Revision as of 23:09, 20 December 2022 editEyagi (talk | contribs)175 edits →J. Mark Ramseyer← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:21, 20 December 2022 edit undoEyagi (talk | contribs)175 edits →J. Mark Ramseyer: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
Line 430: | Line 430: | ||
:::::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) | :::::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) | ::::::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. Please comment after reading this paper. 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) |
Revision as of 23:21, 20 December 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comfort women article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|class=B|organizedcrime=yes|organizedcrime-imp=Mid}} Please add the quality rating to the{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
Comfort women was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 4, 2011, August 4, 2014, and August 4, 2017. |
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Should the lead sentence of this article be reworded? If so, how?
The only consensus that is emerging in this discussion is that the RfC is too improperly worded to be a proper RfC. I am being WP:BOLD and closing this as an uninvolved editor because I have never edited this page nor do I have any interest in the outcome, and because this RfC is too off-track to come to any sort of consensus on the lede. If a new RfC is needed, I suggest coming to an agreement on a neutral wording before opening a new RfC. (non-admin closure) - Aoidh (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a dispute over yes or no of a rewrite of lead sentence of the current "Comfort Women" article. The content of the dispute is shown in the Talk. We agree that there are two opinions about "comfort women": "licensed prostitutes" and "sex slaves", and also that we have exhausted our arguments. In the current article, the first paragraph reads, "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army ..." and the writing of "licensed prostitutes claim”is excluded as this basis. To maintain neutrality, shouldn't this paragraph be changed to, for example, "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls to provide sexual services to the Imperial Japanese Army..." ?
The reason for oppositon to the writing of "licensed prostitutes" is based on the claim that the majority of comfort women is sex slaves. There is an objection to "majority of sex slaves" with evidence. Even if they are a minority, wouldn't be against wiki's 5P1 and 5P2 to exclude dissenting opinions ? Please read through Talk and comment. If you have any questions, I will answer them. Eyagi (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I must admit surprise that a 3 week old account knows how to start an RfC... SPAs aren't 禁止 but certainly sus. ほかの利用者名で投稿したことがあるの? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I learned about NPOV atTeahouse, and an adviser commented me to use RfC at NPOV. Eyagi (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- RFC is a pretty common threat in discussions, so I would be a little surprised if a new user wasn't familiar with it. Assuming good faith, it could be that they never created an account on Misplaced Pages until they were interested in a particular discussion or change, or closed an older account in good standing. Considering the user's request, however, this looks more like block evasion. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note for editors arriving here via the RFC link here: See earlier discussion on the section above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bad RfC The RfC statement is not neutrally worded, short and simple nor does it contain a question. I would suggest this is closed and, if necessary, a better worded RfC is opened. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yup. This isn't how an RfC is supposed to be conducted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. Corrected to a neutral expression. Eyagi (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The 'correction' hasn't solved the problem. Not even remotely. The RfC remains invalid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't been involved in RFCs except, occasionally, to add my comments. However, I suggest that the neutral heading at the head of the RFC be reworded to something like, "Should the lead sentence of this article be reworded? If so, how?" It seems to me that it would be more useful to discuss the question at issue than to continue a discussion of the form in which the question is put. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice. Corrected according to your suggestion. Eyagi (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I still don't consider the question properly formatted. You are making an argument in it ("To maintain neutrality, shouldn't this paragraph be changed...") which is your own opinion on the matter. Frankly though I really can't see this RfC achieving much even without the problem over wording, since it basically asks people to read through a long thread where different sources are cited on an issue, and then asks contributors to chose which ones are correct. That isn't how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. We need to decide whether (a) the differing sources meet WP:RS for the specific issue under debate, and (b) whether the perspectives they offer are widely accepted. We don't cite non-WP:RS sources at all, and how we use reliable sources depends on whether they represent mainstream perspectives. If there are differing opinions, held by a significant proportion of relevant reliable sources, we don't chose between them, we present both arguments, noting the difference of opinion, in the body of the article. The lede isn't a place to present new arguments and/or perspectives, or to make definitive assertions about matters the article body makes clear are under debate. It seems to me that what is being asked for is a change in wording of the lede so it no longer reflects the (apparently well-sourced) material in the article body, which makes it clear that the sources cited broadly support the "forced into sexual slavery" wording. Such a change would be simply untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- We have already discussed the sources of the "sex slave claim" on Talk. I understand that here is not the place to debate. Please post to Talk with the material names you claim to be "the sources cited broadly support the" forced into sexual slavery "and why you support these materials.
