Talk:An Jung-geun/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Ito

message: :Japanese title | 安重根と伊藤博文
:made year | 1979
:director | 巌吉成
:scenario | 白頭山創作団
:Japanese publisher | 松竹ホームビデオ(Shochiku Home Video)
Objectman 01:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The movie of North Korea 

message: OK? Objectman 06:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a encyclopedia, not your personal blogspot. If you feel that he is a "stupid guy who killed an old men", please add that to your livejournal, not wikipedia. Thank you. Deiaemeth 05:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not my individual POV but a Japanese general POV. Objectman 11:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not only korean POV but also Japanese POV! 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Obvious need for cleanup 

message: *Independence activist (no defs found, but Google search results here are mostly relevant
*Nationalist
:#Wikipedia - Nationalism is a term that refers to a doctrine[1] or political movement[2] that holds that a nation—usually defined in terms of ethnicity or culture—has the right to constitute an independent or autonomous political community based on a shared history and common destiny.[3] Most nationalists believe the borders of the state should be congruent with the borders of the nation.[4] Extreme forms of nationalism, such as those propagated by fascist movements in the twentieth century, hold that nationality is the most important aspect of one's identity and attempt to define the nation in terms of race or genetics.
:#Google define: 
::*patriot: one who loves and defends his or her country
::*devotion to the interests or culture of a particular nation including promoting the interests of one country over those of others; "nationalist aspirations"; "minor nationalistic differences"
Here's the one that's relevant.
::*an advocate of national independence of or a strong national government
I can only guess that what you guys mean by "nationalist" when you put it in the Ahn Jung-geun article is this def. Then why don't you want to put a more clear form of this def of "nationalist"? Especially when he wasn't simply an advocate, he participated in the independence movement. "Activism", heard of it? (Wikimachine 03:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think including a definition in the first sentence is needed or appropriate as English speakers will know the meaning.  Non-English speakers can feel free to look it up, and the rest of the article will further it more by clearly describing all the notable activities in his life.  As for your question on WP:OWN, see the first example of an inappropriate ownership comment: "Are you qualified to edit this article?" Your comment, "Do you go to Northwestern, hey? I don't think that you know enough about Korean history to make opinions on this, just don't mind this & move on to another article or a project" is the same thing. —LactoseTIT 03:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think that there is any need for you to oppose the previous state of his description as the "independence activist", & I'm not talking about non-English speakers - if you've learned proper English, being more precise is almost always better. No, you don't need need to frame what I said that way, that was just a very kind & subtle WP:SOCK accusation. The sock puppet master should know better. (Wikimachine 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As for my opinion, I agree with the others on the page and the third opinions Wikimachine obtained: "nationalist" is fine, and "independence activist" sounds like trying to be a bit too PC.  In addition, after the thorough discussion, the consensus opening has the added benefit of flowing/reading quite well.  --Cheers, Komdori 19:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: Disagreement over whether "nationalist" and "Korean terrorists" is NPOV. 02:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps Good friend100 happened to not see the section  right above where we addressed this issue both with an RfC and significant discussion a week or so ago because of his indef block at the time. —LactoseTIT 12:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right, I missed it as well. It seems this RfC is virtually identical to the one above. Phonemonkey 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a clear evidence of your POV. You couldn't & still can't directly answer my question: why not use "independence activist" in place of all those derogatory terms? The last RFC did not draw that many editors into this page (~2), Good friend100's new RFC is legitimate. (Wikimachine 21:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The last Rfc was about the intro, by the way, not categories. I will include this as a part of the currently ongoing arbitration at Liancourt Rocks. This is a perfect example of team play & your solid JPOV & Japanese nationality. (Wikimachine 21:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it drew in quite a few; they simply replied to the main discussion rather than in the RfC category on the page. —LactoseTIT 22:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You're talking as if, and giving the impression that Ahn's sole purpose in life was being an assassin. He wasn't, he was a teacher before who joined resistance fighters against the Japanese. Good friend100 01:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  His teaching is not notable in general, at least not on par with his other activities.  Many ordinary people do extraordinary things, and they are known for their extraordinary actions. —LactoseTIT 02:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Phonemonkey, I completely agree; I don't think I would ever suggest replacing the opening with "assassin" based on the reasons you suggest (by my comment I simply meant the assassination and related activities are much more notable than his teaching).  I think nationalist most clearly defines him, and is the most neutral term.  Other terms in the opening would tend to hint him being a "hero" or "villain." —LactoseTIT 15:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why is Category:Terrorists needed? The category page clearly cautions users to include certain people and you definitely did not. All you ever say is "go read the rules" and thats it. Give me reasons as to why Ahn is a terrorist. He didn't kill innocent civilians (and Ito is a political leader, not some common person on the street). Good friend100 22:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Goodfriend100, this section is about whether An should be described as a nationalist, terrorist, or a seperatist. (The discussion about whether Category:Terrorists is needed (I don't think it is) is down below).Phonemonkey 22:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

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

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

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

text: At best it's a content dispute, not vandalism.  In fact, though, it's sourced information that you are removing.  For the link, just click on the category page itself and follow it to the definition.  I'm fine with removing it if you show how it doesn't follow the criteria, but you're not even attempting to find out how Wikipedia classifies inclusion to that category. —LactoseTIT 04:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It is sourced.  As for NPOV, I agree that it's not a good idea to start out the article with this, but it's a valid category for someone interesting in finding similar people (i.e. people making political points through violence), just like the "Independence activist" category is valid for finding others involved in similar activities, violent or not. —LactoseTIT 04:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just making a racist attack (by the way I've reported so let's see). According to your definition, all of the independence activists around the globe would be considered terrorists, which is simply not true. (Wikimachine 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see Ghandi.  Independence activism need not involve politically motivated violence in violation of the laws in the region.  Again, if you have a dispute with the criteria, please post it. —LactoseTIT 04:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor does it not "not". You brought the changes, you validate your changes, I don't have burden of proof over what you change. (Wikimachine 04:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to wonder, have you yet read the criteria?  Just post the one(s) with which you disagree. —LactoseTIT 04:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: *Whatever categories you add, make sure they do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy. If the nature of something is in dispute (like whether or not it's fictional or scientific or whatever), you may want to avoid labelling it or mark the categorization as disputed. Most categorizations are pretty straightforward, though. (WP:CATEGORY#Category_naming)
*Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue, personal preferences (such as liking or disliking green beans), and opinions or allegations about the person by other people (e.g. "alleged criminals"). Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic (Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue)
*Be aware that mis-categorizations are more sensitive for articles on people than for articles on other topics. Example: Categorizing a politician involved in a scandal as a "criminal" would create much more controversy than categorizing a behaviour or act as "criminal". (Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#General_considerations)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimachine (talk • contribs) 
: Have you looked at the criteria?  If you would like to dispute it, just state which of the inclusion criteria you dispute; this makes it easy to discuss objectively rather than subjectively. —LactoseTIT 04:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me the link. (Wikimachine 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: At best it's a content dispute, not vandalism.  In fact, though, it's sourced information that you are removing.  For the link, just click on the category page itself and follow it to the definition.  I'm fine with removing it if you show how it doesn't follow the criteria, but you're not even attempting to find out how Wikipedia classifies inclusion to that category. —LactoseTIT 04:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It is sourced.  As for NPOV, I agree that it's not a good idea to start out the article with this, but it's a valid category for someone interesting in finding similar people (i.e. people making political points through violence), just like the "Independence activist" category is valid for finding others involved in similar activities, violent or not. —LactoseTIT 04:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just making a racist attack (by the way I've reported so let's see). According to your definition, all of the independence activists around the globe would be considered terrorists, which is simply not true. (Wikimachine 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see Ghandi.  Independence activism need not involve politically motivated violence in violation of the laws in the region.  Again, if you have a dispute with the criteria, please post it. —LactoseTIT 04:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor does it not "not". You brought the changes, you validate your changes, I don't have burden of proof over what you change. (Wikimachine 04:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to wonder, have you yet read the criteria?  Just post the one(s) with which you disagree. —LactoseTIT 04:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization policies

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: edit warring

message: 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)
thread_title: Lactose's Vandalism

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Jung-geun&diff=next&oldid=160343798
For his actions as a resistance fighter 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)
replies: text: Pro-Japanese editors often do this to discredit the article 0_o Good friend100 17:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, I don't understand this particular "FACT" tag. 

