| Revision as of 21:36, 18 December 2022 editAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,013 edits →Response to WP:OR claim: licensed prostitutes literature: Hat this as WP:OR. See also the ANI thread, which Eyagi has not responded to.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:57, 14 November 2024 edit undoMetokpema (talk | contribs)465 edits →Apply quotation marks to euphemisms: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit New topic |
| (80 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes|search=no}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
|
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=History|class=B}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Asia|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject China|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Korea|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Indonesia|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Japan|class=B|importance=High |
|
|
| b1=yes <!--Referencing & citations--> |
|
|
| b2=yes <!--Coverage & accuracy--> |
|
|
| b3=yes <!--Structure--> |
|
|
| b4=yes <!--Grammar & style--> |
|
|
| b5=yes <!--Supporting materials--> |
|
|
| b6=yes <!--Accessibility-->}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Tambayan Philippines|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Vietnam|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime|class=B|importance=Mid |
|
|
| b1=yes <!--Referencing & citations--> |
|
|
| b2=yes <!--Coverage & accuracy--> |
|
|
| b3=yes <!--Structure--> |
|
|
| b4=yes <!--Grammar & style--> |
|
|
| b5=yes <!--Supporting materials-->}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Japanese=y|Chinese=y|Korean=y|Southeast-Asian=y|WWII=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Organized crime|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|class=B|importance=Mid|sex-workers=yes|sex-workers-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women||class=B|importance=High}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{Article history |
|
{{Article history |
| Line 36: |
Line 7: |
|
|action1oldid=61283290 |
|
|action1oldid=61283290 |
|
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|
|
|otd1date=2011-08-04|otd1oldid=443100372 |
|
|
|otd2date=2014-08-04|otd2oldid=619708537 |
|
|
|otd3date=2017-08-04|otd3oldid=793685558 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{On this day|date1=2011-08-04|oldid1=443100372|date2=2014-08-04|oldid2=619708537|date3=2017-08-04|oldid3=793685558}}{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject China|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Korea|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Indonesia|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Tambayan Philippines|importance=High|history=yes|history-importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Vietnam|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid|organizedcrime=yes|organizedcrime-imp=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|b1=y|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Japanese=y|Chinese=y|Korean=y|Southeast-Asian=y|WWII=y}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Mid|sex-workers=yes|sex-workers-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
| Line 56: |
Line 46: |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
|
# ] |
|
}}<!-- Template:Archive box --> |
|
}}<!-- Template:Archive box --> |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{clear}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2023 == |
|
== Should the ] of this article be reworded? If so, how? == |
|
|
<!-- ] 06:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1659506506}} |
|
|
{{archive top|1=The only consensus that is emerging in this discussion is that the RfC is too improperly worded to be a proper RfC. I am being ] and closing this as an uninvolved editor because I have never edited this page nor do I have any interest in the outcome, and because this RfC is too off-track to come to any sort of consensus on the lede. If a new RfC is needed, I suggest coming to an agreement on a neutral wording ''before'' opening a new RfC. <small>(])</small> - ] (]) 22:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)}} |
|
|
This is a dispute over yes or no of a rewrite of lead sentence of the current "Comfort Women" article. The content of the dispute is shown in the . We agree that there are two opinions about "comfort women": "licensed prostitutes" and "sex slaves", and also that we have exhausted our arguments. In the current article, the first paragraph reads, "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls '''forced into sexual slavery''' by the Imperial Japanese Army ..." and the writing of "licensed prostitutes claim”is excluded as this basis. To maintain neutrality, shouldn't this paragraph be changed to, for example, "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls '''to provide sexual services''' to the Imperial Japanese Army..." ? |
|
|
|
|
|
The reason for oppositon to the writing of "licensed prostitutes" is based on the claim that the majority of comfort women is sex slaves. There is an objection to "majority of sex slaves" with evidence. Even if they are a minority, wouldn't be against wiki's 5P1 and 5P2 to exclude dissenting opinions ? Please read through Talk and comment. If you have any questions, I will answer them. ] (]) 05:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I must admit surprise that a 3 week old account knows how to start an RfC... SPAs aren't 禁止 but certainly sus. ほかの利用者名で投稿したことがあるの？ ] ] 05:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::I learned about NPOV atTeahouse, and an adviser commented me to use RfC at . ] (]) 07:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::RFC is a pretty common threat in discussions, so I would be a little surprised if a new user wasn't familiar with it. Assuming good faith, it could be that they never created an account on Misplaced Pages until they were interested in a particular discussion or change, or closed an older account in good standing. Considering the user's request, however, this looks more like block evasion. --] (]) 14:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Note for editors arriving here via the RFC link ]: See earlier discussion on the section above. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 09:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Bad RfC''' The RfC statement is not ] nor does it contain a question. I would suggest this is closed and, if necessary, a better worded RfC is opened. ] (]) 06:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yup. This isn't how an RfC is supposed to be conducted. ] (]) 10:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for your comment. Corrected to a neutral expression. ] (]) 01:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The 'correction' hasn't solved the problem. Not even remotely. The RfC remains invalid. ] (]) 09:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I haven't been involved in RFCs except, occasionally, to add my comments. However, I suggest that the neutral heading at the head of the RFC be reworded to something like, "Should the ] of this article be reworded? If so, how?" It seems to me that it would be more useful to discuss the question at issue than to continue a discussion of the form in which the question is put. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 10:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thanks for your advice. Corrected according to your suggestion. ] (]) 23:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I still don't consider the question properly formatted. You are making an argument in it ("To maintain neutrality, shouldn't this paragraph be changed...") which is your own opinion on the matter. Frankly though I really can't see this RfC achieving much even without the problem over wording, since it basically asks people to read through a long thread where different sources are cited on an issue, and then asks contributors to chose which ones are correct. That isn't how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. We need to decide whether (a) the differing sources meet WP:RS for the specific issue under debate, and (b) whether the perspectives they offer are widely accepted. We don't cite non-WP:RS sources at all, and how we use reliable sources depends on whether they represent mainstream perspectives. If there are differing opinions, held by a ''significant proportion'' of relevant reliable sources, we don't chose between them, we present both arguments, noting the difference of opinion, in the body of the article. The lede isn't a place to present new arguments and/or perspectives, or to make definitive assertions about matters the article body makes clear are under debate. It seems to me that what is being asked for is a change in wording of the lede so it no longer reflects the (apparently well-sourced) material in the article body, which makes it clear that the sources cited broadly support the "forced into sexual slavery" wording. Such a change would be simply untenable. ] (]) 15:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::We have already discussed the sources of the "sex slave claim" on Talk. I understand that here is not the place to debate. Please post to Talk with the material names you claim to be "the sources cited broadly support the" forced into sexual slavery "and why you support these materials. |
|
|
:::::::As stated in Talk, American scholars have not replied to any of these points for requesting correction of factual errors in McGraw-Hill Textbook by 19 Japanese historians. ] (]) 05:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I am under no obligation to convince you personally of anything. That isn't how an RfC is supposed to be conducted. ] (]) 10:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::As someone showing up a few days late after being summoned by the bot, I agree that this RfC is improperly formatted per Andy's points. ] (]) 00:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I agree, this should be closed as improper. ] ] 11:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::The user may be violating WP:NORACISM by promoting the denial of Japanese war crimes. --] (]) 14:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{archive bottom}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Yoo Hee-nam (1927-2016) == |
|
|
|
|
|
Yoo Hee-Nam died of a heart attack I’m 2016, so the date of her death should be included. Otherwise people may assume she is still alive. ] (]) 12:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:I added her death date with a supporting cite. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 23:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Use of the word "brothel" == |
|
|
|
|
|
The word "brothel" should be replaced in every instance in this article except for references to the involvement of voluntary prostitutes. Prostitutes, by definition, are involved in a transactional activity: money in exchange for sex. The so-called "comfort women", were prisoners and sex slaves who were being held against their will and forced to engage in sex against their will. There is no way they can even remotely be deemed to have been prostitutes. Therefore, the locations where they were held were prisons, or concentration camps, or internment camps; "prisons" likely being the best term. I urge Misplaced Pages to replace brothel with prison or sex prison or some variation that is more fitting. "Brothel" is absolutely the wrong word to use. The definition of the word quite simply disqualifies it from being used under these circumstances. ] (]) 04:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:I see that the ] article defines the term as "a place where people engage in sexual activity with prostitutes". not mentioning remuneration except by implication via the word "prostitutes". It might be better to say something like "engage in paid sex" there. If the male always pays, it's a brothel from his point of view. If the female likewise always receives pay, that term might be said to fit. I don't know if or how well the article supports this, but I suspect there was no payment re one or both parties for some fraction of the forced sex encounters. Perhaps the term "comfort station" might be appropriate in this article, with some explanation on first use. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 07:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Verification of the authenticity of lead sentence == |
