Jump to content

Talk:Comfort women/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2017

the link to the Wednesday demonstrations in the Korea section of the memorial is referring to an empty page. the correct link should be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wednesday_demonstration 14.201.18.91 (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Comfort women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2017

Under "Treatment of comfort women" there is a grammatical error. Please change "The women who not were prostitutes prior to joining the..." to "The women who were not prostitutes prior to joining the..." 173.244.44.43 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

checkY Done, thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2017

In the fourth sentence of the section "Treatment of Comfort Women", the sentence begins with "One Korean women, Kim Hak-sun...". This needs to change to "One Korean woman, Kim Hak-sun" as the word "women" is the plural form where this is referring to one singular 'woman". Quoick (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Done--Dwy (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2017

In the fourth sentence of the section "Treatment of Comfort Women", the sentence begins with "One Korean women, Kim Hak-sun...". This needs to change to "One Korean woman, Kim Hak-sun" as the word "women" is the plural form where this is referring to one singular 'woman".

Already done. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Further down in the same paragraph (first paragraph of the section "Treatment of Comfort Women"), the sentence "...some "comfort women" be forced to donate blood..." the sentence should read "...some "comfort women" being forced to donate blood...". Quoick (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Done, with a comma also added to the sentence, for good measure. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed the stupid album disambig at the top of the page

This is wrong:

For the Me'Shell N'Degeo'Cello album, see Comfort Woman.

It should not be on this page. It's not even a well known album. It only got to #150 in the Billboard charts.

I don't see any disambiguation for The Holocaust (album) on the page regarding The Holocaust.

Having something as petty as a disambig at the top of this page to a non-notable album is an act that trivialises the very serious topic that it covers. As if by having the same name, the two things have equal stature (and can be easily confused).

Remove the disambig now or stick The Holocaust (album) on the page regarding The Holocaust. In that way there can't be any disagreement if there is parity across this site, trivialising serious subject matter. 86.140.78.250 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Done - STSC (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Comfort women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Comfort women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Comfort women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018

there is a "as at" that should "as of" 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Question: Can you be more specific i.e. in which section? in which paragraph? DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 12:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Not done: I couldn't find the text you were looking for. Feel free to reopen the request with some better identifying information. Help us help you. Thanks, —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

About the first paragraph of summary

The first sentence of summary was described on one-sided point of view. I think this does not follow the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view, because the historical official document disagreed with it. I want to add the latter to complement for this is just a reference to the official document of the Army of the United States of America, not Japan. The document should be available to anyone interested, instead of hidden, for the reference. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a primary source that has been used by Japanese nationalists to try to exonerate Japan from war crimes. This is why Wikipedia prohibits primary sourcing except in narrow circumstances, as they can be abused to draw false conclusions. Please stop edit-warring for its inclusion. Acroterion (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Acroterion the document was "the official record of the United States of America" and any citizen can obtain it from National Archives and Records Administration, NARA, which should be considered as the historical record, not original research. This is not just an opinion nor claim. There is no reason to hide in any sense. Why do some people keep trying to hide the official record of history? Wordmasterexpress (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The document will never be considered as a balanced or complete analysis of the comfort women program. The author of the report had a very limited view, especially considering his total lack of Korean language skills, which meant that his information came primarily from Japanese brothel managers. We are not hiding this document; the simple truth is that it is not very valuable to historians. The historians that discuss it, dismiss most of it. Binksternet (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Possibly more appropriate reference should be: Final Report of the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group (IWG), published in April 2007, failed to identify the existence of the fact after the investigation of historical and official records of over 8.5 million pages on which $17 million in total had been spent in five years. At least, one of the mention to "comfort women" is found on page 27. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[1]

References

  1. ^ "Final Report of the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group (IWG), p.27".
Again, not a complete or balanced report. That report says no documents were found to establish a war crime accusation against the Japanese government. But the comfort women program was not denied in any sense – the existence of the comfort women program was never in question. Binksternet (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for response here, Binksternet. Since I am not very familiar with editing Wikipedia, some of my edits may not be appropriate and I apologize in that case. I just want to cite official documents appropriately. I am aware that USA is the nation of liberty which allow a wide variety of views, not just deleting ones unfavorable to some people. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
This is why Wikipedia relies on secondary scholarship. Primary sources can be incomplete or can contain structural flaws that make them unsuitable for use. Secondary sources can be subject to similar problems, but in general they will represent a survey of multiple sources and sources of scholarship. For instance, court documents are almost never usable on Wikipedia, since the pleadings can be selectively chosen to represent the views of the accused or the accuser with little or no context. You are placing far too much emphasis on "official documents" and assume that they are infallible. The report you're trying to use is regarded by secondary sources as flawed and incomplete. Acroterion (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikisource recorded another document put into public domain, says 18. All Korean prostitutes that PoW have seen in the Pacific were volunteers or had been sold by their parents into prostitution. This is proper in the Korean way of thinking but direct conscription of women by the Japanese would be an outrage that the old and young alike would not tolerate. Men would rise up in a rage, killing Japanese no matter what consequence they might suffer  – via Wikisource. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Your persistence is sickening me. You keep looking for primary sources to contradict books and articles written by historians. Binksternet (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
God bless you. Still they are the official documents and historical records disclosed by Government of the United States of America. No reason to hide. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
The topic is very controversial, and only the highest quality sources should be used. Preferred sources are the writings of respected scholars and historians. If you want to add something to this topic then read start reading those sources. Field reports and other primary sources are not going to be considered here. Binksternet (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Is that YOUR policy or Wikipedia's? If the latter, please cite the reference. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I based that statement on a combination of Wikipedia editing experience and official Wikipedia policy. The most relevant policy is WP:SECONDARY, which describes how secondary sources are main building blocks of Wikipedia, and how primary sources may be used if no synthesis or analysis is implied. Your wish to bring in primary sources is a wish to tell the reader that these primary source are somehow more valuable than carefully researched books and articles. Such a wish is against policy. Binksternet (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia policy. Please stop trying to abuse primary sources. See my comments above Acroterion (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a WP break might be in order if you are sickened by debate. S806 (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the concern. Rational and reasonable debate doesn't sicken me, but the POV-pushing by nationalists does. Not enough, though, to warrant a break. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The fundamental principles of Wikipedia, WP:5P , tells neutral point of view including the statement all articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial... WP:SECONDARY, the lower priority policy, says It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources, meaning that it may represent only one of the view points. WP:ACHIEVE NPOV tells that "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. " See also WP:BALANCE, especially Bias in sources' subsection. It expresses Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. See also WP:BIASED. Even though you insist the IWG report is biased, it is YOUR interpretation. The report IS a RELIABLE SOURCE mentioning comfort women. Removal of sourced information is NOT recommended in any sense. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
It's not a reliable source, and it doesn't represent a significant alternate scholarly opinion - in fact, it represents no scholarly opinion at all. It's a report that has been superseded or repudiated by later scholarship. Removal of sources is not prohibited if there are good reasons, and removal of poor sources is encouraged. In any case, you're trying to add a source that is known to be dubious, so the WP:BURDEN is on you to justify that addition. Please stop beating the dead horse. Acroterion (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you seriously speaking US official government report assembled on spending $17 million and five years IS NOT RELIABLE? Wordmasterexpress (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN tells that In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. That seems for you to follow. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
You are trying to establish a false equivalence between one flawed, incomplete and minor US Army field report, and the many books written by scholars studying tens of thousands of documents to gain a comprehensive understanding of the program. This goal of yours is a violation of WP:Neutral point of view.
People who try to establish a false equivalence on Wikipedia are very often activists who are trying to change the historic record. Regarding the comfort women program, a steady stream of Japanese nationalists comes here in a vain attempt to reduce the terrible burden of guilt, which they do by denying the comfort women program in various ways. This stream of nationalists is repugnant to me. They represent the gross inflation of pride, and the evil of those who would hide facts to prevent full knowledge. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not trying to change the historic record. Instead I emphasize the importance that the effort had been made on comprehensive survey and analysis of the historical records by IWG in response to the order of Congress who wanted reveal evil systematic activities during WW II. It was tremendous effort, actually, spending $17 million and five years. As the output, however, it did not identify any trace of systematic enforcement of sex slavery from any historical documents at all. That's it. This is the official report which should be respected and reliable. Whatever the derived conclusion is, it should be respected and presented, not hidden. I am not claiming this is right and that is wrong. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Where does this "5 years and $17 million" come from? You've been talking about the wartime report the entire time. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
That's referring to the 2007 IWG report, which is listed in the Comfort women article's bibliography. The report says that there is not enough documentation for the US government to start a war crimes case, but it does not diminish the extent or the horror of the Japanese comfort women program, so it does not help the case of Japanese nationalists who want to diminish or deny the program. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Binksternet, you are right. But you should also recognize one but the most important point. The IWG report was assembled on the investigation of over 8.5 million pages of among Federal Government records and opened to the public. Since the report is put into the public domain, I should be allowed to cite some sentences from it. The main sentences in relation to comfort woman are:
  • page 21, Additional suits were filed and in preparation for Japanese courts seeking redress for“comfort women,” slave laborers, and other victims of Japanese crimes, all of whom demanded a Japanese apology and compensation from Japanese courts.
  • page 27, The IWG advised agencies to give particular attention to locating any records related to topics of great interest to the public and to historians, particularly materials related to (snip) the so-called “comfort women” program—the Japanese systematic enslavement of women of subject populations for sexual purposes;
The statement you mentioned there is not enough documentation for the US government to start a war crimes case is the rhetorical expression for probatio diabolica . In other words, the US government made maximum effort with the staffs, including researcher, historian, FBI, CIA, military and other authority for the access to documents, to figure out the systematic crime of sex slavery, which resulted in vain. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


Let me summarize what happened up to now (some details are skipped):

  1. I added a phrase with citation to the first paragraph so that historical document did not support the view.
   Comfort women were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army in occupied territories before and during World War II, which is not supported by 1944 US Army report.
  1. Binksternet, somebody (was not me), Acroterion, and I reverted some revisions back and forth a couple of times.
  2. Acroterion warned me this is an edit-war needed to resolve in the talk session, but he also had strong opinion on this topic as well as Binksternet.
  3. I started a section here for discussion.
  4. I do not remember exactly, but somebody commented this topic is controversial at a certain moment, which I definitely agree.
  5. Binksternet pointed out that 1944 US military report is unreliable, biased and invalid source and thus not allowed to put in the sentence.
  6. I sought the alternative and found IWG 2007 report based on comprehensive investigation of over 8.5 million pages of among Federal Government records and opened to the public, which I proposed as the unbiased source.
  7. Binksternet did not agree because it is also biased and my attempt of edit is Japanese nationalist action.
  8. I explained extensively that IWG 2007 report was assembled in order of US Government to reveal so-called comfort women program" as one of the major targets, according to the report, spending $17 million and five years with expert staffs.

If you are unsatisfied with any part of the above summary, please update your part appropriately in concise manner, for the settlement, because I might have missed some important statements.

