Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobbybuilder~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 14:36, 28 July 2005 (→[], Taiwan, and vandalism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Request for Further Info

I'm doing some research on the issue right now. In regards to this quote: "In 1990 the Korean Council for Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery, with help from Japanese organizations, filed suit"

Can the original writer give me some examples of the organizations in Japan that are assisting with their case? Are they cause lawyers? Korean Organizations in Japan? --Jayc12 01:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

US and South Korean use

Recently added: "US had same system in occupied Japan after World War II, and it was stopped by Eleanor Roosevelt. Even South Korea had same system in Korean War and Vietnam War."

References: "

• Molasky, Michael S. American Occupation of Japan and Okinawa, Routledge, 1999. ISBN 0415191947 ISBN 0415260442

• Moon, Katharine H. S. Sex Among Allies, Columbia University Press, 1997. ISBN 0231106424"

The online reference seems to discuss organised prostitution, which is not quite the same thing as CW. Am I missing something? Markalexander100 09:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We can know about RAA or Japanese Comfort Women Center for Occupation Force here.

Most of them are wrote in anti-Japanese context. Please read facts among political words.

Also this page says about it too. But "When USA occupation forces to Japan came to Tokyo, what they said first was 'Prepare comfort women club for military officers' Do you know this ?? They loved this club much for long years." is incorrect. It was prepared from Japanese side, stopped in 1946 not "long years", and is not only for officers but also soldiers.

Here is report on Korean kidnapped Comfort Women in Korean War. But it is Japanese text page of Korean News Paper, JoongAng Ilbo. Unfortunately, this page is not accepted machine translation.

Comfort Women system of other nations including South Korea is here.

This is machine translation of a Japanese page. I'm searching English page. Language barrier is serious problem among us.Kadzuwo 12:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Language barrier

"Language barrier is serious problem among us." I agree. :) Maybe this would be a better place to put the material, in Japanese? Is there an online reference for a US or Korean government program of rape? Isolated acts of individuals, or paid prostitution, are not the same thing. (I've reverted your edits until we sort something out). Markalexander100 02:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RAA was prepared by Japanese side in just same manner of Japanese Comfort Women system. Why don't you understand it? Korean systems are much worst, according to _Korean_ scholars. you can read Japanese pages in English thru machine translations.Kadzuwo 10:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kadzuwo, please feel free to post links to Japanese sources here -- some of us can read them without translation. Jpatokal 02:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow! Good news!! I recoｍmend a book これでは困る韓国 ISBN 4879195707. This is conversations of two Korean Scholars.

Now, "us"? Are You a group?Kadzuwo 11:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And by the way, the single link on the Japanese page isn't very neutral, with titles like "The Lie of Forced Comfort Women" (慰安婦強制連行のウソ) and criticisms of sources with terms like "silly little book" (インチキ本)... Jpatokal 02:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know it. I think just neutral is very difficult about such problems. So, we must see both sides like a good judge. Anyway always we must remember anyone can be a liar occasionally.Kadzuwo 11:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now, is :慰安婦強制連行のウソ "The Lie of Forced Comfort Women"? It is transated as "The lie of comfort-women forcible taking" by my reccomended machine translation.Kadzuwo 11:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Saying that RAA women were forced into the job is a minority view, it's your job to produce evidence for it. In particular, do you have a source to back up the bit about "virgins"? Jpatokal 09:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Like most of Korean comfort women, they were persuaded in situation they can not say "No". I know a case of Korean comfort women said "No", she did only non-sexual works like laundry for other women.

Please see Japanese page of Recreation and Amusement Association. it has some reference books.Kadzuwo 11:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed the line regarding official settlement of the comfort women issue since 1) no source was given; 2) if the issue were settled, the following sentence about victims still seeking official compensation and refusing the semi-/unofficial compensation does not make any sense; 3) the issue of comfort women has quite obviously not been officially settled since it is an ongoing obstacle to South Korean-Japanese relations; 4) the statement attributes the settlement to the 1965 normalisation treaty, the text of which is available here on Misplaced Pages, and that treaty is deafeningly silent on the issue.

AFAIK (I'm not the one who wrote the line) the Japanese government's view is that the 1965 normalization treaty closed all outstanding issues between Japan and S. Korea. Many South Koreans obviously disagree on a personal level, but I'm not sure what the SK government's official view on this is...? Jpatokal 12:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems the 1965 treaty was part of a package which included an "Agreement of Economic Cooperation and Property Claims". I've added that, and made it clear that this is the Japanese position. We also need to do something about the headings. :) Markalexander100 01:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that's fair. In answer to the question above, the South Korean government's official view is that the treaty was not a settlement of all issues, though they also do not mention comfort women specifically as an outstanding issue. The entire comfort women issue has been conspicuously avoided by both governments and is effectively confined to non- or 'semi'-governmental (as mentioned in the article) activism in both countries.

To put Comfort women under the category of prostitutes is not accurate. They do not get monetary returns for what they are forced into doing. Mandel 11:40, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm that depends. {Prostitute = Paid Sex Worker} is correct and incorrect. Prostitute could simply means women who work on brothel or women who provide sexual service. Otherwise, used of words such as "Forced Prostitution" won't happen. Having said it, in the context of "comfort women" destinction of "forced prostitution" would be unambigious and non-PC so will leave at that. FWBOarticle

I agree that by the dictionary definition (just one online example)and by common English usage a "women who works in a brothel" providing sex acts is QED a prostitute. It doesn't matter whether or not they are paid by each "customer" or indeed, even paid at all.

On the other hand, the word "prostitute" has pejorative connotations far beyond it's dictionary definition. Especially given the subject at hand, it might be wiser to adopt more neutral language when possible. "Woman who works in a military brothel" doesn't have nearly the bite that "prostitute" does. Another possibly more neutral expression would be "sex worker".

On a somewhat related subject, that may be somewhat obscured by the very term "comfort women"--were there no, none, zero, nada boys or men involved as sex workers in this military brothel system? That seems beyond belief, given the wide extent of the system and relatively large numbers of people involved. If any such men or boys were involved in this system, it would seem that they deserve at least a small mention in an article on the subject.

Bhugh 03:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Major Rewrite

Done major rewrite. Feel free to correct my engrish or any NPOV problems. I'm going to bed. Good night. FWBOarticle 05:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I probably need rewrite the last section. It was basically attempt to put togeter info like RAA or Korean Military Brothel system. It is pretty much Me-steal-but-others-steal-too-so-I-should-get-off argument. I will try to do better contextualisation. FWBOarticle 22:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The comfort women question is a very complex issue. I should know I've been working on it for the last five years ( more specifically on the issue as it is presented in the English speaking newspapers of Korea). What strikes me in this comment page is that people try to demonstrate that one systeme was worse than another . Prostitution as a whole is horrible; forced prostitution even more . Now to make it really clear the japanese governement acknowledge the suffering of the comfort women, go check the MOFAT website, but do not want to directly compensate them ( they want to establish private funds publicly financed ). Offers have been made since the 1990's, but they were dismissed as to little and too late by the Comfort Women. What they really want is an official apology and enough money to finish their lives decently . It is striking to see that most of the victims still alive are in poverty and subsist ( in Korea ) thanks to the governement money . Which at any rate is far than enough. I personnaly believe that the women are victimized a second time by the debate on wether they were forcefully drafted or not . You may check horrendous comments on Amazon.com where japanese readers bombastically dismiss any books that would cover the atrocities committed by their troops during WWII. This is not to say that Japanese are brutes, my fellow frenchmen were also commiting war crimes in Indochina and Algeria we have yet to put them to trial.

Odd statistics

The Japanese who subscribed in the licensed pleasure quarter made up 40%. Koreans made up 20% and the Chinese 10%. The woman who were forced to join in Japanese-occupied countries except Korea and China or the battlefield formed the remaining 40%.

Anybody find anything wrong with this? silsor 22:43, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Euphemesims

I daresay serve has an air of voluntarism about it. "Forced to work as prostitutes" is more accurate.

Also, does the article mention the murders of the used-up ones? Some of my East Asian friends tell of soldiers placing 100 women in a cave and then blowing them all up with explosives. Are these mere rumors? -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Dr. Ikuhiko Hata.

>However, Yoshida admitted afterward his confesses were not true, according to research of Dr. Ikuhiko Hata.

What is the foundation? That Yoshida admitted that his work had not been true is a forgery of the rightwing revisionists. Everton 01:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Bobbybuilder, Taiwan, and vandalism

I wish that Bobbybuilder would stop marking his changes as "rv. vandalism". The changes he is reverting may or may not be correct, and they may or may not have been made in good faith, but it is clear that they are not vandalism.

-- Dominus 13:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dominus, the matter has been explained before, yet someone deliberately reversed to the incorrect version. I think the first time is out of POV or ignorance, but doing that purposely for weeks then that should be called vandalism. Bobbybuilder 00:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I disagree. That is not what vandalism is. Vandalism is an indisputably bad-faith change that is made as a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. What we have here is a disagreement about the facts of the matter. The person disagreeing with you may be stupid, wrong-headed, ill-informed, stubborn, or unreasonable, but that does not make them a vandal. And when you call it "vandalism" when it clearly is not, you weaken your own claim to be acting in good faith. -- Dominus 13:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Denying the fact that there were also comfort women from Taiwan is similar to denying there were Jews from Hungary got gassed in the concentration camp. Both are war crimes from WWII, both are indisputable facts. There are still Taiwanese comfort women alive at the moment for god sake. If you check the vandal's history, that person's belief belongs to the extreme right group in Taiwan. They deny the Japanese war crimes like Neo-nazis deny the Nazi war crimes. Again, the first time this person does so, you can educate him (let's look at the possibility that he failed his social science in elementary school), if he consistently doing so, then there is no doubt that this person wants to add "bad-faith changes" "to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia".

If you want to spin like that, please give me an example of vandalism that is not "a disagreement about the facts of the matter". It is disturbing to know some Taiwanese people deliberately deny Japanese war crimes during WWII, it is even more disturbing to see someone actually believes that's okey to do so. Bobbybuilder 22:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not disputing that there are comfort women from Taiwan. And I am not "spinning" anything. I am just saying that the changes are not vandalism, and you should not call them vandalism. Holocaust deniers are wrong also, but that does not make their changes vandalism. holocaust-denying changes should be reverted, but because they are incorrect, not because they are vandalism. Similarly, I agree with your reversions; my only objection is your use of the word "vandalism" to describe the changes you are reverting.

Here are some examples of vandalism that are not due to a disagreement about facts. I hope this helps make clearer to you what vandalism is.

Is it possible that our difficulties are caused by your unfamiliarity with English? I was surprised that you used the word "spin" to describe what I was saying. Like "vandalism", that is also an insulting and pejorative term, and it does not accurately describe what I was doing in my earlier message. I guess that you did not mean to insult me or to dismiss my point as being propagandistic and indended to deceive the public. Is this true? -- Dominus 13:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you trying to twist my words and say that I claimed you deceived the public? I was just curious about your motive for trying to reduce "hiding war crimes" into merely "a disagreement about the facts of the matter". By the way, he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones. Even with my unfamiliarity with English, I still know intend has a t in it.

I think our difficulties are due to your definition of "bad faith changes" being different from mine, and if you are not too self-assured to open a dictionary and check, you may find that constently fabricate information falls into the category of "bad faith". Bobbybuilder 14:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)