Talk:An Jung-geun/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

This article is on 2channel's watchlist

No wonder this article may have a long history of edit warring because it has controversial issues itself and has been designated as one on the watchlist by Japanese editors deeply associated with 2channel, the largest Internet forum not only in Japan but also in the world. The watch list encompasses throughout articles related to Japan and Korea and some of China. Unfortunately, many Japanese meat/sock puppets related to the board have been deeply involved in editing those articles. Therefore, I leave a note for people to be cautious in future. You can see the whole list as clicking the collapsed box.

• Relevant articles.
  • Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets (in WP:ANI archive380)
  • Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21 (diff 1diff 2)
  • Special:Whatlinkshere(see the RFCU and SSP files)

● refers to problematic articles by 2channel people
○ for articles with heated edit warring

I quote a famous phrase of George Santayana for everyone who read the thread, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' I hope everything is clear soon. --Appletrees (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption of bad faith on the part of Japanese editors is really, really unwelcome here. Pairadox (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I put the recent discussion back because it is not finished yet. I think you can be "very" generous even if you have been watched and stalked by them for over 3 months. What I'm saying is sadly true. It is not my assumption, so visit and read the relevant contents if you care. I don't want your welcome. I care more about Korean editor who don't know this--Appletrees (talk) 18:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove the links of the recent discussions? See the Talk:Liancourt_Rocks/Archive_17. I left them here because if someone do feel that the discussions are not over, they can add their thoughts to the sections. Why do you accuse me of doing a bad faith? You're the one doing such. I don't impose anything to the threads. --Appletrees (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

<!--Due to the lack of good faith shown in these archives, it is best to use the "move procedure" (see [[Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure]]) when creating archives of this talk page. Moving will move the edit history of the talk page to the archive so making it easier to prove that the archive is a true copy of what was said.-->

Pairdox, if you said the "bad faith" because of the hidden comment, I say, it was copied and pasted exactly from the talk page of Liancourt Rocks. It is nothing but speaking of how to archive a talk page. So I want you to retract your "bad faith" comment on me. --Appletrees (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Lead-in Re-write Proposal

I'm moving this from the above terrorist section to here and asking for an rfc to get comments on it and hopefully reach some sort of consencus. The current sentence reads "Ahn Jung-geun or An Jung-geun (September 2, 1879 - March 26, 1910) (Baptismal name: Thomas) was a Korean independence activist, nationalist, and pan-Asianist." with multiple refrence notes. I feel that this lead in is both unwieldy in terms of style as well as un-helpful to a reader who would not know why there seems to be so many different descriptives of An, some of which could be seen as contradictory, especially if the above terrorist lable is added. I propose that we should consider doing away with all the descriptives leaving "... a Korean who assassinated the first Prime Minister of Japan, Itō Hirobumi..." and adding a section about the different compeating views of An and his actions where all sides could be presented. This would, I think, remove the clutter in the intro and allow both sides to present their case without the constant fighting that has become a hallmark of this article. I think that said section would present (In alphabetical order), professional historians' view, Japanese view, and Korean view of An and his actions, all sourced of course.

I ask for an rfc because this article has had a history of back and forth and I would like some outside editors to comment on the idea. So what say you? --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. Elmor_rus (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• I don't agree. The lead section plays a very important role to introduce following contents to any article itself and to readers, so that summary and little description should be remained. If the lead section looks awkward, rewriting may be be necessary, however, deleting the info from the lead and moved to subsection is not a good solution. That would leave like "Ahn who assassinated Ito...nothing else." --Caspian blue (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: 1901 Crimes Cat

This article does fit in the category. Assassination is of course illegal. Furthermore, it seems to be a Wiki standard to include the year　+ crime as a category. Looking at the assassinations of Lincoln, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., McKinley, Gandhi, and Archduke Franz Ferdinand all include the category of *year* Crimes. It would seem logical to include this article in the category then.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Assassins of heads of government

When Ito was assassinate in 1909, he was not a head of government. Taro Katsura was the Prime Minister of Japan between 1908 and 1911. Therefore "Category:Assassins of heads of government" is incorrect. Hkwon (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Japanese quotation