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

text: As noted, An was not an independence activist. Can you show me anything that he did to bring independence to Korea beyond killing Ito? I have shown how he fits the bill for nationalist. Perhaps English is not your first language and you do not understand the difference between the two phrases/words, but in any case your 'case' is really coming down to your stamping your feet and pouting that you haven't gotten your way.
Again, its right to compromise, its wrong to give in to biased editors who think that "independence activist" is pro-Korean. Pretty twisted if you look at it that way. Good friend100 (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, "nationalist" suggests that Ahn was only working for his country and to promote his country. Thats true to a certain degree, but I don't think Ahn was promoting his country when his country didn't even have a self-governing political system. He never went around making speeches about how great he was. Working as an independence activist doesn't mean that he's a nationalist. Good friend100 (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already shown quotes from An and why he fits nationalist (Which does not mean that you have to have an existing nation-state if you bothered to read the definition, nor does it mean self-promotion) but you STILL have not shown why you think An is not a nationalist except to claim that by saying so we are somehow pro-Japanese can calling An a terrorist. We haven't called An a terrorist, we HAVE reached a consensus that you refuse to accept. POV, QED. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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

message: * http://aboutjapan.japansociety.org/content.cfm/hero
chew on that one, its from japan society for teachers to teach about Japanese history. Good friend100 (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: even the use of the word nationalism counts as reference to " independence activist", just that nationalism can be confused with two separate meanings... D-: o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh goodie, you found a website! And one with some very glaring errors at that (Emperor Ito?!). But, if you didn't notice, "If sources for both can be found, then both will be included." So source and include. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  emperor ito? wtf are you talkin about? go read it again, pal// o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  *Ahem* Summative Activity Ideas.
1. Imagine you are Emperor Ito Hirobumi (ca. 1905) as you look at his picture on the 1000 yen bill.  Write at least two reasons why it is a good idea for Japan to continue to occupy and acquire other territories.
You were saying? --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  It's a naming error, slow the *&^% down and read the whole thing. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  refer to this :  Ito Hirobumi, who was the first Prime Minister of Japan, was instrumental in the colonization of Korea from 1905 to 1909 and in 1910 Korea was officially annexed as a colony. For his leading role in Japanese history from the mid-1860s until his death in 1909, Hirobumi was considered a hero by many Japanese, but was assassinated in October 1909 by a Korean independence activist named An Jung-geun, who was later caught and hanged. Hirobumi’s image was on the 1000 yen bill for a number of years and An Jung-geun is considered a hero and martyr by many Korean people and is remembered in two exhibits at the Independence Hall of Korea (museum of independence history).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odst (talk • contribs) 02:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read it and as I posted, the original compromise was that if sources could be found for both, BOTH would be posted with sources. While I cannot think much of a source that confuses the Resident-General of Korea with the Emperor of Japan, it IS a legit source. Hence my comment about sourcing and posting. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  pfft obviously it was just a silly mistake, since there are two statements( " emperor hirobumi" and "prime minister hirobumi") contradict each other. logically, I would refer to the main article, and not that school resource material. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much of a source then is it if it can't be bothered with simple proof reading? The whole page is a school resource material, it's meant as a lesson plan.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the compromise? Nationalist and independence activist has essentially the same meaning, and It's just that nationalism is pften confused as chauvinism. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, "Advanced" and "Invaded" essentially means the same things as well, but I condemned Japan for putting advanced into its textbooks when talking about its invasion of China during the 30's.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and your point is? o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That attempting to label someone, or something, another word because it sounds 'nicer' is wrong. Saying that calling someone a Nazi is nowadays insulting does not mean we should find a new term for Hitler. Ito was an imperialist of the first order, just because he is a hero to the Japanese does not mean we shouldn't call him that either. An was a nationalist. Saying we should call him an "Independence activist" because "Nationalist" has a negative connotation in English currently misses the point that he was a nationalist WITH all that negative connotation.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Wonderful, that's what I wanted to hear from you. That explains your motives. I will now resume my unilateral edits. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 04:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly suggest you don't. You've already been reported for 6RR violation, there's no point in adding to the offense. Pairadox (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Also, it's not the case of negative or positive connotation, but rather the issue of clear definition. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, sadly there seems to be a large lack of definitions for independence activist. One would almost think it was being made up. Nationalist though, well, we have some good definitions for that, which An fits. So the clearer definition would be nationalist.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: It was actually User:Cydevil38 who added the phrasing and citation; I've left a note on his/her talk page about this discussion. Pairadox (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Cydevil38, the issue is whether or not the citation supports the claim. Appletrees has provided evidence that it does not. Can you provide a passage from the book that shows it does? If not, then I'd have to agree with Appletrees that it needs to be removed. Your reasoning is not sufficient. Pairadox (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cont- The source for that was An's own essay, "On Peace in East Asia" which he started on shortly before his execution. While it doesn't use the term, the writings seem to dovetail nicely with the description given by the WikiP article. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. It seems the ideals were there, even if the wording isn't. Unless further evidence is provided, "Pan-Asianist" should not be used, but alternate wording to reflect the above should be found and used in it's place. Pairadox (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: There's already a notation in the article about how An admired the Meiji Emperor. The source used was pretty explicit that An more or less believed the imperial rescripts that Meiji issued during the Russo-Japanese War, the Sino-Japanese War, and about Korea. An felt that Meiji was a Pan-Asianist and wanted Korean independence, which is why deceiving the Meiji Emperor was one of the 'charges' An leveled at Ito and used as justification to kill him. Now whether that translates into worship... I don't know, however the source being used is written in classical Chinese (Which makes since given An was supposed to be a scholar) and I cannot read it. I'm hoping that Limited200802th can clarify it. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe post a request as Wikipedia talk:Translation or even China for a translation? I do think that the lede should be returned to the simple form it had before this latest change and the new wording should be moved to the body of the article. There's already been discussion that his beliefs need to be exanded upon and this is a perfect fit for that. As it stands now, the placement and wording does give undue weight to one of the three descriptors. Pairadox (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a request on the language help desk page, here's hoping they can get back to us. In the meantime, I restored the original wording for the three descriptors, but kept the references in the hopes that eventually we'll learn where the worship thing came from. I've also added in a section on An's pan-Asianism with the source that I have. Those folks with the other ones, please add to it. Finally, I fleshed out some of An's biography (Korean speakers, could someone add in the Korean text for Father Wilhem's Korean name?). Hopefully this restores the balance to the article.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: Thanks to the helpful people at the language desk, we have the preface translated:
    
