Talk:Kim Ku

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

Proposed move[edit]

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)[reply]

it seems "Kim Ku" is the most widely used spelling. Appleby 01:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oops, kinda forgot there was a discussion about this, i guess i changed my mind. i just moved it to Kim Gu, because i think he is obscure enough in english that it's not really an established spelling so much as a romanization system choice. Appleby 22:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The official spelling from the Kim Koo Museum and Library and the Kim Koo Foundation in Korea is Kim "Koo". I wanted change the article tile to Kim Koo but still don't know how to organize it. (Hkwon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkwon (talk • contribs) 01:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

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.

He was the head of provisional government and the assasinating was the act of war against empire of Japan. Because his government was officially in war against Japan. Would you say someone a 'terrorist' if he was the member of provisional government of the French Republic and he assasinated Nazi officials during World War II? --141.213.66.217 22:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: Kim Gu was not a terrorist. He never targetted civilians, only Japanese military leaders, and he was engaged in an open war against the empire of Japan.
Kim Gu was no more a terrorist than Admiral Nimitz, who had Yamamoto shot down.68.30.65.61 04:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Kim Gu killed a Japanese Civilian before he fled. He had a strong hatred toward any person who happens to be a Japanese. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.37.198.125 (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
That's the Japanese charge. Kim Ku claims that the Japanese person he killed was involved in the murder of the Korean Empress. It seems unlikely that a company employee commoner on a business trip would be carrying around a japanese sword as all records indicate. It's also highly unlikely that official japanese accounts obtained after usual police interrogation methods would be reflective of objective truth. Circumstantial evidence may be more objective in this particular case. Melonbarmonster 17:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As described in the main article, there is no evidence that Tsuchida was not involved in the assassination of Empress Myungsung.. Also, historical evidences including Baekboem Ilji show that he was disguised as a Korean in Chihapo, Hwanghae Province. Korean historians found that the Nagasaki-based organization to which Tsuchida belonged might have been involved in the assassination of the queen. I did not add this information to the main article in order not to cause any more controversy to this article as this was found by Korean historians, but willing to do it if necessary. At the very least, Kim and Korean people at the time believed the killing was revenge for the Korean queen, as illustrated by the prompt pardon from the Emperor Kwangmoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkwon (talk • contribs) 02:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
George Washington of the United States is praised as a heroic leader of its revoluntionary force and the country. And thanks to the country's powerful position in the world politics, his acts are no longer seen as rebelious, but a saviour of the American people. If England were to suppress the 'revolution,' the 'revolution' would no longer be revolution, but just rebellion. George Washington would be a rebel leader who caused the deaths of good Englishmen and made the residents of America fire against the rightful authority. I am sorry but being neutral in history is never possible if you really look into it. The history is written alawys in favour for the winners. Try to call Washington a maniac who led poor Americans to rise against the lawful English force.Kymagnus (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of arguments make me angry. The Japanese have raped, killed, tortured millions of Korea at the colonization period. Although it was done by their ancestors, they should be ashamed by the history. They should not repeat it again. They should apologize to the Koreans. However, SOME Japanese, as the person who wrote the comment, are having no remorse. It seems to me that they are proud of their history. Why should Kim Ku be classifed as a murderer or terrorist? Please have some sense. What the Japanese have done are a thousand times worse than what Kim Gu or other nationalists have done back then. You are not only being dishonest, but also foolish and stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.209.143.171 (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Per arguments given above, I have requested that this page be moved to Kim Ku. -- Visviva 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 07:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorists[edit]

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)[reply]

Kim Gu was the head of Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea which had been staging war against the Empire of Japan. Assassinating enemy's government officials was the Act of War. Not a terrorist act.--141.213.66.217 22:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second the removal of the terrorist tag. There has been no reliable source, much less a coherent argument, in favor of categorizing Kim Gu as a terrorist. Eliminating political and military leaders directly responsible in the middle of an open and declared war is not an act of terrorism.68.30.65.61 04:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think Kim Gu is a terrorist, you are probably the most stupid person on the globe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.110.134.12 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Kim Gu is NOT terrorist. that is a JAPANESE VIEW. He did not kill any innocent people. his activity is only anti-japan imperialism.Dutyterms 16:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only incident that can even remorsely lead to consider Kim as a terrorist is the bomb attack by Yoon Bong-Gil in Shanghai in 1932. No one except for VIPs in the Japanese imperial army and civilians who were very closely involved in the invasion of Korean and China was killed or injurered in this attack. Chiang Kai-shek, the Chinese leader at the time, highly praised Yoon and this attack as well. (Hkwon)

Tsuchida[edit]

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)[reply]

Well, let's add that information to the article. What we seem to have at present is a complete contradiction between Korean and Japanese sources. Unless someone can shed light on the reason for the discrepancy, the NPOV policy dictates that we note both accounts without prejudice. -- Visviva 12:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Tsuchida's status as a commoner and an employee has no logical bearing on whether he was involved in the assassination of the Empress. The way that this information is stated in the article in NPOV and illogical. Does anyone have any additional information on why Tsuchida's employment status precludes him from being involved with the murder of the Empress? I will edit accordingly after reading the Korean Kyujanggak Royal Library Links below unless someone can give me some more facts or information that sheds light on this. Melonbarmonster 06:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However you can find the fact that Kim Ku killed the trader Tuchida , by using the following Korean Kyujanggak Royal (online) Library.
The above offcial documents synchronize exactly with the Japanese's.
I checked these links. The only link that works is the e-gonghun link. It's interrogation records of Kim Ku after he was arrested for murder. It doesn't mention anything about Tsuchida's real identity. Kim Ku was already involved in the independence movement at this point and it seems highly unlikely that these torture interrogation confessions reflects any sort of reality. One interesting fact is that interrogation records show Tsuchida as having carried around a sword. They ask Kim Ku how he was able to kill a man who had a sword. It would seem pretty far-fetched that a commoner on a business stay would be carrying around a nihonto or a sabre.Melonbarmonster 05:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so far-fetched an idea back then if not today. --211.18.36.241 06:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I come across Japanese businessmen all the time and I've never even heard of anyone carrying around a nihonto. And 1896 is late enough that Japanese commoners and businessmen didn't walk around wearing swords in public.Melonbarmonster 18:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check. --Lulusuke 22:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are unhappy history　and basic facts concerning Kim Ku.--Lulusuke 22:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Baekbeom ilji (Journal of Baekbeom), Tsuchida had sword and Kim Gu found his identification stating that he was a Japanese army liutenant. --Crmtm 05:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You can guess all you like. So do readers. You only cannot add your interpretation in the article unless it is supported by other authoritative historians and published in reliable sources. If there are no reliable secondary sources, we could only present what those primary sources state. --211.18.36.241 06:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were regarding the Korean and Japanese primary sources. They're not guesses. Those two accounts aren't mutually exclusive and the substance of those two primary contents have been stated without prejudice. It would be NPOV to claim that there are conclusive evidence as to Tsuchida's identity one way or the other. Personally, I think it's quite obvious that Kim Ku was acting in conjunction with other independence fighters to assassinate Tsuchida and the interrogation records(probably the most objective evidence) bear this out as well. Melonbarmonster 18:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's your pov biased toward the Korean nationalist standpoint and hardly npov. --211.18.36.241 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stated both primary sources without prejudice so readers can draw their own conclusions. As for my personal opinion on the matter, I explained circumstantial evidence based on Japanese police records. Instead of just saying I'm NPOV, I'd love to hear why you believe otherwise. If you don't know or don't have any reasons for why you think my conclusions based on available evidence is wrong, you're the one who's biased and POV. You've yet to give an argument or an explanation for your position whereas I've tracked down all available references and sources and explained my own personal conclusions which I left out of the article for the sake of NPOV edit. I've been more than generously fair in my treatment of this issue and your complaints are unwarranted. In any case, I would still love to hear a coherent explanation of your position on this issue..... including your claim that Japanese businessmen carry around nihontos or sabres on business trips these days.Melonbarmonster 02:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have already stated this in the section "POV", but I'll state it again. As described in the main article, there is no evidence that Tsuchida was or was not involved in the assassination of Empress Myungsung. Also, historical evidences including Baekboem Ilji show that Tsuchida was disguised as a Korean in Chihapo, Hwanghae Province. Korean historians found that the Nagasaki-based organization to which Tsuchida belonged might have been involved in the assassination of the queen. I did not add this information to the main article in order not to cause any more controversy to this article as this was found by Korean historians, but willing to do it if necessary. At the very least, Kim and Korean people at the time believed the killing was revenge for the Korean queen, as illustrated by the prompt pardon from the Emperor Kwangmoo. (Hkwon) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkwon (talk • contribs) 03:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I perused your writing. I feel your edition seems like only Japanese assasinated the Queen, no koreans. For example the belligerent countries in Vietnam War, many people represent as the United States, South Vietnam and South Korea vs North Vietnam, little people represent as Korea vs Vietnam. So your edition misleads viewers. I guess you think about the Japanese Minister to Korea Miura Goro was the principal, so only Japanese assasinated the Queen? Miura Goro was just only a Minister to Korea, not Ambassador, Foreign Minister and Military Minister. Miura Goro's official rank was lower than Military Minister of Korea.(at any rate, I think Miura Goro helped Korean Army and Palace Guard to assassinate the Queen.) If you wanted to write assassination of the Queen, you should write precisely. If you would not write Korean assassins, you should not write about the assassination of the Queen, because this article is about Kim Gu, not the Queen. By the way, I think Kim Gu was glorious man, but the glory started after his prison breaking.--122.130.131.5 (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know some Koreans had roles in the assasination of the queen, at least as guides to the queen's place. I have never written that there was no Koreans involved in the assassination like you suggest. However, it does not change the fact that Japaneses had planned and led the assassination. You mention the Vietnam War, although I have no idea what it has to do with the assassination of the queen and this article. But since you mentioned it, let's discuss about it.
You said that many people represent (who?) the war was between the United States, South Vietnam and South Korea vs North Vietnam. No. it was a war between South Vietnam/U.S. and North Vietnam. South Korean forces were only reinforcement for South Vietnam, just like forces from New Zealand, Thailand, Philippes, and Austraila. North Vietnam had reinforcement from PR China and Soviets also. The war was between the South Vietnam/U.S. and North Vietnam, just like the assassination of queen resulted from conflicts between Joseon and Japan. South Korean forces have had some roles in Vietnam war, just like some Koreans might have had some roles in the assassination. But the war was certainly between South Vietnam/U.S. and North Vietnam not South Korea and North Vietnam, just like the assassination resulted from conflicts between Joseon and Japan, not Joseon and Joseon.
You said that my edition misled views. No. Your comments, citing a historical event not even remorsely related to the main article without a basic knowledge on Vietnam war, misleads viewers. Take a good look at my editing again. I have never said Miura Goro was a principal to the assassination, but he was "suspected" because there is no solid historical evidence that he was. His official rank at the time does not mean anything about this incident, even if he was the Emperor of Japan. If he had not been suspected by many people as the mastermind of assassination, why was he removed from his post just after the assassination and was put to the trial by Japanese court?
You wrote that "If you wanted to write assassination of the Queen, you should write precisely." No. I wanted to write about the life of Kim gu, not the assassination. Detailed information on the assassination belongs to a separate article. You wrote that "If you would not write Korean assassins, you should not write about the assassination of the Queen." No. In this article I write about the life of Kim gu, not about the assassination of Korean queen. Detailed information on the assassination belongs to a separate article. The only reason I mentioned the assassination is because of the need to clarify why Kim decided to kill Tsuchida. If you want, you can start a article titiled "Korean involvement in the Assassination of Empress Myungsung" based on verifiable and reliable historical sources.
You said that you thought "Kim gu was a glorious man, but the glory started after his prison breaking". Where did it come from? Your personal thinking about Kim gu has nothing to do with your criticism on my editing of the main article. Since you showed your personal thoughts on Kim, let me show you mine. His glory started far before his prison breaking when he joined Donghak movement and fought for Joseon people. Hkwon (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just because some big newspaper said it doesn't mean it's 100% true. Chosun Ilbo is the biggest "conservative" newspaper in Korea. And a lot of the time in Korea, "conservative" means "pro-Japanese rule". These so called "right-wing" newspapers(Chosun, Joongang, Dong-a are the top 3) have been trying to belittle freedom fighters like Kim Gu while going as far as justifying Japanese symphatizers like Lee Wan Yong. Chosun Ilbo has been very loyal to whoever was in power, whether it was the Japanese or some dictator. This has kept it safe from any government oppression(except when it was shut down in 1940 as part of the cultural obliteration policy by the Japanese) and has let it expand freely. Also they give lots of freebies to new subscribers...so a lot of people usually subscribe to it just for that. Personally I wouldn't believe a newspaper that, during the Japanese rule, told people that they must "do their duties as subjects of the empire" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggoil (talk • contribs) 05:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, Prdxjapan. Study Korean language a little more and read the article you cited once again, this time with more caution. The Chosun Ilbo article does not mention about terrorist, specifically, not a word such as terrorist or any related English word. Neither the article include any phrases about Kim "misguided...by some Korean radicals". Are your comments from your pure imagination?
Second, Eggoil. Please try to be neutral and check the sources to see if there really exists such information before you start to criticize sources. I can already identify your political stance as you harshly disparage Chosun Ilbo, Joonang Ilbo, and Donga Ilbo. I myself do not particularly prefer these newpapers, but they are still best-seeling and most reliable sources for South Korean news, which cannot be done just by distribution of "freebies". If you find any "pro-Japanes rule" and "justifying Japanese symphatizers like Lee Wan Yong" articles in these newspapers and want to criticize such facts, start a Wikipedia article on the subject based on reliable and verifiable sources. I can also start an article on their roles in Korean independent movement including their erasion of Japanese flag from marathoner Sohn Kee Chung's photos, although Hangyeore and KyungHyang newspapers talk and act like they could have done more work if they existed at the time. Hkwon (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove tag: "Murderer"[edit]

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)[reply]

I disagree that his action was an assassination. WordNet gives a definition for assassination as "murder of a public figure by surprise attack". Tsuchida was not a public figure whether he was a commoner or an army lieutenant. In any case, assassination is a type of murder. --Kusunose 14:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should be very careful about calling someone a murderer because it has a very negative meaning. Don't try to justify your argument with some sentences of definition in dictionary but USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. No responsible historian can call him murderer. --Crmtm 18:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He killed Japanese civilian Josuke Tsuchida. Therefore, he is classified by the murderer. --Azukimonaka 12:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's some Japanese views of incident. The article in Wikipedia should not be slanted. --Crmtm 14:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Korean people who killed the Japanese is not a murderer. I cannot agree to your insistence. --Azukimonaka 19:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said before, almost no histrian claim him as a murderer. A term 'murderer' should be used very carefully for the important political figures. --Crmtm 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your theory, Azukimonaka, then all soldiers must be murderers. Right? Come on, stop with your obvious pro-Japanese bias. --DandanxD 12:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Itō Hirobumi, a prominent Japanese politician of the era, burned the British Consulate in Japan in 1862. I don't see him classified as a "Japanese Arsonist". Hkwon (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I would like to be neutral (I know I should), the Japanese do have a strange way of thinking. Why do they consider Kim Gu as a terrorist? The term terrorist do not suit for all people who have murdered someone. Many others should be considered as terrorists then. Anyway, the Japanese did murder a lot of Koreans back then, and they are seldom considered as terrorists in the western point of view. Why should Koreans be considered as terrorists?

How to access "Report from acting administrator Hagihara Moriichi of Inchon Consulate on current situation of Inchon"[edit]

For those who can't figure out how to access "Report from acting administrator Hagihara Moriichi of Inchon Consulate on current situation of Inchon".

  1. Access Japan Center for Asian Historical Records
  2. Enter the reference code "A04010024500" into Basic Search edit box and push "Go" button.
  3. Push "Browse Image" Button.
  4. If you have the DjVu plugin installed, newly opened window should display the document.
  5. If not, the browser starts to download a .djvu file. Cancel it.
  6. At the upper right of the newly opened window, there is "Image Format" drop-down box. Select "JPEG". You should be able to see the document.

Kusunose 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using of the words, 'God and He'[edit]

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)[reply]

this article needs some balance[edit]

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)[reply]

Well, it has been protected now. Despite other editors being very willing to revert me, there have been no responses to my previous request for input from other editors. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sennen goroshi. You say that you put balance this article, but all you have done so far was writing one phrase that disparages a historical figure that was obviously taken out of context in the lead paragraphs and starting a editing war. According to your online source (exact quotation), "Kim Gu was called the 'Assassin, Robber, Traitor' in North Korea prior to his visit to Pyongyang, after which he became 'Patriot Kim Gu'", and that was in 1948.
I have read the wikipedia article Adolf Hitler, and could not find so many biases to which you refer. Could you let us know first what kind of biases are shown in the 'Hitler article' and how they relate to the wikipedia article Kim gu? Hkwon (talk)

Dishonesty[edit]

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)[reply]

I have no sense of whether or not Kim Gu is, or is not, in favour with the Korean public today, but having read through the website that comprises the source for the statement, I would agree that it doesn't actually say that he is regarded by some Koreans as an assassin, robber or traitor. It might support, if the website's author was considered a valid source, a statement along the lines of "during the conflict, some Koreans accused Kim Gu of being an asssasin, robber and traitor", but that would need to be in the main body of the article as well as in the lead. More generally, despite this article being graded as "B", there are an awful lot of paragraphs with no references - it could do with a scrub over in this regard by someone who has some good references to hand. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want such overly positive crap as "he is regarded as one of the greatest figures in modern Korean history" in the lead, then you should accept the less that positive comments made by others about Kim Gu. I did try to tone down the praise given to him in the lead [2] but people would not accept that. If people had not been so determined to paint him in such a positive light then I would never bothered to research this as much as I did and discover the interesting quote about him that is backed up with a reliable source. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong personal opinion on Kim Gu's performance during the period, and since I can't read Korean, I'm afraid I'm equally uncertain of what the website cited to support the "greatest figures" statement says (although a quick Googlebooks search gives some similar statements from secondary sources in English). My honest advice would be to add your point, carefully phrased, to the main body of the article, including the reference you found in which he was criticised by some during the conflict, and to try to flesh out the rest of the article with some more references. (NB: I've had to do this for a couple of articles, and the subsequent debate is easier once there are some proper in-line citations on both sides of the debate. It is a painful process, but worthwhile when it's done.) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well there you have it folks. Sennen believes "he is regarded as one of the greatest figures in modern Korean history" to be 'overly positive', an exaggeration, a POV statement. Ridiculous. Pray tell Sennen, how exactly is it problem that he is regarded as one of the greatest figures in modern Korean history? Akkies (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sennen should be banned from wikipedia for re-writing Korean history in his POV, he doesn't have any credibility what so ever.--Korsentry 01:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)
KoreanSentry - why should I even respond to such a blatant single purpose account that leaves personal attacks on my talk page? [3] 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keubie, the problem with stating that he is regarded as one of the greatest figures in modern Korean history is that it gives undue weight and sets an overly positive tone for the article. Neither the Hitler article nor the Pol Pot article have comments in the lead related to the fact that the whole world (not just their nation) considers them to be an bastard. It isn't required in the lead and if you think his popularity is relevant to the article then have something more factual in the main body of the article, not the lead. You need to step back from the article and consider that perhaps your strong pro-korean views are getting in the way of neutrality. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...says the person who has been blocked for one month for sockpuppetry on his original account by ip editing this very article. Damn, Sennen accusing me of being pov. If we were to examine Sennen's kind of maybe suspect motives to understand why he was being deceptive, we'd find him to be wed to the perspective that Kim Gu is a terrorist (and by extension most Korean independence activists), which I'm sure is what the Japanese government at that time labeled him. Of course, even having a problem with such an inoffensive "regarded as one of the greatest figures in modern Korean history" gives insight to his personal bias. Walk it off. Akkies (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we were here to discuss previous block history, I would be happy to discuss how you were indef blocked for editing wikipedia with the blocking admin commenting "Disruptive editing: obviously SPA with an agenda, not here to contribute productively"[4] and how lucky you were to get that overturned. But hey, were are here to discuss the article, so let's talk about the article instead of previous blocks. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well your block actually happens to be connected with this article, and the hypocrisy was suffocating I just had to mention it. Mine? A misunderstanding (I'm still here), and irrelevent to this farce of a discussion. Next time, don't start the fire. Akkies (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While your luckily avoided indef block was concerned with being disruptive and having an agenda on Korean articles in general. Anytime you wish to add something constructive to this discussion I will be happy to contribute, I just hope your agenda does not get in the way of a reasonable compromise on this article, I would rather have a nice peaceful article than watch disruptive editors descend into yet another edit war, on yet another Korean related article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems Sennen is suffering from psychological projection. Might I suggest you take a break from Korean articles in general? Maybe it'll stop that habit of deliberately half-assing sources to fit your agenda. We already have a third opinion, although you're welcomed to request for more. Akkies (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to be a little more careful with your comments, I find the above to be a borderline personal attack and if I wasn't such a nice person I would be reporting you right now. But it's OK, I can make allowances for you, so I won't report you this time. I just hope that once this article is open for editing again, you don't edit war - because it seems quite stable in its current state. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation: 'Assassin, Robber, Traitor'[edit]

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)

Looks good. A definite improvement over the original. I'm sure we can fit that somewhere in the Korean Liberation section. Akkies (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to move that phrase to a less prominent position, then in order to balance the article then "he is regarded as one of the greatest figures in modern Korean history" should also be moved to a similar position. It would show undue weight to have such an overly positive phrase in the lead, while hiding the other equally valid opinions to a later section. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we settled this that the two sentences have noting to do with each other. I'm just trying to find nice place to put your edit. Akkies (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would make you think that we had settled that? I think both sentences show his differing levels of popularity at different times and with different people - they seem to be very closely related and should be in the same place with the same prominence. If "he is regarded as one of the greatest figures in modern Korean history" is worthy of being in the lead, then so is "an assassin, robber, and traitor" - both should be in the same section of the article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My mediative solution is revising of the sentence in the lead as above to clarify the context in which the quoatation "assassin, robber, and traitor" was used. Moving the quotation in a separate section was just my suggestion and not a part of solution. It might be done when a consensus is reached in the future. Hkwon (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that implies (North) Koreans regard him as "an assassin, robber, and traitor", which isn't the case. Akkies (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is not obstinately needed in introduction.--Historiographer (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding it hard to have faith in the neutrality of the suggestions given apart from those given by Hkwon and myself. The other editors seem to be happy with inbalance in the article (as long as the inbalance promotes a favourable tone) The other two editors involved in the discussion have a long history of stubbornly pushing their pro-Korean POV and might benefit from stepping back and looking at this from a NPOV. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You see, pov accusations coming from you just doesn't translate well as opposed to someone who is actually neutral to the whole dispute, like Hchc2009 or Hkwon. Akkies (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed, getting rid of the whole section might be a good way to solve the problem. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who put the phrase "the greatest figures in Korean history" basing on reliable, verifiable sources. I do not agree with the negotiation between the two users above and restoring the deleted contents. Deletion of such contents should be only done by a clear decision by an authorized administorator or by an obvious consensus.
Just a personal thought. This article is the first article I started to edit in Wikipedia, and I would not let any irrelevant edits slide by me. I'll keep my eyes on this article from now on like a glue. Hkwon (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To User:Sennen goroshi: What consensus? Does an opinion of two people including you make a consensus? The amount of time in which an article has been stable has nothing to do with a consensus. I believe the starter of an edit war is someone who deleted a relevant, reliable information first. I am restoring the sentence. I wonder who will be the violator of 3RR rules if this continues? Hkwon (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus, the article was stable. End of story. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To User:Sennen goroshi: I am reverting your deletion.
1) "There was consensus": Is agreement between you and Akkies a consensus? Read "WP:CONS" again.
2) "The article was stable": Does any WP rule states no edits should be made to a "stable" article? And if there were no edits made in 2 months, does that make a part of article "stable" (whatever that means)?
3) "End of story": You might want to end this "story", but you don't have an authority to do it, and I don't want to end the story. Hkwon (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but I am finding your edits to be disruptive and your arguments to be invalid. I will continue to read your comments as in the future you might have something relevant to say, however as it stands I see nothing that I need to waste my time responding to. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To User:Sennen goroshi: It's OK, But how specifically are my edit "disruptive" and my arguments "invalid"? Without any explanations or justifications backing up your statement, they look like whinings from someone who is unable to make a logical argument. If you think it is a waste of your time responding to my comments, why do you keep doing it anyway? Looks like your time is not so worthy after all. Hkwon (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but your comments are not worth responding to. When you could ask a simple question, you write an essay and within it, have 30 points that you expect to be answered. ie. "you failed to rebut point 4.6 part 17 - therefore I will revert you and whine" this not a court of law, there is no requirement for me to answer every lame question put before me and you do not make the rules. There was consensus, no one complained about the state of the article, it was stable for a period of time, therefore it is up to you to obtain new consensus. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To User:Sennen goroshi: Hmm...a mystery. Why does someone has to keep responding to comments he/she said not worthy responding to? If you don't want/can't answer my "lame" questions on your evaluation of my edits or arguments, don't negatively judge them saying they are "disruptive" and "invalid". You just keep saying "there was a consensus" and "the article was stable", but still haven't answered any of my questions against those claims. If you can't back up your arguments with discussion and/or evidence, don't make such empty arguments in the first time. Someone might make counter-arguments against your claim. Hkwon (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reply because I am polite. If I choose not to answer a specific questions of yours, it is because I do not consider the question to be relevant - but even when your questions/comments are disruptive or personal attacks, there is no need for me to lower myself and forget my manners. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To User:Sennen goroshi: Politeness and manners! I'd take my hat off to you I were wearing one. Although I don't know such a polite one would judge other editor's comments disruptive, personal attacks, and not worthy responding to. So is it polite to make negative comments to me every time without properly answering my questions/comments? So convenient. Hkwon (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I addressed every single point you made, my fingers would bleed - I have a job/relationship/friends/life, so I don't want to waste my time on dealing with your irrelevant points, when I could be spending my time on wikipedia making edits. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should go see an orthopedist for that finger problem of yours. Since you don't want to waste your time dealing with my irrelevant points, why don't you save even more time by not responding to me and not bad-mouthing my comments at all? Hkwon (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Father of the Nation?[edit]

I have removed this from the introduction:

Kim Gu is referred to as the father of the nation in the Republic of Korea.[1]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Herkenrath, Mark (2007). The Regional and Local Shaping of World Society. LIT Verlag Münster. p. 106.
{{Reflist-talk}} put by — Revi 09:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed request. Number 57 16:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Romanization[edit]

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:

  • Assume McCune–Reischauer for pre-1945 names by default
  • However, if the subject has a article with a certain spelling, use the article's spelling.
  • Also, if the subject is most commonly known using an alternate spelling (either Revised Romanization or some different English name like Syngman Rhee), use that.

Thanks and wish me luck on finishing this behemoth. He lived a uniquely interesting life. toobigtokale (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 July 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • ngrams currently favors "Kim Ku", with a major spike for "Kim Koo" around 1946-47; still, there's plenty of potential for collateral given how short the names are and how common Kim is as a name in the Koreas. I think my order of preference for now is Kim Ku > Kim Koo > Kim Gu. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. I think I can be swayed by "Ku". I didn't know about ngrams until now; I usually spend most of my time writing and don't see much on the backend! toobigtokale (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Kim Ku per Skarmory and also a google scholar search (9k vs 1k). It also actually matches the MR romanization [5], while Kim Koo matches neither romanization. Kim Gu does not follow popular English usage. :3 F4U (they/it) 21:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kim Koo or Kim Gu - Just crossed upon the discussion notice while reading the article.
Adding to what toobigtokale said, naming the article to "Kim Ku" may cause the confusions for readers since the name misaligns with the official names of his legacy foundtion as well as other relevant organizations. This will cause the dilemma of whether to change the article names of all the institutions that use Kim Koo into Kim Ku. (ex. Do we then change the article Kim Koo Museum to Kim Ku Museum?). And also creates the confusion for readers. For example, when someone hears Kim Koo Foundation and then sees the name Kim Ku in this Wiki article, they will wonder whether the foundation is actually based on the same person of the article or not.
The name Kim Gu alternatively seems to be used in South Korean government webpages. [6][7]
While the name Kim Ku may have been more referred in ngrams, it doesn't seem to have much official stance compared to the other two spellings. 96.53.3.252 (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the reply. I've since changed my mind and actually agree with the other posters on the thread.
The policies that guide article name selection are in WP:TITLE. Relevant quote: 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).
"Kim Ku", while not official to anyone (and that's ok, as per the quote above), is what's used most commonly in reliable English-language publications. As per @Freedom4U, it's also a nice bonus that it matches the McCune–Reischauer romanization system (likely the reason that spelling is used in the first place anyway). This means it scores a bit better than "Kim Koo" on a criterion for name selection: naturalness, although the name being most common probably trumps naturalness either way (as per "Syngman Rhee").
As for the other organizations, while it's unfortunate that they don't match, it happens. Quote from WP:TITLE: [...] 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.
Actually, if those organizations are most commonly referred to using the "Kim Ku" or "Kim Gu" spellings, then we may even be able to rename their pages, regardless of their official preferences. I haven't researched it but I'm skeptical of that though. toobigtokale (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Kim Ku, which has been shown above to be the WP:COMMONNAME. I don't believe there's a significant risk of confusion; the names Kim Koo, Kim Gu, and Kim Ku all refer to the same person, so whichever names are not used as the article title will presumably redirect to the article anyway. Finally, I concur with Toobigtokale's recent point explaining why it's acceptable for related articles to use differing forms of the name. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kim as a terrorist[edit]

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)[reply]

I think you've covered the issue with that section.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

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)[reply]

Importance[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Ku&oldid=1211893105"