This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 17 September 2008, this talk page was linked from 2channel, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
What do you mean "The main objective of this Agent was to reduce the territory of ancient Korean states into the Korean Peninula, and describe Gojoseon's history as myth [1]."
It is widely known Dangun is a myth.
Do you really think he was born out of a bear?
Samguk Yusa was written and compiled folklores and legends at the end of the 13th century. That is the earliest extant record of the Dangun legend. And there is no mention of actual Gojoseon in any older Chinese documents.
I know Korean schools still teach Gojoseon as historical fact. Patrotism is ok, BUT,
History and legend are two different thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enjoyfuga ( talk • contribs)
I'm confused by the claim that the Samguk Yusa was distorted. For one thing, the form " 昔 有 桓 国" ("there was a country called Hwan-guk") looks Japanese to me ... shouldn't it be " 昔 有 桓 國"? Also, if " Hwanin" is a colonialist distortion, why do the versions of the Samguk Yusa published today in Korea still follow this? The Kim Won-jung Korean translation, for instance, mentions the "Hwan-guk" theory only in a footnote, which suggests that "Hwanin" is still accepted as canonical. There's clearly some basis for this claim, but it needs more detailed explanation and referencing. -- Visviva 04:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
To hide the history before the three kingdoms of Korea, the Agent fabricated the original history book such as Samguk Yusa. The Samguk Yusa says that there was a state called Hwanguk in very ancient time'(昔有桓国). However, the Agent fabricated the Samguk Yusa such that there was a person called Hwanin(昔有桓因) to make the ancient Korean history as myth (See Figures) [1].
Thus, the three states history of Hwanguk by Hwanin, Shinshi by Hwanung and Gojoseon by Dangun is reduced as the mythical state of Gojoseon by Dangun, who was the son of Hwanung and the grandson of Hwanin.
The above section in the article inserted by Hairwizard91, is based on a recently fabricated (post 1946) picture shown here.
Simplified Chinese characters (including 国) was in use only since 1956. Japanese Shinjitai characters (including 国) was in use only since 1946. 国 was never in use until 1946. That would make the left-hand-side of the image a recent (post 1946) forgery.
Hairwizard91, I believe you are in violation of WP:POINT for uploading a misleading/unencyclopedic image (as you have done before) and providing false details. Can Hairwizard91 or someone else give a valid explanation for this?-- Endroit 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If you have an objection about this article, please discuss based on the literature. You seems to do original research -- Hairwizard91 22:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As it was established by the Japanese government of Royal edict.-- JSH-alive talk to me see my works mail to me 09:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Manacpowers is repeatedly reverting this article saying that there's no source. Although s/he insists on information source, s/he keeps removing {{fact}}. What s/he says and what s/he does are inconsequent. S/he even removed the infobox I added without explaining why. I have no idea why s/he removed the infobox of the Japanese name.
The society was established by Governor-General of Korea without doubt. The Japanese wikipedia and Korean wikipedia also say the same thing.
The former explanation "[The society] was established in June 1925 by the Japanese government of Royal edict" is not accurate.
Its duty was to compile Korean history and collect historical documents on Korea. I added a source VISTA-PS (although Manacpowers keeps saying there's no source for some reason).
The society may have legitimated Japan's 1910 annexation of Korea. But was this its duty? Was the society really estblished "in order to" legitimate Japanese occupation of Korea? Manacpowers has to show evidence that the society was established "in order to" legitimate Japanese occupation of Korea. S/he says I have "no source. no discussion" although s/he never shows any source and even ignores my messages on her/his talk page. I do not understand why s/he can say "no source, no discussion" although s/he never even replys to me.-- Michael Friedrich ( talk) 14:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
oh, not that is the original research. that ageny was a work for "compile and editing". any relaible academic source? even your favored Japanese source does not say it. Manacpowers ( talk) 03:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is not written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). I have just removed one of them.
