Talk:Kim Gu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Map of Korea This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea (History), a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Proposed move

Move to Kim Gu?

  • Oppose - seems less popular and less correct. violet/riga (t) 18:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 18:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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)
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)

[edit] POV

Kmlawson: I think we need to remove some of the strong Korean nationalist elements of this article. Also, there should be more discussion of the fact that Kim Ku was a powerful leader of a terrorist organization, whose bombings, assasinations, and other terrorism was important in the Korean nationalist movement for independence.

His role in early postwar involvement in assasinations of other politicians might also be discussed...suffice to say, he is not an uncontroversial figure.

However you may note that his "terrorism" almost always targetted non-civilians, under tyrannical Japanese occupation. It's same as arguing whether Paul Revere was a freedom fighter or terrorist.

He was the head of provisional government and the assasinating was the act of war against empire of Japan. Because his government was officially in war against Japan. Would you say someone a 'terrorist' if he was the member of provisional government of the French Republic and he assasinated Nazi officials during World War II? --141.213.66.217 22:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree: Kim Gu was not a terrorist. He never targetted civilians, only Japanese military leaders, and he was engaged in an open war against the empire of Japan.
Kim Gu was no more a terrorist than Admiral Nimitz, who had Yamamoto shot down.68.30.65.61 04:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that Kim Gu killed a Japanese Civilian before he fled. He had a strong hatred toward any person who happens to be a Japanese. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.37.198.125 (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
That's the Japanese charge. Kim Ku claims that the Japanese person he killed was involved in the murder of the Korean Empress. It seems unlikely that a company employee commoner on a business trip would be carrying around a japanese sword as all records indicate. It's also highly unlikely that official japanese accounts obtained after usual police interrogation methods would be reflective of objective truth. Circumstantial evidence may be more objective in this particular case. Melonbarmonster 17:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
As described in the main article, there is no evidence that Tsuchida was not involved in the assassination of Empress Myungsung.. Also, historical evidences including Baekboem Ilji show that he was disguised as a Korean in Chihapo, Hwanghae Province. Korean historians found that the Nagasaki-based organization to which Tsuchida belonged might have been involved in the assassination of the queen. I did not add this information to the main article in order not to cause any more controversy to this article as this was found by Korean historians, but willing to do it if necessary. At the very least, Kim and Korean people at the time believed the killing was revenge for the Korean queen, as illustrated by the prompt pardon from the Emperor Kwangmoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkwon (talk • contribs) 02:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

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

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

[edit] Category:Terrorists

While I note that the POV issues noted above have not been addressed yet, I don't think the problem is addressed by simply adding POV from the other side. The inclusion of this article in Category:Terrorists is highly problematic, and is not supported by any information currently in the article. Unless the article explains how and in what way Kim Ku has been labeled a terrorist in a reliable source, it makes no sense for this article to be included in that category. I think the category tag should be removed, but I'd like other editors' opinions. Cheers, -- Visviva 07:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Tsuchida

Report from acting administrator Hagihara Moriichi of Inchon Consulate on current situation of Inchon, dated 1896.04.24 has details of the murder of Tsuchida. Where he is described as ’a commoner from Nagasaki prefecture' (p.6) and 'an employee of a Nagasaki trader on a business trip' (p.7). You can read it at The Japan Center for Asian Historical Records (JACAR) if you can read Japanese. The reference code is A04010024500. --Kusunose 08:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

No one's responded to my previous comment about my edit. If anyone objects please state them here for further discussion otherwise I will go ahead and make the edit. As I've stated before, there's nothing about the Japanese reference that states Tsuchida was a commoner on a business trip that precludes him from being involved with the murder of the Empress. It's been pointed out that Korean records state that the reason why Tsuchida was believed to be an army lieutenant is from his sword and id. Without further information, it's not inconceivable that Tsuchida had previous military connections or engagements or that he was involved in the murder of the Empress. From what we have so far, Japanese and Korean accounts are not mutually exclusive. Melonbarmonster 06:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Remove tag: "Murderer"

I think the tag "Murderer" should be removed. Certainly Kim Gu was responsible for his fair share of killings, but since the killings were politically-motivated, they were not murders, but rather assassinations. joo-yoon 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that his action was an assassination. WordNet gives a definition for assassination as "murder of a public figure by surprise attack". Tsuchida was not a public figure whether he was a commoner or an army lieutenant. In any case, assassination is a type of murder. --Kusunose 14:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
You should be very careful about calling someone a murderer because it has a very negative meaning. Don't try to justify your argument with some sentences of definition in dictionary but USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. No responsible historian can call him murderer. --Crmtm 18:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
He killed Japanese civilian Josuke Tsuchida. Therefore, he is classified by the murderer. --Azukimonaka 12:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
That's some Japanese views of incident. The article in Wikipedia should not be slanted. --Crmtm 14:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Korean people who killed the Japanese is not a murderer. I cannot agree to your insistence. --Azukimonaka 19:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Like I said before, almost no histrian claim him as a murderer. A term 'murderer' should be used very carefully for the important political figures. --Crmtm 18:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
In your theory, Azukimonaka, then all soldiers must be murderers. Right? Come on, stop with your obvious pro-Japanese bias. --DandanxD 12:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Itō Hirobumi, a prominent Japanese politician of the era, burned the British Consulate in Japan in 1862. I don't see him classified as a "Japanese Arsonist".

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

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

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

Kusunose 14:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)