| Revision as of 03:50, 3 March 2023 editAcroterion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators232,436 edits OneClickArchiver archived 1 discussion 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 |
| (32 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 == |
|
== 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. 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:''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''H.Res.121''': |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''MacGraw-Hill text book:''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 02:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Per Misplaced Pages policy on original research, nobody is under any obligation whatsoever to 'refute' anything. ] (]) 02:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
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”'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
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'''." |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Closing “WP:LEAD violation of lead sentence”: non-WP:RS to WP:OR''' |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Acroterion closed again this talk for '''WP:OR reasons without rationale'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Closing “Response to WP:OR claim: licensed prostitutes literature”: unsubstantiated WP:OR Reasons''' |
|
|
|
|
|
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'''. |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Rejecting submission of “Draft:Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire”:''' '''unsubstantiated WP:OR Reasons''' |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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 whole comfort women issue''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}} |
|
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. |
|
|
|
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 == |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}} |
|
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 ? |
|
|
|
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) |
|
] (]) 05:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:done ] (]) 07:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024 == |
|
: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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}} |
|
== Controversy on H.Res.121 == |
|
|
|
"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. |
|
{{hat|reason=] is core Misplaced Pages policy. It is not open to negotiation.}} |
|
|
As mentioned in“WP:LEAD violation of lead sentence” of Talk, a part of United States House of Representatives House Resolution 121’s Controversy article of Misplaced Pages was deleted by Aoidh. The reason for deletion is explained in “]”, but it is not specific and I do not understand. To share information with readers, here are the articles that have been deleted. Can someone please point out which parts fall under WP:OR and if there are any counterarguments? |
|
|
=== Doubts about the basis of resolution === |
|
|
In addition to citing Seiji Yoshida's book, there are some doubts as to the veracity of the memorandum and testimony upon which this resolution was based. |
|
|
==== 1. Misrecognition of facts in the Kono statement: Majority were Japanese ==== |
|
|
The memorandum's author, citing the Kono Statement,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.awf.or.jp/e6/statement-02.html |title=Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono on the Result of the Study on the Issue of "Comfort Women" |author=<!--Not stated--> |date= August 4, 1993 }}</ref> claimed that the majority of comfort women were Koreans (p.7,12). The Kono statement states,”'''excluding those from Japan''', those from the Korean Peninsula accounted for a large part.” This is a serious misrepresentation of fact. If the majority of comfort women were Japanese, the story of "sex slaves" would not hold. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
==== 2. Absence of evidence to prove the credibility of Yuki Tanaka's book citation testimony ==== |
|
|
The author cited the testimony of Yuki Tanaka's book as evidence of "sex slaves," but in order to use the testimony as evidence, it is necessary to present documentary evidence to support its credibility. But the author had presented nothing. Radhika Coomaraswamy, author of the UN report,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/238264?ln=en| title=Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences|author= Radhika Coomaraswamy|date=December 10, 1996 }}</ref> presented G. Hicks' book, Seiji Yoshida's book and Japanese military brothel regulations as documentary evidence for their testimony. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
Asian nations and the Western nations that colonized Asia punished those involved in the forced prostitution of Dutch women (Netherlands) and rape (Philippines) in post-war courts. An IWG investigation published in 2007 found no documents indicating violations of women's human rights.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.archives.gov/iwg/reports/final-report-2007.html |title=Final Report of the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group |author= |date= April 2007 |website= |publisher= }}</ref> |
|
|
|
:] '''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 == |
|
==== 3. Rebuttal to the interrogation report No.49 as evidence of deception : Evidence of licensed prostitutes ==== |
|
|
The net income of the comfort women (150-750 yen per month) was extremely high compared to the wages of the house-maids (6-15 yen per month by region) under the same payment terms (with meals, room and others) in 1942.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1454691 |title=Chōsensōtokufu Tōkei-nenpō Shōwa 17-nen |author= |date=March 1944 |language=ja |trans-title=Korean Governor's Office Statistical Annual Report 1942 }} p.157 </ref> It was common sense in society that the work of comfort women was a sex service. The licensed prostitution system was introduced in 1916 and, as shown in Table 1, <ref>{{cite web |url=https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1454223 |title=Chōsensōtokufu Tōkei-nenpō Shōwa 14-nen |author= |date=1941 |language=ja |trans-title=Korean Governor's Office Statistical Annual Report 1939 }} p.366 </ref> <ref>{{cite web |url=https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1454691 |title=Chōsensōtokufu Tōkei-nenpō Shōwa 17-nen |author= |date=March 1944 |language=ja |trans-title=Korean Governor's Office Statistical Annual Report 1942 }} p.262 </ref> was established in Korean society. The age of the comfort women was 17 years or older as stipulated by the licensed prostitution law, and the owner of the comfort station was Korean couple with Japanese names who were professionals in the licensed prostitution. The comfort women and their families signed contracts with the comfort station owner, and the families received an advance payment. The gross monthly income of comfort women was above 300 yen, which was consistent with newspaper advertisements for comfort women at the time.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://19historians.com/requesting-correction-of-factual-errors-in-mcgraw-hill-textbook/| title=Requesting Correction of Factual Errors in McGraw-Hill Textbook|author=19 Japanese Historians |date=March 17, 2015 }} Attachment 3 </ref> The fact that there was a difference in income is proof that the market principle was at work in the comfort women's work. No.49 proves that "comfort women were licensed prostitutes.” |
|
|
{| class="wikitable" |
|
|
|+ Table 1 Number of licensed restaurants, brothels and prostitutes in Korea (1939 and 1942) |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! rowspan=2 style="text-align:center;" |Items !! colspan=4 scope="col"style="width:320px;" |1939!! colspan=4 scope="col"style="width:320px;" | 1942 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|scope="col"style="width: 80px;" style="text-align:center;"|Total ||scope="col"style="width:80px;""|Japanese||scope="col"style="width:80px;" |Koreans|| scope="col"style="width:60px;" |Others||scope="col"style="width:80px;" style="text-align:center;"|Total|| scope="col"style="width:80px;" |Japanese||scope="col"style="width:80px;" |Koreans||scope="col"style="width:60px;" |Others |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Restaurants||style="text-align:right;" |1,833 ||style="text-align:right;" |597 ||style="text-align:right;" |1,154 ||style="text-align:right;" | 82 || style="text-align:right;" |1,616 ||style="text-align:right;" |515 ||style="text-align:right;" |1,007 ||style="text-align:right;" |94 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Brothels ||style="text-align:right;" |539 ||style="text-align:right;" |235 || style="text-align:right;" |303 ||style="text-align:right;" |1 ||style="text-align:right;" | 469 ||style="text-align:right;" | 219 ||style="text-align:right;" | 250 ||style="text-align:right;" | 0 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|''Geigi'' ||style="text-align:right;" |8,348 ||style="text-align:right;" |2,226||style="text-align:right;" |6,122 ||style="text-align:right;" |0 || style="text-align:right;" |6,287 || style="text-align:right;" |1,797 || style="text-align:right;" |4,490 || style="text-align:right;" |0 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|''Syakufu''||style="text-align:right;" |1,796 ||style="text-align:right;" |351||style="text-align:right;" | 1,445 ||style="text-align:right;" |0 ||style="text-align:right;" |1,616 ||style="text-align:right;" |240 ||style="text-align:right;" |1,376 ||style="text-align:right;" |0 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|''Syōgi'' ||style="text-align:right;" | 3,712 ||style="text-align:right;" | 1,845 ||style="text-align:right;" |1,866 ||style="text-align:right;" | 1 ||style="text-align:right;" | 3,850 ||style="text-align:right;" |1,774 ||style="text-align:right;" |2,076 ||style="text-align:right;" |0 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Intermediaries || style="text-align:right;" |3,577 ||style="text-align:right;" | 197 ||style="text-align:right;" | 3,380||style="text-align:right;" | 0 || style="text-align:right;" |3,732 ||style="text-align:right;" | 194 ||style="text-align:right;" | 3,537 ||style="text-align:right;" | 1 |
|
|
|} |
|
|
{{reflist talk}} |
|
|
==== 4. Credibility of former comfort women's testimony ==== |
|
|
Three former comfort women (one Dutch and two Koreans) testified. The Dutch woman's testimony indicates a violation of military regulations by army unit. Two months after the comfort station where she had been forced into prostitution opened, the high-ranking officer who came to inspect the internment camp learned of this fact and immediately closed the comfort station and released the Dutch women. The fact that the Japanese military closed the comfort station shows that the discipline of the Japanese military was functioning. After the war, this incident was tried by the Dutch East Indies government. The officer responsible for opening the comfort station was sentenced to death, and his subordinates, the doctor responsible for conducting the examinations, and the civilians involved in the employment were sentenced to imprisonment, and executed. <ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.awf.or.jp/pdf/0205.pdf| title=Report of a Study of Dutch Government Documents on the Forced Prostitution of Dutch Women in the Dutch East Indies during the Japanese Occupation (unofficial translation) |author=Bart van Poelgeest|date=January 24, 1994 }} </ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}} |
|
The testimonies of the two Koreans indicate that they were unlicensed prostitutes and they worked in unlicensed brothels, not comfort stations. This is a case of violation of domestic law and military regulations. Domestic law prohibited unlicensed prostitution,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1454223 |title=Kashizashiki shōgitorishimarikisoku |author= |date=1916 |language=ja |trans-title=Regulations for the Control of Brothels and Prostitutes }}</ref> and military regulations prohibited the working of the unlicensed prostitutes, violence in the stations, and non-use of sacks.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://wikisource.org/Collection_of_Imperial_Japanese_Military_Comfort_Station_Regulation#Regulations_Governing_the_Use_of_the_Special_Brothel_in_the_South_Sector_Billet| title=Regulations Governing the Use of the Special Brothel in the South Sector Billet|author=|date=July 20, 1942 }} </ref> The military checked the balance sheets between the comfort station operators and comfort women reported monthly by the operators, and confirmed payment to the comfort women.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://wikisource.org/Collection_of_Imperial_Japanese_Military_Comfort_Station_Regulation#Regulations_for_Governing_the_Comfort_Facilities_and_Ryokan_Business_(Excerpts_of_matters_related_to_comfort_station)| title=Regulations for Governing the Comfort Facilities and Ryokan Business|author=|date=November 11, 1943 }}, Appendix Table No.7 Income and Expenditure Statement </ref> Discipline in the comfort station was enforced by the military police, and venereal disease examinations were conducted by military doctors. Records of the military police show that rape and injury crimes by the China Expeditionary Army were rare, <ref> {{cite web |url=https://wikisource.org/Collection_of_Imperial_Japanese_Military_Comfort_Station_Regulation#A.1.1_Attached_Table_1_Number_of_Crime_by_Military_Personnel_and_Civilian_Employees_(June_1945)| title=Number of crime by military personnel and civilian employees|author=|date= 1945 }} A.1.1, A.1.2 and A.2.1 </ref> and violations of rules in comfort stations were mainly caused by drunkenness, and violators were punished, and the number of incidents was extremely small. <ref>{{cite web |url=https://wikisource.org/Collection_of_Imperial_Japanese_Military_Comfort_Station_Regulation#A.2.4_Attached_Table_2_Misconduct_related_to_Comfort_Station_(Nov.1941)| title=Misconduct related to Comfort Station|date=1941 }}, A.2.4 to A.2.7 </ref> Kidnapping, rape, and injury were violations of the criminal law. The arrest rate for kidnapping and rape was almost 100% as shown in Table 2. <ref>{{cite web |url=https://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/1454223 |title=Chōsensōtokufu Tōkei-nenpō Shōwa 14-nen |author= |date=1941 |language=ja |trans-title=Korean Governor's Office Statistical Annual Report 1939 }} p.352 to 355 </ref> Their testimonies prove that they were not comfort women. |
|
|
|
I request in the See Also section where it says "]" to be changed to "]". ] (]) 13:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
{| class="wikitable" |
|
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 14:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|+ Table 2 Crimes related to comfort women in Korea (1939) |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! rowspan=2 style="text-align:center;" |Name of crimes !! rowspan=2 scope="col"style="width:80px;" |Number of crimes !! rowspan=2 scope="col"style="width:80px;" | Number of arrests !! colspan=4 scope="col"style="width:320px;" |Number of persons arrested |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|scope="col"style="width:80px;" style="text-align:center;"|Total ||scope="col"style="width:80px;" |Japanese||scope="col"style="width:80px;" style="text-align:center;"|Koreans|| scope="col"style="width:80px;" style="text-align:center;"|Others |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Murder||style="text-align:right;" |240 ||style="text-align:right;" |231 ||style="text-align:right;" |303 ||style="text-align:right;" | 7 || style="text-align:right;" |296 ||style="text-align:right;" | 0 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Injury: fatal ||style="text-align:right;" |325 ||style="text-align:right;" |326 || style="text-align:right;" |464 ||style="text-align:right;" | 3 ||style="text-align:right;" | 443 ||style="text-align:right;" | 18 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Injury: injury ||style="text-align:right;" |11,893 ||style="text-align:right;" |11,851 ||style="text-align:right;" |21,775 ||style="text-align:right;" |236 || style="text-align:right;" |21,516 ||style="text-align:right;" |23 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Injury: simple assault ||style="text-align:right;" |912 ||style="text-align:right;" | 911||style="text-align:right;" | 1,048 ||style="text-align:right;" |6 ||style="text-align:right;" | 1,042 ||style="text-align:right;" |0 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Intimidation ||style="text-align:right;" | 412 ||style="text-align:right;" | 413 ||style="text-align:right;" | 405 ||style="text-align:right;" | 7 ||style="text-align:right;" | 398 ||style="text-align:right;" | 0 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Kidnapping and abduction|| style="text-align:right;" |1,191 ||style="text-align:right;" | 1,188 ||style="text-align:right;" | 1,865||style="text-align:right;" | 16 || style="text-align:right;" |1,849 ||style="text-align:right;" | 0 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Robbery and rape ||style="text-align:right;" | 19 ||style="text-align:right;" | 19 || style="text-align:right;" |19 ||style="text-align:right;" | 0 ||style="text-align:right;" | 19 ||style="text-align:right;" | 0 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Fraud || style="text-align:right;" |18,870 || style="text-align:right;" |18,948 || style="text-align:right;" |20,847 || style="text-align:right;" |861 ||style="text-align:right;" | 19,978 || style="text-align:right;" |8 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Blackmail ||style="text-align:right;" |616 || style="text-align:right;" |624 || style="text-align:right;" |732 || style="text-align:right;" |12 || style="text-align:right;" |720 || style="text-align:right;" |0 |
|
|
|} |
|
|
As explained above, this resolution was passed on the basis of misquotation of Kono statement and baseless memorandum, as well as testimony of cases in violation of domestic law and military regulations. ] (]) 07:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Reflist-talk}} |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Apply quotation marks to euphemisms == |
|
== The Licensed Prostitution System in the Empire of Japan and the Establishment of Comfort Stations == |
|
|
{{hat|Continued violation of ]}} |
|
|
Current "comfort women" articles do not include any explanation of the licensed prostitution system of the time. English-speaking readers are discussing the comfort women issue without such basic knowledge. Editor Binksternet criticized Ramseyer as follow: “Ramseyer cannot read or speak Korean, as he himself admits, so his notional assessments of Korean primary sources are rendered useless.” Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2022 “<br /> |
|
|
The comfort women issue was an event during the Empire of Japan. At that time, Korea was part of the Empire of Japan, and the official language was Japanese. All primary sources on the comfort women issue are in Japanese. Ramseyer understands Japanese and his article cites many Japanese references. The following is a brief explanation of the licensed prostitution in the Empire of Japan and primary documents showing when comfort stations were established. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"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. |
|
In the Empire of Japan, licensed prostitution was legal. The Licensed prostitution system was established in 1900 in mainland Japan for the purpose of preventing the sexually transmitted disease(STD) and maintaining social morals.<ref>{{cite web| url =https://wikisource.org/Licensed_prostitutes_regulation_order_in_Japan | title =Licensed prostitutes regulation order in Japan | last = | first =| date =1900 | website = | publisher = Ministry of Home Affairs of Japan | access-date = | quote = }}</ref> In order to obtain a license for prostitution, the applicant had to be at least 18 years of age, present herself at the police station, and submit written her will to work and written consent from the person with parental authority. "''Shogi'' (Japanese legal term: licensed prostitutes)” were employed by the "''Kashizashiki'' (Japanese legal term: licensed brothel)” operators under a multi-year indentured service contracts with the advance payment concluded through the intermediary of recruiters. ''Shogi'' were required to work only in ''kashizashiki''s, to undergo periodic SDC examinations, and to return the advance payment, although they were free to close the business.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.jstor.org/stable/764879 | author = J. Mark Ramseyer | title = Indentured Prostitution in Imperial Japan: Credible Commitments in the Commercial Sex Industry | last = | first =| date = Spring 1991 |volume= 7 |issue=1|page=89-116|website = | publisher =JSTOR | access-date = | language= |trans-title=| quote = }}</ref> This system was introduced in Taiwan in 1906 <ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.dce.osaka-sandai.ac.jp/~funtak/papers/taiwan/taiwan1.htm |author-link =Takeshi Fujinaga | title = Shokuminchi Taiwan ni okeru Chōsen-jin sekkyaku-gyō to `ianfu' no dōin | last = | first =| date =2001 | website = | publisher = | access-date = |language=jp|trans-title= Korean hospitality industry and mobilization of "comfort women" in colonial Taiwan | quote = }} </ref>(primary source not available online) and in Korea in 1916.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://wikisource.org/Licensed_brothel_and_prostitute_regulation_order_in_Korea_under_Japanese_Empire | title =Licensed brothel and prostitute regulation order in Korea under Japanese Empire | |
|
|
last = | first =| date =1916 | website = | publisher = Police Administration Bureau, Governor-General of Korea | access-date = | quote = }}</ref> The minimum age for permission was set at 16 in Taiwan and 17 in Korea, taking into account differences in local customs, and became established in society (see attached table). <br /> |
|
|
Outside the Empire of Japan, the Imperial Japanese Military had been using private brothels on the condition that they accepted periodic STD examinations. As the war front expanded, from 1938 onward the Japanese Military established regulations<ref>{{cite web| url =https://wikisource.org/Collection_of_Imperial_Japanese_Military_Comfort_Station_Regulation | author =Imperial Japanese Military | title =Collection of Imperial Japanese Military Comfort Station Regulation | last = | first =| date =1938-1945 | website = | publisher = | access-date = | language=|trans-title= |quote = }}</ref> for "comfort stations" in compliance with domestic law and became involved in the establishment and operation of comfort stations.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://awf.or.jp/pdf/0051_1.pdf |author = Consulate General Police Station in Shanghai | title = Kōgun heishi ianfujyo no torai ni tsuki bengi kyōyo irai no ken|page=36| last = | first =| date =1937 | website = | publisher = | access-date = | language=jp |trans-title= Request for supports for comfort women coming to Shanghai for soldiers of the Imperial Army |quote = As a result of the mutual agreement between the military attaché of the Consulate General of Japan and the Military Police, it was decided to establish comfort stations (de facto''''' kashizashiki'''''s) at various locations along the front line as part of the facilities, in accordance with the following guidelines. }}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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). |
|
{| class="wikitable" |
|
|
|+ Attached Table Police records of sex service business in Korea |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! colspan=2 |Items !! rowspan=2 scope="col" style="width: 80px;" |1927 !! rowspan=2 scope="col" style="width: 80px;" |1936 !! rowspan=2 scope="col" style="width: 80px;" |1939 !! rowspan=2 scope="col" style="width: 80px;" |1940!! rowspan=2 scope="col" style="width: 80px;"|1942 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!scope="col" style="width: 120px;" |Breakdown !! Ethnic name |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|rowspan=4 |''Ryōriya'' || Japanese ||style="text-align:right;" |846 || style="text-align:right;" |696 ||style="text-align:right;" |597 ||style="text-align:right;" |567 ||style="text-align:right;" | 515 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Koreans || style="text-align:right;" | 835 || style="text-align:right;" | 1,075 ||style="text-align:right;" | 1,154 ||style="text-align:right;" |1,122 ||style="text-align:right;" | 1,007 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Others ||s style="text-align:right;" |178 || style="text-align:right;" |175 ||style="text-align:right;" |82 ||style="text-align:right;" |89 ||style="text-align:right;" |94 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Total||style="text-align:right;" | 1,859 ||style="text-align:right;" |1,946 ||style="text-align:right;" |1,833 ||style="text-align:right;" |1,778 ||style="text-align:right;" | 1,616 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| rowspan=4 |Geisha house|| Japanese ||style="text-align:right;"|182||style="text-align:right;" |207 ||style="text-align:right;" | 214 ||style="text-align:right;" |222 ||style="text-align:right;" |209 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Koreans ||style="text-align:right;" |60 ||style="text-align:right;" | 89||style="text-align:right;" | 129 ||style="text-align:right;" | 107||style="text-align:right;" | 80 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Others ||style="text-align:right;" | 0|| style="text-align:right;" | 0 ||style="text-align:right;" |0||style="text-align:right;" | 0 ||style="text-align:right;" | 0 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Total||style="text-align:right;" | 242|| style="text-align:right;" |296|| style="text-align:right;" |343 || style="text-align:right;" |329 ||style="text-align:right;" | 289 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| rowspan=4 |Geisha || Japanese||style="text-align:right;" |1,748 || style="text-align:right;" |2,271 || style="text-align:right;" |2,226 || style="text-align:right;" |2,280 || style="text-align:right;" |1,797 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Koreans ||style="text-align:right;" | 1,746|| style="text-align:right;" |4,712|| style="text-align:right;" |6,122||style="text-align:right;" | 6,023 ||style="text-align:right;" | 4,490 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Others || style="text-align:right;" | 0|| style="text-align:right;" |0 || style="text-align:right;" |0||style="text-align:right;" |2 ||style="text-align:right;" | 0 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Total||style="text-align:right;" |3,494 || style="text-align:right;" |6,983 || style="text-align:right;" |8,348 ||style="text-align:right;" | 8,305|| style="text-align:right;" |6,287 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|rowspan=4 | ''Kashizashiki'' || Japanese||style="text-align:right;" |320 || style="text-align:right;" |241 || style="text-align:right;" |235 || style="text-align:right;" |233 ||style="text-align:right;" |219 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Koreans || style="text-align:right;" | 225|| style="text-align:right;" |223 || style="text-align:right;" |303 || style="text-align:right;" |247 ||style="text-align:right;" | 250 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Others || style="text-align:right;" |1 || style="text-align:right;" |1|| style="text-align:right;" | 1 ||style="text-align:right;" |0 ||style="text-align:right;" |0 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Total||style="text-align:right;" |546 || style="text-align:right;" |465 || style="text-align:right;" |539 ||style="text-align:right;" | 480 ||style="text-align:right;" | 469 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|rowspan=4 |''Shōgi'' || Japanese || style="text-align:right;" |1,860 || style="text-align:right;" |1,921 || style="text-align:right;" |1,845 ||style="text-align:right;" |1,777 ||style="text-align:right;" |1,774 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Koreans ||style="text-align:right;" |1,022 || style="text-align:right;" |1,653 || style="text-align:right;" |1,866 ||style="text-align:right;" | 2,157 || style="text-align:right;" | 2,076 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Others || style="text-align:right;" |1 || style="text-align:right;" |1 || style="text-align:right;" |1 ||style="text-align:right;" | 0 ||style="text-align:right;" | 0 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Total||style="text-align:right;" |2,883 || style="text-align:right;" | 3,575|| style="text-align:right;" |3,712 ||style="text-align:right;" | 3,934 ||style="text-align:right;" |3,850 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| rowspan=4 |''Syakufu'' ||Japanese ||style="text-align:right;" |565 || style="text-align:right;" |385 || style="text-align:right;" |351 ||style="text-align:right;" | 216 ||style="text-align:right;" | 240 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Koreans ||style="text-align:right;" |999 || style="text-align:right;" |1,364 || style="text-align:right;" |1,145 || style="text-align:right;" |1,400 ||style="text-align:right;" |1,376 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Others ||style="text-align:right;" |2 || style="text-align:right;" |0 || style="text-align:right;" |0 ||style="text-align:right;" | 0||style="text-align:right;" | 0 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Total||style="text-align:right;" |1,566 || style="text-align:right;" |1,749 || style="text-align:right;" |1,796 ||style="text-align:right;" |1,616 ||style="text-align:right;" | 1,616 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| rowspan=4 |Recruiters ||Japanese|| style="text-align:right;" |163 || style="text-align:right;" | 212|| style="text-align:right;" |197 ||style="text-align:right;" | 224 || style="text-align:right;" |194 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Koreans ||style="text-align:right;" |2,598 || style="text-align:right;" |3,085|| style="text-align:right;" | 3,380 ||style="text-align:right;" | 3,557 ||style="text-align:right;" | 3,537 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|Others ||style="text-align:right;" | 0|| style="text-align:right;" |0|| style="text-align:right;" |0 ||style="text-align:right;" | 0 || style="text-align:right;" | 1 |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| Total||style="text-align:right;" |2,761 || style="text-align:right;" |3,297|| style="text-align:right;" | 3,577 ||style="text-align:right;" |3,781 ||style="text-align:right;" | 3,732 |
|
|
|} ] (]) 05:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist talk}} |
|
|
:I suggest that the above info, except for the paragraph beginning: "Outside the Empire of Japan ...", might be the basis for a separate article with a title something like: ''The Licensed Prostitution System in the Empire of Japan''. Once that article is established, the wikilink on the word ''prostitution'' in the portion of the first sentence of the ] subsection of this article which currently reads: "Given that ] in Japan was pervasive and organized, it was logical to find military prostitution in the Japanese armed forces.<ref>{{Harvnb|Hicks|1997|p=}}</ref>" be piped to that new article. Perhaps once that is done a less POV-focused discussion might be had about how, and to what extent, it might be appropriate to reflext both POVs in this article in keeping with ]. ] ] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 11:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Articles are built from secondary sources. Not contributors own analysis of selected primary sources dating back a hundred years or so ago. And any credible article on prostitution (in the Japanese Empire or anywhere else) would need secondary sourcing discussing the extent to which regulations were actually enforced. Eyagi's arguments are built around the absurd proposition that because regulations would seem to have forbidden forced prostitution etc, such events didn't occur. Facile ] arguments promoted to support a contributors own POV don't belong anywhere on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 12:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Further to this, note that ], which presented much the same WP:OR material, was rejected as "contrary to the purpose of Misplaced Pages". And note that rather than engage in any attempt at dispute resolution (as advised by multiple contributors, on on multiple occasions, see e.g. ) Eyage has repeatedly posted the same tendentious material already responded to here. I see no reason whatsoever to see this as anything other than an attempt to impose POV-pushing WP:OR through ], and as such worthy of no response beyond hatting as contrary to policy. ] (]) 15:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
== draft of the second half of the revised “lead sentence” == |
|
|
{{hat|Misplaced Pages does not base content on contributors' own analysis of primary sources. Furthermore, the lede is a summary of material covered in the article body. This is core Misplaced Pages policy, and not open to negotiation. Any further abuse of this talk page will be reported ay WP:ANI, and taken to ArbCom if the community won't deal with it.}} |
|
|
I understood the advice by Wtmitchell. I think the same applies to the comfort stations.<br /> |
|
|
The following is a draft of the second half of the revised “lead sentence”. Reference 7 was attempted to be obtained from the website of the MOFA of ROK, but it could not be found, so it was unwillingly quoted from the website of the MOFA of Japan. |