|
|
{{hat|Not a forum for disputation of testimony or for attempts at denialism}} |
|
|
@RfC's attempt to aggregate opinions for rewriting the lead sentence in "Comfort women" was inappropriate. The reason is that this subject involves political views. The U.S. Congress has passed U. Res. 121, and the majority of Americans believes that comfort women were sex slaves. However, the controversy over the comfort women issue, i.e., "Were comfort women sex slaves or licensed prostitutes?" continues today in the academic community. |
|
|
|
|
|
Through Talk, I learned that English readers do not have information on primary sources on the comfort women issue, namely the licensed prostitution system, military comfort station regulations, and related police records. Therefore, I have added ] and ] to the net.The claim that "comfort women were licensed prostitutes" has already been mentioned in Talk: ], but once again its contents are summarized below. |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Basic Knowledge === |
|
|
|
|
|
==== The Japanese Empire was a state ruled by law ==== |
|
|
Laws were enacted separately for mainland Japan, Korean Peninsula and Taiwan, taking into account differences in social customs in each region, and Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese were equal under the law. |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Establishment of licensed prostitution system ==== |
|
|
The Licensed prostitution system was established in 1900 in mainland Japan for the purpose of preventing the transmission of venereal diseases (STD) and maintaining social morals. This system was introduced in Taiwan in 1906 and in Korea in 1916, and established also in both society. The permit conditions for licensed prostitution required the will of the person wishing to work, written consent from the parent, and a copy of the contract with the employer. The minimum age required to be licensed was 18 in Japan, 17 in Korea, and 16 in Taiwan. Once they became licensed prostitutes, they were required to undergo periodic STD examinations and their places of working were restricted. Police control data on licensed prostitution and criminal law violations in Korea are heled in the . |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Involvement in the establishment and operation of comfort stations by the Japanese military ==== |
|
|
For the Japanese military, preventing STD among soldiers on the battlefield was a serious issue. For this reason, the Japanese military designated and used private brothels outside the Empire of Japan, which accepted regular STD examinations. After 1938, as the front expanded, the Japanese military established relevant regulations under domestic law and was involved in the establishment and operation of comfort stations (licensed brothels for Japanese military personnel (soldiers and civilian employees) established in battlefields and occupied territories). However, the age of Japanese comfort women was set at 21, not the legal age of 18, because that in 1927, the Japanese Empire (excluding Korea and Taiwan) had signed an international treaty banning prostitution for those under the age of 21. With the start of the Pacific War, local women in Southeast Asian countries were also employed as comfort women under similar military regulations. Documents on military regulations regarding comfort stations and violations of these regulations by military personnel are heled in the . |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Occurrence and history of the comfort women issue ==== |
|
|
In August 1991, a Korean, Kim Hak-soon, came forward as a former comfort woman, and In December 1991, three Korean former comfort women, including Kim Hak-soon, along with 32 Korean former military personnel, filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo District Court demanding 20 million yen ($148 thousand) per person in compensation from the Japanese government. |
|
|
|
|
|
In March 1993, Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono acknowledged that the Japanese military had been involved in the establishment and operation of comfort stations, and based on interviews with 18 Korean former comfort women, forced prostitution against their will, and apologized. Details of the interview have not been made public. He stated that "'''excluding those from Japan''', those from the Korean Peninsula accounted for a large part," |
|
|
|
|
|
In June 1995, the Japanese government established the Asian Women's Fund (AWF) to atone for its moral responsibility toward former comfort women, and paid compensations to the former comfort women whom came out, accompanied by an apology from the Prime Minister. However, most of Kotean former comfort women refused to accept the compensations due to objections from the ], an NGO seeking state responsibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
In January 1996, R. Coomaraswmy, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, based on documentary evidence from G. Hicks' book, Seiji Yoshida's book and Japanese military comfort station regulations, and corroborated by the testimony of former Korean comfort women, reported that "approximately 200,000 former Korean comfort women were forcibly or deceptively taken to Japanese military comfort stations where they were forced to provide sexual services against their will and subjected to daily physical violence. The comfort women were sex slaves, and comfort stations were sex slaves organizations". |
|
|
|
|
|
In April 2007, the Interagency Working Group submitted its final report to the U.S. Congress, stating that it found "no new material on the violation of women's human rights by the Japanese military". In July 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed ], which called on the Japanese government to "acknowledge and officially apologize for the historical facts of the forced sexual enslavement of young women in its colonies and occupied Asian territories". However, the basis for this is ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
In March 2015, calling for the correction of eight factual errors in the McGraw-Hill Textbook (2011). In response, U.S. historians criticized them as historical revisionists and refused to correct the textbook. |
|
|
|
|
|
In February 2021, an uproar erupted over the retraction of J. Mark Ramsayer's paper,"Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War”. |
|
|
|
|
|
In August 2022, Tetsuo Arima and J. Mark Ramseyer published a paper refuting the rationale for the retraction request. |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Points of Controversy ==== |
|
|
The points of controversy between sex slaves or licensed prostitutes are as follows. Both cite the Kono Statement, military regulations and No. 49 as documentary evidence for their respective claims. |
|
|
{| class="wikitable" |
|
|
|+Table 1 Controversy on the comfort women issue |
|
|
! rowspan="2" |Items |
|
|
! colspan="3" |Sex slaves |
|
|
! colspan="3" |Licensed prostitutes |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! scope="col" style="width: 200px;" |Claims |
|
|
! scope="col" style="width: 50px;" |Sources |
|
|
! scope="col" style="width: 50px;" |Documented evidence |
|
|
! scope="col" style="width: 200px;" |Claims |
|
|
! scope="col" style="width: 50px;" |Sources |
|
|
! scope="col" style="width: 50px;" |Documented evidence |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Comfort stations |
|
|
|Sexual slaves center |
|
|
|UN report (para.10) |
|
|
|'''military regulations''' |
|
|
|Licensed brothel based on domestic law for military personnel |
|
|
|ATIS Research Report No. 120 |
|
|
|Domestic law, '''military regulations''' |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Comfort women |
|
|
|"military sexual slaves" such as multiple rapes on an everyday basis and severe physical abuse during forced prostitution |
|
|
|UN report (para.10) |
|
|
|military regulation (para.20) |
|
|
|licensed prostitutes |
|
|
|UN report (para.40) |
|
|
|Domestic law, income of comfort women |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Number of comfort women |
|
|
|approximately 200,000 Korean women |
|
|
|UN report (para.61, 69) |
|
|
|Hicks (1995) |
|
|
|unknown, Hata estimates approximately 20,000 |
|
|
|AWF report, Hata (1999) |
|
|
|Prostitutes to customer ratio in Tokyo |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Ethnic majority |
|
|
|Korean |
|
|
|H.Res.121 |
|
|
|Hicks, '''Kono statement''' |
|
|
|Japanese |
|
|
|'''Kono statement''' |
|
|
|Consular records |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Recruitment |
|
|
|Forced or deceived |
|
|
|UN report (para.14, 16, 27 to 30), H.Res.121 |
|
|
|Hicks, Yoshida (1983), '''No.49''', Yuki Tanaka (2001) |
|
|
|by contracts |
|
|
|UN report (para.40) |
|
|
|Military regulations, '''No.49''', No.78, No.120, police records |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Guard and patrol |
|
|
|The movements of the "comfort women" were closely monitored and restricted |
|
|
|UN report (para.33) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|It depends on the situation. In the front line, civilians were protected from enemy attacks, and so were comfort women. |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Number of sex services |
|
|
|60 to 70 men per day. |
|
|
|UN report (para.34) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|5 men per day on average |
|
|
|AWF report |
|
|
|Amenities, p.18 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Injuries by Soldiers |
|
|
|little notice was taken of the frequent cigarette burns, bruises, bayonet stabs and even broken bones inflicted on the women by soldiers. |
|
|
|UN report (para.35, 37) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|Violence at the comfort stations was mainly drunken beatings, and the number of such misconduct was a few for every about thirty thousand users per month. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|Military police records, Table A.2.1 to A.2.7 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Payment of service fees |
|
|
|Food was provided by the army and services were paid for with tickets |
|
|
|Un report (para.36) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|Food was provided by the operator of the comfort station, tickets were cashed every month, and the operator paid the comfort women. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|Military regulations |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Risk of STD |
|
|
|"there existed the constant fear of disease and pregnancy" |
|
|
|UN report (para.38) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|Prostitutes common risks. Military regulations strictly prescribed the use of condoms and washing after sex. Violators were prohibited from using comfort stations. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|Military regulations, number of licensed prostitutes in Korea |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Testimonies in UN report |
|
|
|Coomaraswamy heard the testimony of 16 Korean former comfort women, and introduced the testimony of four of them. |
|
|
|(para.54): Chong Ok Sun, (para.55, 57): Hang So Gyun, (para.56, 58): Kum Ju Hwang, (para.58): Bok Sun Kim |
|
|
| |
|
|
|Chong Ok Sun and Hwang So Gyun: experiences prior to 1938. Kum Ju Hwang: never received service fees and Bok Sun Kim:soldiers refused to use condoms : both violations of military regulations. These testimonies prove that they were not actually comfort women. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|Military regulations |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Testimonies in H.Res.121 |
|
|
|One Dutch woman and two Korean women testified. |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|The Dutch woman:an example of Japanese military discipline at work. Korean women:proves that both were unlicensed prostitutes and not comfort women. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|Domestic law, military regulations |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
=== Authenticity of lead sentence === |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Absence of explanation of basic information ==== |
|
|