この本の結びで伊藤之雄氏は「伊藤は、韓国の秩序ある近代化を望んだ。しかし、異文化間の相互理解は困難で、伊藤の韓国統治は、韓国の収奪・併合への一歩として、多くの韓国人から反発・警戒された」と書き、「安重根が伊藤の理想を十分に理解出来ずに、伊藤の暗殺に至ったのだとしても」、「異文化間の相互理解はかなり困難で」あるので、安重根を責めるべきでないと書いている。

— 和田春樹

It's a nice quotation, however, this ain't the Japanese wikipedia, could we please get an English translation? --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing article for B class per request at WikiProject Biography

I have reviewed this article for B class and DECLINED it. In my opinion it is still a C class article. To reach B class it needs to address the following concerns:

• The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. - The article is over-referenced in some areas (notably the lead paragraph) while other sections (Pan-Asianism, Early Accounts, In Popular Culture) include multiple possibly controversial facts that are not referenced.
• The article has a defined structure. - Some sections of the article are organised chronologically, while others (Pan-Asianism) appear to be placed haphazardly.
• The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. - The infobox is incomplete and missing key information like date of birth, date of death. Images are missing alt and rollover text and are not always descriptively captioned.
• The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. - This is borderline, but the article contains a very high ratio of non-English text. While the use of some Japanese characters is almost certainly appropriate in this article you may wish to consider whether there are alternative ways of presenting this information without breaking the paragraph flow with hiragana etc.
  

For these reasons I have declined to rate the article B class for WikiProject Biography. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - After checking that WikiProject Korea has identical requirements for B class, I have delisted the article back to C class in that project too. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Erecting/Electing a memorial hall

I would like to apologize to User:Jusenkyoguide that I wrongfully considered his/her valid correction of my spelling error as a silly vandalism, saying it was an immature behavior, and to User:Kusunose for his/her trouble to correct my mistake. I mistakenly assumed the word "erection" as a mockery associated with Penile erection. My apologies again. Hkwon (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, not everyone here is a native English speaker and erect does have a, ah, more well known an titillating connotation. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding content

QUOTE: "While fleeing from the Japanese, An took refuge with a French priest of the Catholic Church in Korea named Wilhelm" - Wilhelm is a German name, and is the equivalent of "William" in English. Can someone verify that this particular French person was either one named Wilhelm, or two French? I would just like to make sure, and I do see that there is a citation that follows that particular paragraph. ("William" would be "Guillaume" in French.) -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Kang, J. (2007, p.129). Modern History of Korea 5 (한국 근대사 산책). Seoul: Korea. Inmulgwa Sasang. "An Jung Geun was baptized in January 1897 when his father An Tae Hoon invited Nicolas Joseph Marie Wilhelm, a French Catholic priest, to baptize 36 people including his family members." I don't know much about European naming conventions, but the book and a few other sources pronounces the priest's name "빌렘; simialr to "bill-rem" in American English. Hkwon (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

re: An's Religion & Family

References (in Korean, but you can use Google to translate the pages to get the gist of the articles):

http://enc.daum.net/dic100/contents.do?query1=10XXXXX831

http://mtcha.com.ne.kr/koreaman/sosun/man88-anjunggun.htm

The article states that he found Catholicism while hiding out in a church, but according to Korean references, An was actually born in a devoted Roman Catholic family, and his Catholic name was "Thomas". His family was very religious that he decided to follow in their footsteps and attended a Catholic school and studied theology and French.

Also, I think it's worth to add onto the article that An's parent were An Tae-Hoon and Jo Maria, and his childhood name was "Eung-Chul". An Jung-Geun is also referred to as "An Jung-Geun Thomas" and "Thoma-An Jung-Geun". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.87.171 (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a new section "Religion" and revised the article according to your comments. Hkwon (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently some Korean Catholics want him to be canonized[2].--T. Anthony (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

An vs. Ahn

I suggest that we use the spelling "Ahn" throughout the article and in the title as the default spelling, as it is more immediately recognizable as a name, as opposed to "An". Wikipedia's entry on the Korean name 안 uses Ahn as the default spelling. I understand that the Revised Romanization and the McCune–Reischauer method specify that "An" is the correct romanization, however this creates an erratic reading experience. I don't have enough edits to make the title change. Anyhow, I thought it would be best to post here to see what the Wikipedia audience thinks. Davidyhlee (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC) @davidyhlee 28 Sep 2010

I think so as well. Most Koreans spell their names as Ahn, not An. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.209.143.171 (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Admiring Meiji