- As stated in Talk, American scholars have not replied to any of these points for requesting correction of factual errors in McGraw-Hill Textbook by 19 Japanese historians. Eyagi (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am under no obligation to convince you personally of anything. That isn't how an RfC is supposed to be conducted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- As someone showing up a few days late after being summoned by the bot, I agree that this RfC is improperly formatted per Andy's points. Bsoyka (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, this should be closed as improper. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The user may be violating WP:NORACISM by promoting the denial of Japanese war crimes. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, this should be closed as improper. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I still don't consider the question properly formatted. You are making an argument in it ("To maintain neutrality, shouldn't this paragraph be changed...") which is your own opinion on the matter. Frankly though I really can't see this RfC achieving much even without the problem over wording, since it basically asks people to read through a long thread where different sources are cited on an issue, and then asks contributors to chose which ones are correct. That isn't how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. We need to decide whether (a) the differing sources meet WP:RS for the specific issue under debate, and (b) whether the perspectives they offer are widely accepted. We don't cite non-WP:RS sources at all, and how we use reliable sources depends on whether they represent mainstream perspectives. If there are differing opinions, held by a significant proportion of relevant reliable sources, we don't chose between them, we present both arguments, noting the difference of opinion, in the body of the article. The lede isn't a place to present new arguments and/or perspectives, or to make definitive assertions about matters the article body makes clear are under debate. It seems to me that what is being asked for is a change in wording of the lede so it no longer reflects the (apparently well-sourced) material in the article body, which makes it clear that the sources cited broadly support the "forced into sexual slavery" wording. Such a change would be simply untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice. Corrected according to your suggestion. Eyagi (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't been involved in RFCs except, occasionally, to add my comments. However, I suggest that the neutral heading at the head of the RFC be reworded to something like, "Should the lead sentence of this article be reworded? If so, how?" It seems to me that it would be more useful to discuss the question at issue than to continue a discussion of the form in which the question is put. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The 'correction' hasn't solved the problem. Not even remotely. The RfC remains invalid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Yoo Hee-nam (1927-2016)
Yoo Hee-Nam died of a heart attack I’m 2016, so the date of her death should be included. Otherwise people may assume she is still alive. WaddlesNostalgia (talk) 12:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I added her death date with a supporting cite. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Use of the word "brothel"
The word "brothel" should be replaced in every instance in this article except for references to the involvement of voluntary prostitutes. Prostitutes, by definition, are involved in a transactional activity: money in exchange for sex. The so-called "comfort women", were prisoners and sex slaves who were being held against their will and forced to engage in sex against their will. There is no way they can even remotely be deemed to have been prostitutes. Therefore, the locations where they were held were prisons, or concentration camps, or internment camps; "prisons" likely being the best term. I urge Misplaced Pages to replace brothel with prison or sex prison or some variation that is more fitting. "Brothel" is absolutely the wrong word to use. The definition of the word quite simply disqualifies it from being used under these circumstances. 173.206.82.38 (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
- I see that the Brothel article defines the term as "a place where people engage in sexual activity with prostitutes". not mentioning remuneration except by implication via the word "prostitutes". It might be better to say something like "engage in paid sex" there. If the male always pays, it's a brothel from his point of view. If the female likewise always receives pay, that term might be said to fit. I don't know if or how well the article supports this, but I suspect there was no payment re one or both parties for some fraction of the forced sex encounters. Perhaps the term "comfort station" might be appropriate in this article, with some explanation on first use. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Verification of the authenticity of lead sentence
Not a forum for disputation of testimony or for attempts at denialism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
@RfC's attempt to aggregate opinions for rewriting the lead sentence in "Comfort women" was inappropriate. The reason is that this subject involves political views. The U.S. Congress has passed U. Res. 121, and the majority of Americans believes that comfort women were sex slaves. However, the controversy over the comfort women issue, i.e., "Were comfort women sex slaves or licensed prostitutes?" continues today in the academic community. Through Talk, I learned that English readers do not have information on primary sources on the comfort women issue, namely the licensed prostitution system, military comfort station regulations, and related police records. Therefore, I have added Draft:Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire and military police data to the net.The claim that "comfort women were licensed prostitutes" has already been mentioned in Talk: Suggested changes to the first paragraph, but once again its contents are summarized below. Basic KnowledgeThe Japanese Empire was a state ruled by lawLaws were enacted separately for mainland Japan, Korean Peninsula and Taiwan, taking into account differences in social customs in each region, and Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese were equal under the law. Establishment of licensed prostitution systemThe Licensed prostitution system was established in 1900 in mainland Japan for the purpose of preventing the transmission of venereal diseases (STD) and maintaining social morals. This system was introduced in Taiwan in 1906 and in Korea in 1916, and established also in both society. The permit conditions for licensed prostitution required the will of the person wishing to work, written consent from the parent, and a copy of the contract with the employer. The minimum age required to be licensed was 18 in Japan, 17 in Korea, and 16 in Taiwan. Once they became licensed prostitutes, they were required to undergo periodic STD examinations and their places of working were restricted. Police control data on licensed prostitution and criminal law violations in Korea are heled in the Annual report of the Governor-General of Korea. Involvement in the establishment and operation of comfort stations by the Japanese militaryFor the Japanese military, preventing STD among soldiers on the battlefield was a serious issue. For this reason, the Japanese military designated and used private brothels outside the Empire of Japan, which accepted regular STD examinations. After 1938, as the front expanded, the Japanese military established relevant regulations under domestic law and was involved in the establishment and operation of comfort stations (licensed brothels for Japanese military personnel (soldiers and civilian employees) established in battlefields and occupied territories). However, the age of Japanese comfort women was set at 21, not the legal age of 18, because that in 1927, the Japanese Empire (excluding Korea and Taiwan) had signed an international treaty banning prostitution for those under the age of 21. With the start of the Pacific War, local women in Southeast Asian countries were also employed as comfort women under similar military regulations. Documents on military regulations regarding comfort stations and violations of these regulations by military personnel are heled in the Asian Women's Fund archives. Occurrence and history of the comfort women issueIn August 1991, a Korean, Kim Hak-soon, came forward as a former comfort woman, and In December 1991, three Korean former comfort women, including Kim Hak-soon, along with 32 Korean former military personnel, filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo District Court demanding 20 million yen ($148 thousand) per person in compensation from the Japanese government. In March 1993, Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono acknowledged that the Japanese military had been involved in the establishment and operation of comfort stations, and based on interviews with 18 Korean former comfort women, forced prostitution against their will, and apologized. Details of the interview have not been made public. He stated that "excluding those from Japan, those from the Korean Peninsula accounted for a large part," In June 1995, the Japanese government established the Asian Women's Fund (AWF) to atone for its moral responsibility toward former comfort women, and paid compensations to the former comfort women whom came out, accompanied by an apology from the Prime Minister. However, most of Kotean former comfort women refused to accept the compensations due to objections from the Korean council, an NGO seeking state responsibility. In January 1996, R. Coomaraswmy, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, based on documentary evidence from G. Hicks' book, Seiji Yoshida's book and Japanese military comfort station regulations, and corroborated by the testimony of former Korean comfort women, reported that "approximately 200,000 former Korean comfort women were forcibly or deceptively taken to Japanese military comfort stations where they were forced to provide sexual services against their will and subjected to daily physical violence. The comfort women were sex slaves, and comfort stations were sex slaves organizations". In April 2007, the Interagency Working Group submitted its final report to the U.S. Congress, stating that it found "no new material on the violation of women's human rights by the Japanese military". In July 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Res.121, which called on the Japanese government to "acknowledge and officially apologize for the historical facts of the forced sexual enslavement of young women in its colonies and occupied Asian territories". However, the basis for this is questionable. In March 2015, 19 Japanese historians issued a statement calling for the correction of eight factual errors in the McGraw-Hill Textbook (2011). In response, U.S. historians criticized them as historical revisionists and refused to correct the textbook. In February 2021, an uproar erupted over the retraction of J. Mark Ramsayer's paper,"Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War”. In August 2022, Tetsuo Arima and J. Mark Ramseyer published a paper refuting the rationale for the retraction request. Points of ControversyThe points of controversy between sex slaves or licensed prostitutes are as follows. Both cite the Kono Statement, military regulations and No. 49 as documentary evidence for their respective claims.
Authenticity of lead sentenceAbsence of explanation of basic information1. Explanation of "comfort station" is missing. A "comfort station" is a licensed brothel under domestic law for Japanese military personnel (of which Koreans were a part) established in the battlefield and occupied territory. 2. It was after 1938 that the Japanese military became involved in the establishment and operation of comfort stations. Ignoring and misquoting facts1. Only 240 have been certified by the South Korean government, in contrast to claims that approximately 200,000 Korean women were sexually enslaved. The basis for this certification has not yet been made public. 2. The Kono Statement states that "the majority of comfort women were Japanese. However, H.Res. 121 misquotes the Kono Statement and claims that "A large part" of the comfort women were Korean. Lack of logic1. Koreans were also members of the Japanese military. There was no reason for the Japanese military to be violent toward Korean comfort women who were their own citizens. 2 Comfort women were valuable human resources for the Japanese military as nurses, and were in a position to protect them. Military regulations stipulated monthly confirmation of wage payments to comfort women by operators of comfort stations, and strictly prohibit violence against operators and comfort women by military personnel. Violators were punished. 3. The content of the former comfort women's testimony violates all domestic laws and military regulations. The Japanese Empire was a country ruled by law, and law violators could never be in the majority. Police and military police crackdown records support this. Unsubstantiated citation of sources and inappropriate citation: Misquotation: only explaining violation cases through interviews with comfort women. The primary source for the claim of “sexual slavery” is the UN report by Coomaraswamy (1996). : Unreliable paper that does not cite primary sources : Unclear which references are being cited : Should cite a dictionary : Unsubstantiated paper : Should cite primary sources : Inaccurate article: according to a Dutch government survey, there may have been between 2 00and 300 Dutch comfort women, about 65 of whom were most certainly forced into prostitution: comfort station regulations are open to the public. to : Should cite primary sources: these were a personal opinions of speaker or authors English is now an international language. Therefore, articles in the English version are particularly required to be neutral and credible. As mentioned above, this article undermines neutrality and credibility. Will Binksternet continue to exclude posts like the above? Eyagi (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
|
WP:LEAD violation of lead sentence
This is going nowhere, Misplaced Pages isn't a forum for original research |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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 deleted by Aoidh 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.
