Misplaced Pages

Talk:Comfort women: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:50, 3 March 2023 editAcroterion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators232,423 edits OneClickArchived "WP:LEAD violation of lead sentence" to Talk:Comfort women/Archive 11← 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 
(27 intermediate revisions by 18 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 39: Line 10:
|otd2date=2014-08-04|otd2oldid=619708537 |otd2date=2014-08-04|otd2oldid=619708537
|otd3date=2017-08-04|otd3oldid=793685558 |otd3date=2017-08-04|otd3oldid=793685558
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{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}} {{Controversial-issues}}
Line 59: 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 ==
== ] ==

We probably should update (controversies section?) with something from this article, which says:

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)

{{reflist talk}}

: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)

:::I disagree about it "still getting coverage". The last little piffle about it the media was in the first few months of 2021, which is the same time we were discussing it here. Ramseyer was damned by his peers, and delivered nothing tangible as a rebuttal. We disposed of this issue back then. He was grandstanding for political points. ] (]) 06:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
:::If Ramseyer doesn't meet ] on this subject - which the widespread rejection of his piece seems to suggest is the case - it doesn't merit inclusion here, I'd say. Not without evidence of any ongoing scholarly debate about his claims. The article and subsequent response is discussed in his biography, where it is more appropriate. ] (]) 06:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
::::Any objection to inclusion in a See also? I feel like that's a useful inclusion for the reader, even if we don't go into any detail within the text. ] (]) 13:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::I am not a fan of inserting links to contradictory information at the bottom of the page—it seems like a ] response. If the contradictory information is to be included at all, the reader would be better served with an explanation of it. In that scenario, Ramseyer would be mentioned and quickly repudiated with a couple of prose sentences. If the media can be shown to have a continuing interest in Ramseyer, then such a scenario would be appropriate. ] (]) 16:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
::::::Well, I have a hard time seeing how it isn't helpful to the reader, but whatever. It's really nothing I have a strong enough opinion on to not just let go. ] (]) 17:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
::::: the claims of the references quoted by Valereee in detail. The paper cited by Binksternet is merely a public relations magazine within the university and has no academic value. Ramseyer points out that any comments on his paper () should be submitted to peer-reviewed academic journals. So far, there are no such posts from US and Korean scholars. Please also read this document.　
:::::
:::::] (]) 23:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
::::::{{u|Eyagi}}, you appear to be asking us to do original research? We need some RS to make a clear statement. We don't interpret documents or papers. We only report on what they say. ] (]) 23:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I understood. I deleted "Please comment after reading this paper". ] (]) 23:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

== Rebuttal to WP:OR again: unsubstantiated WP:OR reasons ==

The talks I posted were closed for WP:OR reasons, and the submission of "]" posted on wikipedia was rejected for the same reasons. The formers are summaries of existing materials, the latter is just a translation of the law and related police records, with no originality whatsoever. In examining past Talks, I have not found any such action as this one. Closing my talks and rejecting draft does not change the facts. These actions do not help improve the reliability of wikipedia article. I will write down a brief history for future reference.

'''Talk to RfC'''

I argued that the current article violates Misplaced Pages's policies 5P1 and 5P2, and proposed to change lede to "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls to provide sexual services to Imperial Japanese military personnel...at the facilities called a comfort station".

Binksternet acknowledged that comfort women are claimed to be both sex slaves and licensed prostitutes, and explained that he excludes the claim of licensed prostitutes because '''sex slaves are more numerous than prostitutes'''. I countered that the South Korean government recognized only 240 people as sex slaves, and argued again that both claims should be written together. Since the discussion was parallel and inconclusive, I, on Teahouse's advice, attempted to reach consensus on RfC. As a result, Aoidh closed RfC on the reason that "RfC is too improperly worded to be a proper".

AndyTheGrump said in RfC that "We don't cite non-WP:RS sources" and "The lede isn't a place to present new arguments". He didn't know that Binksternet excludes licensed prostitutes claim.

'''Closing “Verification of the authenticity of lead sentence” : due to gender issue'''

In order to gain the understanding of English readers, I summarized briefly the overall picture and controversial points of the comfort women issue on the Talk, and specifically pointed out the lack of reliability of the current lede. However, without any concrete counterarguments, Acroterion closed my Talk on the reason that '''"gender-related disputes violate wikipedia's policy”'''.


{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}}
Oddly enough, Aoidh, a self-proclaimed outsider, deleted the article refuting the evidence of H.Res.121 after my Talk was posted, because "these are conclusions and assertions '''not supported by reliable sources'''."
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 ==
'''Closing “WP:LEAD violation of lead sentence”: non-WP:RS to WP:OR'''


{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}}
On December 7, Binksternet criticized my claim as a violation of WP:OR without providing any evidence. Thereafter, Aoidh, Acroterion and AndyTheGrump switched from non-WP:RS to Binksternet's claim. They exposed themselves as having no opinions of their own and simply following Binksternet's claim.
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 ==
Acroterion closed again this talk for '''WP:OR reasons without rationale'''.


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)
'''Closing “Response to WP:OR claim: licensed prostitutes literature”: unsubstantiated WP:OR Reasons'''
:done ] (]) 07:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024 ==
Acroterion or AndyTheGrump closed, again, this talk. The reason is simple, because '''they can't refute'''. This WP:OR is the '''same as the labeling claim'''.


{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}}
'''Rejecting submission of “Draft:Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire”:''' '''unsubstantiated WP:OR Reasons'''
"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.
On December 20, 2022, K.e.coffman, administrator, at the request of Acroterion and AndyTheGrump, rejected to submit this post for WP:OR reasons. This article is simply a Japanese to English translation of legal and police records and does not apply to WP:OR. Deleting this article does not change the facts.


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.
From the above history, it is clear that the closure of this series of Talks is an act by Acroterion and AndyTheGrump, who first learned of this controversy by reading RfC.


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)
'''The whole comfort women issue'''
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 00:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
:{{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 ==
The comfort women issue is a controversy arising from the difference in historical perceptions between Japan and Korea (i.e., whether the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty was legal or not) and is a product of postwar historical education. In order to resolve this issue, we need to share the facts.


{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}}
The origin of the comfort women issue is a complaint based on Seiji Yoshida’s book filed by three former Korean comfort women in December 1991, along with 32 former military personnel and civilian employee, to the Tokyo District Court seeking an apology and compensation. The contents of this complaint were described in Hicks's book (1995), and R. Coomaraswamy (1996) used this book as documentary evidence, based on the testimony of 16 former Korean comfort women selected by North Korean government and Korean Council, and concluded that the comfort women were sex slaves. American scholars wrote history books and textbook based on these materials, and US House of Representatives passed H.Res.121 (2007). Other countries have since followed suit. All of the former Korean comfort women's testimony violate domestic law and military regulations at the time. Police and military police records confirm this fact.
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 ==
J. Mark Ramseyer submitted the following paper to the journal this year. Do Binksternet, Acroterion and AndyTheGrump claim that these papers are also WP:OR ?


"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.


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).
] (]) 05:31, 24 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)
:Why have you not responded to the WP:ANI thread? ] (]) 06:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
::You previously sent me an email stating, “Please discuss content issues on the relevant article talk page. I'm not interested in getting into private discussions regarding matters that other people may wish to comment on”. Please explain specifically why you rejected my draft on this Talk page. From the material you provided, I cannot understand what you are claiming. ] (]) 06:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
:::WP:ANI is not a private discussion. Your inability to understand what multiple people have been trying to explain to you about Misplaced Pages policy is clearly something that needs to be discussed there. ] (]) 07:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
::::Why don't you explain in this Talk? If you can't explain, please cancel your REJECTION.
::::You don't quite understand what primary source means. Binksternet also posted: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). Please study ].
::::I found out that Bavio the Benighted made the exact same claim as me in Archive 10 that Binksternet introduced. And without reaching consensus on Talk, Binksternet removed the Ramseyer citation. This time as well, the discussion remains parallel.The reason for "round-in-circles" is that Binksternet does not acknowledge the following facts pointed out: Japanese Empire was ruled by law, Koreans were Japanese nationals, Koreans were members of the Japanese military and police, the existence of licensed prostitution system, relevant police records, military regulations and military police records on comfort stations, only 240 have been recognized by the South Korean government against the claims of approximately 200,000 former Korean comfort women (this means the rest are licensed prostitutes), Kono statement states that the majority of comfort women were Japanese, the primary source of sex slaves is the UN report (1996), UN report is unreliable, American scholors published histrical books and text book based by Hicks's book and UN reports, H.Res.121 was based Seiji Yoshida's book, No.49 and misquotation of Kono statement, misquotation of C.Sarah Soh’s book as secondary source of sex slaves etc. Consensus is not possible without mutual information sharing. ] (]) 06:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::You have had policy explained to you multiple times, by multiple contributors. Misplaced Pages policies (WP:OR, WP:RS etc) apply whether you understand them or not, and whether you agree with them or not. You have had ample opportunity to respond at WP:ANI, but have not done so. I shall not be responding to you further, and would advise others to do the same. Any edits made to this article, or any other, based on the mistaken arguments you have posted will be reverted. ] (]) 07:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::Addendum: For the curious, it should be noted that as a result of posting repetitive walls of text, ] was topic banned from this article for six months, for 'bludgeoning the process'. A ban that was endorsed more or less unanimously at WP:ANI ] (]) 07:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
::::::Indeed. Seeing as my points were not being addressed, I was led to believe that Binksternet and other users may not have understood them, and so I rephrased them several times, from several angles. Ironically, those same points remain unaddressed to this day, proving that rehashing them was, in fact, warranted. I further made a long post to show just how flimsy the arguments by Ramseyer's detractors were. That's when an administrator decided to impose a topic ban.
::::::
::::::It was an educational experience. Coming from the hard sciences, and being familiar with the literature concerning this topic, it is easy to see that Ramseyer's points are more logically sound, and corroborated by heavier evidence, than those of his detractors. And as a peer-reviewed source, his paper should, by Misplaced Pages's rules, be prioritized over the vast majority of sources currently cited in the article, as a significant minority view as per ].
::::::
::::::However, I have found that the editors here are more driven by consensus, and emotion, than hard logic, or rigid rules. This is presumably why, as soon as I began to make thorough arguments relying on logic, they simply ceased to address or even acknowledge them. They are not moved by evidence; instead, they want consensus. As long as popular Western opinion―the mass media in particular―is on their side, they refuse to acknowledge the possibility that the narrative they have supported might be nothing more than a historically-inaccurate fantasy. If Western media outlets sided with Ramseyer, and the consensus shifted, then I'm sure well-intended but superficially-invested users, such as most administrators, would not go against it.
::::::
::::::But this is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. In the West, the media prioritizes sensationalism over historical accuracy. The idea of Japanese soldiers enslaving and brutalizing innocent foreign women is much more entertaining than the more historically-accurate portrayal of parents selling their daughters to brothels to settle debts, and thus, the Western media has nothing to gain from contesting the consensus. Similarly, the idea of Imperial Japan being cartoonishly evil is more entertaining, and also paints the West in a better light, and thus, is preferred over a historically accurate view.
::::::
::::::In addition, many Western and Asian historians have a personal stake in maintaining the current narrative. After all, the meaning of their entire careers might be brought into question, were it to be found that everything they had written until now was a mere fantasy.
::::::
::::::The Western media is also intertwined with feminism. Many in the West want to believe in the idea that women were more oppressed in the past than men were. The story of Japanese soldiers oppressing foreign women, no matter how imaginary, serves as a good example for them. From their view, attempts to contest this illusion are politically incorrect and must be shut down regardless of logic or evidence. They are religiously invested in this preconceived worldview.
::::::
::::::In any case. I believe academically-oriented editors will simply have to contend that this article will, for the time being, remain one where sensationalism is prioritized over accuracy, and where propaganda is prioritized over neutrality. The situation might change if administrators from the hard science side of Misplaced Pages got interested in the topic and decided to read Ramseyer's papers, as well as those of his detractors, so as to reassess the weight given to Ramseyer's contribution, but until then, I do not believe there is much a couple of neutral editors can do to remedy the problem.
::::::
::::::Although my topic ban has expired, given that I feel that I have already proved all of my points, from multiple angles, and given that the administrators have nonetheless decided to side with the biased view, I no longer feel any reason to waste my time concerning myself with this subject. That said, if someone wants to take a vote, feel free to give me a mention. Unless new, solid evidence surfaces on the topic, which seems very unlikely at this point, I will continue to support Ramseyer's view, and will continue to stand behind my earlier points. Assuming, of course, that I do not get banned yet again for leaving this comment. ] (]) 12:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::::Oh, enough with this. Everything you just said you've got entirely wrong and backwards. Ramseyer's claims are nonsense, and his entire premise is a fiction, based on imaginary contracts that he has no evidence for. These were NOT willing prostitutes sold by their parents to provide consensual sexual services. These were SEX SLAVES that were KIDNAPPED and FORCED by the IMPERIAL JAPANESE MILITARY to be brutally RAPED. And most of these women were Korean, Chinese and Filipino, not Japanese. The evidence for all of this is overwhelming. Your points are understood perfectly, and rightfully dismissed, as the denialist rubbish that they are. It is the arguments of Ramseyer's DETRACTORS that are far more logically sound and corroborated by much heavier evidence, not those of Ramseyer himself. It is Ramseyer's arguments that are flimsy and wildly inaccurate, not those of his detractors. The side supporting the consensus has vast amounts of documents and anecdotal evidence from numerous survivors, while Ramseyer only has his claims of contracts that he made up. Appearing in a peer-reviewed source or not, Ramseyer's arguments do not deserve to be treated with any legitimacy, and should definitely not be given priority over the far more credible sources that prove the opposite of his claims. It should also be pointed out that this is the same guy who has claimed (FALSELY) that Koreans were wildly committing crimes after the Kanto earthquake and even justified their slaughter by the Japanese.
:::::::The consensus IS the one that's moved by the hard evidence. The "narrative" you accuse others of pushing IS the one that's historically accurate. Historians are determined to maintain this "narrative" that Japanese soldiers kidnapped women and forced them to be their sex slaves because it's the TRUTH and are trying to uphold it against the denialist falsehoods, while the claim of parents selling their daughters to brothels for debts is ridiculous nonsense. These claims by Ramseyer and others that comfort women were merely willing prostitutes is what is truly the nonsensical fantasy driven by sensationalism. It is a fantasy told by Japanese nationalists so they can paint Imperial Japan in a better light than it deserves. If other editors and historians seem "emotional", it's only because they have repeatedly answered and thoroughly debunked these same denialist arguments before, and seeing them still being rehashed is as immensely tiring as it is angering.
:::::::You claim that Imperial Japan is being treated as "cartoonishly evil" so the West can be seen as better. Due to the context, when you talk about the "West", I assume you mean the Allied powers. The thing is, the Allies were DEFINITELY better, MUCH better than Imperial Japan, and the other thing is, Imperial Japan really WAS extremely evil. Imperial Japan was one of the biggest and absolute worst evils to exist in human history. The Imperial Japanese brutally invaded and seized all of eastern Asia, slaughtered tens of millions of people and they committed GENOCIDE against the Chinese and some others. The historically accurate truth is that Japanese soldiers DID enslave and brutalize foreign peoples, and Japanese soldiers DID oppress women. What is historically accurate is that Imperial Japan proved to be just as brutal and murderous as their allies, the Nazis. If that's what you mean by "cartoonishly evil", that's what they were.
:::::::Being neutral DOES NOT MEAN treating all viewpoints as valid, and Ramseyer's claims, along with other denialist arguments, are NOT valid. There is enormous amounts of evidence proving the undeniable existance and absolutely MASSIVE scale of Imperial Japan's genocidal mass murder and other atrocities in general, and likewise, there is plenty of solid evidence proving their system of forced sexual slavery. The only problem here are the denialists attempting to cast doubt and whitewash these facts. Sensationalism and propaganda are NOT being prioritized over accuracy and neutrality as you claim. It is simply truth being prioritized over lies.
:::::::And apparently, you're also an anti-feminist who denies the blatently obvious fact that in most societies, women HAVE been (and still ARE) more oppressed than men... charming.] (]) 22:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:57, 14 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comfort women article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Former good article nomineeComfort women was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 29, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 4, 2011, August 4, 2014, and August 4, 2017.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAsia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChina High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconKorea High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIndonesia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJapan High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 05:23, December 26, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Japan to do list:
  • Featured content candidates – 

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

WikiProject iconTambayan Philippines: History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Philippine history task force (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconVietnam High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconFeminism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGender studies Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / Chinese / Japanese / Korean / Southeast Asia / World War II
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
Chinese military history task force
Taskforce icon
Japanese military history task force
Taskforce icon
Korean military history task force
Taskforce icon
Southeast Asian military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality: Sex work Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconWomen's History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.


Archives
  1. March 2004 – March 2007
  2. March 2007 – April 2007
  3. April 2007 – July 2007
  4. July 2007 – December 2008
  5. January 2009 – December 2012
  6. December 2012 – June 2014
  7. March 2014 – January 2017
  8. February 2017 –February 2021
  9. February 2021
  10. February 2021 –May 2022
  11. June 2022 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request for the Category:Crimes against humanity to be added to the External Links. 95.147.63.116 (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Already in 'see also', which is the correct place for such links. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "World war 2" to "World War II". Change "World War 2" to "World War II". Shuntaro Kawasaki (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 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". KillYourLandlord (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

done Meters (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"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)

 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request in the See Also section where it says "Rape of Nanking" to be changed to "Rape of Nanjing". 81.137.207.239 (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charliehdb (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Apply quotation marks to euphemisms

"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)

Categories: