Talk:Comfort women/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Suggested changes to first paragraph

It is now common knowledge that comfort women have two opinions: prostitutes or sexual slaves. This article clearly violates Wikipedia's policies of 5P1 and 5P2. The description of "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army ..." should be changed as "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls to provide sexual services to Imperial Japanese military personnel and civilian employees at the facilities called a comfort station". And both opinions should be written together. The editors of this article please again check Wickipedia's policies.Eyagi (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

There are many scholars who have written about how the many sex slaves were forced into service, and how the smaller number of prostitutes were recruited. Both prostitutes and sex slaves were involved at the same time. The sex slaves were more numerous than prostitutes.

I don't see "two opinions" in the sources; I see two different types of comfort women combining in the same topic. Few people would care about official military prostitutes, but many people are very concerned about the sanctioned rape of forced sex slaves, which is why the topic is mostly about them. Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the core of the debate is whether your perception of "The sex slaves were more numerous than prostitutes" is correct or not. On March 7, 2015, 19 Japanese historians issued a statement specifically pointing out eight errors in the McGraw-Hill textbook's description of comfort women and calling for their correction. However, American scholars have not responded to any of these points. The reporter of the Coomara-swamy Report, the only documented evidence, stated that she believed the comfort station was a system of sex slavery because the contents of G. Hicks and Yoshida Seiji's book matched the testimony of 16 former comfort women. Hicks' book (1995) is based on the rumors of the time (the number of comfort women was 200,000, mostly Koreans, recruited under the name of "women's volunteer corps"), Seiji Yoshida's book (1983) (Korean women were forcibly taken at gunpoint and raped), and the testimony of former comfort women (forced to be taken against their will, daily physical assault and rape, no compensation, etc.). The number of comfort women certified by the Korean government is 240, although there is no explanation of the grounds. There is a document

"BEHIND THE COMFORT WOMEN CONTROVERSY: HOW LIES BECAME TRUTH" that explains how the theory of sexual slavery was created. Please look through it once. Eyagi (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I corrected a typo in the link above. Expanding it: Tsutomu Nishioka (2007). "BEHIND THE COMFORT WOMEN CONTROVERSY: HOW LIES BECAME TRUTH" (PDF). Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact.. The {{cite web}} template does not support linking in the publisher= field; see here. Google searches got 30.400 hits on the document name and 175,000 on the publisher name. I'm not sure where it would rank re source reliability and document prominence for putposes of WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the link. I couldn't make a link for this PDF file. Eyagi (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The group of "19 Historians" of Japan is countered by 20 Western historians led by Alexis Dudden who say that the 19 are misguided in their attempt to change history.

The website sdh-fact.com is a voice for denialism and revisionism. They say that the Mukden Incident was not Japan's fault,[1] and that the Pearl Harbor attack was not Japan's fault.[2] Complete nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't know enough details to opine. I'm not asserting that the views expressed on the website might not be contrary to mainstream views. I don't know whether they are regarded as WP:FRINGE enough to be simply ignored I se that the listed author is described in the WP article about him as professor of International Christian Studies at Tokyo Christian University, for whatever that might be worth. It just seemed to me that this might meet the criteria for mention found in WP:DUE to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The scholarly debate can and should be summarized for the reader. The viewpoint of the 19 Historians could be attributed to them, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I don't think the material under discussion is strong enough to redefine the topic, especially since a lot of topic scholars disagree. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe that labeling and dismissing differing opinions is an escape from the debate and I understand that Alexis Dudden's position is that all of the former comfort women's testimonies are correct, although she does not provide any evidence for her claims. The subject of the former comfort women's testimony is an event that occurred about 50 years ago. Whether or not their testimonies are correct must be verified with the primary documents. All of the contents of the former comfort women's testimonies are in violation of the domestic laws and military regulations of the time. I think it seriously undermines the credibility of Wikipedia to forever exclude claims other than sexual slavery. Eyagi (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Japanese war crime denialism is a well-known topic and absolutely should be included in the debate to highlight that 50 years after the atrocities committed by Japan, high-level government officials, academics, and historians solely in Japan continue to deny, dismiss, or pass off as "not that bad" the fact that these events occurred, going so far as to claim Japan was the victim of it all. Absolutely the opinions of these historians, with attribution, belong in the article under its own section on Japanese denialism, weighted and written objectively with lots of sources of course. Otherwise or concurrently, the article can mention the phenomenon of willing prostitution as appropriate. That's my 2¢. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The complaint that the modern testimony of comfort women should be thrown out in favor of the very few primary source interviews from 1943–1945 is a common strategy of the denialists. They all want to discredit widely known facts based on a very limited primary source sample. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There are many primary sources related to comfort women. The Japanese Empire was a nation governed by law, and under the law, Japanese and Koreans were equal. In 1916, a licensed prostitution system was introduced in accordance with the system of mainland Japan (the purpose was to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and maintain social moral), and the procedure for obtaining a license and the age at which the license was permitted were set. This system had taken root in society. To obtain a license, written consents of herself and her parent, and a copy of the contract between herself and her parents with the employer were required, and the minimum age was 17 years old. The contract was a multi-year indenture with upfront payment, and the upfront money was received by her parents at the time of the contract. Korea, like Japan, was under the patriarchal system, and obeying the will of the parents was a virtue. Therefore, the will of herself at that time was the will of the parents. The number of licensed prostitutes, the number of licensed brothels and restaurants where they works, and geisha residence, the number of recruiters, the number of venereal disease tests and infection rates, and the number of crimes and arrests for kidnapping, etc. are recorded in the Statistical Annual Report of the Korean Governor-General. Military regulations regarding comfort stations and military police records are held in the Asian Women's Fund archives.

Military regulations were enacted in accordance with domestic law. Military regulations stipulate that the employment of comfort women must be accompanied by the consent of her and the signing of a contract. Violence in the comfort stations was strictly prohibited, and any violence (caused mainly by drunkenness or intoxication) was punished. Comfort women who testify that they had no written consent or contract are in violation of the law. The Coomaraswamy Report asserts that the comfort station regulations are evidence of guilt (para. 20). Editors please read through the regulations and see if this assertion is correct. This regulations and the contents of the Japanese Prisoner of War Interrogation Report 49 (owner Kimura and his wife are Korean couples with Japanese names) are in good agreement. The average monthly salary of a Korean housemaid with meal and room at the end of 1942 was 11.07 yen. This Report cites Seiji Yoshida's book as documented evidence of " para.29,  the comfort women's testimony that they were recruited through violence and coercion” and “ para.30, the majority of the women were between the ages of 14 and 18". As is well known, Yoshida later confessed that the book was fiction. The only documented evidence of being forced recruitment is gone.　American scholars should admit these facts frankly. Eyagi (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

You said "under the law, Japanese and Koreans were equal", but whether that was true or not, the actual practice was far from equal—very, very far. We have a whole article about how bad it was: Korea under Japanese rule.

Report number 49 is a favorite exhibit of Japanese nationalist revisionists, but it will always be a very small example, failing to show the larger picture. Binksternet (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Please specify the issue. The content of the cited material is extensive and the location of the issue is unknown. According to this document, Koreans were members of the Imperial Japanese Army, and their application rate was several tens of times higher. Why did the Imperial Japanese Army forcibly took Koreans of the same people and routinely violate and rape them?

No.49 is quoted because it is the only document by a third party. Those who claim to be sex slaves also cite this material as evidence of "tricked". Comparing the comfort women's income and the housemaid's income, it is common sense that such high-paying jobs were sexual services. If you have any other materials from a third party, please let me know.

I have pointed out some of the issues in the McGraw-Hill textbook, but you have not refuted any of them. Why don't you argue? Eyagi (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

This is additional information for you regarding No.49. Congressional Research Service Memorandum lists No. 49 as evidence of sexual slavery. Other evidence includes Yoshiaki Yoshimi's book, Kono Statement, Yuki Tanaka's book, etc., and strangely, the Coomaraswamy Report and McDougall Report are not included in this material. As you know, Coomaraswamy claims to have systematically enslaved Korean women, and McDougall claims to have systematically sexually slaved Asian women as well.

Yoshimi claims that the licensed prostitute system itself under the multi-year indenture with upfront at the time was a sexual slavery system, and the comfort women employed by that system were sexual slavery. As 19 historians have pointed out, he admits that there is no evidence of forced recruitment, instead claiming that she were deceived and hired, citing No. 49 as evidence.

The Asian Women's Fund Report, p.7, which was the basis for the Kono Statement, states that there were cases of women who were tricked into becoming comfort women, and cites No.49 as evidence.

Yuki Tanaka's book (2002) is a collection of Asian testimonies, but like the Korean testimonies, there is no evidence to support them, making it inappropriate to use as evidence of sexual slavery. Japanese lawyers recruited former comfort women lawsuit plaintiffs in various Asian countries in 1992, following Korea, in order to file a lawsuit for state compensation by former comfort women. In the postwar war crime trials, Japanese soldiers were punished for the forced prostitution of Dutch women in Indonesia and the rape of Filipino women in the Philippines, and these cases had already been settled in Asia. Nevertheless, after the recruitment of plaintiffs for the lawsuits by Japanese lawyers, a number of people testified that they had been forced into prostitution by the Japanese military. As you know, IGW investigations did not find any documents showing new war crimes.

American scholars are demanding to retract the Ramseyer’s article, because it does not show the original contract signed by the comfort women and their employer. Military regulations stipulated that a written contract was required for employing comfort women, and the women who claim that they did not sign a contract prove that they were not, actually, comfort women. Yoshimi's book, favored by American scholars, argues that the comfort women's contracts itself indicates sex slaves. The claims of American scholars are irrational. Eyagi (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that the opinion that the claim of Japanese war crime denialism should be excluded from this article is contrary to the purpose of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to make such judgments, and neither are its editors. For debate, facts need to be shared. American scholars should refute the McGraw-Hill textbook's request for revision on the basis of evidence, not on the label of historical revisionist. The content of the textbook overlaps with the North Korean government's claim (para.69 of Coomaraswamy Report; “the forcible recruitment of 200,000 Korean women as military sexual slaves, their severe sexual assault and the killing of most of them in the aftermath”). Eyagi (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make an argument here, just observing that I'm having difficulty re the comment above. A couple of paragraphs previously, you linked this document using the label "Coomaraswamy Report". Para 69 of that document reads: "69. States shall provide trained counsellors to support the police, judges, victims of domestic violence and perpetrators of violence." and does not appear closely related to the context here. What document are you referring to above, and what context in that document does than quote come from? I haven't looked at much detail on this but I don't see this in section IX here as a recommendation by Radhika Coomaraswamy; perhaps it appears in another report by him. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

What I am asking for is the basis for your claim and the reason for excluding claims other than sexual slavery from wikipedia.

As I have already pointed out, there are various arguments against Coomaraswamy's claim that "comfort women were sex slaves". The first is that the majority of the comfort women were Japanese, not Korean. Second, there is no documented evidence in the testimony of the former comfort woman, and its content violates domestic law and military regulations. Third, military regulations prevent the exploitation of comfort women by comfort station operators and violence against comfort women by soldiers, so the perception of slavery system is incorrect. The overwhelming majority of silent former comfort women indicates that they were licensed prostitutes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and there is no reason to exclude anything other than claims of sexual slavery. Eyagi (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I mistakenly thought it was a reply from Binksternet. Apologies to both of you.

The PDF you linked to is wrong. Please open the link in the 9 June 2022 post." 69. in the first instance, it was argued that the forcible recruitment of 200,000 Korean women as military sexual slaves, their severe sexual assault and the killing of most of them in the aftermath should be considered a crime against humanity." Eyagi (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

My June 11 Talk misunderstood the sender, so I deleted the first part. But, this is a question for all editors. If you are excluding claims that deny sexual slavery because of "revisionisms", you are violating wikipedia policy. Binksternet explained that the reason was that the majority of the comfort women were sex slaves. but the objective evidence refutes this. Even if this was true, it would still be a violation of wikipedia policy to exclude minority opinions. Editor, please let me know what you think.

There were two opinions from the beginning. Coomaraswamy denied Ikuhiko Hata's opinion of being  "prostitute" and believed in the testimony of only 16 people who called former comfort woman selected by the North Korean government and the Korean Council, and concluded that: “para.61 (b) Recognize that the drafting of approximately 200,000 Korean women　as military sexual slaves … ;” Ikuhioko Hata's opinion was as follows: “para.40 Dr. Ikuhiko Hata of Chiba University, Tokyo, refuted certain historical studies made on the issue of "comfort women", in particular Yoshida Seiji’s book, … the major perpetrators of the "comfort women crime" were in fact Korean district chiefs, brothel owners and even parents of the girls themselves who, he alleged, were aware of the purpose of the recruitment page of their daughters. … Korean parents, Korean village chiefs and Korean brokers, that is to say private individuals, were knowing collaborators and instrumental in the recruitment of women to serve as sex slaves for the Japanese military. Dr. Hata also believed that most "comfort women" were under contract with the Japanese army and received up to 110 times more income per month (1,000-2,000 yen) than the average soldier (15-20 yen).” Eyagi (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

As you pointed out, my Coomaraswamy report PDF link was incorrect.Thank you for your advice. Document with paragraphs is likely to need to be downloaded from the Digital Library.　Symbol: E/CN.4/1996/53/Add.1、Title: ”Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Radhika Coomaraswamy, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/45.” Date: Geneva: UN, 4 Jan. 1996. Eyagi (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor of this article, but I'll make a suggestion:

1. In the lead, start a new paragraph with the current content reading, "Most of the women were from occupied countries [...];
2. At the end of the para above that, insert something along the lines of, "There is some disagreement regarding the proportion of women who were willing participants vs. those who were forced into sexual slavery." (that could use rewording);
3. Add a section titled something like Makeup, possibly with subsections headed Willing participants and Sexual slavery, with content similar to that beginning here, stripped of assertions which cannot be supported, and with reworded assertions which are supportable, citing supporting sources.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Since there are few speakers on this Talk, I thought you are one of the editors. Would you please write your suggestion specifically in writing? As pointed out, the current text is distorted and the citation is inappropriate. The Asia Women's Fund Report only describes that there were instances of violation of the rules, the source for the use of Koreans as sex slaves is the Coomaraswamy Report, and the source for the use of Asians as sex slaves is the McDougall Report. Eyagi (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

In order to rewrite the head sentence (summary) of the current article into a neutral description, I think that the editor's consensus is first required. In addition, many collaborators are required to rewrite. I don't know who the editors are. Please teach me what procedure is required to get the editor's consensus. The rewrite includes 1) a neutral definition of comfort women, 2) the existence of two claims: licensed prostitutes (Hata’s book (1999)) or sex slaves (Coomaraswamy and McDougall Report (1996, 1998)), 3) the arguments for both (basis for the claim (law or testimony), number of comfort women (20,000 to 450,000), the majority of the ethnic origin (Japanese or Korean), recruitment of comfort women (with or without their consent or against their will, with or without systematic coercion), contracts with employers and payment (with or without), violence in comfort stations (very few or routine), etc., 4) political issues (Japan and South Korea, international (U.S. Congressional resolutions), comfort women statues, etc.) These should be described in a concise and neutral manner and should use a reliable source (with a clear rationale and no duplication with other sources). This requires a lot of people's participation and reviews.Eyagi (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The article as it stands now is already a representation of the best neutrality we have been able to achieve, based on the best sources available. I don't see the need for a radical rewrite. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Does your opinion represent the editors of this article? Is it your personal opinion? You argued that there were majority of sexual slaves as a reason to exclude claims other than sex slavery, and I showed evidence and argued against it. Your reply was "revisionist". Please once again explain the reason for the claim that the current article is neutral. Again, it is against wikipedia policy to exclude conflicting opinions based on the number of people. Eyagi (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I used the label "revisionist" because you demonstrate the same behaviors as seen repeatedly at this topic, especially the emphasis on primary sources such as Report 49. But Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, not primary ones. We rely on respected scholars such as Chunghee Sarah Soh to analyze the primary evidence and form conclusions. Soh describes the majority of comfort women not as prostitutes but as regular girls and women recruited by deception or physical force, with the main guilty parties being Imperial Japan and the chaotic, patriarchal, colonial Korea under occupation by Japan. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The C. Sarah Soh ’s Wikipedia you quoted is not accurate. The source [5] cited in this article is written as follows; “Controversially, she asserts that it is inaccurate to depict the comfort women as sex slaves and the system as a war crime.” ”Soh’s main target is the Korean Council, an umbrella organization of activist groups involved in the redress movement, arguing that it has sensationalized the story, imposing a misleading narrative of victimization while brooking no dissent.” Your claim is the exact opposite of her claim.

Similarly, contrary to your claim, the head page of the current "Comfort Women" article quotes the photo of No. 49 and states "Sexual Slavery in Imperial Japanese Army". As pointed out earlier, those who claim to be sex slaves also use No. 49 as evidence.

At the end of 1942, the number of licensed prostitutes in Korea was 3,881 Japanese and 7,942 Koreans, and the number of recruiters was 194 Japanese and 3,537 Koreans (p.262). As in Japan, the licensed prostitution system was well established in Korea. The comfort station was established in accordance with this licensed prostitution system. You are arguing without knowing the reality of such a licensed prostitution system. The same is true for American scholars. Eyagi (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding C. Sarah Soh, you are not citing her work but a shallow criticism of her work published in Japan Times, a newspaper known for taking a politically biased position on comfort women. In Soh's book Comfort Women, she talks about the "violated women" forced into military prostitution who served as comfort women, the great majority of which were Korean. She examines the comfort women system in the context of horrible conditions in Colonial Korea under the oppressive Japanese masters, who massively exploited all Koreans. Soh writes that the comfort women system was mainly "coerced sexual labor, that is, 'sexual slavery'", not willing prostitution. She says the comfort women system victimized Korean girls and women because of many factors including harsh Imperial Japanese pressures on their conquered subjects, and complicit Korean patriarchal attitudes. She describes the comfort women system as "grossly exploitative". Her research challenges the idea that the comfort women were "solely" victimized by the Japanese military; it was also the terrible cultural environment in Occupied Korea. Binksternet (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I have not read C.Sarah Soh’s book. However, first parts of it can be read online. Did you actually read this book? Your claim deviates from her writing intentions. The Japan Times article is merely a book review. Are you denying the reviews of the wikipedia "The comfort Women" that introduced her book?　

In any case, this book is just a writing of her claim, and your claim that this book is evidence of a "sex slave" is irrational. The basis for the "licensed prostitute" is not No. 49, as already explained, but the laws of the licensed prostitution system at the time and the military comfort station regulations. Please read the Military Comfort Station Regulations.

Are you the sole editor of this article?　Please reply. Eyagi (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not the sole editor here, even though it might feel like I am the only one answering your questions. You can see at this article information page that the most prolific editor here in terms of lasting authorship is User:Wtmitchell who only wrote about ten percent. Other editors have added more text and more characters than Wtmitchell, but their contributions were disputed or removed for some reason. I show up as a frequent editor but I remove text more often than I add text. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned there, I'll clarify. I have enough vague interest in this topic that I keep the article on my watchlist, sometimes comment on it, and sometimes edit it (that 10% figure is much higher than I would have thought). I'm not consciously pushing any POV, but I probably do make some provocative talk page comments hoping to provoke discussion. See also this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I saw this document at the first time, and I understand how transparent Wikimedia is. I deeply respect the contributions of both of you. Does the editors of this document refer to the persons who posted the text of wikipedia and Talk page? I am new to wikimedia and don't know how it works. I thought the editors are persons who have the authority to allow or not write the posted material. Please teach me what procedure is required to incorporate my argument that the two opinions on comfort women should be listed together. I believe that the discussion is exhausted. Eyagi (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree discussion is exhausted, with the result that your desired changes do not enjoy the consensus of participants. If you would like to attract a wider range of participants, you can start a request for comment (RfC.) You can see the instructions for this process at WP:Request for comment. Be forewarned that the results of a RfC may also fail to satisfy you. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. My issue is that the current wikipedia "Comfort Woman" article violates 5P1 and 5P2. Through the discussion so far, I think that the answer has come out without asking for new comments. How do you come to a conclusion after asking for comments? It is a common understanding that there are two claims about comfort women, sex slaves and licensed prostitutes. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is indisputable that excluding the claims of licensed prostitutes from the "comfort women" article undermines neutrality. What I would like to know is what steps need to be taken to rewrite the article. Eyagi (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You might have a look at WP:5P, WP:BETTER and WP:TEAHOUSE. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, I contacted Teahouse and adviser referred me to help Resolving content disputes with outside help. I posted my claim to the neutral point of view noticeboard. Eyagi (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

In the past Talk, I learned that the rewriting of the first paragraph was proposed repeatedly as well as this time. You are involved in all of these discussions and all proposals have been rejected. Recentry, you have deleted the writing of the Ramseyer paper. How did you get this authority? Eyagi (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't understand the implications when you commented on the use of RfC. Later, through the twists and turns, I learned that RfC is a way to reach editors consensus. I apologize for the irrelevant response. I still don't understand how to reach a conclusion, but I will follow it if it comes to a conclusion. Thank you very much for your comment. Eyagi (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2022

Request to add Lai Đại Hàn under the section Comfort_women#See_also. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Fbifriday (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

₩

change ((Korean won|₩)) to ((South Korean won|₩)) 2601:541:4580:8500:D27:8C41:942F:20DF (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Should the lead sentence of this article be reworded? If so, how?

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

The discussion above 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.

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 Wikipedia 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 Knowledge The Japanese Empire was a state ruled by law Laws 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 system The 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 military For 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 issue In 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 Controversy The 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. Table 1 Controversy on the comfort women issue Items Sex slaves Licensed prostitutes Claims Sources Documented evidence Claims Sources Documented evidence Comfort stations Sexual slaves center UN report (para.10) military regulations Licensed brothel based on domestic law for military personnel ATIS Research Report No. 120 Domestic law, military regulations Comfort women "military sexual slaves" such as multiple rapes on an everyday basis and severe physical abuse during forced prostitution UN report (para.10) military regulation (para.20) licensed prostitutes UN report (para.40) Domestic law, income of comfort women Number of comfort women approximately 200,000 Korean women UN report (para.61, 69) Hicks (1995) unknown, Hata estimates approximately 20,000 AWF report, Hata (1999) Prostitutes to customer ratio in Tokyo Ethnic majority Korean H.Res.121 Hicks, Kono statement Japanese Kono statement Consular records Recruitment Forced or deceived UN report (para.14, 16, 27 to 30), H.Res.121 Hicks, Yoshida (1983), No.49, Yuki Tanaka (2001) by contracts UN report (para.40) Military regulations, No.49, No.78, No.120, police records Guard and patrol The movements of the "comfort women" were closely monitored　and restricted UN report (para.33) It depends on the situation. In the front line, civilians were protected from enemy attacks, and so were comfort women. Number of sex services 60 to 70 men per day. UN report (para.34) 5 men per day on average AWF report Amenities, p.18 Injuries by Soldiers little notice was taken of the frequent cigarette burns, bruises, bayonet stabs and even broken bones inflicted on the women by soldiers. UN report (para.35, 37) Violence at the comfort stations was mainly drunken beatings, and the number of such misconduct was a few for every about thirty thousand users per month. Military police records, Table A.2.1 to A.2.7 Payment of service fees Food was provided by the army and services were paid for with tickets Un report (para.36) Food was provided by the operator of the comfort station, tickets were cashed every month, and the operator paid the comfort women. Military regulations Risk of STD "there existed the constant fear of disease and pregnancy" UN report (para.38) Prostitutes common risks. Military regulations strictly prescribed the use of condoms and washing after sex. Violators were prohibited from using comfort stations. Military regulations, number of licensed prostitutes in Korea Testimonies in UN report Coomaraswamy heard the testimony of 16 Korean former comfort women, and introduced the testimony of four of them. (para.54): Chong Ok Sun, (para.55, 57): Hang So Gyun, (para.56, 58): Kum Ju Hwang, (para.58): Bok Sun Kim Chong Ok Sun and Hwang So Gyun: experiences prior to 1938. Kum Ju Hwang: never received service fees and Bok Sun Kim:soldiers refused to use condoms : both violations of military regulations. These testimonies prove that they were not actually comfort women. Military regulations Testimonies in H.Res.121 One Dutch woman and two Korean women testified. The Dutch woman:an example of Japanese military discipline at work. Korean women:proves that both were unlicensed prostitutes and not comfort women. Domestic law, military regulations Authenticity of lead sentence Absence of explanation of basic information 1. 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 facts 1. 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 logic 1. 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 [2][3]: 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). [4]: Unreliable paper that does not cite primary sources [5]: Unclear which references are being cited [7]: Should cite a dictionary [12]: Unsubstantiated paper [16][17]: Should cite primary sources [18]: 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. [21] to [24]: 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) Wikipedia does not base content on a contributor's personal analysis of primary sources. Or, except to a very limited extent, to the sources themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC) For WP policy on presenting cite-supported viewpoints differing from views asserted here as supported by those cited sources you mention, see WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC) In general, I think you are right. This article is special, and the core of the debate is whether the testimony of the former comfort women is true or not. As you can see from 300 references cited in the main text, many people are disseminating various information. I used "primary sources" to mean the basis for a claim. Many of the references cited overlap in content. Eyagi (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Clarification of editorial policy: to ensure neutrality

This article, like any other, must comply with Wikipedia policies regarding sourcing and original research.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following are proposals for re-editing the current article to be neutral in content. If you have objections, please discuss them here. Obtaining consensus before publication The content of the manuscript will be posted on Talk in advance to reach consensus. If no consensus can be reached, describe it in the article (both claims are written together). Editors The editors must be neutral. Edited contents Use neutral expressions and in principle, state facts based on primary source (primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved）. Exclude citations of secondary sources and media information that do not mention primary (original) sources, and delete articles that quote them. When there is a doubt about the reliability of the primary source, the doubt should be noted alongside. Delete articles that misquote literature. Delete articles that do not correctly describe the cited literature. Contents of lead sentence Summarize the entire contents of the article in one page or less. Examples of primary sources General: law and police records on prostitution system of Empire Japan: documents issued by government and military of Empire Japan: documents issued by allied forces during Pacific War: records of Japanese military war crimes trials by various countries: diary and others. Licensed prostitute claims: domestic law (1916), military regulations and police records (1938 to 1945) on the prostitution system. Sexual slavery claim: Koreans: Coomaraswamy report (1996), Others: McDougall report (1998). H.Res.121：Congressional Report Service Memorandum (2006) and testimony of former comfort women.   Eyagi (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Closing talk page without discussion violates Wikipedia policy

Off-topic content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump has again closed the Talk page without discussion where I suggested improvements to the current article I posted. Your actions clearly violate Wikipedia policy. You should first specifically explain the basis for your claim that this talk violates Wikipedia policy before you closed it. WP:BOLD: The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. WP:Talk: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. When talk pages in other namespaces (including userspace) are used for discussion and communication between users, discussion should be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. Eyagi (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Controversy on H.Res.121

Wikipedia:No original research is core Wikipedia policy. It is not open to negotiation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As mentioned in“WP:LEAD violation of lead sentence” of Talk, a part of United States House of Representatives House Resolution 121’s Controversy article of Wikipedia was deleted by Aoidh. The reason for deletion is explained in “Request for explanation of basis for deletion”, but it is not specific and I do not understand. To share information with readers, here are the articles that have been deleted. Can someone please point out which parts fall under WP:OR and if there are any counterarguments? Doubts about the basis of resolution In addition to citing Seiji Yoshida's book, there are some doubts as to the veracity of the memorandum and testimony upon which this resolution was based. 1. Misrecognition of facts in the Kono statement: Majority were Japanese The memorandum's author, citing the Kono Statement, claimed that the majority of comfort women were Koreans (p.7,12). The Kono statement states,”excluding those from Japan, those from the Korean Peninsula accounted for a large part.” This is a serious misrepresentation of fact. If the majority of comfort women were Japanese, the story of "sex slaves" would not hold. 2. Absence of evidence to prove the credibility of Yuki Tanaka's book citation testimony The author cited the testimony of Yuki Tanaka's book as evidence of "sex slaves," but in order to use the testimony as evidence, it is necessary to present documentary evidence to support its credibility. But the author had presented nothing. Radhika Coomaraswamy, author of the UN report, presented G. Hicks' book, Seiji Yoshida's book and Japanese military brothel regulations as documentary evidence for their testimony. Asian nations and the Western nations that colonized Asia punished those involved in the forced prostitution of Dutch women (Netherlands) and rape (Philippines) in post-war courts. An IWG investigation published in 2007 found no documents indicating violations of women's human rights. 3. Rebuttal to the interrogation report No.49 as evidence of deception : Evidence of licensed prostitutes The net income of the comfort women (150-750 yen per month) was extremely high compared to the wages of the house-maids (6-15 yen per month by region) under the same payment terms (with meals, room and others) in 1942. It was common sense in society that the work of comfort women was a sex service. The licensed prostitution system was introduced in 1916 and, as shown in Table 1, was established in Korean society. The age of the comfort women was 17 years or older as stipulated by the licensed prostitution law, and the owner of the comfort station was Korean couple with Japanese names who were professionals in the licensed prostitution. The comfort women and their families signed contracts with the comfort station owner, and the families received an advance payment. The gross monthly income of comfort women was above 300 yen, which was consistent with newspaper advertisements for comfort women at the time. The fact that there was a difference in income is proof that the market principle was at work in the comfort women's work. No.49 proves that "comfort women were licensed prostitutes.” Table 1 Number of licensed restaurants, brothels and prostitutes in Korea (1939 and 1942) Items 1939 1942 Total Japanese Koreans Others Total Japanese Koreans Others Restaurants 1,833 597 1,154 82 1,616 515 1,007 94 Brothels 539 235 303 1 469 219 250 0 Geigi 8,348 2,226 6,122 0 6,287 1,797 4,490 0 Syakufu 1,796 351 1,445 0 1,616 240 1,376 0 Syōgi 3,712 1,845 1,866 1 3,850 1,774 2,076 0 Intermediaries 3,577 197 3,380 0 3,732 194 3,537 1 References 4. Credibility of former comfort women's testimony Three former comfort women (one Dutch and two Koreans) testified. The Dutch woman's testimony indicates a violation of military regulations by army unit. Two months after the comfort station where she had been forced into prostitution opened, the high-ranking officer who came to inspect the internment camp learned of this fact and immediately closed the comfort station and released the Dutch women. The fact that the Japanese military closed the comfort station shows that the discipline of the Japanese military was functioning. After the war, this incident was tried by the Dutch East Indies government. The officer responsible for opening the comfort station was sentenced to death, and his subordinates, the doctor responsible for conducting the examinations, and the civilians involved in the employment were sentenced to imprisonment, and executed. The testimonies of the two Koreans indicate that they were unlicensed prostitutes and they worked in unlicensed brothels, not comfort stations. This is a case of violation of domestic law and military regulations. Domestic law prohibited unlicensed prostitution, and military regulations prohibited the working of the unlicensed prostitutes, violence in the stations, and non-use of sacks. The military checked the balance sheets between the comfort station operators and comfort women reported monthly by the operators, and confirmed payment to the comfort women. Discipline in the comfort station was enforced by the military police, and venereal disease examinations were conducted by military doctors. Records of the military police show that rape and injury crimes by the China Expeditionary Army were rare, and violations of rules in comfort stations were mainly caused by drunkenness, and violators were punished, and the number of incidents was extremely small. Kidnapping, rape, and injury were violations of the criminal law. The arrest rate for kidnapping and rape was almost 100% as shown in Table 2. Their testimonies prove that they were not comfort women. Table 2 Crimes related to comfort women in Korea (1939) Name of crimes Number of crimes Number of arrests Number of persons arrested Total Japanese Koreans Others Murder 240 231 303 7 296 0 Injury: fatal 325 326 464 3 443 18 Injury: injury 11,893 11,851 21,775 236 21,516 23 Injury: simple assault 912 911 1,048 6 1,042 0 Intimidation 412 413 405 7 398 0 Kidnapping and abduction 1,191 1,188 1,865 16 1,849 0 Robbery and rape 19 19 19 0 19 0 Fraud 18,870 18,948 20,847 861 19,978 8 Blackmail 616 624 732 12 720 0 As explained above, this resolution was passed on the basis of misquotation of Kono statement and baseless memorandum, as well as testimony of cases in violation of domestic law and military regulations. Eyagi (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC) References

The Licensed Prostitution System in the Empire of Japan and the Establishment of Comfort Stations

Continued violation of WP:No original research
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Current "comfort women" articles do not include any explanation of the licensed prostitution system of the time. English-speaking readers are discussing the comfort women issue without such basic knowledge. Editor Binksternet criticized Ramseyer as follow: “Ramseyer cannot read or speak Korean, as he himself admits, so his notional assessments of Korean primary sources are rendered useless.” Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2022 “ The comfort women issue was an event during the Empire of Japan. At that time, Korea was part of the Empire of Japan, and the official language was Japanese. All primary sources on the comfort women issue are in Japanese. Ramseyer understands Japanese and his article cites many Japanese references. The following is a brief explanation of the licensed prostitution in the Empire of Japan and primary documents showing when comfort stations were established. In the Empire of Japan, licensed prostitution was legal. The Licensed prostitution system was established in 1900 in mainland Japan for the purpose of preventing the sexually transmitted disease(STD) and maintaining social morals. In order to obtain a license for prostitution, the applicant had to be at least 18 years of age, present herself at the police station, and submit written her will to work and written consent from the person with parental authority. "Shogi (Japanese legal term: licensed prostitutes)” were employed by the "Kashizashiki (Japanese legal term: licensed brothel)” operators under a multi-year indentured service contracts with the advance payment concluded through the intermediary of recruiters. Shogi were required to work only in kashizashikis, to undergo periodic SDC examinations, and to return the advance payment, although they were free to close the business. This system was introduced in Taiwan in 1906 (primary source not available online) and in Korea in 1916. The minimum age for permission was set at 16 in Taiwan and 17 in Korea, taking into account differences in local customs, and became established in society (see attached table). Outside the Empire of Japan, the Imperial Japanese Military had been using private brothels on the condition that they accepted periodic STD examinations. As the war front expanded, from 1938 onward the Japanese Military established regulations for "comfort stations" in compliance with domestic law and became involved in the establishment and operation of comfort stations. Attached Table Police records of sex service business in Korea Items 1927 1936 1939 1940 1942 Breakdown Ethnic name Ryōriya Japanese 846 696 597 567 515 Koreans 835 1,075 1,154 1,122 1,007 Others 178 175 82 89 94 Total 1,859 1,946 1,833 1,778 1,616 Geisha house Japanese 182 207 214 222 209 Koreans 60 89 129 107 80 Others 0 0 0 0 0 Total 242 296 343 329 289 Geisha Japanese 1,748 2,271 2,226 2,280 1,797 Koreans 1,746 4,712 6,122 6,023 4,490 Others 0 0 0 2 0 Total 3,494 6,983 8,348 8,305 6,287 Kashizashiki Japanese 320 241 235 233 219 Koreans 225 223 303 247 250 Others 1 1 1 0 0 Total 546 465 539 480 469 Shōgi Japanese 1,860 1,921 1,845 1,777 1,774 Koreans 1,022 1,653 1,866 2,157 2,076 Others 1 1 1 0 0 Total 2,883 3,575 3,712 3,934 3,850 Syakufu Japanese 565 385 351 216 240 Koreans 999 1,364 1,145 1,400 1,376 Others 2 0 0 0 0 Total 1,566 1,749 1,796 1,616 1,616 Recruiters Japanese 163 212 197 224 194 Koreans 2,598 3,085 3,380 3,557 3,537 Others 0 0 0 0 1 Total 2,761 3,297 3,577 3,781 3,732 Eyagi (talk) 05:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC) References I suggest that the above info, except for the paragraph beginning: "Outside the Empire of Japan ...", might be the basis for a separate article with a title something like: The Licensed Prostitution System in the Empire of Japan. Once that article is established, the wikilink on the word prostitution in the portion of the first sentence of the Establishment by Japanese military subsection of this article which currently reads: "Given that prostitution in Japan was pervasive and organized, it was logical to find military prostitution in the Japanese armed forces." be piped to that new article. Perhaps once that is done a less POV-focused discussion might be had about how, and to what extent, it might be appropriate to reflext both POVs in this article in keeping with WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Articles are built from secondary sources. Not contributors own analysis of selected primary sources dating back a hundred years or so ago. And any credible article on prostitution (in the Japanese Empire or anywhere else) would need secondary sourcing discussing the extent to which regulations were actually enforced. Eyagi's arguments are built around the absurd proposition that because regulations would seem to have forbidden forced prostitution etc, such events didn't occur. Facile WP:OR arguments promoted to support a contributors own POV don't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Further to this, note that Draft:Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire, which presented much the same WP:OR material, was rejected as "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". And note that rather than engage in any attempt at dispute resolution (as advised by multiple contributors, on on multiple occasions, see e.g. [3]) Eyage has repeatedly posted the same tendentious material already responded to here. I see no reason whatsoever to see this as anything other than an attempt to impose POV-pushing WP:OR through endless repetition of invalid arguments, and as such worthy of no response beyond hatting as contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

draft of the second half of the revised “lead sentence”

Wikipedia does not base content on contributors' own analysis of primary sources. Furthermore, the lede is a summary of material covered in the article body. This is core Wikipedia policy, and not open to negotiation. Any further abuse of this talk page will be reported ay WP:ANI, and taken to ArbCom if the community won't deal with it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I understood the advice by Wtmitchell. I think the same applies to the comfort stations. The following is a draft of the second half of the revised “lead sentence”. Reference 7 was attempted to be obtained from the website of the MOFA of ROK, but it could not be found, so it was unwillingly quoted from the website of the MOFA of Japan. In 1965, the Japanese and ROK governments signed the Japan-ROK Claims Agreement, which stated that the claims between the two countries and their citizens had been fully and finally settled. Since December 1991, the comfort women issue became a diplomatic issue between the two countries, and the Japanese government launched an investigation into the comfort women issue. In 1993, based on this result, the Kono statement was issued, expressing sincere apologies and remorse, stating that this issue, with the involvement of the military at the time, had deeply harmed the honor and dignity of many women. In 1995, in order to fulfill its moral responsibility, the Japanese people and the Japanese government cooperated to establish the "Asian Women's Fund for Peace" (abbreviated as "Asian Women's Fund"), which provides medical and welfare support programs and "atonement money" to former comfort women in Asian countries, including South Korea. In 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Res.121. and countries have since followed suit. In 2011, the Korean Council installed a comfort women statue on the sidewalk in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. Since then, this NGO has been promoting the installation of comfort women statues around the world. In December 2015, the Japanese and the ROK governments confirmed that the comfort women’s issue was “resolved finally and irreversibly” with the agreement reached at the Japan-ROK Foreign Ministers’ Meeting. In May 2017, the Moon Jae-in administration was newly inaugurated. In November 2018, the Moon Jae-in administration dissolved the foundation on the grounds that the consent of the former comfort women had not been obtained. In January 2021, in a lawsuit filed against the Japanese government by former comfort women and others, the Seoul Central District Court of South Korea denied the application of the principle of immunity under international law, and ordered the Japanese government to finalized the judgment ordering the payment of damages, etc. The Japanese government maintains that this ruling is in clear violation of international law and the agreement between Japan and ROK, and cannot be accepted. and has been to this day. Eyagi (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC) References

Response to WP:OR claim: licensed prostitutes literature

Again, Wikipedia 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. [12] 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: Comfort Women for Japanese Army during 1930s through 1945 | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) Behind The Comfort Women Controversy: How Lies Became Truth | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) A Guide to Understanding Comfort women Controversy | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) THE TRUTH ABOUT THE “COMFORT WOMEN” | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) The Truth about the Question of “Comfort Women” | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) Comfort Women and Sex in the Battle Zone | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) Contract: Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War: A Response to My Critics by J. Mark Ramseyer :: SSRN Comfort Women: The Economics of the Contracts and the Politics of the Dispute by J. Mark Ramseyer :: SSRN [Book]“Ianfu” ha mina gouikeiyaku siteita (“Comfort Women” All Signed a Contract of Agreement) by T. Arima (2021) Comfort Women: The North Korean Connection by J. Mark Ramseyer, Tetsuo Arima :: SSRN UN report: “Sex-Slave” Report: The UN’s Global Hoax (Jiyu-sha) No.1: Foreword, Table of Contents, List of Contributors | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) Testimony: A Deceitful Korean Citizens’ Group (NGO) and the Comfort Women Issue | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) Behind The Comfort Women Controversy: How Lies Became Truth | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) Comfort Women: The North Korean Connection by J. Mark Ramseyer, Tetsuo Arima :: SSRN The story of a comfort woman who contracted with Korean entrepreneurs and frequently changed comfort stations | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) At long last, the false theory of “forced abduction of comfort women” is collapsing. | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) H.Res.121: No Organized or Forced Recruitment: Misconception about Comfort Women and the Japanese Military | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) “Sex-Slave” Report: The UN’s Global Hoax (Jiyu-sha) No.5: Chapter 2: The Fiction Equating Comfort Women with Sex Slaves Spreads throughout the World B. Tanaka Yuki’s Book Forms Basis of US House Resolution | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) MacGraw-Hill text book: RESPONSE TO THE UPDATED VERSION OF THE OPEN LETTER IN SUPPORT OF HISTORIANS IN JAPAN | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) JAPANESE SCHOLARS’ POSITION ON RESPONSE TO STATEMENT ISSUED BY AMERICAN SCHOLARS | Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact (sdh-fact.com) 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) Per Wikipedia policy on original research, nobody is under any obligation whatsoever to 'refute' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:LEAD violation of lead sentence

This is going nowhere, Wikipedia 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. WP:LEAD stipulates that the lead sentence shall “summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies, and according to reliable, published sources”. The current article excludes the claims of licensed prostitutes, misquotes sources and cites unreliable sources as noted in "Verification of the authenticity of the lead sentence". This lead is clearly violates WP:LEAD. The editor, Binksternet, should openly acknowledge this fact and allow the article to be revised. Eyagi (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC) I closed it because it was a lengthy attack on the veracity of sources, and an attempt at a novel synthesis based on your personal analysis, carried on at great length. Other editors are under no obligation to agree with you, and your editing has every appearance of POV-pushing. I remind you again of the arbitration sanctions that are applicable to editors whose behavior disrupts gender-related topics or related discussions. . Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC) I understand your point. My explanation was long because we were not able to share information. Please answer this talk of mine. Eyagi (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC) You are asking for primary sources to be accepted into the article, asking for us to accept your interpretation of primary sources. This is the same request you have made many times. It will never happen because it is a violation of WP:No original research, a hard policy. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC) I'm just stating facts based on publicly available materials. Please specify which parts are WP:OR You explained that you excluded the licensed prostitutes claim from the article because there are very few licensed prostitutes. I pointed out that the fact is that licensed prostitutes are the majority. Do you accept this fact? If you do not accept, please explain the basis for this in detail. You also argued that the primary source was a very limited, and introduced Chunghee Sarah Soh's book as a secondary source for the sexual slavery claim. I countered that there were plenty of primary sources and introduced the materials specifically. It is well known that C. Sarah Soh's book criticizes the sexual slavery claim. Eyagi (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC) You insist that you have the authority to analyze primary sources and make sweeping conclusions. I insist that you are violating the hard policy of WP:No original research. Guess which one of us is correctly following Wikipedia's rules? Binksternet (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Again, please point out specifically which part falls under Wikipedia:No original research. Otherwise, the discussion will not proceed. Eyagi (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC) I think you and Aoidh are also editors. Please let me know your opinions on my point. This discussion has nothing to do with gender issues. EvergreenFir、You seem to understand Japanese. Please comment on whether or not the Japanese language materials I cited are reliable. No.49 (1944) states that A "comfort girl" is nothing more than a prostitute or "professional camp follower" attached to the Japanese Army for the benefit of the soldiers“. For fifty years after the war, it was common knowledge that "comfort women were highly paid professional prostitutes. Fifty years later, R. Coomaraswamy interviewed 16 self-proclaimed former Korean comfort women selected by North Korean government and Korean Council, and concluded that "comfort women were sex slaves." And American scholars followed suit. These people are the "historical revisionists". All of these testimonies violated domestic law and military regulations at the time. Eyagi (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC) Jumping in here with a bit of clarification -- Eyagi, I've changed the typeface in the quote from the report above to clarify what portion there was quoted from that source ([4]). You don't mention, so I will point out that that source also says, This report however deals only with the Korean "comfort girls" recruited by the Japanese and attached to their Army in Burma.. I don't have much time for comment right now, but I do want to say that, though that source might be considered a WP:RS, other RSs express viewpoints which differ in general and perhaps re Burma in particular, and that WP policy requires that WP:DUE be followed in such cases. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Your point is that the document I cited is about Burma and not representative of Korean comfort women as a whole? As already explained, at that time, Koreans were one citizen of the Japanese Empire and under the same legal system. The Japanese in this document were Koreans with Japanese names. They were employed in Korea by former Korean restaurant owners. As of 1939, the number of intermediaries (also called recruiters or pimps) between prospective prostitutes and employers in Korea was 197 Japanese and 3,380 Koreans. Intermediaries made a living by mediating the conclusion of contracts between the two parties, earning commissions from both parties. Thus, this number of people is evidence that there were several thousand contracts signed by Korean in 1939. Prostitution without a contract was illegal and subject to police control. This document is evidence of the reality that all Korean comfort women were employed under domestic law. The following is an excerpt from M. Ramseyer's letter requesting retraction of the paper:”Most importantly, the Japanese government acknowledged in its Kono statement in 1993 that these young women and girls were “recruited against their own will” and “lived in misery at comfort stations under a coercive atmosphere,” and that Japanese “administrative/military personnel directly took part in the recruitments.” This settled fact has been further affirmed by the United Nations, Amnesty International, and the US House of Representatives.”:“1. The framing of the situation as a “contracting” problem without supporting evidence”. As already explained, this letter is an intentional misquotation of the Kono statement and a substitution of logic. The primary source for the claim that comfort women are sex slaves is UN Report. Please compare the above claim with the closed "Verification of the authenticity of the lead sentence" talk peges. Most of the signatories must have read the lead sentence in wikipedeia’s” comfort women”, and signed the letter. Eyagi (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC) Anybody citing Report 49 must be a WP:SECONDARY source, not a Wikipedia 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) Your claim has been discussed in a repeat of Talk on 9 June 2022 (UTC). See for yourself the Congressional Research Service Memorandum, p.7. Aoich has removed part of the Controversy on this Memorandum. “Amenities in the Japanese Armed Forces (1945) is also the primary source in English. Please read along and decide for yourself what is true. Eyagi (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC) You are beating a dead horse. You have had this same discussion many times, which is by this time a violation of WP:Tendentious editing. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC) No one can erase the facts of history. My Talk is all factual and consistent with wikipedia's policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Wikipedia’s policy: information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research: the phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist：Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Eyagi (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC) You are persistently puffing up small facts into bigger "truths", violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR as you do so. Your reliance on Report 49 is emblematic of this kind of POV-pushing. You have consistently violated WP:Tendentious editing and are continuing to do so, with unrelenting bias. Binksternet (talk) 03:40, 13 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 Wikipedia'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? [5] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia 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 [6] 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)

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

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)