駁斥 〈辨析《臺灣歷史辭典》〈南拜山〉真正應該註明的參考書目〉一文

Response to the Article“Discrimination and Analysis of the Bibliography That Should Be Indicated in‘Minami Haizan’of Dictionary of Taiwan History”

本文旨在駁斥本刊2023年3月1日出版有關陳君愷的大作，〈辨析《臺灣歷史辭典》〈南拜山〉真正應該註明的參考書目〉一文。表面上，該文似只指稱〈南拜山〉詞目下所附的參考書目應該是其大作；實則該文：1、指責本人在該詞目所寫的內容有55%的比例是抄襲其大作；2、宣稱《漢文皇漢醫界》的創刊時間，乃是陳君愷在專業考訂與判斷下所作的學術貢獻，本人則剽竊其學術貢獻。有關第1點，本人引用《漢文皇漢醫界》、《臺灣皇漢醫界》（1930年7月正式更名）內的文章，以顯示該條目逐句皆有所本。有關第2點，本人當初曾經查證《臺灣日日新報》，1928年11月25日，夕刋第4版，有不著撰人，〈漢文皇漢醫界第一號出版〉一文，內載「其第一號。於去二十日已出。」即指出第1號刋出於1928年11月20日，既有原手史料，似乎不必偏勞陳君愷做「專業考訂」。在此鄭重駁斥陳君愷所有指責均非事實。

The main object of this article is to refute the article by Chun-Kai Chen, entitles “Discrimination and Analysis of the Bibliography That Should Be Indicated in ‘Minami Haizan’ of Dictionary of Taiwan History,” which was published in the present journal on March 1, 2023. On surface, that article seems to indicate only that the reference of the “Minami Haizan” item should be his work. However, what he really meant are follows: 1. That 55% of the content of the item which I wrote plagiarizes his previous work. 2. When was the first issue of the journal Chinese Imperial China Medicine (han-wen huang-han yi chieh) published? Since only issues after issue 16 of the journal are preserved, Chen claimed that date of the publication of the first issue was the result of his examination thus a scholarly contribution. For the first point, this article cites materials from the journal Chinese Imperial China Medicine(which was renamed Taiwan Chinese Medicine in July 1930), i.e., every phrase of this article has its concrete source. Secondly, I had found an article entitles “The Publication of the First Issue of Chinese Imperial China Medicine,” on p.4 of the November 25, 1928 night issue of Taiwan Daily News, which says that the first issue of the Journal was published on November 20, 1928.Thus, the publication date of the first issue really needs no Chen’s “professional examination.” Above indicates that the charge of plagiarism by Chen is not a fact.