I read Gwanggaeto Stele#Debate over an ancient message. It sure says "he[Lee Jin-hui] claimed the stele was intentionally damaged by the Japanese Army in 1900s to justify the Japanese invasion of Korea in 20th century." But it also says that "these allegation was generally discredited by Chinese and Japanese" and that "he[Xu Jianxin of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences] also concluded that there was no evidence Japanese had damaged any of the stele characters" and that "Today, most Chinese and Japanese scholars controvert the Conspiracy theories, based on the study of the stele itself and advocate Japanese intervention in the era" and that "In the project of writing a common history textbook, Kim Tae-sik of Hongik University (Korea) and Kosaku Hamada of Kyushu University (Japan) reported his interpretation of the Gwanggaeto Stele text, neither of them adopting Lee's theory in their interpretations."
As you can see, the Conspiracy theory is disputed and is not supported by many historians. Furthermore, there's no word "朝鮮史編修会" in Gwanggaeto Stele#Debate over an ancient message. Even if Japan had damaged the stele, it would not mean the society did it. This is why I removed the sentence.
Writing something disputed and not supported by many historians as a fact. I cannot accept this.-- Michael Friedrich ( talk) 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
編修 means "edit" or "compile" in Korea. [9]
in Korea, 編修 means most commony used as "edit. [10]
for example,
Therefore, it can be trans as a "edit". 編修 is not a mean "compile" only. do not mistake. Manacpowers ( talk) 02:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"會" can be trans as a "Agency, Club, Society". This is a Korean relation topic. this word definition obeyed korean dictionary definition. [11]
well, This is Japanese dictionary. http://www.sanseido.net/User/Dic/Index.aspx?TWords=%E7%B7%A8%E4%BF%AE&st=0&DailyJJ=checkbox 編修 means "edit"
even Chinese dictionary, 編修 means "edit". [12]
編修 is not only means "Compilation" don't make dictionary by your own convenience. Manacpowers ( talk) 09:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Point.
1. This is Korean club. not Japanese. Japanese dictionary definition is "irreravant". 2. Korean, Chinese, Japanese dictionary definition is not says, 編修 is only means "Compilation" it is more close to "edit". Manacpowers ( talk) 10:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 3. Last, even Japan goverment ordered it. This is a History of Korea, Not Japan. cleary, 조선사편수회 "edited" history of korea. not compile. in your country, "Distorting", "Fabrication", "Burning", means are compile? i think edited is not a suitable word. actually, it was a "fabrication club". Manacpowers ( talk) 10:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
""Distorting" [17], "Fabrication" [18], "Burning" [19]
1. nonsense. It is not a Japanese history. hello, India occupied by UK before 1945. However, India history belong to UK?
2. even if ordered by Japanese goverment. it orginized by Korean
chinilpa. also Korean think "編修" word is "edit".OK? this club orgized by Korean, and Korea think "編修" word is "edit".
3. Korea, China, Japanese dictionary do not says, 編修 is compile only. i also prove by various source. but you can't prove by definition by credible dictionary. i can't understand why definition of 編修 is a "compile" only? huh?
Manacpowers (
talk)
10:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
According to Chinese dictionary, 修 [26]
I don't think this talk goes nowhere. I cannot understand you at all. The period of occupation is a par of both Korean history and Japanese history because Japan occupied Korea and Korea was occupied by Japan. I feel disapponted that we could not make a good talk, but this discussion seems to be over because the name of the article has changed.-- Michael Friedrich ( talk) 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
There's someone who thinks 朝鮮歴編修會 is in Korean for some reason, even though it was established by Japan without doubt. He insists on using the word "edit" instead of "compile", which I do not understand at all. 編修 in Japanese means to compile. Even if it had the meaning of editing, history is not something to edit, but something to compile. So, 朝鮮史編修会 is litterally "Society for Compilation of Korean History" without doubt.
But I don't think he would never agree with me even though he seems to know nothing about Japanese. He nor I have the rights to translate the name into English. So, I suggest that the article be moved to Chōsenshi Henshūkai. Any translation may cause disputes and edit war.-- Michael Friedrich ( talk) 10:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
1. nonsense. It is not a Japanese hisrory. hello, India occupied by UK before 1945. However, India history belong to UK?