1. Explanation of "comfort station" is missing. A "comfort station" is a licensed brothel under ] for Japanese military personnel (of which Koreans were a part) established in the battlefield and occupied territory. |
|
|
|
|
|
2. It was after 1938 that the Japanese military became involved in the establishment and operation of comfort stations. |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Ignoring and misquoting facts ==== |
|
|
1. Only 240 have been certified by the South Korean government, in contrast to claims that approximately 200,000 Korean women were sexually enslaved. The basis for this certification has not yet been made public. |
|
|
|
|
|
2. The Kono Statement states that "the majority of comfort women were Japanese. However, H.Res. 121 misquotes the Kono Statement and claims that "A large part" of the comfort women were Korean. |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Lack of logic ==== |
|
|
1. Koreans were also members of the Japanese military. There was no reason for the Japanese military to be violent toward Korean comfort women who were their own citizens. |
|
|
|
|
|
2 Comfort women were valuable human resources for the Japanese military as nurses, and were in a position to protect them. ] stipulated monthly confirmation of wage payments to comfort women by operators of comfort stations, and strictly prohibit violence against operators and comfort women by military personnel. Violators were punished. |
|
|
|
|
|
3. The content of the former comfort women's testimony violates all domestic laws and military regulations. The Japanese Empire was a country ruled by law, and law violators could never be in the majority. Police and military police crackdown records support this. |
|
|
|
|
|
==== Unsubstantiated citation of sources and inappropriate citation ==== |
|
|
: Misquotation: only explaining violation cases through interviews with comfort women. The primary source for the claim of “sexual slavery” is the UN report by Coomaraswamy (1996). |
|
|
|
|
|
: Unreliable paper that does not cite primary sources |
|
|
|
|
|
: Unclear which references are being cited |
|
|
|
|
|
: Should cite a dictionary |
|
|
|
|
|
: Unsubstantiated paper |
|
|
|
|
|
: Should cite primary sources |
|
|
|
|
|
: Inaccurate article: according to a Dutch government survey, there may have been between 2 00and 300 Dutch comfort women, about 65 of whom were most certainly forced into prostitution: comfort station regulations are open to the public. |
|
|
|
|
|
to : Should cite primary sources: these were a personal opinions of speaker or authors |
|
|
|
|
|
English is now an international language. Therefore, articles in the English version are particularly required to be neutral and credible. As mentioned above, this article undermines neutrality and credibility. Will Binksternet continue to exclude posts like the above? ] (]) 05:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Misplaced Pages does not base content on a contributor's personal analysis of primary sources. Or, except to a very limited extent, to the sources themselves. ] (]) 05:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::For WP policy on presenting cite-supported viewpoints differing from views asserted here as supported by those cited sources you mention, see ]. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 06:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::In general, I think you are right. This article is special, and the core of the debate is whether the testimony of the former comfort women is true or not. As you can see from 300 references cited in the main text, many people are disseminating various information. I used "primary sources" to mean the basis for a claim. Many of the references cited overlap in content. ] (]) 08:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== WP:LEAD violation of lead sentence == |
|
|
{{hat|This is going nowhere, Misplaced Pages isn't a forum for original research}} |
|
|
Talk is a discussion page for improving the article. For some reason, the discussion on "Verification of the authenticity of the lead sentence" was closed. At the same time, part of H.Res.121's Controversy article was without discussion. I have asked for an explanation as to why, but have yet to receive a response. The deletion without discussion violates wikipedia's deletion policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''WP:LEAD''' stipulates that the lead sentence shall “summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies, and according to reliable, published sources”. The current article excludes the claims of licensed prostitutes, misquotes sources and cites unreliable sources as noted in "Verification of the authenticity of the lead sentence". This lead is clearly violates '''WP:LEAD'''. The editor, Binksternet, should openly acknowledge this fact and allow the article to be revised. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 02:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I closed it because it was a lengthy attack on the veracity of sources, and an attempt at a novel synthesis based on your personal analysis, carried on at great length. Other editors are under no obligation to agree with you, and your editing has every appearance of POV-pushing. I remind you again of the arbitration sanctions that are applicable to editors whose behavior disrupts gender-related topics or related discussions. . '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 02:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::I understand your point. My explanation was long because we were not able to share information. Please answer this talk of mine. ] (]) 05:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You are asking for primary sources to be accepted into the article, asking for us to accept your interpretation of primary sources. This is the same request you have made many times. It will never happen because it is a violation of ], a hard policy. ] (]) 06:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I'm just stating facts based on publicly available materials. Please specify which parts are WP:OR |
|
|