Preempting this, as citied, the source, "Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World, 1852-1912", by noted professor emeritus of Columbia University Donald Keene, has this to say on page 664: "An was not anti-Japanese. The man he most admired was undoubtedly Emperor Meiji, and one of his most vehement accusations against Ito Hirobumi was that he had intentionally deceived the emperor, who desired not the subjugation of Korea but peace in East Asia and Korean independence." (Italics mine)

It further states, "An urged a sympathetic Japanese prosecutor not to worry about whether or not he would be condemned to death; all he asked was that the emperor of Japan be told why he had committed the crime. He was sure that if the emperor realized how mistaken Ito's polices had been, he would understand An's actions and rejoice."

There is the source of that statement, it's not one needing citation, it has been cited and is using a valid source. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You should've inserted to "the relevant page numbers" to prevent any confusion when you cite a source. Now you we can clarify the claim as "According to Donald Keene, author of "Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World, 1852-1912", Ahn admired blah blah..", or "Donald Keene argues that...." Thank you for the hard work.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For those who want to know, the quote is page 664, as noted above. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@Jussenkyoguide, are you a puppet from 2ch? I have been very interested in the Japan vs. Korea fight... (Sorry if I am breaking rules... I am new... But I have some considerable knowledge) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokyroad (talk • contribs) 03:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article has a "neutrality disputed" tag, but I don't understand what the dispute is. Seemingly the dispute is between Korean and Japanese users evaluating An Jung-Geun. But it looks like the article is reasonably balanced in terms of contents and references, and there is no particular dispute concerning at this time. I propose to gather a consensus and delete "neutrality disputed" tag. Hkwon (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it seems far too pro-korean and anti-Japanese at the moment. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Specifically what part of this article is "too pro-Korean and anti-japanese"? Specify if there exist any contents like that. The article's pro-Japanese contents include the statement that An was an admirer of Japanese emperor, records of sympathetic treatment by Japanese captors, and categorization as "Korean assasins" and "Nationalist assassins". Hkwon (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that whole thing about admiring the Japanese emperor and the overemphasis of An Jung-geun *not* being anti-Japanese is just weird. Akkies (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well. the whole thing will most likely make a majority of Koreans (who admire An) explode. But it seems to be based on verifiable, reliable historical studies, has not been rebutted so far, and still included this article. This is the reason why I say this article is neutral. Hkwon (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I included it because it does go against the usual SOP of an assassin, it shows how An's actions and motovations are not nearly so cut and dried as people (on both sides) would assume. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hkwon It doesn't seem to be neutral of the description.--Siegmk2 (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

To Siegmk2: Since I am so ignorant, could you kindly explain to me the meaning of your phrase "neutral of the description" to which any search engines including Google could not find an expression even remotely similar? Does that mean "Hkwon doesn't seem to be neutral", "Hkwon is not neutral about the description", "The description is not neutral", or something else? Exactly how not neutral about what description? You are confusing an ignorant user here. Hkwon (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, tsk...what horrible grammar. Oh my, Siegmk2, oh my. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.4.43 (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This Article is Anti-Japanese

Before I came and edited it, this article was anti-Japanese and distorted the facts. An Jung-geun was a TERRORIST, not a FREEDOM FIGHTER! Somebody needs to get historical facts right, and it certainly isn't Korea. Japan rescued Korea from Russia and Qing China; Japan modernized Korea and the Koreans were better off under Japan than they would ever be under China or Russia or even their own leaders at the turn of the 20th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.4.43 (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, how funny? You claim that this article is anti-Japanese while you clearly demonstrate anti-Korean sentiment along with distorted views in history. Way to prove your bias and your confused views on what is considered to be "neutrality". Did you even study history? This type of opinion filled with stupidity isn't even needed in this talk forum. I just looked at your "history" of edits on wikipedia. You clearly edited and deleted numerous information on the Korea-Japan topic and failed to even back any of them with proof. The only argument you have is "all these are anti-Japanese propaganda" bring proof that it is, you ignorant tool.

Tool? You think I'm a tool? You are the only person posting ad hominems against another Wikipedian on this thread. I have never made a bad statement about Koreans; that's like saying "Because you support Puerto Rico being a territory of the U.S., you must hate Puerto Ricans!" As for An Jung-geun, the issue on this thread, he was a murderer. He assassinated a Japanese official; he was also a terrorist because he wished to strike terror into Japan, and he carried out the assassination in a public place. Now, I don't support the death penalty, so I don't think An should have been executed. He should have gotten life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or something like that. But to claim him as a national hero for carrying out an act of murder? That's pure Japan-bashing. Say what you will about "the Japanese are stupid and don't know any history!", but they don't use their war memorials to put down Koreans. Nowhere in the much-vilified Yasukuni Shrine is there a memorial celebrating the death of a Korean (in fact, many of the spirits housed at Yasukuni are Koreans). Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has never asked the U.S. to help build a memorial commemorating the death of Koreans like President Park asked China to help build a memorial to An Jung-geun. Just ponder that, please. Just ponder that. Good day to you, sir.

If Adolf Hitler was assassinated in his life, would you call his assassin a terrorist? No, the entire world would call him a hero. That's what An Jung-geun is. This proves how much of a Nazi fascist country Japan still is. Nothing has changed before and since WWII!

Oh god the ignorance in this thread. >Calling article anti-Japanese >Blatantly states An is a terrorist and not a freedom fighter despite the fact that he literally committed his act for independence of his country and to attempt to prevent the annexation of Korea. Also, terrorist argument doesn't work for this case as he clearly aimed at his target for valid reasons and did not cause collateral damage. >Logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.5.72 (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on An Jung-geun. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cbck.or.kr/eng/ccik/history_07.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Terrorist

I think we should add that An was a terrorist. See this source: [3]. Perhaps, the article should begin like this: "An Jung-geun<...> was a Korean independence activist, nationalist,, pan-Asianist or a terrorist (depends on a point of view)".Elmor_rus (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is funny you're finding your ground from a "North Korean" site. This current description is a compromised version for a long time. Well, this is a long time tendentious baiting, so I will let my Project member of this. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The compromise was for sourced words only. It's a source, instead of dismissing it out of hand, it should be looked at, even if you disagree with what it says. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not every source have its validity. You know that. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that this one is not valid? Elmor_rus (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You know the answer already. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But why? It`s the article at the South Korean human rights site. Why can`t it be used as a valid source? Elmor_rus (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did not know that it is from South Korean site. However, the currently attached sources are not just "sources" from somewhere. That is either from rather "neutral sites". We will get more opinions from people on this. Please be patient (though it is not much different from the last-year disputes).--Caspian blue (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the words is that a "terrorist" commits acts of violence in order to terrorize (scare) civilians, usually seeking some political outcome. An does not seem to be one to me, even though he was a murderer. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying that he was a terrorist doesnt work at all. If you want it that way, we might as well describe Imperial Japan as murderers, rapists, torturers, since they were all that. Good friend100 (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, some of them were murderers, rapists and torturers. But we are talking about An, don`t we? Don`t you think that killing politicians is terrorism? An killed Ito because he wanted Emperor Meiji to proclaim Korea an independent state, so he was seeking for political outcome. Elmor_rus (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a terrorist and an assassin are equally bad. Terrorism says: "Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants." Assassination says: "Assassination is the targeted killing of a high-profile person.[1] An added distinction between assassination and other forms of killing is that the assassin (one who performs an assassination) usually has an ideological or political motivation, though many assassins (especially those not part of an organization) also demonstrate insanity." So take your pick. :-) -Steve Dufour (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that what we are doing now is called original research. There is a source in which An is called "terrorist". If you have no objections about its authority, than, in my opinion, we can add it to the article. Elmor_rus (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

how is defining two words "original research"? An, by definition, is not a terrorist. When in his life, did An detonate a bomb in the public to throw a scare? Good friend100 (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Elmor rus appears to be not neutral on this, given the information.[4]--Caspian blue (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Please notice two things:

1. The sentence near Ito`s portait in my Russian user page is translated as "This user is interested in Ito Hirobumi`s personality".
2. Please, comment on content, not on the contributor. Elmor_rus (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read what is a personal attack or not. That is just a simple fact that you're not a neutral on this. However, you falsely accuse me which is a real personal attack to me. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think it was offensive, then I apologize for it. Elmor_rus (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, just about everyone working on this article is netural. In any case, getting back to the problem at hand (Ain't vacations wonderful?), and not commenting on the validity of the source, I think that adding terrorist to the opening makes for way too many discriptions of An. We're already at 4 different ones with different sources backing up the claims. It's becoming a poster case for bad writing. Perhaps we should consider doing away with all the descriptives leaving "... a Korean who assassinated the first Prime Minister of Japan, Itō Hirobumi..." and adding a section about the different compeating views of An and his actions where both (or more) sides could be presented? This would, I think, remove the clutter in the intro and allow both sides to present their case without the constant fighting that has become a hallmark of this article. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for this solution. Elmor_rus (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I picked out the opinions about An Jung-geun into a separate ssection. Elmor_rus (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

As much as I think An was a terrorist and deserved to be executed for his evil crime, it is against wikipedia's policy to use the word terrorist. However the term assassin should be added, as he assassinated someone. He is known for being an assassin - in his life he did nothing of note apart from kill someone. But anyway, terrorist - no, due to wikipedia policy. Assassin - yes, it should be added. Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Assassin would be the wrong term. Yes, he DID kill Ito, but An didn't make a living killing people. A sentence saying 'An assassinated Ito' or 'An was Ito's assassin' would be proper, but like John Wilkes Booth or Lee Harvey Oswald, An did do other things beyond kill people (In fact, he only killed one person). BTW, where and when is this policy on not calling anyone a terrorist? --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree the unilateral change by Elmor rus. The lead section holds every aspect from different point of view.

I put a proposal to clean up the awkward intro by moving the different POVs into their own section to allow for expansion, smoothness of reading, and hopefully to stop this silly war. That was up on August 13th, given that you've been active on the article since then, I wouldn't say that Elmor rus did a unilateral change, we've been waiting for comment. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sennen please refrain from saying such. You have a history of edit warring in attempt to insert your POV. By the way, Hirohito has been considered the biggest criminal all time by the Western world, but he was saved by thankfully, US, and got no charge unlike Nazi German, so his article has no such description. How unfair.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I thought there was a consensus. From the beginning: it is not said in the lead section that there is an opinion that An was a terrorist. Can I add this information with the reference I gave above? Elmor_rus (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Problematic, your source is. Technically speaking, we're only supposed to use 'high end' news outlets for biographical information, published books or academic papers would be the best. That said, apparently Internet newspapers do make good sources according to some, so why not? --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a Russian book about Japanese-Russian relations in which it is said that An was a terrorist. Can I use it as a reliable source? Elmor_rus (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:NONENG, we should be using English sources for our material. It should be noted that the subject is Korean and so a lot of what we're posting has already been translated. I'd leave a question about your two sources on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and see what everyone else says about it. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WTF Caspian?? your bias against Japan is absurd.. Don't try to troll and disrupt this talk page with totally unrelated comments about Hirohito, in a weak attempt to prove a point. Also considering you have been blocked more than I have, I don't think you are in a position to say I have a history of edit warring. This discussion page is about An Jung Geun - discuss issues relating to this article and do not troll here again. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

WTF?, usually so typical, goroshil. As for block, you was recently ("just two weeks ago") blocked for your trolling and wrongdoings. I have only said the relevant history to the article, so do not drag your personal issue to the talk page. I have no bias against Japan (I have close Japanese friends) except people like you who constantly show strong anti-Korean sentiment and hostility (chon prostitute, and here). Well, why are you so sensitive at the "comparison" to Hirohito as if you're Japanese or relative of the family? The evaluation is from the the "Western world". You can see that at the talk page of the article. You're the one who should stop your trolling.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? The Western World? I think not. If you asked, Hitler would take the cake as the biggest criminal of all time, followed by Stalin. The Emperor Showa probably wouldn't even register with the bulk of Europeans. That is, of course, neither here nor there, can the two of your kindly comment on the proposed change? --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Stalin, nope. People still do not cope with Communism. If you look at the discussion on the title change at Talk:Hirohito, you will see what I mean. As much as I think An was a terrorist and deserved to be executed for his evil crime --> I just conterresponsed to this malicious accusation to the "Korean martyr". Sometime, comparing something is fun!. :)

People still do not cope with communism?! Right, because all the messes the USSR caused have been cleaned up, The People's Republic of China just went bye-bye after the Olympics, and North Korea is holding free and fair elections tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, they'll be reuniting with the South. And your use of the talk page does not make sense. Now how about actually commenting on the proposal? --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not think he should be labeled as terrorist, for obvious reasons:

1. Imperial Japan lost the war 2. Ahn became national hero for Korean independence movement and provisional Korean government. 3. Korea re-gain independence 4. He did not killed other innocent people but only killed one person in charge of many deaths of innocent Korean people. 5. During the time of imperial Japan, Japanese government terrorized other Asians.--Korsentry 06:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

You have an interesting point of view. Do you consider everyone who murdered someone as a terrorist? Then, Hirobumi is a terrorist as well. He murdered LOTS of Koreans, you know. As for sources, well, there are LOTS of Korean sources stating that not only Hirobumi but also lots of other Japanese are terrorists, assasins, rapists,... Should they be stated terrorists? Not all sources all valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.209.143.171 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that he is NOT a terrorist. The Chinese and Koreans consider him a national hero. The "terrorist" claim is only recently being claimed by Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokyroad (talk • contribs) 03:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay guys. I changed it for you. An was a terrorist who should be reviled for all eternity. Glorious Japan Forever! TENNO HEIKA BANZAI! BANZAI! BANZAI! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.10.154 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That's nice. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you mocking His Majesty the Emperor, Jusenkyoguide? I hope not. Good day to you, sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.182.225.223 (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If Adolf Hitler was assassinated in his life, would you call his assassin a terrorist? No, the entire world would call him a hero. That's what An Jung-geun is. This proves how much of a Nazi fascist country Japan still is. Nothing has changed before and since WWII! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaytin (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That's nice. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

>would you call his assassin a terrorist?

Yes. In any person is the target, it is terrorism definitely illegal to assassinate dignitaries.

Your thought is the same as Osama bin Laden. 18:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on An Jung-geun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140418234712/http://blog.chosun.com/blog.log.view.screen?blogId=73313&logId=4568186 to http://blog.chosun.com/blog.log.view.screen?blogId=73313&logId=4568186
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004134346/http://www.utoronto.ca/csk/Intro_for_A_Treatise_on_Peace_in_the_East.pdf to http://www.utoronto.ca/csk/Intro_for_A_Treatise_on_Peace_in_the_East.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101127214425/http://www.utoronto.ca:80/csk/A_Treatise_on_Peace_in_the_East.pdf to http://www.utoronto.ca/csk/A_Treatise_on_Peace_in_the_East.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported parameters

By looking at the article, we can see that |ethnicity= no longer even displays - it was removed from the template following this RfC. Similarly, per this RfC, the use of |religion= is supported only when that is a defining characteristic of the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on An Jung-geun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004183049/http://aboutjapan.japansociety.org/content.cfm/hero to http://aboutjapan.japansociety.org/content.cfm/hero
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613142445/http://www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/lib/slib/kiyo/Int/it1901/it190110.pdf to http://www.bunkyo.ac.jp/faculty/lib/slib/kiyo/Int/it1901/it190110.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.utoronto.ca/csk/A_Treatise_on_Peace_in_the_East.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Current edit warning

A couple of things to be aware of: The quote calling An a Korean nationalist is lifted directly out of the source, we should not be changing that. Also, the Orient to the Far East (Both take a definite article BTW), while currently the term is the Far East, at the time it would have been the Orient. Unless we have a source that claims otherwise, it would be better to leave the original wording. Actually it needs a source as is. Before engaging in further edit warning, consensus should be reached here first in accordance with Wiki policy. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources provided in this article to support that An is an Korean independent activist. You don't know what you're talking. For the wording in quote, it is only a translation. An Jung-geun didn't speak English. In English, we use Far East not the Orient in such circumstance. It is an obvious misuse of word during translation.钉钉 (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I know what the sources say for nationalist since I've read them. Do not remove anything that is considered a good source under Wiki policy. Now, as for the translation, there's a problem because you've yet to source it for people to check. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The source doesn't need to be English. What's important is what An said. The English translation needs to reflect what he said in a correct manner that fits modern readers. 钉钉 (talk) 06:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually yes, the source SHOULD be in English (Remember this is the English Wiki) unless no English sources are available. Also, you haven't sourced it PERIOD. There's no source for that quote at all. If it's a famous quote, go find it. Furthermore, Wiki's translations guidelines state that translations should be put out for comment first to prevent a user from changing things around on his/her own. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Gunned down/assassinated

@User:Jusenkyoguide, I think "gun down" is a more neutrally descriptive word than "assassinate". The memorial tab China put on the railway station where Ito was killed uses the word “击毙” , which means gun down. This can be seen from this picture File:하얼빈역 1번 플렛폼.JPG. There are also sources using this word. Since there are also sources using assassinate, I'll suggest using "gunned down/assassinated" instead to make the wording impartial. 钉钉 (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The English term is assassinated. Ito was a political figure killed for political reasons. Gunned down would make it sound as if An was a common mugger who attempted to rob Ito. Somehow I doubt that would sit well. If you look at other Wiki pages, they all use assassinated, for example, Lincoln, Kennedy, Gandhi, etc. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"assassinated" should be used for good peoples. For invaders, they can only be killed. I think "shot to death" is a more impartial word than "assassinated". 钉钉 (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

How about murdered in cold blood by a terrorist? See? I can do this too. Now stop, the English term is assassination. Don't believe me? List_of_assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler. I think we can agree that Adolf Hitler was NOT a 'good person' and yet here we are. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Webster Dictionary: "Assassinate - to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons - a plot to assassinate the governor" Assassinate is the proper English term. I also think @Jusenkyoguide has a good counter point - MTWEmperor 15:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTWEmperor (talk • contribs)

Requested move 21 November 2018

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 section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

---

An Jung-geun → Ahn Jung-geun – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. - MTWEmperor 04:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Flooded with them hundreds 17:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking through articles online I've seen both. The family name Wikipedia article is under "Ahn" though it quotes as saying "Ahn, also romanized An, is a Korean family name." Considering either spelling is optional I'm going with "Ahn" as it is much more identifiable and there seems to be agreement on this. I will move the page to reflect this: "Ahn Jung-geun" - MTWEmperor 03:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTWEmperor (talk • contribs)

Apparently I can't since a redirect page already exists. I'm requesting a move for the following reasons:

• According to An (surname), "An" apparently is more indicative of a Chinese surname and this guy is Korean. With the Ahn page iindicating it as a Korean surname.
• According to Ahn either "Ahn" or "An" spelling is acceptable
• Ahn is what the family name paged is spelled as.
• "Ahn" is more identifiable as a name rather than "An"
• Three editors concur on the "Ahn" spelling (including myself) and no current objections
• The whole article is spelled with the "Ahn" spelling and thus "Ahn Jung-geun" as a title would prevent confusion

- MTWEmperor 04:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Most of the books I have seen have him listed as An. TBH, Ahn looks odd to me, not like a name but a mistype on a keyboard. That said, I honestly don't care one way or the other. I will say that looking at the change log, your point about it being spelled Ahn in the article doesn't really work as it gets changed around depending who wandered by that day. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I support MTWEmperor's proposal. "Ahn Jung-geun" is the right spelling. "An" can be an indefinite article. "An Jung-geun" looks odd. 钉钉 (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose At the moment I get 18 Google Books hits for "An Jung-geun" [5]and the same number for "Ahn Jung-geun" [6]. Given that tie, I see no particular policy-based to prefer a non-systemic spelling over a systemic spelling. If someone presented a more detailed analysis of usage in reliable sources I might change my mind, but opinions like "An Jung-geun looks odd" or "Ahn is more identifiable" don't bear any weight without actual evidence. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 07:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Acording to An (surname) the name is in line with many Northern Chinese and the page has a disambiguation link to Ahn. Does this change your mind? Ahn seems to better differentiate him as Korean rather than a Chinese An. - MTWEmperor 14:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Like I said above, what is relevant to this discussion is actual evidence of what reliable sources (particularly major scholarly works) call this man. Without evidence, there is no reason to move away from the systemic spelling. The fact that "An" might be mistaken for a Chinese name is irrelevant: "Jung-geun" is very clearly not a Chinese name, and no one who actually reads this article is going to mistake him for Chinese. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think now he is called as "An Jung-geun" according to Revised Romanization of Korean. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Where? The family page name is Ahn - MTWEmperor 14:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Acording to An (surname) the name is in line with many Northern Chinese and the page has a disambiguation link to Ahn. This guy is Korean. Ahn is better differentiation as to his nationality. - MTWEmperor 14:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTWEmperor (talk • contribs)

If that's your reason for the request, that's really, really silly. Do you think a casual (English) reader is actually going to confuse him with someone from Northern China? Jusenkyoguide (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

---

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.

• He called himself "An Thomas". #1, #2 --Garam (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)