This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Acroterion (talk | contribs) at 03:50, 3 March 2023 (OneClickArchived "WP:LEAD violation of lead sentence" to Talk:Comfort women/Archive 11). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:50, 3 March 2023 by Acroterion (talk | contribs) (OneClickArchived "WP:LEAD violation of lead sentence" to Talk:Comfort women/Archive 11)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Referencing and citation: criterion met
.svg){kind=small}
 | 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 4, 2011, August 4, 2014, and August 4, 2017. | |||||||||
 | This 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. |
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. 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
- Eyagi (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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. Valereee (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I understood. I deleted "Please comment after reading this paper". Eyagi (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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. Valereee (talk) 23:24, 20 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)
- 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)
Rebuttal to WP:OR again: unsubstantiated WP:OR reasons
The talks I posted were closed for WP:OR reasons, and the submission of "Draft: Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire" 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
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.
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.
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 ?
Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War: A Response to My Critics
Comfort Women: The North Korean Connection Eyagi (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- Why have you not responded to the WP:ANI thread? AndyTheGrump (talk) 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. Eyagi (talk) 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 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 WP:SECONDARY 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. Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC). Please study Misplaced Pages:Identifying and using primary sources.
- 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. Eyagi (talk) 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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Addendum: For the curious, it should be noted that as a result of posting repetitive walls of text, User:Bavio the Benighted 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 AndyTheGrump (talk) 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 WP:RS.
- 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. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 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.104.228.9.173 (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2023 (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. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:34, 25 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. Eyagi (talk) 06:06, 25 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
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics