Revision as of 03:51, 3 March 2023 editAcroterion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators232,436 edits OneClickArchived "Rebuttal to WP:OR again: unsubstantiated WP:OR reasons" 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 |
(26 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 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}} |
|
|
I request for the Category:Crimes against humanity to be added to the External Links. ] (]) 12:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Already in 'see also', which is the correct place for such links. ] (]) 12:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2023 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Change "World war 2" to "World War II". |
|
|
Change "World War 2" to "World War II". ] (]) 00:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> Thank you, - <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 00:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Misquotation of source == |
|
|
|
|
|
Only doing this because I do not have an account valid to edit semi-protected pages. The 95th source is misreferenced, in quotes it says "public restrooms", yet the cited source says "public toilets". ] (]) 07:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:done ] (]) 07:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}} |
|
|
"Only in the 1990s did the Japanese government begin to officially apologize and offer compensation. However, apologies from Japanese officials have been criticized as insincere." |
|
|
|
|
|
This quote is highly dishonest and written from a Pro-Korean and Anti-Japanese view point. |
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 23:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
:] '''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 == |
|
We probably should update (controversies section?) with something from this article, which says: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Comfort women|answered=yes}} |
|
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) |
|
|
|
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 == |
|
{{reflist talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"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. |
|
: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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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). |
|
::But, Binksternet, that was almost two years ago, and it's still getting coverage. I think we have to at least mention it. I'd go with linking to the article about him in a See also, maybe? ] (]) 20:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After the lede, the words 'sexual slaves' should be used instead of "comfort women". Another possibility in the lede is to use 'so-called "comfort women" '. ] (]) 16:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::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) |
|
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)