Talk:Korean History Compilation Committee

5000 years of histoy?
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)


 * Chinese 25 history books are too recent to describe the establishment of Gojoseon or Dangun. They only describe destruction of Gojoseon. Book_of_Later_Han and Shiji describe the destruction of Gojoseon. In addition, Gyuwon Sahwa says that Dangun is the son of Hwanung and a woman in a "bear tribe."


 * So, general description of Gojoseon can be found in a very old document written before Shiji was written such as 管子, 山海經 and 鴻史 written by 孔子順. In addition, you can find the establishment of Gojoseon in 資治通鑑外紀 --Hairwizard91 16:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Samguk Yusa
I'm confused by the claim that the Samguk Yusa was distorted. For one thing, the form "" ("there was a country called Hwan-guk") looks Japanese to me ... shouldn't it be ""? 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)


 * 国 and 國 is same character; the former is simplified character, and the latter is original character. 国 is not Japanese. Samguk Yusa has several version, and Kim translated the distorted version(동경제대본). If you can, find and read the version of Samguk Yusa (Jeong deok bon)"삼국유사 정덕본" . You can find the fabrication of the Samguk Yusa in the tertiary source such as Daum encyclopediaIs this answer to you question? --Hairwizard91 16:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that is somewhat illuminating. I haven't yet looked into this in detail, but it seems strange that Daum also has an article about Hwanin, an article which doesn't mention the alleged fabrication at all.  That seems, at the very least, unusual.  Also the Pyeonsuhoe article you cite does mention a disagreement over Hwanin vs. Hwanguk, but doesn't state clearly that Hwanin was a fabrication.  Further, if the Jeongdeokbon is the definitive version of the Samguk Yusa, why would a modern translator follow a different version?  Is there a particular reason to prefer the Jeongdeokbon to other editions of the Samguk Yusa?  If so, why do so many Korean sources not follow the Jeongdeokbon? -- Visviva 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is actually interesting. There are more Korean encyclopedia articles about this agency  and another one on Hwanin . Two more sources, though a bit less credible   Goguryeo 01:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The problematic text will be removed from this article and listed below....--Endroit 19:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Fabrication of Samguk Yusa
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). 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.

This is apparent fabrication and/or falsification by User:Hairwizard91
The above section in the article inserted by Hairwizard91, is based on a recently fabricated (post 1946) picture shown here.

Simplified Chinese characters (including ) was in use only since 1956. Japanese Shinjitai characters (including ) was in use only since 1946. 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)


 * You dont know the Chinese character. 国 is found in very old document. I did not mention the Chinese simplified character in 20th century. The fabrication of Samguk Yusa is found in korean britanica encyclopedia.
 * They are all CITED article. This is not my point of view. You cannot remove them. You must discuss first!!--Hairwizard91 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your image appears to be fabricated. Explain.--Endroit 20:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. it is just photocopy of two version. The left one is original in Seoul nation university, and the right one is version by Japan. --Hairwizard91 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So are you admitting that one is a photocopy of the other? After 1960?  (They didn't have copiers back then, Hairwizard91).--Endroit 21:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL What are you saying ?? Those are current photocopy of old books--Hairwizard91 22:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just trying to clarify what YOU put forward in this article. OK, then.  So is it 囯 (王 inside a box) rather than 国 now, or what?--Endroit 22:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 国 is used in the article because korean britanica describes the fabricated script is 国 based on the no original research.--Hairwizard91 22:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your cited source says 國, which is a Traditional Chinese character. If we take your source (Korea Britannica) for face value, your image would be a fabrication because it looks like either a 国 or a 囯, but definitely not 國.--Endroit 22:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I see what you are saying. Korean document officially use 國 when refering to "state." --Hairwizard91 22:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So the image looks like a 囯, and not 国. Why don't you at least correct that?--Endroit 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. Which do you prefer to 囯, 国 or 國. They have all same meaning--Hairwizard91 22:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming the image is for real (I'm not say whether it is or not), go by what the image says, 囯.--Endroit 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like this has already been changed, but the character on the bottom of the circle on the left looks like a 囯 to me too. Jecowa 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No original research
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)


