Talk:Yun Bong-gil

Untitled

This article was initiated by some berk who used it to graffiti and use abusive language. Unfortunately instead of using it an dcreating a proper stub the article was speed deleted.

Not a very good idea IMHO. I have therefore recreated the article in stub form Refdoc 19:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An attempt on the Showa Emperor?

The intro to the article states that he attempted to kill the Showa Emperor (Hirohito) but the article mentions he managed to put a bomb into some army food in Shanghai during the emperor's birthday party. Given Showa never went near Shanghai, I'm curious about how this was an attempt on his life. --Jusenkyoguide 11:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Showa Emperor went to Shanghai due to some festival. Yun Bong Gil threw a bomb in an attept to murder him, and failed. As for the army food, the bomb was disguised as a box of army food and a bottle of water. If things had gone right, he was supposed to throw the box and suicide by the bottle of water. He failed, however and uh... was caught by japanese officials. 175.209.143.171 (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalisms masked as POV issues

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. (Wikimachine 21:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Please read the Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion in this rather lenient category. They are particularly slanted toward accepting new entries, with few inclusion criteria. If you disagree with one of the criteria, please discuss which one here you believe is unsatisfied. —LactoseTI^T 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Give me a link to teh guideline. Regardless of how easy it is to include categories, they shouldn't be included if it doesn't fit. Yoon was not a terrorist. Whats your definition of a terrorist? A guy who kills one political person? No, terrorists kill many people at one time, and kill civilians.

Your reasoning is weak and its kind of hard to believe you don't get what I'm saying above. I'm guessing hatred of Korea is stressing you out. Remember when you suggested I was paranoid? Turn around and look at yourself. Good friend100 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The category criteria for inclusion is linked on the category page. If you disagree with any of the criteria listed there, we can discuss it. —LactoseTI^T 02:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You have an interesting point of view. However, you would have to state which part of the article you did not like. Otherwise, your argument is weak, without any sufficent reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.209.143.171 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Lactose's Vandalism

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 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Challenging the source

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't OhmyNews more or less a news wiki? Wouldn't that, like Wikipedia itself, make it a non-acceptable source? --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You always only appear whenever articles of Korean independent activists is changed. Nope, only qualified editors can contribute to writing article. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's called a watchlist, perhaps you've heard of it. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, however, your edits are only limited to as such and the timing is amazingly really quick.--Caspian blue (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, because I only edit those pages after all. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I might have put "mostly" in my comments according to your 19 edits on An Jung-geun, 9 edits on Yoon Bong-gil, and 6 edits on Choe Mu-seon and others are less 3 edits.[1] Thank you for the big contributions to Wikipedia.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you got your own list wrong, not to mention that I created three of the articles listed in that list. You know what though, let me note two things. 1. This is not a talk page for this, and 2. I contribute when I have the time and information to do so. I don't feel badly about that at all, given that I've kept some of these articles on an even keel and created a few when I've had the time. No, not bad at all. At least I haven't had any bans or admin action taken in my short time here. --Jusenkyoguide (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about my brusque response to you. However, the list is not "wrong" which is from a "bot" generated list and in public. (of course, you can see it on the bottom of any editor's contribution history page) I only can meet you whenever I or other Korean editors edit such article, and your claim for NPOV (for whom?) as only removing "Korean independent activist" is not actually NPOV. That is not fair that you even cast your doubt about the credibility of my source written by a "non-Korean" editor. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

ROKS Yun Bong-gil

Last year the submarine ROKS Yun Bong-gil was launched, as mentioned here, among other places. Would be good to include in the article. --Difference engine (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yun Bong-gil. 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/20150530071717/http://www.rjkoehler.com/2007/08/11/foreign-professor-calls-kim-gu-yun-bong-gil-terrorists-report/ to http://www.rjkoehler.com/2007/08/11/foreign-professor-calls-kim-gu-yun-bong-gil-terrorists-report/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Academic opinion on modern-sense terrorism

• @钉钉: When writing academic articles, the way to deal with contradicting academic perspectives is to acknowledge the existence of these perspectives and then discuss them. An academic would not just ignore or remove the opposing view in his/her article as if it does not exist.
• I believe you are not the first one to have an opinion that "terrorism targets innocent civilians. Yun only targeted invaders." I believe any professors of history must have thought about such a point and the distinction between "terrorism" and "criminal violence intended for national independence" before they write on this topic. For example, Tessa Morris acknowledged the existence of such a point before she goes on to discuss the validity of an alternative perspective. She did not ignore or remove such a view, as your edit did.
• We aren't professors of history to judge which perspective is more valid. We wikipedia editors should leave it to the professionals when it comes to value judgment on history. Our job is to present all (contradicting) perspectives and let the readers make their mind. Readers should not be deprived the right to know. Simply ignoring or removing any one of them deprives is unprofessional.

• Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot academic garbage published. By definition, terrorism have criteria on its organized nature, motivation, undermining of a government by influencing policies, spreading of fear among a group of individuals, randomness, etc. So an act needs to qualify all these criteria to be considered terrorism. Otherwise the whole world are terrorists, because the Japaneses and Nazi were undermined/destroyed by organized, violence forces with strong motivations by the allies. I think you should remove such ridiculous POVs from the article. Using biased sources violated Wiki's POV policy. 钉钉 (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not your place to determine what is academic garbage or not. Please also note that this is the English Wikipedia, articles are not to be used to push your particular point of view.Jusenkyoguide (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think somebody is trying to push POV. Yun is considered a hero by the main stream. What Tessa Morris-Suzuki wrote in her paper is that If acts of violence by resistance organization or guerrilla forces are considered terrorism, then Yoo was a terrorist. But resistance organizations or guerrilla forces may not necessarily be terrorists. In other words, she didn't equal Yun with a terrorist. Shouldn't the allied forces in World War II be resistance organizations in the eyes of the Japanese and Nazi? 钉钉 (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

If you look up top, you'll see that the url says en.wikipedia. Again, the mainstream for ENGLISH users, not Korean or Chinese. Your mainstream is not the mainstream of the rest of the planet. We're not here to debate who is right, we're here to cite. Please stop your disruptive edits or you'll be reported. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Nobody doubts that this is English Wikipedia. You need to be aware this is not a Japanese Wiki. The Japanese were Nazis during World War II and were defeated by UN allied forces. It is a mainstream of the whole world and Yun did the right things to kill Japanese Nazis. You are trying to push your Japanese POV to white wash Japan's dirty past. 钉钉 (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

First, your argument is nonsensical. There were Nazis in WWII, and they were the actual Nazis. The UN did not exist (at least in its current form), and no, that is not the mainstream of the whole world. The English speaking portion of the planet is more likely that not completely unaware of Yun and would react with "Who?" should you mention it as you would if I said that the Kid was actually a good guy. I am not attempting to whitewash anything, I am however trying to keep this readable and neutral. Your copy is grammatically incorrect. I'm sorry, I dislike pointing this out, but you mess up the tenses a lot and drop the articles right and left. You keep trying to apply words that do not mean what you think they mean. Conditional agreement means, in English, that agreement has been reached on further conditions. That is not what the professor is saying in the quote. She is saying if the premise is accepted, then Yun was a terrorist. Given the first professor said the same thing, this is agreeing with, not holding out for further actions. Also, invaders is being removed as Korea (At the time) was not being invaded. It already had, and had been taken over. Invasion requires an invasion force, active fighting, and a government that is still in control of its territory, Korea at the time fits none of those criteria. One can speak of the Japanese invasion during the 1600's and the Japanese invaders at that time, but in the 1900's you're looking at annexation, which, at best, the term occupation would fit (Kind of. Japan had annexed, so occupation ala Nazi Germany and France isn't quite right either, but it would be the closest term). Also, your source is not cited properly. Please do use proper source citation. Now, please, before engaging in further edit warning, consensus should be reached here first in accordance with Wiki policy. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I do doubt your English capabilities. I don't think adding "conditionally concurred" would change the meaning of the original quote. To avoid edit wars, I'll leave this to other editors. But the bombing happened during the Japanese invasion of Shanghai. Those killed by Yun are certainly invaders. It is also totally your POV to say that "Invasion requires an invasion force, active fighting".Three are culture invasions, now technology invasions etc. On the other hand, there were active fighting when Japan invaded Korea. It is only that you don't know. There is no doubt that Japan occupied Korea against the wills of most Korean people. That also can be called an invasion. Anyway, the bombing happened in Shanghai. Those killed are invaders, no mater Japan invaded Korea or not. 钉钉 (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It does change the meaning of the sentence, into one that makes no sense because there are not conditions stated. And I am not saying that Japan didn't invade and occupy Korea, I'm saying it had finished it at the time. Again, your use of English is incorrect. Use a dictionary if you have to. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You know nothing about Asian history. The war between China and Japan ended only when WWII ended. The Japanese occupied parts of Shanghai after Japan's first invasion of Shanghai. As you know they were killed while celebrating this in Shanghai. They are invaders by all means. For the wording "concur". I think what Tessa Morris-Suzuki wrote is not a total agreement. It should be "somewhat concurred". 钉钉 (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jusenkyoguide.Since you are no longer responding to this discussion, I'll consider that you have accepted adding the word "invaders" and "somewhat concurred". 钉钉 (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You know what they say about assume, if makes an ass out of YOU. I do not agree and dude, don't assume my knowledge about WWII. So now your argument had shifted to invaders of Shanghai, so why the hell is Yun being celebrated for a blow for Korea? Hmm? Oh, right, this argument is also bunk. Invaders doesn't mean that and stop attempting to use weasel words. You keep using that word, it does not mean what you think it means. She agreed with the premises. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jusenkyoguide You are being reported for personal attacks. What I said above is that the Japanese invaders were killed by Yun while they were celebrating their success in invading part of Shanghai. The bombing happened in Shanghai and funded by the Chinese. The bombs Yun used were also manufactured by the Chinese army. It really doesn't matter whether Japan invaded China or Korea, or both. You're being nonsensical. Those killed by the bombing are invaders for sure.钉钉 (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You really are a non-native speaker if you don't recognize that old, old saying about why one should never, ever assume. One, the page being debated on is about a Korean who apparently acted for Korean independence, did he not? Two, during that time, while some fighting was sporadically happening, the battle was over. In fact, Japan and China were being forced to the peace table by the League of Nations. Three, the incident happened during a birthday celebration for Emperor Hirohito, which is says in the bloody article. Four, you STILL have not properly cited your sources for this and honestly they should be removed for non-citation. Five, yes it does bloody matter because you're attempting to use weasel words and POV pushing because you cannot seem to accept that the rest of the planet might not share your view of this. And finally, go right ahead dude and report me. I will bet you buttons to dollars that you're not going to come away unscathed. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

