Talk:Korean History Compilation Committee

message: 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)
thread_title:  5000 years of histoy? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The pronunciation of 朝鮮史編修会 in Japanese should added. 

message: 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#Debate over an ancient message.
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)
thread_title: Removing POV

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Move

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About the problematic article