Lastly, I would like to emphasize that I just want to add a citation to the fair information come out from the US Federal Government in the first paragraph without intention to criticize any party in any sense. Thank you. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Summary:
  • You're editing tendentiously to insert a point of view from a wartime report that is not supported by scholarship
  • You're trying to use a source known to be incomplete and which has been rejected by scholarship
  • Having been rebuffed after many attempts to abuse the Army report, you're now trying to synthesize a conclusion from the IWG report that is not directly supported by that source, to the exclusion of other sources
  • You haven't achieved consensus
  • You're bludgeoning the argument in hopes of wearing everybody else down

Acroterion (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Acroterion, I asked you to organize instead of criticize. Your summary is more like personal attack WP:NPA on your point of view. Exclusion of the other view point is out of Wikipedia policy. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Wordmasterexpress (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Constructive discussion on changing the first paragraph of summary

This section was divided from the previous for grown too long.

Wordmasterexpress, if you want to propose some text changes to the comfort women article, please do so. Otherwise it's impossible to judge whether the source is being used in a neutral manner. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Binksternet, for the constructive comment. Below is my proposal. Because I am aware that it is not the best, it would be most appreciated if you could give advice to improve without losing the link and conclusion for the investigation of Comfort woman program.
Comfort women were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army in occupied territories before and during World War II, which was not supported by "IWG Final Report to the United States Congress, April 2007".

Wordmasterexpress (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


I'm not going to organize things for you, it's up to you to make concrete proposals that can be supported by broad scholarship. Justified criticism of your edits and conduct are not personal attacks. You're being disagreed with. Propose something that we can agree on rather than rehashing rejected arguments. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Acroterion, let me cite a part of Principles of Wikipedia etiquette for you.

  • Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles.
  • Remember the Golden Rule: Treat others the way you would want to be treated.
  • Be polite.
  • Keep in mind that raw text may be ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony is not always obvious when written. Remember that text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection, or body language. Be careful choosing the words you write: what you mean might not be what others understand. Likewise, be careful how you interpret what you read: what you understand might not be what others mean.
  • Civilly work towards agreement.

Your criticism sounds like "you are bad because you do not agree with me, so you should get outta here". Please be gentle and constructive. Wordmasterexpress (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your suggested edit confirms that your only agenda on this page is abuse of source to support a point of view that attempts to revise historical fact. We're done here. You've been blocked for the time being for disruptive editing. by another administrator. Acroterion (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Additional information regarding comfort woman in Indonesia

All information for the following edits are derived from this source: Pramoedya Ananta Toer. Perawan Remaja Dalam Cengkeram Militer: Catatan-catatan dari Pulau Buru. [Teenage Virgins in the Military Grasp: Stories from Buru Island]. Jakarta: Kepustakaan Popular Gramedia, 2001. Annotation: The source is written by Pramoedya Ananta Toer, one of Indonesia’s most well-known authors. The book is a historical investigation of Indonesian comfort woman based on interviews he and other inmates conducted while conducted on Buru Island from 1969-1979. As an historical source, it provides useful and accurate information regarding the recruitment and trafficking of comfort woman and traces the life stories of some Javanese comfort women who were left behind on Buru Island after the war. The author also compiles lists of girls who were abducted from Java to serve as comfort women.

Suggested Edit 1: Add citation for the book: “Pramoedya Ananta Toer. Perawan Remaja Dalam Cengkeram Militer: Catatan-catatan dari Pulau Buru. [Teenage Virgins in the Military Grasp: Stories from Buru Island]. Jakarta: Kepustakaan Popular Gramedia, 2001.” Under the “Bibliography” section, either under the “Books” or “Further Reading” subcategory.

Suggested Edit 2: In the last sentence of the introduction - add promises of further education as a recruitment method: “In many cases, women were also lured with promises of work in factories or restaurants or opportunities to further their education; once recruited, they were incarcerated in comfort stations both inside their nations and abroad.” Add to CItation: “Pramoedya, 2001.”

