Talk:Kim Ku

message: Move to Kim Gu?
*Oppose - seems less popular and less correct. violet/riga (t) 18:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed move

message: Per arguments given above, I have requested that this page be moved to Kim Ku.  -- Visviva 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 07:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: For those who can't figure out how to access "Report from acting administrator Hagihara Moriichi of Inchon Consulate on current situation of Inchon".
# Access Japan Center for Asian Historical Records
# Enter the reference code "A04010024500" into Basic Search edit box and push "Go" button.
# Push "Browse Image" Button.
# If you have the DjVu plugin installed, newly opened window should display the document.
# If not, the browser starts to download a .djvu file. Cancel it.
# 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)
thread_title:  How to access "Report from acting administrator Hagihara Moriichi of Inchon Consulate on current situation of Inchon" 

message: 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)
thread_title: Using of the words, 'God and He'

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: KoreanSentry - why should I even respond to such a blatant single purpose account that leaves personal attacks on my talk page?  119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: ...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)
replies: text:  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" 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Dishonesty 

message: I have removed this from the introduction:
:Kim Gu is referred to as the father of the nation in the Republic of Korea.
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)
replies: text: put by — Revi 09:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father of the Nation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Romanization 

message: 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.  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)
replies: text: I think you've covered the issue with that section.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kim as a terrorist 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date format 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Importance