a scandal as a "criminal" would create much more controversy than categorizing a behaviour or act as "criminal". This is vandalous, as several other editors have seen. I'll test this @ AIV. (Wikimachine 04:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
It is sourced. As for NPOV, I agree that it's not a good idea to start out the article with this, but it's a valid category for someone interesting in finding similar people (i.e. people making political points through violence), just like the "Independence activist" category is valid for finding others involved in similar activities, violent or not. —LactoseTIT 04:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You're just making a racist attack (by the way I've reported so let's see). According to your definition, all of the independence activists around the globe would be considered terrorists, which is simply not true. (Wikimachine 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
Please see Ghandi. Independence activism need not involve politically motivated violence in violation of the laws in the region. Again, if you have a dispute with the criteria, please post it. —LactoseTIT 04:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Nor does it not "not". You brought the changes, you validate your changes, I don't have burden of proof over what you change. (Wikimachine 04:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
I have to wonder, have you yet read the criteria? Just post the one(s) with which you disagree. —LactoseTIT 04:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles on independence activism w/o terrorist categorization

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimachine (talkcontribs)

I never said independence activism == terrorism. Please see the Korean independence activism category--many of them would not fulfill the criteria for terrorists as defined in the category. However, clearly, some would brand some of these individuals as terrorists. Others might say they used terrorist methods to achieve positive results. —LactoseTIT 04:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
As for others not currently categorized, if you think they satisfy the criteria, then you can do something about it--WP:SOFIXIT. —LactoseTIT 04:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It will inevitably be reverted and removed. There's no point in discussing anything with you. Remember that you're the one who's been constantly been provocative. I don't have all day to waste my time on stuffs like this. (Wikimachine 04:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
I don't mind discussing it with you, but you seem intent on deleting the category based on your misconception of what it means, ignoring the sourced satisfaction of all criteria. If I made a mistake and missed something, I'd be the first to remove it, but you aren't even trying to discuss it based on the criteria. You're just removing a category you don't like because you interpret it as somehow tarnishing a hero figure. It's not; people are driven to many acts based on very harsh circumstances. Censoring this doesn't help anything. —LactoseTIT 04:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't joke with me LactoseTI & especially you will no be able to when there are about 5 more editors trying to revert this. Category is not something that you put when it meets certain criteria (there is none). It's purely voluntary in basis for better organization & it's not done on controversial subjects. All these independence activists did not commit violence against civilians - Terrorism in the modern sense[1] is violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians for political or other ideological goals. (Terrorism). Don't you think you can reason your way out on this & hide b/c you won't. (Wikimachine 11:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
What are you talking about? There are definitely well defined criteria. Click on the top of the page where it says, "See category:terrorists for the definition of "terrorist" used for wikipedia categorization." What criterion or criteria on that page do you disagree with? As for your claim about civilians, certainly Ito Hirobumi, the man he assassinated, was one. Clearly Ahn did this to send a political message. I agree with you that opening the article with "Ahn was a terrorist" would be over the line, but saying, "Ahn was executed for terrorism," or "Ahn was branded a terrorist by the Japanese," is not necessarily over the line. Many freedom fighters routinely resort to terrorist acts. That doesn't tarnish your hero, it defines him. —LactoseTIT 15:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The category clearly defines terrorism as violence 1) targeting civilians 2) absent war. Independence activism assumes an ongoing war & political assassinations did not target civilians. (Wikimachine 21:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
While I totally disagree with Wikimachine's notion that An's actions was an act of war and that Hirobumi somehow isn't a civilian, my opinion is that the use of the word "terrorist" to describe An in a Wikipedia article is not appropriate, on the basis of NPOV. I think the question is not whether or not we could define him as a terrorist (and yes, I think he ticks all the boxes), but whether An himself is generally regarded as a terrorist. Which I don't think he is, if we consider the fact that he is known predominantly in Korea as a hero (and virtually unknown elsewhere). As stated on the terrorism article, "media outlets wishing to preserve a reputation for impartiality are extremely careful in their use of the term", and I think Wikipedia should strive to this standard. Phonemonkey 22:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

However, clearly, some would brand some of these individuals as terrorists. This is WP:OR and violates NPOV as well. The only people that would consider Ahn as a terrorist is LactoseTI and people from Japan. In Korea, he's a hero.

And you are starting to get literal with this. In fact you are contradicting yourself now. Adding the category "Korean assasins" means that Ahn killed a public person. "Murderer" is a civilian. Even though Ito was a civilian, he was a political leader, so thats not being murdered, thats assasinated.

And if you think "Korean assasins" includes Ahn, it doesnt because Ahn's sole purpose in life was other than killing people.

@Phonemonkey, Ahn doesn't fit with terrorists because Wikimachine already outlined it. Good friend100 22:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss and then edit

LactoseTI, please discuss first and then edit the article. Telling people to read the rules and then making a controversial edit will be reverted.