Suggested Edit 3: Add a paragraph in the section “Countries of Origin” discussing the recruitment of Javanese girls in the Netherlands East Indies after the paragraph the beginning “A newer estimates by Mr. J.F. van Wagtendonk...” (also, note: the typo in the beginning of that sentence, “A newer estimates,” should be fixed)

Besides Dutch women, many Javanese were also recruited from Indonesia as comfort women. Most were adolescent girls aged 14-19 who had completed some education and were decieved through promises of opportunities to continue their education in Tokyo or Singapore. Common destinations of comfort women from Java included Burma, Thailand, and Eastern Indonesia. Interviews conducted with former comfort women also suggest that some women came from the island of Flores. After the war, many Javanese comfort women who survived stayed in the locations where they had been trafficked to and became integrated into local populations. Citation: Pramoedya, 2001

Kevsaw (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for your very thorough suggestion. After looking at reviews of the book I agree it is important, and should be a reference. With this change, I incorporated your suggestions. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Grammar fix

Suggested edit: This sentence in **Countries of origin**: Through a substantial minority... should be corrected: **Though** a substantial minority... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.203.22.53 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for spotting this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2018

"I would like to add one historical resource, 'Diary of a Japanese Military Comfort Station Manager" (excerpt in English) with external link." 原口由夫 (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. There is already a link to the Wikipedia article on Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager in the Comfort women#See_also section. Cannolis (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Other non-Asian women?

The only non-Asian women said to have been used as "comfort women" are Dutch and Australian. This has always puzzled me, since the Japanese also occupied the French and British colonies in South-East Asia (Vietnam, Malaya and so on). Since they evidently had no objection to non-Asian women as such, did they not also abuse French and British women for this purpose? I frankly can't find any evidence that they did, but it still strikes me as improbable.89.212.50.177 (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Not Neutral; This article is mostly only based on South Korean activists viewpoint

They keep reverting my edits that are based on evidence including the American government findings without even not knowing about the issue deeply and without even pointing out which part is & how not neutral.
Apart from the 200-400 Dutch women incidents, South Korean activists use this event to proactively encourage the anti-Japanese sentiment around the world and to receive more compensations from Japan.
What's most not neutral is the "estimate number" of the South Korean AND Dutch victims of 200,000, which South Koreans ENGRAVED in the "Peace Statue" even though there is no evidence, which the American government also concluded that there was not.
It is overestimated being 30% of South Korean females at 20-25 years old; which defies math.
If it is 410,000 as stated by Chinese scholar, it is more than 60% of South Korean females at 20-25 years old.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki210 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Since clearly there is no consensus in favour of your (frankly repugnant) attempt to whitewash mass rape in WW2, you should propose specific cited edits on the talk page, rather than trying to shoehorn vast tracts into the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"Japanese military sexual slavery"

For discussion about alternative article title "Japanese military sexual slavery" on this article, please see User talk:John B123#Special:diff/881758594. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

As this discussion may now involve other editors, it's probably more appropriate to have the discussion here rather than on my talk page. I have there copied the discussion over to this page. --John B123 (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The NPOV is not political correctness. And please search in google about word "Japanese military sexual slavery". It is one of common name about "comfort women". Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed "Japanese military sexual slavery" is a common name for "comfort women", but common name is a different thing to which means, i.e definition, as used in the text. The cited works used this term in an attempt to distinguish between Volunteer Corps (Jeongsindae) and Comfort Women (wianbu). It did not give it as an overall meaning of "comfort women".
I have absolutely no objection to the phrase being used in the article, but not as what comes across as a definition in the lead section. --John B123 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Please see WP:OTHERNAMES. And commonly the "Japanese military sexual slavery" means "comfort women" only, not "volunteer labour corps". Thanks. --Garam (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Comfort women are part of (and the victims of) Japanese military sexual slavery. They are not the entirety of it, it also includes the people who ran the brothels, the soldiers who used the women etc. The people who ran the brothels were part of Japanese military sexual slavery but that does not make them comfort women. As far as both factual accuracy and WP:OTHERNAMES are concerned, "Comfort women", which means "Japanese military sexual slavery" is incorrect. --John B123 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Then, you means, is "Comfort women or Japanese military sexual slavery" okay? --Garam (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer: "Comfort women (Japanese military sexual slavery) were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army in occupied territories before and during World War II."
From a readabity point of view, that wording is redundant. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:AT, the article title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. What is this article about?
  • A system of sexual slavery operated during WW-II by the Japanese military
  • The term Comfort Women
  • The practice of sexual slavery by Japan during WW-II
  • The practice of wartime sexual violence by the Japanese military in WW-II
  • Wianbu
  • Jeongsindae (re that term, see [1], [2], etc.)
  • Some or all of the above in some combination of subtopics
This is just a drive-by comment, but it seems to me that the article content is mainly about the first of these, with some of the other topics also covered to some extent. Perhaps a split is in order, with a short summary style overview article summarizing two or more detail articles separately covering individual subtopics more completely. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2019