On East Ocean Peace: Preface
    Success-unification and loss-breaking apart are eternal rules of change. In today's world, the East and West hemispheres are separated, and the different races are all different. They compete with each other, as if it was a daily meal. They research into dangerous weapons, above agriculture and commerce. New inventions such as electric cannons, flying boats or submarines are all machines that maim people and destroy life. The youths are trained to fight in fields of battle, many valuable lives are thrown away like sacrificial animals. So much so that we have rivers of blood and fields of flesh, which never ends. Naturally, humans value their lives and abhor death. What would a peaceful and orderly world look like? This thought chills my heart and bones. Fundamentally, from ancient times, the East Ocean people focus on literature and keep to their own country, and have never invaded Europe. On the five continents, man and beast, plant and water all know this. However, in the last few centuries, the European powers have forgotten their morals, and dedicate their time to violence, so as to create a spirit of competition and lose all inhibition. Among these, Russia takes it to the extreme. Their violence kills everywhere, in both Europe in the west and Asian in the east. Their evil fills up and their crime overflows. Gods and men are all angry.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Need_some_help_on_classical_Japanese.2FChinese
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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: PLEASE let's not start this one again. Look, the compromise was that both would be included if both could be sourced, both were with reliable sources. There's no need to stir up this hornets' nest again unless you happen to have some really good sources that say why the phrase independence activist is better than nationalist. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To anon, just accept the current description about him because apparently this page is not only for Korean people. I think labeling as nationalist is way better than terrorist in the past dispute caused by whom potential socks,  and . I would welcome them if they join in Wikipedia again though, really.--Appletrees (talk) 13:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's wrong even to say it that way, I don't think it has anything to do with the Korean people; as i've been under the impression that An assassinated Hirobumi under his own decision. It may be somewhat acceptable to call him a terrorist or assassin, but Jusenkyoguide was able to tell us why nationalist is on there. "to have some really good sources that say why the phrase independence activist is better than nationalist." obviously our good friend Jusenkyoguide either objects to the use of "independence activist", or supports "nationalist" and maybe both. Needless to say, I think this has nothing to do with neutrality. If I am speaking to people that can properly comprehend the english language, then it should have been enough that Nationalist is an unacceptable word for a controversial study. Why?? simply because of its ambiguity. The sources that label him as a nationalist is not incorrect; it is properly used in its pure definition. I don't know why you object to independence activist, but you certainly do not have, should i say, "pure" motives. In Korea there's a cliche "can't cover shit and piss"... That attempting to label someone, or something, another word because it sounds 'nicer' is wrong. Saying that calling someone a Nazi is nowadays insulting does not mean we should find a new term for Hitler. Ito was an imperialist of the first order, just because he is a hero to the Japanese does not mean we shouldn't call him that either. An was a nationalist. Saying we should call him an "Independence activist" because "Nationalist" has a negative connotation in English currently misses the point that he was a nationalist WITH all that negative connotation.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are o.d.s.t. and I claim my 5 pounds. If you have bothered to go through this argument you should have noticed that I have already posted a dictionary definition of nationalist and have posted reasons why An fit the bill as such. Nationalist is not ambiguous in any shape or form. Independence activist, IMO, is as we still do not have a definition of such a phrase, but either way we do have sources that label An as both and I am content with that. I am going to ask you nicely to stop here with the personal attacks. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, it is, but my browser's gone haywire and my signature does not show up... sorry about the confusion...
Back to business; rather a personal attack, i like to call it "constructive criticism". I apologize if my comments offended you, but I hold no quarter for lack of intelligence . clear to point out is that you are aware that the word "nationalist" associates with "negative connotation"s, as you have put it, and maybe that is clearly why you advocate its use. Otherwise, there would not be a hare-brained objection against its removal. if you look at a Thesaurus, Chauvinism is considered a synonym of nationalism, and we all know what that means.
*na·tion·al·ism      [nash-uh-nl-iz-uhm, nash-nuh-liz-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.	national spirit or aspirations.
2.	devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism.
3.	excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
4.	the desire for national advancement or independence.
5.	the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
6.	an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation.
7.	a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation.
drawn from 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)

