Talk:Editing Agency of Korean History

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea (History), a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
	Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please help us improve this article.
	High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Samguk Yusa

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)

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 encyclopedia[1]Is 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 ([2]), 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 [3] [4] and another one on Hwanin [5]. Two more sources, though a bit less credible [6] [7] 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)

[edit] 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)^[1].

The left is the original Samguk Yusa in Gyujanggak Seoul National University, and the right is the fabricated Samguk Yusa by the Agent. The Chinese script 国(state) is fabricated into 因(cause) to make Hwanguk as myth

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.

[edit] 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 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 me}_{see my works}^{mail to me} 09:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)