Eyagi (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
|
Response to WP:OR claim: licensed prostitutes literature
Again, Misplaced Pages does not base content on original research. Nor are we required to 'refute' such original research. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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 Talk, 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 Korea, China, and the Philippines.” in lede is unsubstantiated paper. AndyThGrump criticized the talk as "contributor's personal analysis of primary sources”. The content of this Talk 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: Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War: A Response to My Critics by J. Mark Ramseyer :: SSRN Comfort Women: The North Korean Connection by J. Mark Ramseyer, Tetsuo Arima :: SSRN UN report: Testimony: Comfort Women: The North Korean Connection by J. Mark Ramseyer, Tetsuo Arima :: SSRN H.Res.121: MacGraw-Hill text book: There are two Japanese versions of wikipedia on comfort women: "Japan's comfort women" and "Japan's comfort women issue." 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. Eyagi (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
|
J. Mark Ramseyer
We probably should update (controversies section?) with something from this article, which says:
In 2021, controversy arose when the International Review of Law and Economics published an online pre-print of an article by Ramseyer that challenged the narrative that comfort women were coerced into sexual servitude in Japanese military brothels in the 1930s and 1940s. 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." Valereee (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
References
- ""Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War": The Case for Retraction on Grounds of Academic Misconduct". The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. 2021-02-18. Retrieved 2021-02-25.
- "Harvard professor invites fury by calling 'comfort women' prostitutes". The Straits Times. 2021-02-03. Retrieved 2021-02-03.
- "Harvard Prof Rejects Historical Consensus on 'Comfort Women'". Inside Higher Ed. 2021-02-16. Retrieved 2021-02-17.
- Jeannie Suk Gersen (2021-02-26). "Seeking the True Story of the Comfort Women". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2021-02-26.
- We discussed Ramseyer a lot last year and earlier this year. (See Talk:Comfort_women/Archive_10#Relevance_of_Ramseyer.) 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 has challenged his work at its foundation, calling it "poorly resourced, evidentially fatuous", "woefully deficient", ahistorical and politically motivated. Ramseyer ignored mountains of contradictory evidence. Mentioning Ramsayer at all is WP:UNDUE emphasis on this gross misstep by a scholar who should know better. Binksternet (talk) 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? Valereee (talk) 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. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- If Ramseyer doesn't meet WP:RS 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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. Valereee (talk) 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 WP:POVFORK 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. Binksternet (talk) 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. Valereee (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- J. Mark Ramseyer refutes the claims of the references quoted by Valereee in detail. Please comment after reading this paper. 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 (Contracting for sex in the Pacific War) 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.
- Comfort Women: The North Korean Connection by J. Mark Ramseyer, Tetsuo Arima :: SSRN
- I am not a fan of inserting links to contradictory information at the bottom of the page—it seems like a WP:POVFORK 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. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 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. Valereee (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Eyagi (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Asia articles
- High-importance Asia articles
- WikiProject Asia articles
- B-Class China-related articles
- High-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class Korea-related articles
- High-importance Korea-related articles
- WikiProject Korea articles
- B-Class Indonesia articles
- High-importance Indonesia articles
- WikiProject Indonesia articles
- B-Class Japan-related articles
- High-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- B-Class Philippine-related articles
- High-importance Philippine-related articles
- WikiProject Philippines articles
- B-Class Vietnam articles
- High-importance Vietnam articles
- All WikiProject Vietnam pages
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class Feminism articles
- Mid-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- B-Class Gender studies articles
- Mid-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- B-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- B-Class Korean military history articles
- Korean military history task force articles
- B-Class Southeast Asian military history articles
- Southeast Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class Sex work articles
- Mid-importance Sex work articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class Women's History articles
- High-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- B-Class WikiProject Women articles
- WikiProject Women articles
- Former good article nominees
- Selected anniversaries (August 2011)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2014)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2017)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics