Talk:Brian Reynolds Myers

Entry Revised

The B. R. Myers entry has been rewritten. The earlier one was not encyclopedic, lacked citations, and was heavily promotional. (Why list Myers’ Master’s thesis?) The “Selected works” list has been replaced with a “Published books” section. The new entry is descriptive, sourced, and with no superfluous information. -- Dashimalhae (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, however, the re-write got rid of the word "polyglot." A very sad day for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.193.142 (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

An Imbalance Raising Notability Issues

The successive revisions have removed nearly all discussion of Myers' Reader's Manifesto, the work on which the bulk of his public reputation rests (and evidently considered significant enough to maintain its own very lengthy entry on Wikipedia). Absent discussion of this work, the entry is simply a long biographical essay on an occasional essayist and middle-ranking academic at a relatively obscure university.76.15.239.151 (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the article (as of this writing) is aiming for balance. Your description of Myers, though, sounds very interesting -- "an occasional essayist and middle-ranking academic at a relatively obscure university." 123clock (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Question

Has Myers ever been to North Korea?--Jack Upland (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess not.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Just googled it. There is a ca. 2011 photo of him with a North Korean guide in front of the USS Pueblo. 123clock (talk) 08:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. It sounds like Myers' experience in North Korea is possibly as extensive as mine(!) I.e., not very. I just asked because, according to his recent book, The Impossible State, Victor Cha has not.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, it looks like Myers does not have much firsthand experience there at all. He seems to be mostly a talker. Re: Cha, he visited North Korea when he was working for the G. W. Bush administration. 123clock (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked at Cha's book, The Impossible State once, and I thought it said he'd never been there.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What relevance does this question bear to the present article? Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 10:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

None at all, and I flagellated myself as I wrote that reply.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brian Reynolds Myers. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/opinion/28myers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Reynolds Myers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050216031119/http://www.korea.ac.kr:80/%7Egrad/nok_01.htm to http://www.korea.ac.kr/~grad/nok_01.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://gpa.korea.ac.kr/gpa_board/view.php?id=ceo_schedule&page=4&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&sl1=off&sl1=off&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Tyranny of the Weak

Why do we even mention a blogpost which retracts a review of Armstrong's book (which Myers recommended by the way)? He was not the first to expose the problems with the book. How is this notable?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed this.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Lankov

Since there is an edit war about the statement that Lankov "doubts whether it [Myers' work] has any relation to reality", could someone provide an English translation of the passage at issue?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Неслучайно, что в последние год-два в Вашингтоне с большим интересом читают работы американского культуролога и историка-корееведа Брайана Майерса, который уже не одно десятилетие доказывает, что КНДР, несмотря на всю свою псевдосоциалистическую оболочку, в действительности является ультраправым государством, цель и смысл существования которого – завоевательные походы (точнее, один такой поход – на Юг), а идеология – перекрашенный японский милитаризм образца 1941 года. Независимо от того, имеет ли построение Брайана Майерса (человека в профессиональных кругах, безусловно, уважаемого) отношение к реальности, сам факт его популярности среди американских элит говорит о многом.

It is not accidental that the last one or two years in Washington they read works of American culturologist and a historian specializing in Korea, Brian Myers, who already for several decades attempts to prove that North Korea, despite it pseudosocialist shell, is an ultra-right state, which has its goal and purpose in expansion campaigns (to be more precise, only one campaign - to the south), and its ideology is a modified Japanese militarism of 1941. Irrespective of whether this construction of Brian Myers (who is, without any doubt, respected in professional circles) has any relation to reality, the fact that it became popular among American elites is telling a lot. (translation mine)--Ymblanter (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I think we need more clarification of Lankov's point of view. He is positive about the Cleanest Race, but he doesn't say whether he accepts Myers' fascist thesis. Overall, his comments seem ambiguous. I have also removed the suggestion that Lankov "found Han Sǒrya and North Korean Literature to be "very interesting" This cites an email from Lankov trying to contact Myers. How anyone thought this was an appropriate citation beggers belief! It seems that some people have gone to desperate measures to find support for Myers.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The whole article (from which I cited the above paragraph) is on the relations between the US and North Korea, and Lankov is critical about ideas similar to that of Myers. However, this is not an article about Lankov, and I am not sure to which degree of detail we should dive about Lankov's views here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No, I just want to be sure we aren't misrepresenting Lankov's views either way...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter, please read the source. You are intentionally misinterpreting it to manipulate its meaning on Wiki. "Irrespective of whether this construction of Brian Myers has any relation to reality, the fact that it became popular among American elites is telling a lot." only means "Regardless of whether or not what Myers is saying is true...", so please refrain from unscrupulously bastardising his language and edit warring. You have not arrived at a conclusion here, yet you told me in the edit it has already been discussed. You are a liar and I'd like to see how you came to the idea that what he is saying means Myers' work has no relationship to reality. In detail, thanks. Inswoon (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

May I please suggest that you retract your personal attacks against me, otherwise I will make sure your account is blocked. Irrespective of that, I do not see how I am "bastardicising hos language". I just translated what he said.

@Ymblanter, Jack Upland, and Inswoon: I propose to split the difference and include the relevant sentence of the quotation in full to avoid the ambiguity of taking it out of context. Lankov also says Myers' work is "informative", noting that "[i]rrespective of whether this construction of Brian Myers (who is, without any doubt, respected in professional circles) has any relation to reality, the fact that it became popular among American elites is telling a lot." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with this suggestion.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I am uneasy about including it as it is unclear what Lankov is saying. The sentence itself is out of context, and the passage translated above is also out of context. "Telling a lot", but telling what exactly? I'm also not sure we should use Ymblanter's translation.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

For me as a native Russian speaker is pretty clear what Lankov is saying.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You are lying about what he is saying. I have explained exactly what he meant, yet you continue to ignore it. And threatening to ban people because they've accused you of intentionally inventing meaning is quite revealing. Inswoon (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

References

no longer an associate professor

Hi, after reading thru Myers' site recently I noticed he mentioned he is now a full professor rather than an associate professor and has been for some time. Sure enough, there are plenty of sources referring to him as 교수 (professor) rather than 부교수 (associate professor). to just pick one random example from a large national SK newspaper. I am unsure but suspect a direct link to a professor's page at the university in question may be required to reference something of this nature, if that is the case I'll make no change to the article until I find such a thing (the 동서대학교 site is horrible to navigate on my phone, in a second language). If/when I come back here I'll be sure to login and all that. best, 223.62.11.211 (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, we would like indeed to have a link to the university webpage since the media have a tendency of not understanding the difference between full and associate professor. However, if this is difficult, I think a reference to the media would work. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's me, the IP from above. I found a proper cite for it and it's in English as well as Korean. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

References

"Charles K. Armstrong of Columbia University suggested....

that the book [The Cleanest Race] "gives an intellectual gloss to attitudes many in the West already have about the DPRK".

I'm back again. Can someone explain to me how this quote is a "challenge" to the ideas presented in the book, as the preceding sentence states? Otherwise, this quote should probably be removed. Thanks. ~ Anotheranothername (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. It's a criticism of the book, and therefore it belongs here.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The preceding sentence says that several academics have "challenged" the work--I just don't think the "intellectual gloss" quote really can be considered a challenge. I can't get at the ref at the moment, but do you happen to know if Armstrong discusses Myers' ideas at length in it? Otherwise, this "intellectual gloss" zinger can't really be described as a challenge, can it? "Challenge" implies rigor (and depth) .~ Anotheranothername (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, Felix Abt doesn't sound like the kind of person who can be described as an "academic".~ Anotheranothername (talk)

I think you're reading too much into it. The quotation is not everything Armstrong says. The article does not say Abt is an academic. Maybe the section could be rewritten, but I don't see a basis for removing text.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Then by chance could you make the article available somewhere? I'll rewrite the section myself. If the quotation is not everything he says, surely the quotation should reflect... what he says? Re:academics, the section lead sentence says Myers' work has been challenged by several academic critics. The first person quoted after Armstrong is Abt. Since the other quotes in the section are from academics, surely Abt's criticism should come later? Also, isn't this Wikipedia? Reading "too much" into quotes and trying to ensure things are balanced is what we are supposed to do. People argue for weeks over single word choices on this site and that's the way it should be. The fact is that Abt's opinion has way too much weight in the section given that he is not actually an academic, just a dude who lived in the North for a while.~ Anotheranothername (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

여보세요? Jack, if you aren't interested in continuing this discussion I'm going to move ahead with changes in the next week or two. Anotheranothername (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)