And there is no consensus, you're the only one asking for "Korean terrorists" with ambiguous reasons. Good friend100 22:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are so bent on removing sourced information, so be it. I'd appreciate it, though, if someone would at least attempt to discuss what criteria on that page he fails. —LactoseTIT 23:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If your so bent on adding biased categories (the terrorist category page clearly says to be sure about adding somebody to the category), it won't fly. We've addressed the issue. Ahn didn't kill any innocent civilians in large numbers and it wasn't just a "civilian" he killed. If you really really want to keep a scrap of your bias, leave the Korean assasins category there. Good friend100 00:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

edit warring

Wikimachine and LactoseTI, please stop edit warring. The 3RR rule is not a free pass to edit war before violating the rule. LactoseTI, you even say in your userpage that you believe in 1RR. Both of you stop sweating over this and reach a consensus or whatever. A poll might be helpful. Good friend100 00:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lactose's Vandalism

Lactose created this category as a subcategory under "Korean Criminals". If this isn't inflammatory POV BS, I don't know what is. This isn't the purpose of wiki categories.melonbarmonster 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't understand this particular "FACT" tag.

For his actions as a resistance fighter[citation needed] he was awarded South Korea's Order of Merit for National Foundation in 1962.

If someone added that Fact tag to the whole sentence, that might be understandable, but what kind of bullshit is this? If he was awarded a medal (and he was), then it was clearly because of his actions as a resistance fighter. What else is possible? Does anybody seriously think that the South Korean government would award a freaking Order of Merit for National Foundation for "being an idiot who killed a poor old man," or "poineering achievement in Korean terrorism," or something like that? Heh, maybe for his valor against his own finger?

We don't have to be that ridiculous. Yongjik 07:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Japanese editors often do this to discredit the article 0_o Good friend100 17:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


  • This dispute first began when user LactoseTI suggested that Ahn should be included in the category of "terrorists". Clearly, Ahn was not a terrorist, and LactoseTI failed to discuss, because Category:Terrorists clearly stated that using the category could be controversial. Yet he made this change. Subsequently, an edit war began and both parties had to compromise. What my main point is that pro-Japenese editors should not be able to use WP:NPOV to suit their needs here. They claim that Ahn was a terrorist because he murdered somebody. When that didn't work, they proposed "assasin". Basically, these editors wanted to change "independence activist" to any word with a negative connotation. They proposed "assasin" and "murderer" as well. Because of this NPOV policy, it had to be "compromised", and by that definition, we had to give in to their demand since everything must be equally portrayed. Saying that Ahn is a "independence activist" has no negative connotation towards the Japanese, and it has no bias in it. Yet, pro-Japanese editors think that this definition is insulting towards the Japanese. How is "independence activist" biased? Trying to degrade this person by using more negative connotations like "nationalist" (the current word in use) is totally violating WP:NPOV. Yet these editors get away with their anti-Korean sentiment because of the policy that "everything has to be presented fairly". "Independence activist" is fair enough, don't you think? Good friend100 (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This diff [2] sums up what pro-Japanese editors want to do. Its clear of their intentions, and even a simple proposal that Ahn be a terrorist is unthinkable because the bias that reeks from it. Nobody but the Japanese thinks Ahn is a "murderer" or "terrorist". [Will you even bother to read what a terrorist is?|Terrorist]? A terrorist is somebody who kills many innocent people. Ahn killed one political man for independence activism. Hmm, ring a bell?
  • Its clear that we need to revert back to "independence activist". The pro-Japanese editors' attempt to present Ahn negatively is simply blasphemy and I am very angry that administrators cannot see this. They only see WP:NPOV and satisfying both sides. This isn't about letting one side get what they want!!!!! For editors who think Ahn is a "terrorist" have no right to even propose anything to degrade this article. Good friend100 (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Independence activist is NOT what the consensus was in regards to this article. You're screaming about JPOV and biased pro-Japanese side but that's to hide your very obvious pro-Korean side. Nationalist and assassin fits this person and attempting to add in a weasel phrase of Independence Activist (Unless, somehow, killing a person has become activism) to attempt to make An come out smelling like roses for Korean pride does indeed violate WP:NPOV. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Me biased? You are the biased one because you think "independence activist" is pro-Korean. How is the word anti-Japanese?

Did I say anti-Japanese? No, just very pro-Korean and NOT NPOV. You're showing your bias with that.

It has no negative connotations and it fits his description. Assasinating Ito is just part of his life, Ahn was a teach before working with underground movement.

Please, the ONLY thing An is known for is the assignation of Ito, that's it. Looking at his life and what little wittings and statements he has left behind makes it very clear that he was a nationalist, he promoted Korea and Koreans, the term fits him far better than the much nicer sounding Independence Activist. Again though, that phrase brings to mind feelings of someone who is carrying signs, writing letters of protest, and so on. Not someone who cut his finger off to write on the flag and then killing the Japanese Resident-General.