 * To avoid original research, I've added some Korean language references. I can't imagine there are any solid English sources for this, and I don't know Japanese. But at least the Korean ones are from pretty reputable encyclopedias available at the major Korean portals. You can delete the last two links to Korean media if you want. I just added them for background information, not as authority for controversial claims. Goguryeo 18:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * //I can't imagine there are any solid English sources for this,//
 * --> Do you know why? Most of scholar except few of them follows the same history edited by Joseonsa Pyeonsuhoe. There is no new historical findings by the current school historians. They have just republished the same history by the Joseonsa Pyeonsuhoe. For example, if you read Shiji(사기) chapter of Joseon(조선열전), the capital city of Wiman joseon is Heomdok(험독). The comment of Shiji(it may be Jiphae집해集解) says that Heomdok is located at Liaoning, and Nangnang is also located near Heomdok. But the current school historian repeat the theory by Joseonsa Pyeonsuhoe and says Heomdok is Pyongyang. --Hairwizard91 20:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Some people would interpret that as a consensus of Korean historians that the Pyeonsuhoe was on the right track in this case. -- Visviva 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The pronunciation of 朝鮮史編修会 in Japanese should added.
As it was established by the Japanese government of Royal edict.--JSH-alive talk to mesee my worksmail to me 09:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Manacpowers's repeated revert
Manacpowers is repeatedly reverting this article saying that there's no source. Although s/he insists on information source, s/he keeps removing. 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.
 * 朝鮮史編修会（ちょうせんしへんしゅうかい）は朝鮮総督府が1925年6月、勅令第218号により交付した「朝鮮史編修会官制」によって作られた朝鮮総督府総督が直轄する機関.
 * 조선사편수회(朝鮮史編修會)는 조선총독부가 1925년 6월 칙령 제218호로 공포한 ‘조선사편수회관제’(朝鮮史編修會官制)에 따라 만들어진 조선총독부 총독이 직할하는 기관.

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)


 * As for the sentence to which I added.
 * "The first regulation for Korean history compilation did not contain the history of Gojoseon and succeeding several states after Gojoseon's destruction to validate their colonization because Japanese history (not pre-history) does not exist before 100 CE."
 * I am not an expert, so I do not know how the society dealt with Gojoseon. But I doubt the sentence above.  The Society did not contain the history of Gojoseon "in order to validate their colonization"?  "Because Japanese history does not exist before 100 CE"?  Are there any sources for this claim?
 * This sentence was written by Hairwizard91, who has been blocked indefinitely, and seems to me only like his interpretation.
 * This is why I added to the sentence.  I believe the sentence was only Hairwizard91's interpretation and I wish I could remove it.  I do not understand at all why Manacpowers keeps removing  .  It seems to me that what Manacpowers really conserns is not whether the article has source or not, but whether the article is favourable to Korea or not.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:10, 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)


 * What are you saying? "even your favored Japanese source does not say it."  I don't understand you at all.  What did you read?
 * 大正１４年６月、朝鮮総督府は朝鮮史の編纂と朝鮮関係史料の収集を目的として朝鮮史編修会を設置した.
 * (In June, the 14th year of Taisho (1925), the Governor-General of Korea established the Chosenshi Henshukai in order to compile Korean history and collect historical documents on Korea.)--Michael Friedrich (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * again,
 * :大正１４年６月、朝鮮総督府は朝鮮史の編纂と朝鮮関係史料の収集を目的として朝鮮史編修会を設置した.
 * 編纂 is edit. 編纂 is not mean "compile" only.
 * Remeber, Governor-General of Korea was a Goverment of Korea, even ordered by Japanese leader. Manacpowers (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Governor-General of Korea was a part of Japanese Government because Korea itself was a part of Japan at that time. This is tha fact.  I am not trying to justify the Japanese occupation of Korea.  Do not misunderstand.  I am only talking about the fact.
 * Even if 編纂 means to edit, choosing "edit" instead of "compile" is your POV and your estimation on 朝鮮史編修会. 編纂 means both to edit and to compile. History is something to compile, not edit.  Your choice is so arbitary and I cannot accept it.  Anyway, I see .  You can see that your translation is not accurate.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing POV
This article is not written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). I have just removed one of them.
 * The society fabricated the Gwanggaeto Stele to validate the ancient colonization of South Korean peninsula by Japan. For more detail of fabrication of the stele, see Gwanggaeto Stele.

I read Gwanggaeto Stele. 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. 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
編修 means "edit" or "compile" in Korea.

in Korea, 編修 means most commony used as "edit.

for example,
 * 편수관(編修官) an editorial officer;an (official) editor
 * 편수원(編修員) the editorial staff member

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. 


 * Korean dictionaris have nothing to do with the article name because the society was established by Japan. In Japanese, 編修 is different from 編集. 編修 is only used for history.  History is not something to edit, but something to compile. To use the word "edit" is purely Korean POV.
 * In Japanese, 会 means society, not agancy. It may be possible to translate 会 as club, though.
 * Repeat! Korean dictionaries have nothing to do with the article name!
 * If you do not agree with me (I don't think you do), I suggest that we should not translate the name into English and use "Chosenshi Henshukai" instead.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 07:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * this is a history of Korea. and this club made in Korea, and memebers were Korean chinilpa. Japanese side POV is completely irreravant. Manacpowers (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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".
 * 官名. 宋代凡修前朝国史、实录，会要等，均随时置编修官，枢密院也设有编修官，负责编纂记述. 明、清属翰林院，职位次于修撰，与修撰、检讨同称为史官慎行、吴锡麒、蒋士铨、翁方纲等，皆曾授编修之任. 明、清翰林院编修以一甲二三名进士及庶吉士留馆者担任，无实职. 参阅《历代职官表.翰林院》.


 * 編
 * 1.to weave; to braid
 * 2.to arrange
 * 3.to edit
 * 4.to fabricate


 * 修
 * 1.to mend; to repair
 * 2.to build
 * 3.to embellish
 * 4.to study
 * 5.to study to earn (college credits)
 * 6.to trim; to prune

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)


 * What are you saying? What you're saying makes no sense at all.
 * As I said, the society was established by Japan during Japanese occupation. It is Japanese history too!!  Not only Korean. The name 朝鮮史編修会 is in Japanese without doubt.  I do not understand at all why you say the name is in Korean.  Besides, Chinese is completely irrelavent.
 * The Japanese dictionary you cited does not say 編修 is "to edit". It says "書物にまとめ上げること".  Japanese has another word 編集 for sure.  編修 is only used for history.
 * I did not make a dictonary by my own convenience. I cited Kojien, Japan's one of the most famous dictionary.  It says "1. 書籍を編みととのえること. 「国史を～する」 2. 中国で、国史の編纂に従事した官. "
 * I also looked the word up in 明鏡国語辞典, Japan's another famous dictionary. It says "いろいろな資料を集めて整理し、一つの書物にまとめること. 編纂. 「国史を～する」"
 * Besides, even if 編修 had the meaning of editing, why do you choose edit, instead of compile? History is not something to edit, but something to compile.  Choosing the word edit is without doubt a Korean POV.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comment above is full of Korean POV! ""Distorting", "Fabrication", "Burning", means are compile?"  What are you saying!?  You never showed any source that shows the society did those things.  If it did those things, it does not have anything to do with the name itself.  "i think edited is not a  suitable word. actually, it was a "fabrication club"."  You said "i think"!  It proves that choosing the word "edit" is your POV.  It is your evaluation of history.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

""Distorting", "Fabrication", "Burning"

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)


 * It is you who talks nonsense. It is also Japanese history.  Why isn't it Japanese history although it was established and run by Japan?  History of India belongs to India, but history of Britain's occupation of India is also a part of history of UK too.
 * nonsense. hello, India occupied by UK before 1945. However, India history belong to UK? if your claim is right, 1937~ 1945 History of China, and Manchukuo belong to Japan. why you do not chane that article?
 * Nonsense. Hello?  India was occupied by UK.  The history of the period during the occupation both belongs to India and UK because India was a part of UK.  Japanese occupation of Korea is also belongs to both Japan and Korea because Korea was a part of Japan at that time.  It is completely nonsense that saying like the period has nothing to do with Japan althogh you exaggerate the Japanese influence.


 * You still do not understand the difference between 編集 and 編修. 編集 is to edit.  But 編修 is to compile.  History is not something to edit, but to compile as I said above. How many times do I have to explain it?  I cited Kojien too.  What you are saying makes absolutely no sense at all.  You know nothing about Japanese.  Choosing the word "edit" is your POV.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, You do not understand the difference between 編集 and 編修.
 * evidence
 * Korean dictionary 編修
 * Chinese dictionary 編修
 * Japanese dictionary 編修 Manacpowers (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Chinese dictionary, 修
 * 1.to mend; to repair
 * 2.to build
 * 3.to embellish
 * 4.to study
 * 5.to study to earn (college credits)
 * 6.to trim; to prune Manacpowers (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are not talking about 編集 but say I do not understand the difference between 編集 and 編修. It is nonsense.  As I said, Chinese means nothing because the usage of Chinese character in China and Japan is different.  For example, in Japan, 手紙 means "a letter" but in China it means "toilet paper".
 * Even if 編修 has the meaning of editing, why do you choose "edit" instead of "compile". How many times do I have to say that history is not something to edit, but to compile.  Even if the society had edited the Korean history, choosing "edit" is your POV.  For example, DPRK is not democratic at all as you can see.  But do you change the name of the page into "Autocratic People's Republic of Korea"?  No.  So, if 編修 means the both "to edit" and "to compile", "compile" is the proper word since history is not something to edit, but to compile.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello, Japanese editor. This is a History of Korea. and its agency orignized from Korean chinilpa. This definition must obey korean side definition. according to your logic, Sentence of 'History of USA' article must use "India english"? Again, This is a History of Korea. and India occupied by UK before 1945. however, it history belong to India.Manacpowers (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * You guys should name it Korean history compilation and editing committee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.83.100 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the talk below!--Michael Friedrich (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Move
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)


 * I am sorry but the current title for this article is absurd. A club? no. Editing? no. No matter what the intentions of this organisation were, they were a formal group and deserve a formal title. I am moving the article. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Friedrich's moves
, 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)
 * Ok. i agree that "Ageny" word is more suitable word than "Club". i recommend title change as "Agency for Editing of Korean History". Manacpowers (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not behaving good either in light of the current weird title comes from you.--Caspian blue (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Korean dictionary, "會" is a also means "Club". ...a society;a club;an association... My title change was also based on Dictionary definition. However, i agree that "Ageny" word is more suitable word than "Club". Manacpowers (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But, Caspian blue, you moved the article without discussion too. I thought I could move the article because you did so.
 * I have found something good! A paper written by a Korean [www.geocities.jp/dgpyc081/pdf/01Akiba_in_English.pdf].  It says "Korean History Compilation Committee" (see page 15).  It also says its duty was "to collect and compile reference materials for the ruling policy of the Government General of Korea" (also see page 15).
 * Manacpowers, Caspian blue and I, none should translate the name of 朝鮮史編修会 because we will never reach consensus. So, I suggest that we use "Korean History Compilation Committee".--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought the latest change was done by you as misreading "Manac"' as "Michael", you, so I was upset at the ridiculous naming, club. When I moved the title, the title looked weird. As reading the tile, it was very unclear to say the organization was affiliated with what association or government. Besides, the geocity can be not a reliable source although that is not as bad as the current one.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:46, 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. Manacpowers (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The name "Agency for Editing of Korean History" was created by a banned user. You really dislike banned users, don't you?
 * It is from geocities. But the website is by a Korean professor at University of East Asia, Japan.  Manacpower thinks that any source in Japanese or from a Japanese websites is unreliable, but using the translation by a banned user, Manacpowers, Caspian blue or me will not solve this problem.  So, using Korean History Compilation Committee is only the way to solve this problem.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * nope. see carefully. This banned user, moved 'Agency for Editing of Korean History' to 'Editing Agency of Korean History'.
 * OK. i want return to Original name 'Agency for Editing of Korean History' before banned user change. According to your logic, you agree that article title name must change as a "Agency for Editing of Korean History". i agree it, too.
 * banned user, Manacpowers, Caspian blue or you will not solve this problem. so it must return to Origina title name 'Agency for Editing of Korean History'. you are only one person who want chnage title name. at least, many user opposed your change. so it must keep as a original title name.Manacpowers (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your suggestion cannot be admitted. The name "Agency for Editing of Korean History" was created by Goguryeo. 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. According to your theory, edits by banned user cannot be acceptable, right? You kept saying so about the edits by Bentecbye. 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. 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(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(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".

