![]() | Kim Ku received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Move to Kim Gu?
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 18:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
it seems "Kim Ku" is the most widely used spelling. Appleby 01:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Kmlawson: I think we need to remove some of the strong Korean nationalist elements of this article. Also, there should be more discussion of the fact that Kim Ku was a powerful leader of a terrorist organization, whose bombings, assasinations, and other terrorism was important in the Korean nationalist movement for independence.
His role in early postwar involvement in assasinations of other politicians might also be discussed...suffice to say, he is not an uncontroversial figure.
However you may note that his "terrorism" almost always targetted non-civilians, under tyrannical Japanese occupation. It's same as arguing whether Paul Revere was a freedom fighter or terrorist.
Per arguments given above, I have requested that this page be moved to Kim Ku. -- Visviva 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
While I note that the POV issues noted above have not been addressed yet, I don't think the problem is addressed by simply adding POV from the other side. The inclusion of this article in Category:Terrorists is highly problematic, and is not supported by any information currently in the article. Unless the article explains how and in what way Kim Ku has been labeled a terrorist in a reliable source, it makes no sense for this article to be included in that category. I think the category tag should be removed, but I'd like other editors' opinions. Cheers, -- Visviva 07:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Report from acting administrator Hagihara Moriichi of Inchon Consulate on current situation of Inchon, dated 1896.04.24 has details of the murder of Tsuchida. Where he is described as ’a commoner from Nagasaki prefecture' (p.6) and 'an employee of a Nagasaki trader on a business trip' (p.7). You can read it at The Japan Center for Asian Historical Records (JACAR) if you can read Japanese. The reference code is A04010024500. -- Kusunose 08:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Please check. -- Lulusuke 22:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No one's responded to my previous comment about my edit. If anyone objects please state them here for further discussion otherwise I will go ahead and make the edit. As I've stated before, there's nothing about the Japanese reference that states Tsuchida was a commoner on a business trip that precludes him from being involved with the murder of the Empress. It's been pointed out that Korean records state that the reason why Tsuchida was believed to be an army lieutenant is from his sword and id. Without further information, it's not inconceivable that Tsuchida had previous military connections or engagements or that he was involved in the murder of the Empress. From what we have so far, Japanese and Korean accounts are not mutually exclusive. Melonbarmonster 06:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Detailed information on the assassination of the queen such as the involvement of Korean Army, Palace Guard officers, and Military minister of Korea in the assassination of queen has nothing to do with this article. It does not provide any information regarding whether Tsuchida was involved in the assassination or Kim's motive for killing Tsuchida. If you want to post information on the assassination of the queen that is unrelated to Kim gu, add it to the article "Empress Myungsung" or create a new article on the Eulmi Incident. Do not edit key contents in the article until a consensus has been reached. Hkwon ( talk) 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo finally admitted that the Kim Gu was actually a terrorist. Kim Gu killed a civilian! Also he was not a hero but a misguided figure by some Korean radicals. Link: [1] Chosun-ilbo is South Korea's the most prominent and the number-one subscribed newspaper in South Korea. I'll modify the text accordingly. -- Prdxjapan ( talk) 19:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the tag "Murderer" should be removed. Certainly Kim Gu was responsible for his fair share of killings, but since the killings were politically-motivated, they were not murders, but rather assassinations. joo-yoon 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
For those who can't figure out how to access "Report from acting administrator Hagihara Moriichi of Inchon Consulate on current situation of Inchon".
Kusunose 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
These two words, God and He, are used to express the god for Christians. The god that Kim Gu meant was not God, but Haneunim (하느님), a god in a more general sense (meaning not attached to any specific religions). I have read 'My Desire' of Baekbeom Ilji from Wikisource. At the moment, the part which contains these exact sentences can be found only in Korean. I would appreciate if people can find a better way to express Haneunim in English. Kymagnus ( talk) 16:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
at the moment this article seems to be filled with glowing compliments for someone who killed in cold blood due to 1. blind patriotism 2. mistaken identity. I am sure he did some good things for Korea, but this article needs some balance and neutrality. This article currently has more bias than the Hitler article.
The comments made by Koreans has been put back by me, as I think it balances the article quite well, I do welcome any other suggestions on how this article can be improved. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 14:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Sennen's edit in bold: Also known by his pen name Baekbeom (백범 白凡), he is regarded as one of the greatest figures in modern Korean history and also by some Koreans as an assassin, robber and traitor.
This user is convinced that others (or by his wording - "by some Koreans") share his views that Kim Gu is looked unfavorably by the Korean public. He firmly believes that such a group or institution is out there, somewhere in the vast interwebs. The only problem is there's no source to back that claim. This is the sentence he sourced from http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1854.html: Kim Gu was called the 'Assassin, Robber, Traitor' in North Korea prior to his visit to Pyongyang-. This is what he conveniently left out; after which he became 'Patriot Kim Gu'. The demeaning comments by North Korea were made when Kim Gu was alive and had fallen out of favor with the communists. This is not open to interpretation. I'm still confused to how this actually proves that he is regarded as an assassin, robber and traitor in modern Korean history. Notice how Sennen completely ignores North Korea's praise, where he is referred to as a patriot when he later visits the North Korean capital. And even then, such information is irrevelent to how he is viewed in modern Korean history. His use of "by some Koreans" implies that there is a divide between those who believe him to be those things and those who do not (which there isn't - Korean historiography revere him as a hero, one of the founding fathers of the Korea republic if you will). It's an outdated quote, it does not correlate at all to how the people think of him now or the sentence it's attached to. Akkies ( talk) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
There has been disputes whether to include the phrase 'an assassin, robber, and traitor' to describe Kim gu in the lead paragraphs of this article. I suggest a mediative solution that include said phrase after the sentence "Also known...Korean history" as sentences "After the division of Korea, Kim's unification efforts drew much support as well as opposition. For example, he was criticized as "an assassin, robber, and traitor" in North Korea before he was regared as a patriot after his visit to North Korea in 1948 for a unification summit with Kim Il Sung." in order to clarify the information from the source and five Ws and one H. I also think this content belongs to a separate section, rather than the lead paragraphs. Hkwon ( talk)
Just a few more hours until the article becomes unlocked. All this trouble for one seemingly innocuous sentence. Let's just scrap the whole portion. Sennen get what he wants, and I don't have to constantly state that his edit is a blatant misinterpretation of the source. Akkies ( talk) 07:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, prior to your revert the article had been in a stable state for about 2 months. Please gain consensus if you wish to include it again, and make sure you don't edit war. thanks カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 16:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I have removed these terms from the lead and the infobox as they were inserted in an inappropriate way. I think "independence fighter" correctly describes his activities and his role in assassinations is amply outlined in the body of the text.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 06:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I have removed this from the introduction:
The citation is a footnote about Hankook tyres which states Kim was "like a founding father" of the ROK, and inaccurately talks about "his" Provisional Government. It's clearly not a good source for Korean history and doesn't support the claim in the text. In addition, it seems hard to view him as a founder as he boycotted the election that led to the setting up of the ROK.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 06:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed request. Number 5 7 16:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Kim Gu →
Kim Koo – Per
Kim Koo Museum website,
Kim Koo Museum --Relisted.
Sunrise (
talk) 21:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Sawol (
talk)
16:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm back editing this article.
Just a heads up about romanization standards I've stuck to so far. I think it sticks to the MOS. It's a bit of a flow-chart/algorithm, so explaining here:
Thanks and wish me luck on finishing this behemoth. He lived a uniquely interesting life. toobigtokale ( talk) 03:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Kim Ku ( closed by non-admin page mover) Mdewman6 ( talk) 20:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Kim Gu → Kim Koo – As per the Kim Koo Museum and Library, the Kim Koo Foundation, the Kim Koo Forum, and many more. Spellings of his name vary and include Kim Ku (many of his contemporaries, as can be seen in quotes in the article), Kim Gu (modern in South Korea), and Kim Koo (both contemporary and in academia). But when foundations established by his immediate descendants and supported by the South Korean government use this spelling, I think it's a compelling case. These foundations are also notable in both the United States and Korea; the foundation has contributed millions of dollars to institutions abroad and supports a "Kim Koo Professor" at Tufts University. Finally, and maybe most importantly, this article was titled "Kim Koo" before 21 April 2020, when @GeneralPoxter moved it, I think without discussion (sorry for the callout). toobigtokale ( talk) 23:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources).
naturalness, although the name being most common probably trumps naturalness either way (as per " Syngman Rhee").