::::You explained that you excluded the licensed prostitutes claim from the article because there are very few licensed prostitutes. I pointed out that the fact is that licensed prostitutes are the majority. Do you accept this fact? If you do not accept, please explain the basis for this in detail. |
|
|
::::You also argued that the primary source was a very limited, and introduced Chunghee Sarah Soh's book as a secondary source for the sexual slavery claim. I countered that there were plenty of primary sources and introduced the materials specifically. It is well known that C. Sarah Soh's book criticizes the sexual slavery claim. ] (]) 00:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::You insist that you have the authority to analyze primary sources and make sweeping conclusions. I insist that you are violating the hard policy of ]. Guess which one of us is correctly following Misplaced Pages's rules? ] (]) 00:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Again, please point out specifically which part falls under ]. Otherwise, the discussion will not proceed. ] (]) 07:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think you and Aoidh are also editors. Please let me know your opinions on my point. This discussion has nothing to do with gender issues. |
|
|
::EvergreenFir、You seem to understand Japanese. Please comment on whether or not the Japanese language materials I cited are reliable. |
|
|
::] (1944) states that <code>A "comfort girl" is nothing more than a prostitute or "professional camp follower" attached to the Japanese Army for the benefit of the soldiers“. For fifty years after the war, it was common knowledge that "comfort women were highly paid professional prostitutes.</code> Fifty years later, R. Coomaraswamy interviewed 16 self-proclaimed former Korean comfort women selected by North Korean government and Korean Council, and concluded that "comfort women were sex slaves." And American scholars followed suit. These people are the "historical revisionists". All of these testimonies violated domestic law and military regulations at the time. ] (]) 02:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Jumping in here with a bit of clarification -- ''Eyagi'', I've changed the typeface in the quote from the report above to clarify what portion there was quoted from that source (). You don't mention, so I will point out that that source also says, <code>This report however deals only with the Korean "comfort girls" recruited by the Japanese and attached to their Army in Burma.</code>. I don't have much time for comment right now, but I do want to say that, though that source might be considered a ], other RSs express viewpoints which differ in general and perhaps re Burma in particular, and that WP policy ''requires'' that ] be followed in such cases. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 07:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Your point is that the document I cited is about Burma and not representative of Korean comfort women as a whole? |
|
|
::::As already explained, at that time, Koreans were one citizen of the Japanese Empire and under the same legal system. The Japanese in this document were Koreans with Japanese names. They were employed in Korea by former Korean restaurant owners. As of 1939, the number of intermediaries (also called recruiters or pimps) between prospective prostitutes and employers in Korea was 197 Japanese and 3,380 Koreans. Intermediaries made a living by mediating the conclusion of contracts between the two parties, earning commissions from both parties. Thus, this number of people is evidence that there were several thousand contracts signed by Korean in 1939. Prostitution without a contract was illegal and subject to police control. This document is evidence of the reality that all Korean comfort women were employed under domestic law. |
|
|
::::The following is an excerpt from M. Ramseyer's :”Most importantly, the '''Japanese government acknowledged in its Kono statement''' in 1993 that these young women and girls were “recruited against their own will” and “lived in misery at comfort stations under a coercive atmosphere,” and that Japanese “administrative/military personnel directly took part in the recruitments.” This settled fact has been further affirmed by the United Nations, Amnesty International, and the US House of Representatives.”:“1. The framing of the situation as a '''“contracting” problem without supporting evidence'''”. As already explained, this letter is an intentional misquotation of the Kono statement and a substitution of logic. The primary source for the claim that comfort women are sex slaves is UN Report. Please compare the above claim with the closed "Verification of the authenticity of the lead sentence" talk peges. Most of the signatories must have read the lead sentence in wikipedeia’s” comfort women”, and signed the letter. ] (]) 04:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Anybody citing Report 49 must be a ] source, not a Misplaced Pages editor. Report 49 is a favorite of Japanese nationalist reactionaries, because it seems to cover the topic but it touches only a small fraction. ] (]) 06:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Your claim has been discussed in a repeat of Talk on 9 June 2022 (UTC). See for yourself the ], p.7. Aoich has removed part of the Controversy on this Memorandum. |
|
|
::::::“ is also the primary source in English. Please read along and decide for yourself what is true. ] (]) 02:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You are beating a dead horse. You have had this same discussion many times, which is by this time a violation of ]. ] (]) 02:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::No one can erase the facts of history. My Talk is all factual and consistent with wikipedia's policy. |
|
|
::::::::''']''' is an encyclopedia that '''''anyone'' can edit.''' Misplaced Pages’s policy''':''' information in Misplaced Pages should be ] and must ]: the phrase "original research" (OR) is used on ] to refer to '''material—such as facts''', allegations, and ideas—for which no ] exist：Its content is determined by '''previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences'''. ] (]) 02:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::You are persistently puffing up small facts into bigger "truths", violating ] and ] as you do so. Your reliance on Report 49 is emblematic of this kind of POV-pushing. You have consistently violated ] and are continuing to do so, with unrelenting bias. ] (]) 03:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Response to WP:OR claim: licensed prostitutes literature == |