This book uses both "Committee" and "Society" (these three are from the same book).

This research adopts the name "Korean History Compilation Society". 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)


 * Besides, the question below by Manacpowers proves that his point of view is strongly biased.
 * >Possibly, English translated by Japanese. any eivdence that document translate by Korean?
 * This question proves that he calls anything by Japanese a POV. He's saying that he never believes anything written by Japanese and that he believes only something by Korean or pro-Korean.  What he cares is not whether it is true or sourced, but whether it is favourable to Korea or not.  This is why he insisted on choosing "editing" instead of "compilation" although 編修 means both to edit and to compile even in Korean and history is not something to edit but to compile.  His idea is that using "compilation" is a Japanese POV because it is not anti-Japanese although the expression, "to compile history", is normally used and that using "editing" is not a POV because it is anti-Japanese althogh the expression, "to edit history", is strange.
 * But this time, I cited books by westerners and even a Korean website. I strongly believe that Manacpowers do not say this time that they are a Japanese POV, an original reseach or unreliable sources.  There's only two alternatives.
 * Korean Histoy Compilation Committee    or Korean History Compilation Society.
 * (This website offers some more translations but other names seems to be less commonly used than the two above)
 * I think Korean History Compilation Committee is better because it seems that it is the most popular name. My suggestion is below.
 * "Korean History Compilation Committee(Kyūjitai: 朝鮮史編修會; Shinjitai: 朝鮮史編修会; Rōmaji: Chōsenshi Henshūkai) was established in June 1925 the Japanese government of Royal edict. It is also known as Korean Hisotry Compilation Society, Association of the Compilation of Korean History, Korean History Compilation Bureau or Society of Compiling Korean History "
 * Well, what do you think?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since reliable sources which prove that the "Korean History Compilation Committee" is most widely used in English, I also agree with that everyone should follow the conventional title for the article. Besides, any of the previous title do not clearly say about "whom", but just "what". I mean "Agency for Editing of Korean History" or Society of Compilation of Korean History" look "awkward" compared to other associations and casts me a doubt that "which society" or "what institution is the society affiliated with?So let's use the name commonly used by academics and edit other things. If there is no equivalent English title found, editors can translate from original language to English, but we already have enough beef. If Manac could prove that alternative titles is more commonly used that the one which Michael presents, then we can use one of them, but not now. Anyway, in English books, the society is introduced with Korean Romanization, 'Choson P'yonsusahoe', and all Romanization by Japanese and Korean can be included in the current infobox, so including Kyūjitai, Shinjita, Romaji is unnecessary. --Caspian blue (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong edit of Michael Friedrich

 * The Club for Editing of Korean History (Kyūjitai: 朝鮮史編修會; Shinjitai: 朝鮮史編修会; Rōmaji: Chōsenshi Henshūkai) was established in June 1925 by Governor-General of Korea in order to compile Korean history and collect historical documents on Korea.

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)
 * I know you cannot read Japanese, but please take a close look at it. "大韓民国国史編纂委員会所蔵" is not the name of a document.  It means "located at National Institute of Korean History."  Huh.  The website is about "対馬宗家文書" (documents of the So family of Tsushima).  The website explains why the documents are in Korea and refers to the 朝鮮史編修會. "大正１４年６月、朝鮮総督府は朝鮮史の編纂と朝鮮関係史料の収集を目的として朝鮮史編修会を設置した. "  The reference is NOT irrelavent at all.  It seems to you irrelavent because you did not even read it.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * nope. irreravant. it is not relation at all.
 * just one simple question : "what" relation with Moderndays "大韓民国国史編纂委員会所蔵" and old days 朝鮮史編修會? what? hello, can you discriminate between ornage and apple? Manacpowers (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * it mentioned from irreravant source. and even if mentioned "one sentence" from irreravant source. it can't be a NPOV edit. it is a still Japanese side POV source. Manacpowers (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I now understand why your comments is always beside the point. You do not read what I write.  I said that "大韓民国国史編纂委員会所蔵" is not the name of the document.  It means "located at National Institute of Korean History."  The name of the document is "対馬宗家文書".  Katsumi Kuroita, one of the members of the 朝鮮史編修會, took it to Korea.  This is why the document is now "located at National Institute of Korean History" (大韓民国国史編纂委員会所蔵).  Do you now understand?
 * I cited another source for the duty of the society. Read my comment below.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

About the duty of the society
'''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). The committee is said to have legitimated Japan's 1910 annexation of Korea.'''
 * This is perfect, isn't it? Don't tell me the website I quoted is unreliable because it is in Japanese.  It is run by Historiographical Institute of the University of Tokyo.  Since its foundation in 1869, the Institute has been a major center of Japanese historical research.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ok. i accept your opinion. for compromise, title name chage as a "Society for Editing of Korean History". what do you think? Manacpowers (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the title you offered. Please read .  Choosing "edit" is nothing but POV.  It is as bad as calling North Korea "Autocratic People's Republic of Korea" because "edit" involves your estimation on the Committee.
 * "Korean Histroy Compilation Committee" and "Korean History Compilation Society" are already used by several historians, but "Society for Editing of Korean History" is not used. "Society for Editing of Korean History" is your translation and cannot solve this dispute.  Using a name which is already used by historians is the only way to solve this problem.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

a
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)
 * Question: How do you know he repeated? --11:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just look at the history. I also left Michael a note in his discussion section. You are welcome to contribute, lets discuss it here. --Objectiveye (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm realy tired of talking with you. You never understand what I say.  Your source does not refer to the Committee at all.  It does not say about the Gojoseon either.  Actually, this information doesn't seem true to me.  The writer only repeats South Korea's claim without solid knowledge.  For example, he says that "the sea in question [ Sea of Japan ] was only named the Sea of Japan after Japan’s colonization of Korea," but it's not true.  The first remaining map which uses the name of "Sea of Japan" is a map by Matteo Ricci in 1602.  I don't intend to discuss the Sea of Japan naming dispute here, but it is not true that the sea was only named the Sea of Japan after Japan’s colonization of Korea.  I cannot believe a website that has such a stupid claim.
 * I think your interpretaion is very arbitrary. But I'm really tired of talking with you. It's counterproductive and do more harm than good for both of us.  Just believe what you want to whether it is true or not.  Yes.  Japan changed Corea into Korea.  The name of Sea of Japan was coined by Japanese after 1910.  Daemado belongs to Corea.  Japan was a colony of Baekje.  The ecosystem in Corea is superior and the origin of that of Japan.  The Corean language is the origin of all languages all over the world.  Genghis Khan is Corean.  Coreans are the Ancesters of English People.  The civilization of all East Asia was established by Coreans (고대 동아시아 역사 문명의 발원지가 다름아닌 한민족이라는 사실을 다루고 있다).--Michael Friedrich (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? You got a satire cartoon, couple of odd Japanese sites making claims about Korea and one site that doesn't say much about Khan? You got a link to the name Sea of Japan which was adopted in 1928 by International Hydrographic Organization. Korean occupation 1910-1945. You can believe what you want to, Japan was good for Asia in WWII, they modernized everthing they touched and if Japan had not interfered, no one else in Asia would have modernized on their own. Sure Japanese Buddhism and ancient sculptures and burial tombs are not linked to Korea. The Imperial family has no Korean lineage and Japan did not cover up atrocities like unit 731. Unit 731 was good for Asia because it advanced our knowledge. And yes the Nanking massacre never happened.


 * Anyways back to our point, the articles states that Japan had a problem with Korea being older than Japan, because then Japan's theory and reason for colonizing Korea would not make sense. I know Japan has always had an issue with its age in comparison to the rest of Asia, remember that archeology fraud I pointed out to you. The international community couldn't believe that such an obvious lie could be believed for so long in Japan. The Japanese people wanted to believe Shinichi Fujimura. --Objectiveye (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You can say anything. But actually, I never heard that Japan has had an issue with its age in comparison to the rest of Asia...  I've never seen any Japanese who are proud of the length of Japanese history because everyone in Japan knows that it is way shorter than countries such as China...  Where did you hear of such a strange claim?  And I don't want you to talk as if you represented the international community, you can say anything if you think you actually represent it.
 * Your interpretation of reference is almost always a stretch (확대 해석). "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"  This states that what Korean scholars concern.  It doesn't say what Japan did, let alone what the Committee did. It doesn't even say what "Japanese distorions" was like.  Your interpretation is always like this.  When someone says Japan outlawed Korean martial arts, you blame the Committee for it without examining how and when it outlawd what kind of martial art, thinking that it must have been by the Committee and that it must have been in 1910 and that it must have been kumdo, although no one was referring to the Committee.  Even if it is true that Korean martial arts was outlawed (you have to show how, when and by whom, though), it does not prove that the Committee was involved in it.  It is a stretch (확대 해석).
 * Anyway, you can believe whatever you want to even if it is your arbitrary interpretation. I never said Japan was good for Asia in WWII and there are only few people who claims such a thing.  You can hate me as much as you want, just like I hate you.  But I don't want you to hate Japan and Japanese people because of me, just like I don't hate Korea and Korean people because of you.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't hate you Michael. --Objectiveye (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * At least, I want you to stop your arbtrary interpretaion. I didn't deny that the name of Sea of Japan was stardardized after 1910. (Actually, I don't know when.)  I denied that the sea was only named the Sea of Japan after Japan’s colonization of Korea.  But you talked as if I denied that the name was standardized after 1910.  It's another 확대 해석 of yours.  You have to learn how to use sources and to interpret them.  Please do not embroider the truth.  International Hydrographic Organization was established in 1921.  It is natural that the name was adopted during the occupation.  And tha fact that the name of Sea of Japan was adopted in 1928 does not mean Japan forced other countries to use it.  It might have happened, but it might not.  (According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, the name "Sea of Japan" was registered in the Special Publication No. 23 (S-23) of the IHO entitled "Limits of Oceans and Seas," issued in 1928, simply because the name "Sea of Japan" was well established internationally by that time. As noted in the 1929 proceedings of the First International Hydrographic Conference, Japan did not take an active role in the preparation of its first edition.)  I don't know the truth, but I know your interpretation is arbtrary.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

About the problematic article
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 ). 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)
 * I've deleted all biased sentences and paragraphs. In my opinion, if we can not truly obey WP:NPOV, then maybe we should not mention the accusation that the committee distort history of Korea, and just describe the date of establishment and members, like Japanese Wikipedia does.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)