As long as they were occupying other countries, they are invaders. China is the ally of Korean independent activists. They were together to fight against the invading Japanese. The birthday celebration began with a celebration of Japanese success in invading Shanghai. The source used is an academic research journal on Korean Study in China. It is a good reliable source by Wiki standards. It should be not removed by any means. "invaders" is also the wording of the source. You need to be consistent with what you said:" Do not remove anything that is considered a good source under Wiki policy."钉钉 (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I thought it would come to this. You are NOT using a good source, or at least you have not cited it properly. What journal? When? What volume? What page numbers? Who publishes it? What is the direct quote? You are using a non-English source without first checking to see if an English source is available. You have not put your translation out there to be checked by other users to make sure your own biases (And Lord God do you have them in spades) are not being reflected within the translation. Pretty much dude, take a look at the sources currently used. Look at the formatting for those sources. Now look at yours. Do you see the problem? You need a lot more work before you can claim this. If you look at other examples, a good Wiki editor would have put the exact quote in the discussion here to check with the other editors about appropriateness and translation.

As for your first point, that still has nothing to do with a Korean acting for Korean independence. Everything you said is your OWN speculation and opinion, not something that is allowed by Wiki. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You need to make discussions in a civil way like people who have education do. The format of the source has been modified, with quote provided. The original word in the source is "invaders"(侵略者). You don't have the right to change the original meaning of the source. The current English wording you made basically says that Yun would kill anyone who is Japanese. That's a total distortion and vandalism.钉钉 (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

You need to get off your high horse before you fall. I challenge that translation as I can translate it as aggressors. And no, Dude, you did not cite, you did not quote, you did not make any effort to make your additions verifiable. YOU did not do your homework simply put. Pretty much you threw a massive hissyfit because the rest of the world does not view history the same as you do, and you got challenged on it. Since we both are at loggerheads, the Wiki way would be to toss the translation out to the community. I will request other eyes to take a look. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, go ahead and ask help from the community. If you think that "aggressors" are acceptable, please add it after "Japanese" in the article before you seek help from others. The sentence you made basically says Yun would kill anyone who are Japanese. 钉钉 (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As a note, I have been too busy today to attend to this, my apologies but RL does take its toll. I will respond tomorrow.Jusenkyoguide (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jusenkyoguide You are not doing anything. 钉钉 (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Real life does happen, my apologies. I would note that if your concern is that the sentence sounds like Yun was attacking any Japanese, that's not quite correct. The exact phrasing is "Yun only attacked the Japanese", read in context, the 'the' makes it clear that we're talking about the Japanese who were attacked by Yun, not any Japanese person (That would have been "Yun only attacked Japanese people"). If you think it needs further clarification, would you accept "Yun only attacked the Japanese (present)" or "Yun only attacked the Japanese (He had targeted)"? Jusenkyoguide (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Except some diplomats， people attending the party were all Japanese. I used "Japanese invaders (top military and political officials)" before, because the original words in the source are "侵略者头目"。 But you maliciously deleted them all.钉钉 (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes... and it already reads as such right now. Then how about ""Yun only attacked the Japanese top military and political officials attending the event, and no other civilians were hurt by his bombing"? And no, that was not malcious, that was your poor citation. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you'd altered the original meaning from the source. These sentences are in the controversy section, showing the views opposite to what you think it is the mainstream. Your wordings sound like there is no controversy. I'll rephrase this part using direct quotation and do the translations.钉钉 (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No, no it's not. Read it again. "On the other hand, at the "International Research Conference in Memory of the 70th Anniversary of Yun Bong-gil & Lee Bong-chang's Patriotic Acts" held on 29th April 2002 in Shanghai, some scholars present pointed out that Yun's patriotic acts have distinct differences from modern day terrorism, which targets civilians. Yun only attacked the Japanese, and no other civilians were hurt by his bombing. To protect civilians, Yun waited until all the diplomats had left the scene." On the other hand, meaning in opposition to the above statement. The wording removed the invaders part, but given we still have "Yun's patriotic acts have distinct differences from modern day terrorism, which targets civilians." which is the given subject, which leads to "Yun only attacked the Japanese" this referencing the non-civilians and then reinforced with "To protect civilians, Yun waited until all the diplomats had left the scene." I.e. again, no diplomats, no civilians, just the non-civilian Japanese. It's saying the exact same thing, I can't change the meaning of English. It doesn't have the weighted words of invaders and innocent because since it was not a direct quote, should not be used in Wiki. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm very tired of this discussions with you. Those Chinese sentences are not easy to translate. I'll leave it to future editors. At present, I think we can use the "Yun only attacked the Japanese top military and political officials attending the event, and no other civilians were hurt by his bombing" wordings you proposed. 钉钉 (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Done then. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Image heavy?

For a short article, are we putting in too many images? Jusenkyoguide (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

As a note, the memorial pics were put together to improve readability. As it stands, they were bleeding into areas that had nothing to do with the memorials themselves. Please reach consensus on what should be done first before attempting to revert.Jusenkyoguide (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It was you who pointed out that this section maybe image heavy. I reduced the China memorial pics from 2 to 1. It is disruptive for you to revert back. Each picture needs have am explanatory caption.The memorial in Japan is only a monument. It is not comparable to those in S Korea and China. It is wrong for you frame it together with the one in S Korea without any captions explaining which is which. 钉钉 (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It's called an alt tag. When you mouse over or click on it, it uses the exact same wording you had. In other words, I changed nothing, I just made it readable. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to have more than one memorial pics from one country. As I said the monument in Japan is not comparable to the one in S Korea. The "alt tag" thing is not known to most readers and it doesn't work at all. I moved my mouse to the pics, but the wordings didn't show up at all. You need to get my consensus to make such changes. I think having a caption for each pic is more straightforward. 钉钉 (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Having that many images sprinkled all over the page also makes no sense, especially as they were being pushed into the next section and impairing readability. Grouping them all together in a gallery would work instead of leaving them all over the place. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

In that case, all these pictures need to be grouped together. There is no need to have 2 pictures for China memorial.钉钉 (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The current layout is more than acceptable and readable, thank you. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Malicious removal of facts

@Jusenkyoguide. "Yun Bong-gil memorials were built in South Korea (Seoul), China (Shanghai) and Japan (Kanazawa)." This is a fact without any doubts. You have maliciously removed this sentence from the article twice. You'd better provide a solid good reason here. Otherwise you will be reported for vandalism. 钉钉 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You had mangled the article so badly I had to do a full on revert. That's all. I have no qualms about that sentence being re-added.Jusenkyoguide (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Had to fix an article that was reduced to pigeon English

Word of advice to 钉钉, your English is not as good as you think it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.165.246 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

pidgin* toobigtokale (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)