[...] Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both the Battle of Stalingrad and on Volgograd, which is the current name of Stalingrad.
Hi, I wrote most of this article and wanted to share my thoughts for future readers or edit wars.
For the sake of this article, what matters is
MOS:TERRORIST. Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
I haven't noticed a strong consensus on him being a terrorist. I think the section I added on the label on him is probably sufficient; maybe a sentence in the lead can be added, but probably no category as there's no strong consensus.
Side note, this is entirely a definitional debate. There is no set definition of terrorism (and no, the UN is not the arbiter of definitions of words, especially non-technical words). If you choose to define it as "attacks that intentionally target civilians", then Kim was not a terrorist. If you choose to define it as any attack motivated by ideology in order to provoke a state of terror amongst some group of people, then Kim is a terrorist.
What's annoying is that the word has become an emotional football. Some people choose the definition based on a political agenda. A number of sources (and even some Wikipedia editors) that insist that Kim is a terrorist are part of the Japanese right-wing, and are incentivized to portray Kim, the KPG, and even Koreans as a whole as negatively as possible.
However, some other Western authors consider him and many other famous figures (even George Washington) in history as terrorists. I tend to align myself with this position and wouldn't mind using the label, but there is no clear consensus and it's a contentious term.
I wish it didn't matter because it's entirely arbitrary, but it does because labels have impact. toobigtokale ( talk) 05:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Changing date format back to MDY; the page began as that and idt anyone discussed the change to DMY before making it. toobigtokale ( talk) 00:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Bumped up to top, in consideration of how there's a political divide around how South Korea positions Kim Ku vs Park Chung Hee, as well as how large of a space he occupies in the national consciousness. IMO Syngman Rhee (currently top importance) seemingly gets discussed a bit less than Kim Ku and Park Chung Hee (at least in South Korea). Rhee's importance to the country and his reputation in Korea IMO is inflated by the United States. I've seen comparisons, most often from non-Koreans, between Rhee and Washington, but his reputation amongst South Koreans is extremely mixed. toobigtokale ( talk) 01:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Kim Ku received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Move to Kim Gu?
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 18:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
it seems "Kim Ku" is the most widely used spelling. Appleby 01:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Kmlawson: I think we need to remove some of the strong Korean nationalist elements of this article. Also, there should be more discussion of the fact that Kim Ku was a powerful leader of a terrorist organization, whose bombings, assasinations, and other terrorism was important in the Korean nationalist movement for independence.
His role in early postwar involvement in assasinations of other politicians might also be discussed...suffice to say, he is not an uncontroversial figure.
However you may note that his "terrorism" almost always targetted non-civilians, under tyrannical Japanese occupation. It's same as arguing whether Paul Revere was a freedom fighter or terrorist.
Per arguments given above, I have requested that this page be moved to Kim Ku. -- Visviva 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
While I note that the POV issues noted above have not been addressed yet, I don't think the problem is addressed by simply adding POV from the other side. The inclusion of this article in Category:Terrorists is highly problematic, and is not supported by any information currently in the article. Unless the article explains how and in what way Kim Ku has been labeled a terrorist in a reliable source, it makes no sense for this article to be included in that category. I think the category tag should be removed, but I'd like other editors' opinions. Cheers, -- Visviva 07:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Report from acting administrator Hagihara Moriichi of Inchon Consulate on current situation of Inchon, dated 1896.04.24 has details of the murder of Tsuchida. Where he is described as ’a commoner from Nagasaki prefecture' (p.6) and 'an employee of a Nagasaki trader on a business trip' (p.7). You can read it at The Japan Center for Asian Historical Records (JACAR) if you can read Japanese. The reference code is A04010024500. -- Kusunose 08:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Please check. -- Lulusuke 22:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No one's responded to my previous comment about my edit. If anyone objects please state them here for further discussion otherwise I will go ahead and make the edit. As I've stated before, there's nothing about the Japanese reference that states Tsuchida was a commoner on a business trip that precludes him from being involved with the murder of the Empress. It's been pointed out that Korean records state that the reason why Tsuchida was believed to be an army lieutenant is from his sword and id. Without further information, it's not inconceivable that Tsuchida had previous military connections or engagements or that he was involved in the murder of the Empress. From what we have so far, Japanese and Korean accounts are not mutually exclusive. Melonbarmonster 06:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Detailed information on the assassination of the queen such as the involvement of Korean Army, Palace Guard officers, and Military minister of Korea in the assassination of queen has nothing to do with this article. It does not provide any information regarding whether Tsuchida was involved in the assassination or Kim's motive for killing Tsuchida. If you want to post information on the assassination of the queen that is unrelated to Kim gu, add it to the article "Empress Myungsung" or create a new article on the Eulmi Incident. Do not edit key contents in the article until a consensus has been reached. Hkwon ( talk) 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo finally admitted that the Kim Gu was actually a terrorist. Kim Gu killed a civilian! Also he was not a hero but a misguided figure by some Korean radicals. Link: [1] Chosun-ilbo is South Korea's the most prominent and the number-one subscribed newspaper in South Korea. I'll modify the text accordingly. -- Prdxjapan ( talk) 19:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the tag "Murderer" should be removed. Certainly Kim Gu was responsible for his fair share of killings, but since the killings were politically-motivated, they were not murders, but rather assassinations. joo-yoon 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
For those who can't figure out how to access "Report from acting administrator Hagihara Moriichi of Inchon Consulate on current situation of Inchon".
Kusunose 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
These two words, God and He, are used to express the god for Christians. The god that Kim Gu meant was not God, but Haneunim (하느님), a god in a more general sense (meaning not attached to any specific religions). I have read 'My Desire' of Baekbeom Ilji from Wikisource. At the moment, the part which contains these exact sentences can be found only in Korean. I would appreciate if people can find a better way to express Haneunim in English. Kymagnus ( talk) 16:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
at the moment this article seems to be filled with glowing compliments for someone who killed in cold blood due to 1. blind patriotism 2. mistaken identity. I am sure he did some good things for Korea, but this article needs some balance and neutrality. This article currently has more bias than the Hitler article.
The comments made by Koreans has been put back by me, as I think it balances the article quite well, I do welcome any other suggestions on how this article can be improved. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 14:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Sennen's edit in bold: Also known by his pen name Baekbeom (백범 白凡), he is regarded as one of the greatest figures in modern Korean history and also by some Koreans as an assassin, robber and traitor.
This user is convinced that others (or by his wording - "by some Koreans") share his views that Kim Gu is looked unfavorably by the Korean public. He firmly believes that such a group or institution is out there, somewhere in the vast interwebs. The only problem is there's no source to back that claim. This is the sentence he sourced from http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1854.html: Kim Gu was called the 'Assassin, Robber, Traitor' in North Korea prior to his visit to Pyongyang-. This is what he conveniently left out; after which he became 'Patriot Kim Gu'. The demeaning comments by North Korea were made when Kim Gu was alive and had fallen out of favor with the communists. This is not open to interpretation. I'm still confused to how this actually proves that he is regarded as an assassin, robber and traitor in modern Korean history. Notice how Sennen completely ignores North Korea's praise, where he is referred to as a patriot when he later visits the North Korean capital. And even then, such information is irrevelent to how he is viewed in modern Korean history. His use of "by some Koreans" implies that there is a divide between those who believe him to be those things and those who do not (which there isn't - Korean historiography revere him as a hero, one of the founding fathers of the Korea republic if you will). It's an outdated quote, it does not correlate at all to how the people think of him now or the sentence it's attached to. Akkies ( talk) 05:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
There has been disputes whether to include the phrase 'an assassin, robber, and traitor' to describe Kim gu in the lead paragraphs of this article. I suggest a mediative solution that include said phrase after the sentence "Also known...Korean history" as sentences "After the division of Korea, Kim's unification efforts drew much support as well as opposition. For example, he was criticized as "an assassin, robber, and traitor" in North Korea before he was regared as a patriot after his visit to North Korea in 1948 for a unification summit with Kim Il Sung." in order to clarify the information from the source and five Ws and one H. I also think this content belongs to a separate section, rather than the lead paragraphs. Hkwon ( talk)
Just a few more hours until the article becomes unlocked. All this trouble for one seemingly innocuous sentence. Let's just scrap the whole portion. Sennen get what he wants, and I don't have to constantly state that his edit is a blatant misinterpretation of the source. Akkies ( talk) 07:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, prior to your revert the article had been in a stable state for about 2 months. Please gain consensus if you wish to include it again, and make sure you don't edit war. thanks カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! ( talk) 16:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I have removed these terms from the lead and the infobox as they were inserted in an inappropriate way. I think "independence fighter" correctly describes his activities and his role in assassinations is amply outlined in the body of the text.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 06:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I have removed this from the introduction:
The citation is a footnote about Hankook tyres which states Kim was "like a founding father" of the ROK, and inaccurately talks about "his" Provisional Government. It's clearly not a good source for Korean history and doesn't support the claim in the text. In addition, it seems hard to view him as a founder as he boycotted the election that led to the setting up of the ROK.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 06:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed request. Number 5 7 16:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Kim Gu →
Kim Koo – Per
Kim Koo Museum website,
Kim Koo Museum --Relisted.
Sunrise (
talk) 21:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Sawol (
talk)
16:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm back editing this article.
Just a heads up about romanization standards I've stuck to so far. I think it sticks to the MOS. It's a bit of a flow-chart/algorithm, so explaining here:
Thanks and wish me luck on finishing this behemoth. He lived a uniquely interesting life. toobigtokale ( talk) 03:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to Kim Ku ( closed by non-admin page mover) Mdewman6 ( talk) 20:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Kim Gu → Kim Koo – As per the Kim Koo Museum and Library, the Kim Koo Foundation, the Kim Koo Forum, and many more. Spellings of his name vary and include Kim Ku (many of his contemporaries, as can be seen in quotes in the article), Kim Gu (modern in South Korea), and Kim Koo (both contemporary and in academia). But when foundations established by his immediate descendants and supported by the South Korean government use this spelling, I think it's a compelling case. These foundations are also notable in both the United States and Korea; the foundation has contributed millions of dollars to institutions abroad and supports a "Kim Koo Professor" at Tufts University. Finally, and maybe most importantly, this article was titled "Kim Koo" before 21 April 2020, when @GeneralPoxter moved it, I think without discussion (sorry for the callout). toobigtokale ( talk) 23:13, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources).
naturalness, although the name being most common probably trumps naturalness either way (as per " Syngman Rhee").
[...] Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both the Battle of Stalingrad and on Volgograd, which is the current name of Stalingrad.
Hi, I wrote most of this article and wanted to share my thoughts for future readers or edit wars.
For the sake of this article, what matters is
MOS:TERRORIST. Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
I haven't noticed a strong consensus on him being a terrorist. I think the section I added on the label on him is probably sufficient; maybe a sentence in the lead can be added, but probably no category as there's no strong consensus.
Side note, this is entirely a definitional debate. There is no set definition of terrorism (and no, the UN is not the arbiter of definitions of words, especially non-technical words). If you choose to define it as "attacks that intentionally target civilians", then Kim was not a terrorist. If you choose to define it as any attack motivated by ideology in order to provoke a state of terror amongst some group of people, then Kim is a terrorist.
What's annoying is that the word has become an emotional football. Some people choose the definition based on a political agenda. A number of sources (and even some Wikipedia editors) that insist that Kim is a terrorist are part of the Japanese right-wing, and are incentivized to portray Kim, the KPG, and even Koreans as a whole as negatively as possible.
However, some other Western authors consider him and many other famous figures (even George Washington) in history as terrorists. I tend to align myself with this position and wouldn't mind using the label, but there is no clear consensus and it's a contentious term.
I wish it didn't matter because it's entirely arbitrary, but it does because labels have impact. toobigtokale ( talk) 05:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Changing date format back to MDY; the page began as that and idt anyone discussed the change to DMY before making it. toobigtokale ( talk) 00:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Bumped up to top, in consideration of how there's a political divide around how South Korea positions Kim Ku vs Park Chung Hee, as well as how large of a space he occupies in the national consciousness. IMO Syngman Rhee (currently top importance) seemingly gets discussed a bit less than Kim Ku and Park Chung Hee (at least in South Korea). Rhee's importance to the country and his reputation in Korea IMO is inflated by the United States. I've seen comparisons, most often from non-Koreans, between Rhee and Washington, but his reputation amongst South Koreans is extremely mixed. toobigtokale ( talk) 01:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)