If you think "independence activist" is a "weasel word" then you have serious problems. The word doesn't make "Ahn come smelling like roses for Korean pride". Does the description suggest anything like "Korean hero" or "Korean martyr"? No, of course not. And please stop EDIT WARRING or I will report you. Staying under the 3RR limit doesn't mean that you are allowed to edit war. Good friend100 (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Report away! We all agreed on Nationalist and I am not going to let someone keep editing this page because of their own pro-Korean bias. If you want to edit, come here and get consensus from here instead of trying to be sneaky and doing it behind everyone's back.

Nelson Mandela was convicted and imprisoned, but calling him a criminal is not right. GW Bush condones torture, but he's not called a torturer. Let's not be judgmental with labels, just describe the fact that he was active in the movement for Korea's independence.

He was a nationalist, we've already been through this and he fits the very definition that WikiP gives us, we can check off everything on it and it fits. Just because YOU think he's a hero and shouldn't have his name dirtied with that word doesn't mean you can violate WP:NPOV. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I dirtied the word? For someone who thinks Ahn is a terrorist, I doubt you have much to say there.

Wow, what a WONDERFUL strawwman you've constructed, have it left over from Halloween do you? Before attempting to put words in my mouth, perhaps you should read them.

And its true, give me one reason why he's a nationalist. He didn't do anything to promote Korea. Ahn didn't think that Korea was the best country in the world, did he? Give me a source then.

Already done so. Can you give me a source that shows An having done ANYTHING beyond killing Ito to promote Korean independence? Anything at all? No? Then a single act does not an activist make.

George Bush tortures terrorists, but we don't call him a torturer. Adolf Hitler killed 14 million people, I don't see any term in the article describing him as a bloody murderer. Good friend100 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Then by using your very twisted logic, WikiP should hence forth re-edit Palestinian suicide bombers to be called independence activists and not terrorists. Your attempts to re-direct by analogy really do not equate.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Case for nationalist

I'm going to make the case that nationalist should be the title for An here, not Independence Activist as being asked for by those with a KPOV slant.

First, we need to define nationalist. According to Merriam-Webster a nationalist is: "1  : an advocate of or believer in nationalism 2  : a member of a political party or group advocating national independence or strong national government"

Nationalism is: "1: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups 2: a nationalist movement or government"

So did An believe in "loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups" and was he "a member of a political party or group advocating national independence or strong national government"? As to the first one, yes, he was. An, when being asked about why he stopped studying French replied, "Anyone who studies Japanese becomes the slave of Japan. Anyone who studies English becomes the slave of England. If I were to learn French, I could not avoid becoming the slave of France. That is why I gave it up. Once the reputation of Korea rises in the world, people all over the world will come to use Korean." (Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World, pp 663) An also warned of a "White Peril" coming from Europe that only a joining of Korea, Japan, and China (With Korea at the fore) could counter (Remarks from An's essay on 'Peace in East Asia'. From these two remarks it is easy to see that, yes, An believed in loyalty and devotion to a nation (Specifically Korea) and placed emphasis on Korean culture and interests above all other nations and groups. Now, was he a member of a political party or group that advocated Korean independence? In that case, no. He seems to have been acting alone, though he claimed to be part of the "Righteous Army" (Ubiyong or Gihei in Japanese) as a Lieutenant General, though there is no clear indication as to whom he was referring to, but he did indeed advocate independence so both would seem to fit.

So why nationalist over independence activist? The term independence activist brings to mind someone working for independence, organizing protests, strikes, giving speeches and so on. An was none of those things. His only 'activism' was to kill Ito, the Japanese Resident-General of Korea. While he was very much in favor of Korean independence, that was not his only view point, he was a nationalist and wanted to promote Korea before other nations, not just see her independent of Japan.

Addressing Good friend100's claim that nationalist is somehow pro-Japan and anti-Korean, I don't see it. Calling An a murder or terrorist (The view in Japan) would be, but Good friend100 seems to equate anything that would make An sound not like a nice guy to be anti-Korean, I think that is a very strong Korean bias. Good friend100 has yet to back up any claim about why nationalist would be considered to be pro-Japanese or not NPOV when An matches an acceptable definition of it and why An would match independence activist when he does not match that one. Finally, I think it should be noted that the consensus on this page was for nationalist and that Good friend has already called for a RfC which confirmed nationalist as being acceptable. Given that he prefaces any attempts to edit with complaints about pro-Japanese bias or threats to report someone, I am left wondering if this is more he is upset that he hasn't gotten his way than a real issue of NPOV.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed and consensus was reached. Nationalist was agreed on. Just because certain biased editors do not agree with that decision and will never agree until everyone allows them to put any wording they wish on any article relating to their nation or nations they don't like, does not mean the wording should change. Nationalist was a compromise, it was a compromise I was happy to have in order to keep the peace. I think if these editors consider themselves justified in changing it to independence activist, then other editors are justified in changing it to terrorist. However let's be nice, polite editors and let it remain as nationalist. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I also feel that the "nationalist" is most suitable and a good compromise. Good friend100, this article had been categorized into Category:Korean independence activists. Aren't you yet satisfied enough?--Gettystein (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My main point is that compromise isn't something where we should give in to biased editors. Editors who thinks that Ahn is a terrorist is obviously going to twist the article to some degree (did you even bother to read Sennen's edit on this?). This isn't following WP:NPOV if you give in to biased editors.

Plus, what is wrong with "independence activist"? You wrote that

"The term independence activist brings to mind someone working for independence, organizing protests, strikes, giving speeches and so on. An was none of those things."

You clearly have no idea what your talking about. And thats your own definition of independence activist. Ahn worked with other Koreans to bring independence to Korea, thats why he killed Ito. Or are you not satisfied with that? What makes me raise my eyebrows is that you can't accept "independence activist", which has nothing wrong in it.

As noted, An was not an independence activist. Can you show me anything that he did to bring independence to Korea beyond killing Ito? I have shown how he fits the bill for nationalist. Perhaps English is not your first language and you do not understand the difference between the two phrases/words, but in any case your 'case' is really coming down to your stamping your feet and pouting that you haven't gotten your way.

Again, its right to compromise, its wrong to give in to biased editors who think that "independence activist" is pro-Korean. Pretty twisted if you look at it that way. Good friend100 (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, "nationalist" suggests that Ahn was only working for his country and to promote his country. Thats true to a certain degree, but I don't think Ahn was promoting his country when his country didn't even have a self-governing political system. He never went around making speeches about how great he was. Working as an independence activist doesn't mean that he's a nationalist. Good friend100 (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I have already shown quotes from An and why he fits nationalist (Which does not mean that you have to have an existing nation-state if you bothered to read the definition, nor does it mean self-promotion) but you STILL have not shown why you think An is not a nationalist except to claim that by saying so we are somehow pro-Japanese can calling An a terrorist. We haven't called An a terrorist, we HAVE reached a consensus that you refuse to accept. POV, QED. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You have serious communications problems. I just explained above that Ahn is not a nationalist. He didn't think that Korea was better than any other country. He didn't do anything to show that he thought Korea was the best country of all. He didn't make speeches that Korea was awesome. He was an independence activist. You say that Ahn is a nationalist because he "promoted his country before others", as read in your merriam-webster dictionary definition. He never did! Show me any way how Ahn thought Korea was the greatest country of all. Good friend100 (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's you who has the serious communication problems. Perhaps you missed it, here it is again, in An's own words, "As to the first one, yes, he was. An, when being asked about why he stopped studying French replied, "Anyone who studies Japanese becomes the slave of Japan. Anyone who studies English becomes the slave of England. If I were to learn French, I could not avoid becoming the slave of France. That is why I gave it up. Once the reputation of Korea rises in the world, people all over the world will come to use Korean." (Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World, pp 663) An also warned of a "White Peril" coming from Europe that only a joining of Korea, Japan, and China (With Korea at the fore) could counter (Remarks from An's essay on 'Peace in East Asia'. From these two remarks it is easy to see that, yes, An believed in loyalty and devotion to a nation (Specifically Korea) and placed emphasis on Korean culture and interests above all other nations and groups."--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Case for neither

Okay folks, since you keep reverting each other instead of talking this is what we're going to do. I am going to remove nationalist/independence activist entirely. He will be referred to as a Korean who assasinated Itō Hirobumi. It will then be incumbant on whoever tries to place a descriptor there to provide a source that specifically calls him that. If sources for both can be found, then both will be included. Try to insert ANYTHING without a source and it will be removed. Pairadox (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! Good friend100 (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The wisdom of Solomon...
And we have a Korean nationalist with a source! Will the independence activist be able to rally and provide a source of his own? Only time will tell! Pairadox (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Off the top of my head? Sure, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan by Herbert P Bix on page 35, "Six weeks later, on October 26, a Korean nationalist assassinated Ito in Harbin, Manchuria, when he was on his way to discuss Russo-Japanese relations." And in Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World by Donald Keen on page 663, "An was intensely nationalistic..." So there we have two respected historians whose specialties are East Asian history calling An a nationalist. Would that count for you as credible sources? --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its credible. We get it that you hate Korea and that you think Ahn is a terrorist, which is probably a word that you think is better suited to his name. So if all you do on Wikipedia is attempt to insert anything that suggests Ahn is a terrorist, go make your own blog and fantasize about how Ahn threw a bomb and killed 50 innocent Japanese civilians, since thats what terrorists do, kill innocent citizens. I'm sure Ahn killed a random innocent civilian. /endsarcasm Good friend100 (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow... you lose out to protect a Korean 'hero' and you just can't accept the fact that An was a nationalist, as has been shown again, and again, and again, and again. Look, I don't hate Korea nor am I pro-Japanese, I am, however, pro historical truth and calling a horse, a horse. If you can't get over your own bias, perhaps you should look for a new hobby, a blog of your own where you can join the other nationalistic Koreans who call An the 'Great General' and other far fetched titles for a man whose only activism was to assassinate a Japanese government official. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you BOTH go get a blog where you can attack each other to your heart's content? This is the page to talk about EDITING THE ARTICLE, not personal politics and nationalistic rivalries. Pairadox (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, putting words into my mouth. Another charecteristic of a biased editor. When did I ever say that Ahn should be called a "great general" in the article? Seriously, if your going to lie about your position that your not pro-Japanese, at least cover it up by not accusing others of being nationalistic. I hardly think that independence activist could offer the same connotation as "great general". No seriously, I laughed irl.
I don't have a problem over this anymore. He can sweat himself out over his attempts to bring his own bias in. I could care less, cause he isn't getting any of it in. I don't see "terrorist" up there anymore, its been taken down. "Nationalist" is as close he's gonna get to what he wants, so I'm fine with it. Good friend100 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
not me, though. : O o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

