This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 104.228.9.173 (talk) at 22:42, 13 January 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:42, 13 January 2023 by 104.228.9.173 (talk)(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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | 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. 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.
- 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
- Selected anniversaries (August 2011)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2014)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2017)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics