![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
OK? Objectman 06:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
can someone provide an accurate translation of the Japanese wikipedia entry please? Sennen goroshi 05:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So you can never assassinate someone legally? Who defines what's legal? ( Wikimachine 16:06, 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)
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)
"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))
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)
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
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))
oh and.. assassin read it and learn.
Sennen goroshi 18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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:
Here's the one that's relevant.
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))
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))
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
Disagreement over whether "nationalist" and "Korean terrorists" is NPOV. 02:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
Comment
This dispute appears to be between "nationalist", "independence activist" and "terrorist".
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)
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))
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)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimachine ( talk • contribs)
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))
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimachine ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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 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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=An_Jung-geun&diff=next&oldid=160343798
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)
Me biased? You are the biased one because you think "independence activist" is pro-Korean. How is the word anti-Japanese?
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.
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)
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.
I dirtied the word? For someone who thinks Ahn is a terrorist, I doubt you have much to say there.
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.
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)
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" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nationalist
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" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
chew on that one, its from japan society for teachers to teach about Japanese history. Good friend100 ( talk) 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.... 71.133.126.74 ( talk) 05:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
–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 dictionary.com
"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. 71.134.59.163 ( talk) 04:01, 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... 71.134.59.163 ( talk) 04:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
OK? Objectman 06:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
can someone provide an accurate translation of the Japanese wikipedia entry please? Sennen goroshi 05:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So you can never assassinate someone legally? Who defines what's legal? ( Wikimachine 16:06, 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)
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)
"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))
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)
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
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))
oh and.. assassin read it and learn.
Sennen goroshi 18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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:
Here's the one that's relevant.
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))
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))
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
Disagreement over whether "nationalist" and "Korean terrorists" is NPOV. 02:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
Comment
This dispute appears to be between "nationalist", "independence activist" and "terrorist".
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)
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))
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)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimachine ( talk • contribs)
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))
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimachine ( talk • contribs)
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)
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)
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 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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=An_Jung-geun&diff=next&oldid=160343798
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)
Me biased? You are the biased one because you think "independence activist" is pro-Korean. How is the word anti-Japanese?
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.
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)
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.
I dirtied the word? For someone who thinks Ahn is a terrorist, I doubt you have much to say there.
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.
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)
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" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nationalist
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" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
chew on that one, its from japan society for teachers to teach about Japanese history. Good friend100 ( talk) 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.... 71.133.126.74 ( talk) 05:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
–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 dictionary.com
"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. 71.134.59.163 ( talk) 04:01, 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... 71.134.59.163 ( talk) 04:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)