source for independence activist

chew on that one, its from japan society for teachers to teach about Japanese history. Good friend100 (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

even the use of the word nationalism counts as reference to " independence activist", just that nationalism can be confused with two separate meanings... D-: o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh goodie, you found a website! And one with some very glaring errors at that (Emperor Ito?!). But, if you didn't notice, "If sources for both can be found, then both will be included." So source and include. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
emperor ito? wtf are you talkin about? go read it again, pal// o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
*Ahem* Summative Activity Ideas.

1. Imagine you are Emperor Ito Hirobumi (ca. 1905) as you look at his picture on the 1000 yen bill. Write at least two reasons why it is a good idea for Japan to continue to occupy and acquire other territories. You were saying? --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a naming error, slow the *&^% down and read the whole thing. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
refer to this : Ito Hirobumi, who was the first Prime Minister of Japan, was instrumental in the colonization of Korea from 1905 to 1909 and in 1910 Korea was officially annexed as a colony. For his leading role in Japanese history from the mid-1860s until his death in 1909, Hirobumi was considered a hero by many Japanese, but was assassinated in October 1909 by a Korean independence activist named An Jung-geun, who was later caught and hanged. Hirobumi’s image was on the 1000 yen bill for a number of years and An Jung-geun is considered a hero and martyr by many Korean people and is remembered in two exhibits at the Independence Hall of Korea (museum of independence history). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odst (talkcontribs) 02:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I did read it and as I posted, the original compromise was that if sources could be found for both, BOTH would be posted with sources. While I cannot think much of a source that confuses the Resident-General of Korea with the Emperor of Japan, it IS a legit source. Hence my comment about sourcing and posting. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
pfft obviously it was just a silly mistake, since there are two statements( " emperor hirobumi" and "prime minister hirobumi") contradict each other. logically, I would refer to the main article, and not that school resource material. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Not much of a source then is it if it can't be bothered with simple proof reading? The whole page is a school resource material, it's meant as a lesson plan.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Why the compromise? Nationalist and independence activist has essentially the same meaning, and It's just that nationalism is pften confused as chauvinism. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, "Advanced" and "Invaded" essentially means the same things as well, but I condemned Japan for putting advanced into its textbooks when talking about its invasion of China during the 30's.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
and your point is? o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That attempting to label someone, or something, another word because it sounds 'nicer' is wrong. Saying that calling someone a Nazi is nowadays insulting does not mean we should find a new term for Hitler. Ito was an imperialist of the first order, just because he is a hero to the Japanese does not mean we shouldn't call him that either. An was a nationalist. Saying we should call him an "Independence activist" because "Nationalist" has a negative connotation in English currently misses the point that he was a nationalist WITH all that negative connotation.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful, that's what I wanted to hear from you. That explains your motives. I will now resume my unilateral edits. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly suggest you don't. You've already been reported for 6RR violation, there's no point in adding to the offense. Pairadox (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, it's not the case of negative or positive connotation, but rather the issue of clear definition. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, sadly there seems to be a large lack of definitions for independence activist. One would almost think it was being made up. Nationalist though, well, we have some good definitions for that, which An fits. So the clearer definition would be nationalist.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a source, and has been included. If you question the validity of the source, I suggest you take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard for further evaluation. Pairadox (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In terms of rating the source, I'd put the vetted history books over a web page that makes obvious fact checking errors, but as said, I would note the source as valid. I also agree that independence activist should be first by virtue of alphabetizing as it would be the easiest and least arguable path. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


User:Gettystein brought up a new citation regarding Ahn Jung-geun as a Pan-Asianist as removing the aforementioned citation. However it is unfortunately related to Ito Hirobumi. If this article is much expanded from this stub, the citation might be needed to describe briefly who Ito Hirobumi is . But it should be taken out from the introduction because Ahn Jung-geun had nothing to do with pan-Asianism. --Appletrees (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Theory of Eastern Peace," was said to have assassinated Ito Hirobumi, a key Japanese promoter of pan-Asianism who later became architect of the protectorate treaty and first residency-general in Korea, because Japan violated its promise of Asian solidarity.