2. even if ordered by Japanese goverment. it orginized by Korean chinilpa. also Korean think "編修" word is "edit".OK? this club orgized by Korean, and Korea think "編修" word is "edit".
3. Korea, China, Japanese dictionary do not says, 編修 is compile only. i also prove by various source. but you can't prove by definition by credible dictionary
"Chōsenshi Henshūkai" is not a suitable word. too complex. also this history is korean. but why use Japanese pronunciation? nonsense. also, any foreigner can type "ū" or "ō" easily? anyway, don't move article without any justifiable reason or without any consensus. Manacpowers ( talk) 10:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Michael Friedrich ( talk · contribs), I'm advising you, do not consider this article as your playground. You unilaterally changed the title several times without any discussion, so your behaviors here are disruptive enough to be sanctioned. Besides, almost every articles within Wikiepdia are titled with translated names except special occasions. This current article also looks ridiculous "club"? That is not a club. You previously alter the original title as removing the "editing". And you trying to move the article under the Japanese pronunciation, and say Korean pronunciation is no relation with the society. That is also absurd as well, because that is part of Korean history as well. Your intention seems to minimize the original meaning and the purpose of the group. Read WP:English and your WP:Civility-- Caspian blue ( talk) 11:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
1. www.geocities.jp is a "Japanese personal homepage." it contain a Japanese side POV.
2. Possibly, English translated by Japanese. any eivdence that document translate by Korean?
3. if homepage author is a korean, also if it translated by Korean, it still can't be a official name. i recommend that return to Original name "Agency for Editing of Korean History" what before Michael Friedrich change. [28] Manacpowers ( talk) 12:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but your suggestion cannot be admitted. The name "Agency for Editing of Korean History" was created by Goguryeo [36]. And Gogryeo is the same person as the banned user, Hairwizard91, who is Gogryeo's sock puppet. This article itself is created by the banned user [37]. According to your theory, edits by banned user cannot be acceptable, right? You kept saying so about the edits by Bentecbye [38]. So, according to your theory, the whole article should not be admitted. Why don't you try to delete the whole article although you kept saying that edits by a banned user cannot be accepted? Why? Why not?
You say "many user opposed your change". But this one is not against my edit. I only misused the word (note instead of talk page). And do not forget many oppose your edit too [39] [40] [41] [42]. Do not talk as if you edit is not opposed by anyone. Anyway, they are irrelavent now.
By the way, I found that the name "Korean History Compilation Committee" is commonly used [43](although some of them are not 朝鮮史編修会, others are).
This one is from Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies. Vol. 5 No. 1. 2005. ( 2005 Academy of East Asian Studies. pp. 27-49) and written by a Japanese American scholar.
This one is from a website of a Japanese University.
It seems like native speakers of English also uses the name [44](see page 16).
Some use the name "Korean History Compilation Society". A book named "Korean Studies Guide" published by University of California uses the name "Korean History Compilation Society" [45].
This book uses both "Committee" and "Society" [46] [47] [48](these three are from the same book).
This research adopts the name "Korean History Compilation Society" [49]. Same here.
This one is from a Korean website and shows several translations (including both "Korean History Compilation Committee" and "Korean History Compilation Society") but all of them use the word "Compilation" or "Compiling", not "Editing". Now I think you can understand. Choosing the word "edit" is your POV. None of them uses "club" or "agency" either.