|
|
|
|
|
In 1965, the Japanese and ROK governments signed the Japan-ROK Claims Agreement, which stated that the claims between the two countries and their citizens had been fully and finally settled.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20583/volume-583-I-8473-English.pdf |
|
|
| author =Ministry of Foreign Affaires of Japan | title = AGREEMENT ON THE SETTLEMENT OF PROB LEMS CONCERNING PROPERTY AND CLAIMS AND ON ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION BETWEEN JAPAN AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA. SIGNED AT TOKYO, ON 22 JUNE 1965 | last = | first =| date =1965 | quote = }}</ref> Since December 1991, the comfort women issue became a diplomatic issue between the two countries, and the Japanese government launched an investigation into the comfort women issue. In 1993, based on this result, the Kono statement was issued, expressing sincere apologies and remorse, stating that this issue, with the involvement of the military at the time, had deeply harmed the honor and dignity of many women.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/rp/page25e_000343.html | author =Japanese government | title = Statement by the Chief Cabinet Secretary | date =1993 | publisher = }}</ref> In 1995, in order to fulfill its moral responsibility, the Japanese people and the Japanese government cooperated to establish the "Asian Women's Fund for Peace" (abbreviated as "Asian Women's Fund"), which provides medical and welfare support programs and "atonement money" to former comfort women in Asian countries, including South Korea.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/100173322.pdf | author = | title = The Asian Women’s Fund | last = | first =| date =1995 | website = | publisher = }}</ref> In 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Res.121.<ref>{{cite web| url =https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-resolution/121 | author = | title = H.Res.121 | date =2007 | website = | publisher = | quote = }}</ref> and countries have since followed suit. In 2011, the Korean Council installed a comfort women statue on the sidewalk in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. Since then, this NGO has been promoting the installation of comfort women statues around the world.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://womenandwar.net/kr/activities/#commemoration | author = The Korean Council | title =commemoration | date = |quote = On December 14, 2011, the 1,000th Wednesday Demonstration was held and the Statue of Peace was revealed }}</ref> In December 2015, the Japanese and the ROK governments confirmed that the comfort women’s issue was “resolved finally and irreversibly” with the agreement reached at the Japan-ROK Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/na/kr/page4e_000364.html | author = Ministry of Foreign Affaires of Japan | title = Announcement by Foreign Ministers of Japan and the Republic of Korea at the Joint Press Occasion | publisher = }}</ref> In May 2017, the Moon Jae-in administration was newly inaugurated. In November 2018, the Moon Jae-in administration dissolved the foundation on the grounds that the consent of the former comfort women had not been obtained.<ref>{{cite web| url = https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/postwar/page22e_000883.html | author =Ministry of Foreign Affaires of Japan | title =The issue of comfort women between Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) | last = | first =| date = |quote = In November, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family announced that it would proceed with its dissolution of “the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation” }}</ref> In January 2021, in a lawsuit filed against the Japanese government by former comfort women and others, the Seoul Central District Court of South Korea denied the application of the principle of immunity under international law, and ordered the Japanese government to finalized the judgment ordering the payment of damages, etc. The Japanese government maintains that this ruling is in clear violation of international law and the agreement between Japan and ROK, and cannot be accepted.<ref>{{cite web| url =https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/danwa/press6e_000269.html | author =Ministry of Foreign Affaires of Japan | title =Regarding the Confirmation of the Judgment of the Seoul Central District Court of the Republic of Korea in the Lawsuit Filed by Former Comfort Women and Others (Statement by Foreign Minister MOTEGI Toshimitsu) | date =2021 }}</ref> and has been to this day. ] (]) 01:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{Reflist-talk}} |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
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)