|
|
{{hat|reason=Again, Misplaced Pages does not base content on original research. And nor are we required to 'refute' such original research.}} |
|
|
Acroterion again closed the "WP:LEAD violation of lead sentence" talk page during the discussion, saying it’s not WP:OR Forum. Do you have such authority ? |
|
|
|
|
|
In ], I specifically pointed out that the current lede is not WP:NPOV and unreliable. Binksternet and other editors criticize my claim as WP:OR, but does not reply which claim falls under WP:OR. Please answer the following questions to clarify the difference of opinion. If you have any objections, show evidence and refute. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Basic acknowledge:''' |
|
|
|
|
|
1.Empire of Japan was a country ruled by law. At that time, Koreans were citizens of the Empire of Japan. Under the law, Japanese, Koreans, citizens, soldiers and police were equal. |
|
|
|
|
|
2. Koreans were part of the Japanese military and police force. Rape, assault, threats, kidnapping and abduction, fraud and extortion of civilians, by soldiers and policemen were violations of the penal code. |
|
|
|
|
|
3. In Imperial Japan, licensed prostitution was legal. To obtain a license to engage in prostitution, her willingness to work, her parental consent document and a copy of their contract with her employer, and age for Koreans to be at least 17 years old were required. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Comfort women issue:''' |
|
|
|
|
|
1. 240 have been recognized by the South Korean government as opposed to claims of approximately 200,000 Korean former comfort women. |
|
|
|
|
|
2. The Kono Statement states that the ethnic majority was Japanese. |
|
|
|
|
|
3. The basis for the sex slaves claim is the UN report. |
|
|
|
|
|
4. The evidence of sex slaves claim by UN report is the testimony of former Korean comfort women and Japanese military regulations. |
|
|
|
|
|
5. H.Res.121 cites Seiji Yoshida's book as evidence of forced recruitment of Koreans, No.49 as evidence of deceiving and recruiting Koreans, and Kono statement as evidence of the majority of Koreans. |
|
|
|
|
|
6. Seiji Yoshida's book is fiction. Hicks' book quotes Seiji Yoshida's book. |
|
|
|
|
|
7. of “Most of the women were from occupied countries, including ], ], and the ].” in lede is unsubstantiated paper. |
|
|
|
|
|
AndyThGrump criticized the talk as "contributor's personal analysis of primary sources”. The content of ] is a brief summary of the many licensed prostitute claims and is not a personal opinion. The Archive of the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact contains 106 references related to comfort women. Some of these are listed below. If you refute these materials by labeling them as the claims of right-wingers, historical revisionists or denialists, you have proven yourselves incapable of refuting them. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''General:''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''Contract:''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Ianfu” ha mina gouikeiyaku siteita (“Comfort Women” All Signed a Contract of Agreement) by T. Arima (2021)</nowiki>] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''UN report:''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''Testimony:''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
I request for the Category:Crimes against humanity to be added to the External Links. ] (]) 12:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Already in 'see also', which is the correct place for such links. ] (]) 12:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2023 == |
|
'''H.Res.121''': |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Change "World war 2" to "World War II". |
|
|
Change "World War 2" to "World War II". ] (]) 00:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> Thank you, - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 00:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Misquotation of source == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only doing this because I do not have an account valid to edit semi-protected pages. The 95th source is misreferenced, in quotes it says "public restrooms", yet the cited source says "public toilets". ] (]) 07:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
'''MacGraw-Hill text book:''' |
|
|
|
:done ] (]) 07:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
"Only in the 1990s did the Japanese government begin to officially apologize and offer compensation. However, apologies from Japanese officials have been criticized as insincere." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
This quote is highly dishonest and written from a Pro-Korean and Anti-Japanese view point. |
|
There are two Japanese versions of wikipedia on comfort women: "]" and ]." Anyone can read articles in other languages in their own language using the automatic translation function. Unlike the English version, both are written from a neutral point of view. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Japan has paid reparations for comfort woman multiple times under various treaties. However, if that is not direct enough due the treaties never stating comfort woman, then look at the fact that Japan offered to pay comfort woman's directly but were rejected by the Korean government. |
|
] (]) 02:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Korean government asked Japan to give the payments to the Korean government directly and they'll redistribute the funds. Japan agreed to this. However, Korea took the money to fund their businesses and roads and then continued to claim Japan never paid. ] (]) 23:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Per Misplaced Pages policy on original research, nobody is under any obligation whatsoever to 'refute' anything. ] (]) 02:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 00:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
