User talk:EJcarter

On the pages you mentioned

Hi EJcarter. Thank you for your message. The pages you point to are very controversial and therefore difficult to edit. I will not intervene in these discussions without some strong factual background on the history of the periods involved. This takes time to establish, but I will try. In the meantime, let me just say that the key to any of these content disputes is balance in representing reliable sources. For controversial issues, one source is usually not enough, because it will not reflect what all scholars have said about an issue. While I think all English-language studies will tell you that Dangun is a mythical person, scholars don't seem to agree about the beginning of the Bronze Age on the territories that are now part of Korea. Check this out for example. For one thing, the Bronze Age seems to have started much earlier in the north than in the south. This search for "Korea" and "Bronze age" on Google Books should give you plenty of material to see what scholars have said on this issue. I hope this helps! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Madalibi. Your advice is very helpful. You are definitely right on looking up various sources instead of one and I will surely follow your suggestion in the edit and discussion. The book you mentioned above seems to have detailed data on the carbon dates of Bronze age sites, which probably supports earlier Bronze age date for the north Korea peninsula. I will try to find out that book from local libraries and read it through during the weekend. EJcarter (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Google Books is always a treasure trove of reliable sources. I always start from there when I edit on a historical topic. Also, when you edit on Korea, try to remember that Korean editors have learned a very different version of history than what we find in English-language books. Since the times of Shin Chaeho and his Doksa Sillon (1908), Korean scholars have seen their history as that of a racially defined nation that had declined in early modern times (see Korean ethnic nationalism) but that needed to reassert its pride in the modern world. They've also made great efforts to counter Japanese scholarship from the colonial era. This Korean "nationalist historiography" (as it's known in English) often presents origin myths as history and is very sensitive about what scholars from other countries say about Korea. Korean historians have therefore made all kinds of statements that historians from other countries may find biased or false, but Koreans usually take these statements for granted. I think this is why there are so many conflicts between Korean editors and other editors who are interested in East Asia, including Chinese and Japanese editors who have themselves learned a very different version of history from their own textbooks. Accusations of "nationalism" fly back and forth, resentment develops on all sides, and everybody loses track of the task of building an encyclopedia that reflects what reliable sources have said about any topic. The trick is to find balanced formulations based on a large array of reliable sources, but that's not always easy. Anyway, I digress. Let me know if you need my help on anything else. I also hope you find the sources you need either on Google Books or in local libraries. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As a note, this book is a critical assessment of Korean archeology's attempts to read the past in light of modern nationalist conceptions. It's very informative, though of course it should be considered only as one reliable source among many others. Good editing! Madalibi (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Timeline of Korean history. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Shadowjams (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Today I only did one revert on the page of Timeline of Korean history and did not violent 3RR rule according to its definition. Therefore I am confused and need your explanation. I also left a message on your talk page. Thanks. EJcarter (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I like to keep threads in one place, and I responded on my talk page to your thread, but short version is that you and an IP are undoing each other back and forth over a few articles and I don't see any attempt to resolve it. Shadowjams (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page and asked for your help. EJcarter (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please come

Template:History of Korea--114.160.120.132 (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

K-pop

Could you look at Talk:K-pop#Some proposals. Your user name was mentioned there, you were accused of being a sock (in this edit by a user named Stateofyolandia). --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I have mentioned your user name here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Apparently I'm marked by 2channel. Being wiki-stalked, character assassination, wholesale reverts.
I am sorry if you will have any problems because of it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)