I found that several books and reports in English use the name "Korean History Compilation Committee" or "Korean History Compilation Society". It is almost the same name I used and now you can see that the name I used was not Japanese POV but only a direct translation. So, this name is the best name for the article. Don't tell me that none of the website I added above is reliable. It is the best to use something already used.-- Michael Friedrich ( talk) 15:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
this reference is a totally irreravance. this document is a "大韓民国国史編纂委員会所蔵"(2006.12)
this reference is NOT for a 朝鮮史編修會. this is a "大韓民国国史編纂委員会所蔵". and it is a modern days orginizations. not 1925 orginizations. are you kidding? this is a "wrong" source. Manacpowers ( talk) 11:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
According to Article 1 of the Regulation of Korean History Compilation Committee (朝鮮史編修会官制, 1925), "Korean History Compilation Committee is administerd by the Governor General of Korea and engages in collecting of Korean historical materials and compilation of Korean history" (第一条 朝鮮史編修会ハ朝鮮総督ノ管理ニ属シ朝鮮史料ノ蒐集及編纂並朝鮮史ノ編修ヲ掌ル) [66]. The committee is said to have legitimated Japan's 1910 annexation of Korea. [67]
I'm tired of the reverts. I'm going to try to write this section about Japan excluding Gojoseon in history to look older than Korea. Before I modify it in the actual article, lets discuss it here. I realize that Japan was doing this before this committee was assembled. I'll state that clearly to eliminate confusion. If you look at my references I believe they are talking about the times before and during colonization. Japan was gearing up internationally to justify the colonization. Here is a quote from one of the references: "It pointed out that in an age when Korea had established its first Kingdom but Japan had yet to come up with a national name and an era when there was a flourishing culture on the peninsula but Japan did not even have a writing system, there was no possibility that Japan could have dominated any part of Korea. That such a history supported Japanese political goal was a point not lost on the Japanese editors" The BYU research stated "One of the greatest concerns of Korean scholars is the remnant of Japanese distortions of Korean history and culture at the time of the Japanese colonization of Korea" I'm going to use these quotes and state that the committee was an extension of these policies that already existed. -- Objectiveye ( talk) 06:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
How many times do you repeat?-- Propastop ( talk) 06:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is quite problematic as this article is quite biased: it did not mention Japanese scholars and Korean positivist scholars's viewpoint of the committee (see [75]). If the problem can not be solved, I suggest that we delete this article and rewrite a new one.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 11:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 17 September 2008, this talk page was linked from 2channel, a high-traffic website. ( Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
What do you mean "The main objective of this Agent was to reduce the territory of ancient Korean states into the Korean Peninula, and describe Gojoseon's history as myth [1]."
It is widely known Dangun is a myth.
Do you really think he was born out of a bear?
Samguk Yusa was written and compiled folklores and legends at the end of the 13th century. That is the earliest extant record of the Dangun legend. And there is no mention of actual Gojoseon in any older Chinese documents.
I know Korean schools still teach Gojoseon as historical fact. Patrotism is ok, BUT,
History and legend are two different thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enjoyfuga ( talk • contribs)
I'm confused by the claim that the Samguk Yusa was distorted. For one thing, the form " 昔 有 桓 国" ("there was a country called Hwan-guk") looks Japanese to me ... shouldn't it be " 昔 有 桓 國"? Also, if " Hwanin" is a colonialist distortion, why do the versions of the Samguk Yusa published today in Korea still follow this? The Kim Won-jung Korean translation, for instance, mentions the "Hwan-guk" theory only in a footnote, which suggests that "Hwanin" is still accepted as canonical. There's clearly some basis for this claim, but it needs more detailed explanation and referencing. -- Visviva 04:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
To hide the history before the three kingdoms of Korea, the Agent fabricated the original history book such as Samguk Yusa. The Samguk Yusa says that there was a state called Hwanguk in very ancient time'(昔有桓国). However, the Agent fabricated the Samguk Yusa such that there was a person called Hwanin(昔有桓因) to make the ancient Korean history as myth (See Figures) [1].
Thus, the three states history of Hwanguk by Hwanin, Shinshi by Hwanung and Gojoseon by Dangun is reduced as the mythical state of Gojoseon by Dangun, who was the son of Hwanung and the grandson of Hwanin.
The above section in the article inserted by Hairwizard91, is based on a recently fabricated (post 1946) picture shown here.
Simplified Chinese characters (including 国) was in use only since 1956. Japanese Shinjitai characters (including 国) was in use only since 1946. 国 was never in use until 1946. That would make the left-hand-side of the image a recent (post 1946) forgery.
Hairwizard91, I believe you are in violation of WP:POINT for uploading a misleading/unencyclopedic image (as you have done before) and providing false details. Can Hairwizard91 or someone else give a valid explanation for this?-- Endroit 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
If you have an objection about this article, please discuss based on the literature. You seems to do original research -- Hairwizard91 22:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As it was established by the Japanese government of Royal edict.-- JSH-alive talk to me see my works mail to me 09:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Manacpowers is repeatedly reverting this article saying that there's no source. Although s/he insists on information source, s/he keeps removing {{fact}}. What s/he says and what s/he does are inconsequent. S/he even removed the infobox I added without explaining why. I have no idea why s/he removed the infobox of the Japanese name.
The society was established by Governor-General of Korea without doubt. The Japanese wikipedia and Korean wikipedia also say the same thing.
The former explanation "[The society] was established in June 1925 by the Japanese government of Royal edict" is not accurate.
Its duty was to compile Korean history and collect historical documents on Korea. I added a source VISTA-PS (although Manacpowers keeps saying there's no source for some reason).
The society may have legitimated Japan's 1910 annexation of Korea. But was this its duty? Was the society really estblished "in order to" legitimate Japanese occupation of Korea? Manacpowers has to show evidence that the society was established "in order to" legitimate Japanese occupation of Korea. S/he says I have "no source. no discussion" although s/he never shows any source and even ignores my messages on her/his talk page. I do not understand why s/he can say "no source, no discussion" although s/he never even replys to me.-- Michael Friedrich ( talk) 14:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
oh, not that is the original research. that ageny was a work for "compile and editing". any relaible academic source? even your favored Japanese source does not say it. Manacpowers ( talk) 03:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is not written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). I have just removed one of them.
I read Gwanggaeto Stele#Debate over an ancient message. It sure says "he[Lee Jin-hui] claimed the stele was intentionally damaged by the Japanese Army in 1900s to justify the Japanese invasion of Korea in 20th century." But it also says that "these allegation was generally discredited by Chinese and Japanese" and that "he[Xu Jianxin of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences] also concluded that there was no evidence Japanese had damaged any of the stele characters" and that "Today, most Chinese and Japanese scholars controvert the Conspiracy theories, based on the study of the stele itself and advocate Japanese intervention in the era" and that "In the project of writing a common history textbook, Kim Tae-sik of Hongik University (Korea) and Kosaku Hamada of Kyushu University (Japan) reported his interpretation of the Gwanggaeto Stele text, neither of them adopting Lee's theory in their interpretations."
As you can see, the Conspiracy theory is disputed and is not supported by many historians. Furthermore, there's no word "朝鮮史編修会" in Gwanggaeto Stele#Debate over an ancient message. Even if Japan had damaged the stele, it would not mean the society did it. This is why I removed the sentence.
Writing something disputed and not supported by many historians as a fact. I cannot accept this.-- Michael Friedrich ( talk) 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
編修 means "edit" or "compile" in Korea. [9]
in Korea, 編修 means most commony used as "edit. [10]
for example,
Therefore, it can be trans as a "edit". 編修 is not a mean "compile" only. do not mistake. Manacpowers ( talk) 02:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
"會" can be trans as a "Agency, Club, Society". This is a Korean relation topic. this word definition obeyed korean dictionary definition. [11]
well, This is Japanese dictionary. http://www.sanseido.net/User/Dic/Index.aspx?TWords=%E7%B7%A8%E4%BF%AE&st=0&DailyJJ=checkbox 編修 means "edit"
even Chinese dictionary, 編修 means "edit". [12]
編修 is not only means "Compilation" don't make dictionary by your own convenience. Manacpowers ( talk) 09:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Point.
1. This is Korean club. not Japanese. Japanese dictionary definition is "irreravant". 2. Korean, Chinese, Japanese dictionary definition is not says, 編修 is only means "Compilation" it is more close to "edit". Manacpowers ( talk) 10:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 3. Last, even Japan goverment ordered it. This is a History of Korea, Not Japan. cleary, 조선사편수회 "edited" history of korea. not compile. in your country, "Distorting", "Fabrication", "Burning", means are compile? i think edited is not a suitable word. actually, it was a "fabrication club". Manacpowers ( talk) 10:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
""Distorting" [17], "Fabrication" [18], "Burning" [19]
1. nonsense. It is not a Japanese history. hello, India occupied by UK before 1945. However, India history belong to UK?
2. even if ordered by Japanese goverment. it orginized by Korean
chinilpa. also Korean think "編修" word is "edit".OK? this club orgized by Korean, and Korea think "編修" word is "edit".
3. Korea, China, Japanese dictionary do not says, 編修 is compile only. i also prove by various source. but you can't prove by definition by credible dictionary. i can't understand why definition of 編修 is a "compile" only? huh?
Manacpowers (
talk)
10:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
According to Chinese dictionary, 修 [26]
I don't think this talk goes nowhere. I cannot understand you at all. The period of occupation is a par of both Korean history and Japanese history because Japan occupied Korea and Korea was occupied by Japan. I feel disapponted that we could not make a good talk, but this discussion seems to be over because the name of the article has changed.-- Michael Friedrich ( talk) 04:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
There's someone who thinks 朝鮮歴編修會 is in Korean for some reason, even though it was established by Japan without doubt. He insists on using the word "edit" instead of "compile", which I do not understand at all. 編修 in Japanese means to compile. Even if it had the meaning of editing, history is not something to edit, but something to compile. So, 朝鮮史編修会 is litterally "Society for Compilation of Korean History" without doubt.
But I don't think he would never agree with me even though he seems to know nothing about Japanese. He nor I have the rights to translate the name into English. So, I suggest that the article be moved to Chōsenshi Henshūkai. Any translation may cause disputes and edit war.-- Michael Friedrich ( talk) 10:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
1. nonsense. It is not a Japanese hisrory. hello, India occupied by UK before 1945. However, India history belong to UK?
2. even if ordered by Japanese goverment. it orginized by Korean chinilpa. also Korean think "編修" word is "edit".OK? this club orgized by Korean, and Korea think "編修" word is "edit".
3. Korea, China, Japanese dictionary do not says, 編修 is compile only. i also prove by various source. but you can't prove by definition by credible dictionary
"Chōsenshi Henshūkai" is not a suitable word. too complex. also this history is korean. but why use Japanese pronunciation? nonsense. also, any foreigner can type "ū" or "ō" easily? anyway, don't move article without any justifiable reason or without any consensus. Manacpowers ( talk) 10:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Michael Friedrich ( talk · contribs), I'm advising you, do not consider this article as your playground. You unilaterally changed the title several times without any discussion, so your behaviors here are disruptive enough to be sanctioned. Besides, almost every articles within Wikiepdia are titled with translated names except special occasions. This current article also looks ridiculous "club"? That is not a club. You previously alter the original title as removing the "editing". And you trying to move the article under the Japanese pronunciation, and say Korean pronunciation is no relation with the society. That is also absurd as well, because that is part of Korean history as well. Your intention seems to minimize the original meaning and the purpose of the group. Read WP:English and your WP:Civility-- Caspian blue ( talk) 11:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
1. www.geocities.jp is a "Japanese personal homepage." it contain a Japanese side POV.
2. Possibly, English translated by Japanese. any eivdence that document translate by Korean?
3. if homepage author is a korean, also if it translated by Korean, it still can't be a official name. i recommend that return to Original name "Agency for Editing of Korean History" what before Michael Friedrich change. [28] Manacpowers ( talk) 12:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but your suggestion cannot be admitted. The name "Agency for Editing of Korean History" was created by Goguryeo [36]. And Gogryeo is the same person as the banned user, Hairwizard91, who is Gogryeo's sock puppet. This article itself is created by the banned user [37]. According to your theory, edits by banned user cannot be acceptable, right? You kept saying so about the edits by Bentecbye [38]. So, according to your theory, the whole article should not be admitted. Why don't you try to delete the whole article although you kept saying that edits by a banned user cannot be accepted? Why? Why not?
You say "many user opposed your change". But this one is not against my edit. I only misused the word (note instead of talk page). And do not forget many oppose your edit too [39] [40] [41] [42]. Do not talk as if you edit is not opposed by anyone. Anyway, they are irrelavent now.
By the way, I found that the name "Korean History Compilation Committee" is commonly used [43](although some of them are not 朝鮮史編修会, others are).
This one is from Sungkyun Journal of East Asian Studies. Vol. 5 No. 1. 2005. ( 2005 Academy of East Asian Studies. pp. 27-49) and written by a Japanese American scholar.
This one is from a website of a Japanese University.
It seems like native speakers of English also uses the name [44](see page 16).
Some use the name "Korean History Compilation Society". A book named "Korean Studies Guide" published by University of California uses the name "Korean History Compilation Society" [45].
This book uses both "Committee" and "Society" [46] [47] [48](these three are from the same book).
This research adopts the name "Korean History Compilation Society" [49]. Same here.
This one is from a Korean website and shows several translations (including both "Korean History Compilation Committee" and "Korean History Compilation Society") but all of them use the word "Compilation" or "Compiling", not "Editing". Now I think you can understand. Choosing the word "edit" is your POV. None of them uses "club" or "agency" either.
I found that several books and reports in English use the name "Korean History Compilation Committee" or "Korean History Compilation Society". It is almost the same name I used and now you can see that the name I used was not Japanese POV but only a direct translation. So, this name is the best name for the article. Don't tell me that none of the website I added above is reliable. It is the best to use something already used.-- Michael Friedrich ( talk) 15:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
this reference is a totally irreravance. this document is a "大韓民国国史編纂委員会所蔵"(2006.12)
this reference is NOT for a 朝鮮史編修會. this is a "大韓民国国史編纂委員会所蔵". and it is a modern days orginizations. not 1925 orginizations. are you kidding? this is a "wrong" source. Manacpowers ( talk) 11:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
According to Article 1 of the Regulation of Korean History Compilation Committee (朝鮮史編修会官制, 1925), "Korean History Compilation Committee is administerd by the Governor General of Korea and engages in collecting of Korean historical materials and compilation of Korean history" (第一条 朝鮮史編修会ハ朝鮮総督ノ管理ニ属シ朝鮮史料ノ蒐集及編纂並朝鮮史ノ編修ヲ掌ル) [66]. The committee is said to have legitimated Japan's 1910 annexation of Korea. [67]
I'm tired of the reverts. I'm going to try to write this section about Japan excluding Gojoseon in history to look older than Korea. Before I modify it in the actual article, lets discuss it here. I realize that Japan was doing this before this committee was assembled. I'll state that clearly to eliminate confusion. If you look at my references I believe they are talking about the times before and during colonization. Japan was gearing up internationally to justify the colonization. Here is a quote from one of the references: "It pointed out that in an age when Korea had established its first Kingdom but Japan had yet to come up with a national name and an era when there was a flourishing culture on the peninsula but Japan did not even have a writing system, there was no possibility that Japan could have dominated any part of Korea. That such a history supported Japanese political goal was a point not lost on the Japanese editors" The BYU research stated "One of the greatest concerns of Korean scholars is the remnant of Japanese distortions of Korean history and culture at the time of the Japanese colonization of Korea" I'm going to use these quotes and state that the committee was an extension of these policies that already existed. -- Objectiveye ( talk) 06:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
How many times do you repeat?-- Propastop ( talk) 06:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
The article is quite problematic as this article is quite biased: it did not mention Japanese scholars and Korean positivist scholars's viewpoint of the committee (see [75]). If the problem can not be solved, I suggest that we delete this article and rewrite a new one.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 11:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)