:{{partly done|Partly done:}}<!-- Template:ESp --> Unsourced statement removed. ] <small> (]) </small> 00:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2024 == |
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}} |
|
We probably should update (controversies section?) with something from this article, which says: |
|
|
|
I request in the See Also section where it says "]" to be changed to "]". ] (]) 13:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 14:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Apply quotation marks to euphemisms == |
|
In 2021, controversy arose when the <i>]</i> published an online pre-print of an article by Ramseyer that challenged the narrative that ] were coerced into sexual servitude in Japanese military brothels in the 1930s and 1940s.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://apjjf.org/2021/5/ConcernedScholars.html|title="Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War": The Case for Retraction on Grounds of Academic Misconduct|date=2021-02-18|journal=The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus|language=en-US|access-date=2021-02-25}}</ref> Ramseyer described the comfort women as prostitutes, arguing that they "chose prostitution over those alternative opportunities because they believed prostitution offered them a better outcome."<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/harvard-professor-invites-fury-by-calling-comfort-women-prostitutes|title=Harvard professor invites fury by calling 'comfort women' prostitutes|date=2021-02-03|journal=The Straits Times|language=en-US|access-date=2021-02-03}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2021/02/16/harvard-law-professor-accused-denialism-rewriting-comfort-women-narrative|title=Harvard Prof Rejects Historical Consensus on 'Comfort Women'|date=2021-02-16|journal=Inside Higher Ed|language=en-US|access-date=2021-02-17}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine|url=https://www.newyorker.com/culture/annals-of-inquiry/seeking-the-true-story-of-the-comfort-women-j-mark-ramseyer|title=Seeking the True Story of the Comfort Women|author=Jeannie Suk Gersen|date=2021-02-26|magazine=The New Yorker|language=en-US|access-date=2021-02-26}}</ref> ] (]) 18:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Comfort women" is a euphemism for sexual slavery, according to sources here and at ]. As such, the euphemism needs to be written in quotation marks, at minimum. |
|
{{reflist talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To repeatedly use the euphemism without quotation marks normalizes the euphemism, and in this case normalizes a redefinition of sexual slavery that was promoted originally by Japan in defence of the Japanese Army, who imprisoned and enslaved the Koreans "in brothels" (according to sources). |
|
:We discussed Ramseyer a lot last year and earlier this year. (See ].) The problem with Ramseyer is that he stepped outside of scientific inquiry to publish his unsupported opinion piece, first appearing in the far-right magazine ''Japan Forward''. Ramseyer cannot read or speak Korean, as he himself admits, so his notional assessments of Korean primary sources are rendered useless. A wide group of scholars at its foundation, calling it "poorly resourced, evidentially fatuous", "woefully deficient", ahistorical and politically motivated. Ramseyer ignored mountains of contradictory evidence. Mentioning Ramsayer {{em|at all}} is ] emphasis on this gross misstep by a scholar who should know better. ] (]) 18:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::But, Binksternet, that was almost two years ago, and it's still getting coverage. I think we have to at least mention it. I'd go with linking to the article about him in a See also, maybe? ] (]) 20:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
After the lede, the words 'sexual slaves' should be used instead of "comfort women". Another possibility in the lede is to use 'so-called "comfort women" '. ] (]) 16:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
Only doing this because I do not have an account valid to edit semi-protected pages. The 95th source is misreferenced, in quotes it says "public restrooms", yet the cited source says "public toilets". KillYourLandlord (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
"Only in the 1990s did the Japanese government begin to officially apologize and offer compensation. However, apologies from Japanese officials have been criticized as insincere."
This quote is highly dishonest and written from a Pro-Korean and Anti-Japanese view point.
Japan has paid reparations for comfort woman multiple times under various treaties. However, if that is not direct enough due the treaties never stating comfort woman, then look at the fact that Japan offered to pay comfort woman's directly but were rejected by the Korean government.
The Korean government asked Japan to give the payments to the Korean government directly and they'll redistribute the funds. Japan agreed to this. However, Korea took the money to fund their businesses and roads and then continued to claim Japan never paid. TheHistorian8 (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
"Comfort women" is a euphemism for sexual slavery, according to sources here and at Statue of Peace. As such, the euphemism needs to be written in quotation marks, at minimum.
To repeatedly use the euphemism without quotation marks normalizes the euphemism, and in this case normalizes a redefinition of sexual slavery that was promoted originally by Japan in defence of the Japanese Army, who imprisoned and enslaved the Koreans "in brothels" (according to sources).
After the lede, the words 'sexual slaves' should be used instead of "comfort women". Another possibility in the lede is to use 'so-called "comfort women" '. Metokpema (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Referencing and citation: criterion met
.svg){kind=small}
Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 00:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aoidh (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Partly done: Unsourced statement removed. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