— (35p) from Shin, Gi-Wook (2006)., Ethnic Nationalism in Korea. Standford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-5408-X.
It was actually User:Cydevil38 who added the phrasing and citation;[3] I've left a note on his/her talk page about this discussion. Pairadox (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Appletree, if Ahn was not a pan-Asianist, why would he kill someone for violating Asian solidarity? Cydevil38 (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cydevil38, the issue is whether or not the citation supports the claim. Appletrees has provided evidence that it does not. Can you provide a passage from the book that shows it does? If not, then I'd have to agree with Appletrees that it needs to be removed. Your reasoning is not sufficient. Pairadox (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Not from the source referenced (And not using the phrase Pan-Asianism per se): "An was intensely nationalistic, but he also envisaged a union of the three great countries of East Asia-China, Korea, and Japan... An warned of the White Peril, exemplified by the predatory European nations that were pouncing on helpless Asia. The best way for the East Asian nations to end the threat of aggression from the Western powers was to unite. China and Korea especially, because they were even at that moment victims of European aggression, must cooperate to resist the European powers; if they did, the Europeans would withdraw and peace would return to East Asia."- Emperor of Japan, Meiji and His World, 1852-1912 by Donald Keene, pp 663. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cont- The source for that was An's own essay, "On Peace in East Asia" which he started on shortly before his execution. While it doesn't use the term, the writings seem to dovetail nicely with the description given by the WikiP article. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. It seems the ideals were there, even if the wording isn't. Unless further evidence is provided, "Pan-Asianist" should not be used, but alternate wording to reflect the above should be found and used in it's place. Pairadox (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

While the book I cited doesn't directly refer to An as a pan-Asianist, I believe it is resonable to infer such a definition from context. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yun's racially termed views became the basis for his pan-Asianist arguments. An Chunggun's "Theory of Eastern Peace" equally stressed the need for collective efforts among Korea, China, and Japan to secure peace in Asia. Some leaders even urged fellow Koreans to support Japan in its fight against Western civilization in such struggles as the Russo-Japanese War, which was seen as a war between the "white" and "yellow" races (hwanggsong sinmun May 31, 1904). For them, Asian solidarity did not necessarily attenuate the sovereignty of each nation. Instead, alliance among the yellow people of Asia would provide both national independence and regional security once and for all.

— (32p) from Shin, Gi-Wook (2006)., Ethnic Nationalism in Korea. Standford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-5408-X.

With regards to the protectorate treaty:

In his view, the treaty not only jeopardized the security of Korea but also put the whole East Asia region into peril by creating division and tension among the neighbor nations. Using nationalist rhetoric, the piece expressed a bitter sense of betrayal and ended the newspaper's long-standing advocacy of pan-Asian alliances. An Chunggun, an early advocate of "Theory of Eastern Peace," was said to have assassinated Ito Hirobumi, a key Japanese promoter of pan-Asianism who later became an architect of the protectorate treaty and first residency-general in Korea, because Japan violated its promise of Asian solidarity.

— (35p) from Shin, Gi-Wook (2006)., Ethnic Nationalism in Korea. Standford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-5408-X.

In the strictest sense of the term "Korean nationalist", I don't think An qualifies, at least not before the protectorate treaty. The book clearly categorizes An as a pan-Asianist, and at the time there was intense ideological rivarly between pan-Asianism and Korean nationalism. The protectorate treaty was a momentous event that turned the minds of a lot of pan-Asianists, and An was one of them, to some extent. However, even after the assassination, An still was a pan-Asianist in principle, as he saw Ito Hirobumi as the traitor of Asian solidarity and one individual he admired, the Meiji Emperor. Cydevil38 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see discussion happening. I have no feelings one way or the other, so I'll leave it to the interested participants to come to an agreement. I will, however, step in again if I see the imposition of POV or edit warring. Pairadox (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'd go with the if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck idea. Neither source says pan-Asianism directly, but they sure do fix the ideas of it to An. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally working together? I was gonna propose that we include all descriptions of Ahn, seems like you figured that out already. Good friend100 (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. well I think the Pan-Asianism has a negative connotation because Japanese advocated it to merge East Asia. --Appletrees (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem of saying that "X has a negative connotation because the Z people used it to do terrible things so therefore we should not call Y it" means we would very quickly run out of descriptives for everything and everyone. Mao and Stalin used the idea of Communism to kill millions, should we fail to label current day communists because of that? --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
What about alternate wording that conveys the same meaning, since the term appears not to be citable in terms of An? "Proponent of east Asian alliances" or similar? Pairadox (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Would we be linking the alt phrasing to the entry on Pan-Asianism or not? If not, maybe we should skip the phrase and just add in a more detailed pharagraph explaining An's ideas? I mean, East Asian alliances doesn't really cover what it was he was thinking of. It was more of a European Union (With Korea at the fore) notion than, say, NATO.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees, while I personally despise pan-Asianism, I don't think it should be left out. A lot of Koreans in that era, the fools that they were, became admirers of Japan in their hope that Japan will lead a pan-Asia against the west. The Korean nationalists, however, warned that Korea must protect itself from encroaching imperialism, especially that of Japan. Pan-Asianism and Korean nationalism were ideoligies in direct conflict with eachother - pan-Asianism sought for solidarity and common identity of East Asians, and Korean nationalism sought for independence and unique identity of the Koreans. I believe it is rather ignorant to call An, an advocate of Asian solidarity, a nationalist. Today however, An's pan-Asianist ideology, which in the views of Korean nationalism can be considered "chinilpa", was covered up just so his deeds can be lauded and admired within the context of the ideology that dominates both Koreas today, Korean nationalism. My view is that, in the strictest sense, An should be seen as an independent activist and a pan-Asianist, and definition of him as a nationalist should be scrapped, as he never was one. Nonetheless, there are reliable sources referring him as a nationalist so I think that view should be mentioned as well. So perhaps what's in order is a more complex description of differing views on who An was, either a nationalist, or a pan-Asianist. But one common element regardless of him being pan-Asianist or nationalist is that he was an independence activist, as his asassination was mainly motivated by the protectorate treaty, so I believe it'd be best to use that as the primary description of An. Cydevil38 (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Worship emperor meiji