text: Calling a spade a spade is correct usage. Again, I have shown you where An is called a nationalist by some honored historians. I have shown you An's own writings that show a nationalistic bent. I have asked for a definition of independence activist because we don't have one, and finally, I direct you to your own writings. To wit: on a nation's hero, thereby whitewashing and euphemizing the acts of Hirobumi and his commonwealth. Clearly, this is an affront to moral rectitude. Nation's hero? Whitewashing? Moral rectitude? This is an encyclopedia, not your soap box to whine about Japanese atrocities during its colonization of Korea. Just because he was a hero to YOU does not mean he wasn't a nationalist. An was many things, a nationalist, racist, pan-Asianist, and possibly rather naive. He was also someone who felt strongly about his homeland and wanted to fight for it. It is not OUR place to call him a hero or say what Japan did was bad, just to note what he was. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  did i say anything about my opinions? I don't think i ever mentioned anything about Japanese atrocities, or anything of a hero to me. What happened in the pas t is beyond my concern. I personally think that he was an idiot, but there was an order of merit bestowed upon him by South Korea. What you percieve as my little tantrum is actually a piece of your imagination. And you think Nationalist has a negative connotation. That only explains your talks against the use of "independece activist". I'm pretty sure if it was up to you, you would remove "independence activist", ref or not.  He was, in fact, a nationalist, but i think you are missing point. The use by accredited historians of the word nationalist was pointed to An's desire for independence, not his necessarily his chauvinistic attitude.  Many bios of Hirobumi omit An's name and just say that he was assassinated by "a nationalist", and it should make sense that it meant the same as the "nationalist" used to describe gavrilo princip. And if he was a Pan-asianist, it would make no sense for him to assassinate Ito Hirobumi. 71.134.59.163 (talk) 04:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  nationalist