Is is true, I doubt it, is there someone who can verify that this is true? Cause it reeks of POV-pushing. Good friend100 (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's already a notation in the article about how An admired the Meiji Emperor. The source used was pretty explicit that An more or less believed the imperial rescripts that Meiji issued during the Russo-Japanese War, the Sino-Japanese War, and about Korea. An felt that Meiji was a Pan-Asianist and wanted Korean independence, which is why deceiving the Meiji Emperor was one of the 'charges' An leveled at Ito and used as justification to kill him. Now whether that translates into worship... I don't know, however the source being used is written in classical Chinese (Which makes since given An was supposed to be a scholar) and I cannot read it. I'm hoping that Limited200802th can clarify it. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe post a request as Wikipedia talk:Translation or even China for a translation? I do think that the lede should be returned to the simple form it had before this latest change and the new wording should be moved to the body of the article. There's already been discussion that his beliefs need to be exanded upon and this is a perfect fit for that. As it stands now, the placement and wording does give undue weight to one of the three descriptors. Pairadox (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I posted a request on the language help desk page, here's hoping they can get back to us. In the meantime, I restored the original wording for the three descriptors, but kept the references in the hopes that eventually we'll learn where the worship thing came from. I've also added in a section on An's pan-Asianism with the source that I have. Those folks with the other ones, please add to it. Finally, I fleshed out some of An's biography (Korean speakers, could someone add in the Korean text for Father Wilhem's Korean name?). Hopefully this restores the balance to the article.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: Thanks to the helpful people at the language desk, we have the preface translated:

On East Ocean Peace: Preface Success-unification and loss-breaking apart are eternal rules of change. In today's world, the East and West hemispheres are separated, and the different races are all different. They compete with each other, as if it was a daily meal. They research into dangerous weapons, above agriculture and commerce. New inventions such as electric cannons, flying boats or submarines are all machines that maim people and destroy life. The youths are trained to fight in fields of battle, many valuable lives are thrown away like sacrificial animals. So much so that we have rivers of blood and fields of flesh, which never ends. Naturally, humans value their lives and abhor death. What would a peaceful and orderly world look like? This thought chills my heart and bones. Fundamentally, from ancient times, the East Ocean people focus on literature and keep to their own country, and have never invaded Europe. On the five continents, man and beast, plant and water all know this. However, in the last few centuries, the European powers have forgotten their morals, and dedicate their time to violence, so as to create a spirit of competition and lose all inhibition. Among these, Russia takes it to the extreme. Their violence kills everywhere, in both Europe in the west and Asian in the east. Their evil fills up and their crime overflows. Gods and men are all angry.

Since I don't find any reference to An worshiping the Meiji Emperor there I think that the claim should be left out and the disputed tag removed, anybody disagree?--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been a week and not a peep, I'm assuming that everyone's ok with the removal of the POV or will restore with reason why posted here. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


I don't want to stir up and renew another dispute, but I find it somewhat ridiculous to include nationalist and independence activist both to describe An. Uh, they do happen to have the same definition. One really needs to go. Since the word "nationalist" is ambiguous, having two meanings, i think it has to go.... (talk) 05:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE let's not start this one again. Look, the compromise was that both would be included if both could be sourced, both were with reliable sources. There's no need to stir up this hornets' nest again unless you happen to have some really good sources that say why the phrase independence activist is better than nationalist. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
To anon, just accept the current description about him because apparently this page is not only for Korean people. I think labeling as nationalist is way better than terrorist in the past dispute caused by whom potential socks, Komdori (talk · contribs) and LactoseTI (talk · contribs). I would welcome them if they join in Wikipedia again though, really.--Appletrees (talk) 13:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's wrong even to say it that way, I don't think it has anything to do with the Korean people; as i've been under the impression that An assassinated Hirobumi under his own decision. It may be somewhat acceptable to call him a terrorist or assassin, but Jusenkyoguide was able to tell us why nationalist is on there. "to have some really good sources that say why the phrase independence activist is better than nationalist." obviously our good friend Jusenkyoguide either objects to the use of "independence activist", or supports "nationalist" and maybe both. Needless to say, I think this has nothing to do with neutrality. If I am speaking to people that can properly comprehend the english language, then it should have been enough that Nationalist is an unacceptable word for a controversial study. Why?? simply because of its ambiguity. The sources that label him as a nationalist is not incorrect; it is properly used in its pure definition. I don't know why you object to independence activist, but you certainly do not have, should i say, "pure" motives. In Korea there's a cliche "can't cover shit and piss"... That attempting to label someone, or something, another word because it sounds 'nicer' is wrong. Saying that calling someone a Nazi is nowadays insulting does not mean we should find a new term for Hitler. Ito was an imperialist of the first order, just because he is a hero to the Japanese does not mean we shouldn't call him that either. An was a nationalist. Saying we should call him an "Independence activist" because "Nationalist" has a negative connotation in English currently misses the point that he was a nationalist WITH all that negative connotation.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC) At the very least people should fight an intelligent battle; when it's stupid enough to fight a battle in the first place. Before you go on, please see what the dictionary has to say about nationalism. (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You are o.d.s.t. and I claim my 5 pounds. If you have bothered to go through this argument you should have noticed that I have already posted a dictionary definition of nationalist and have posted reasons why An fit the bill as such. Nationalist is not ambiguous in any shape or form. Independence activist, IMO, is as we still do not have a definition of such a phrase, but either way we do have sources that label An as both and I am content with that. I am going to ask you nicely to stop here with the personal attacks. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it is, but my browser's gone haywire and my signature does not show up... sorry about the confusion...

Back to business; rather a personal attack, i like to call it "constructive criticism". I apologize if my comments offended you, but I hold no quarter for lack of intelligence . clear to point out is that you are aware that the word "nationalist" associates with "negative connotation"s, as you have put it, and maybe that is clearly why you advocate its use. Otherwise, there would not be a hare-brained objection against its removal. if you look at a Thesaurus, Chauvinism is considered a synonym of nationalism, and we all know what that means.

  • na·tion·al·ism [nash-uh-nl-iz-uhm, nash-nuh-liz-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. national spirit or aspirations. 2. devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism. 3. excessive patriotism; chauvinism. 4. the desire for national advancement or independence. 5. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations. 6. an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation. 7. a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation. drawn from

"excessive patriotism" and "the desire for national advancement or independence" don't necessarily mean the same thing. I find that there are people that aim to place "negative connotations" on a nation's hero, thereby whitewashing and euphemizing the acts of Hirobumi and his commonwealth. Clearly, this is an affront to moral rectitude. (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade is correct usage. Again, I have shown you where An is called a nationalist by some honored historians. I have shown you An's own writings that show a nationalistic bent. I have asked for a definition of independence activist because we don't have one, and finally, I direct you to your own writings. To wit: on a nation's hero, thereby whitewashing and euphemizing the acts of Hirobumi and his commonwealth. Clearly, this is an affront to moral rectitude. Nation's hero? Whitewashing? Moral rectitude? This is an encyclopedia, not your soap box to whine about Japanese atrocities during its colonization of Korea. Just because he was a hero to YOU does not mean he wasn't a nationalist. An was many things, a nationalist, racist, pan-Asianist, and possibly rather naive. He was also someone who felt strongly about his homeland and wanted to fight for it. It is not OUR place to call him a hero or say what Japan did was bad, just to note what he was. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
did i say anything about my opinions? I don't think i ever mentioned anything about Japanese atrocities, or anything of a hero to me. What happened in the pas t is beyond my concern. I personally think that he was an idiot, but there was an order of merit bestowed upon him by South Korea. What you percieve as my little tantrum is actually a piece of your imagination. And you think Nationalist has a negative connotation. That only explains your talks against the use of "independece activist". I'm pretty sure if it was up to you, you would remove "independence activist", ref or not. He was, in fact, a nationalist, but i think you are missing point. The use by accredited historians of the word nationalist was pointed to An's desire for independence, not his necessarily his chauvinistic attitude. Many bios of Hirobumi omit An's name and just say that he was assassinated by "a nationalist", and it should make sense that it meant the same as the "nationalist" used to describe gavrilo princip. And if he was a Pan-asianist, it would make no sense for him to assassinate Ito Hirobumi. (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Then again, now rethinking it, I think it is somewhat stupid to consider An a Pan-asianist, Nationalist, and independence activist. He didn't do anything much except write a few papers that did little social impact. I think now that it would just make more sense to consider him simply an assassin. You can't go on Wagner's page and say that he was a German musician, composer, antisemitic, racist, philosopher... He'd be just called a composer or something... (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)