Please delete the sentence: Abe again expressed his most sincere apologies and remorse to all the women and acknowledged that they had undergone immeasurable and painful experiences and suffered incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women. (Found under "Apologies and Compensation")

The reason for this is that according to various news sources including the New York Times and such, Abe did not express his "most sincere apologies and remorse" and has always doubted whether "Japan's imperial military actually coerced Korean women into sexual slavery" numerous times. ("Critics, however, noted that before becoming prime minister for the second time in 2012, Mr. Abe publicly questioned whether Japan’s imperial military actually coerced Korean women into sexual slavery." Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/12/world/asia/japan-south-korea-comfort-women.html

Thank you. NK1711 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The source is listed already, it's from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs press release on the occasion and is a direct quote from it. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Edit: Er, I see that EvergreenFir already got it. ^_^; Thanks! -JG

Semi-protected edit request on 08 November 2019

 Done Under Notable former comfort women Lee Yong-soo has her birth date listed as 1929 when it's actually 1928 can someone please change this ? Here are some sources. https://www.vday.org/node/1879.html sdh-fact.com/essay-article/270/. 103.4.30.171 (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2019

Proposal: Replace "Comfort women were women and girls forced into being sex slaves by the Imperial Japanese Army" By "Comfort women were women and girls who worked in the military brothels for the Imperial Japanese Army, many of whom having been forced into being sex slaves"

Rationale: bring back a nuance removed without relevant justification in Comfort_women&oldid=426326787, to reflect the ongoing debate and complexity of the Comfort Stations; that it is not historically established that comfort women equates sex slaves, but rather include a wide and complex range of experiences.

Detailed rationale and source:

Sarah Soh, a Korean American scholar, deplores in her book "The Comfort Women: Sexual Violence and Postcolonial Memory in Korea and Japan"[1] how equating comfort women’s experiences into a uniform sexual slavery narrative overlooks the complexity of an evolving empire-wide system incorporating “licensed prostitution and indentured sexual labor, wartime military rape and battlefield abduction into sexual slavery.”. This view is shared by many other historians, including Korean scholar Park Yu-ha[2].

There is no question that the Comfort system led to the sexual violation of tens of thousands of women. In spite of this, definitions such as the one provided in the first sentence of the article do not offer an accurate view of the complex comfort system, and rather further aggravates the misalignment between the academic understanding and the much needed public discourse.

Considering this, and according to wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, I think it would be appropriate to reformulate the first sentence in the way suggested above.

Doragoram (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Doragoram

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.ch/books?id=GIHcaFVxXf0C&hl=fr&source=gbs_navlinks_s
  2. ^ https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/2118358/south-korean-professor-fined-book-about-comfort-women-proving
I don't agree that the writings of Soh and Park support such a change. The "nuance" was a very minor experience: most of the comfort women were forced into sex. Certainly one can argue for a complexity at the individual level, but we should continue to show that the Japanese system was primarily a violation of human rights, primarily a system of sexual slavery. Binksternet (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree, all the time the bulk of reliable sources agree it was a form of forced prostitution then that how it should come across in the lead. --John B123 (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
There are no questions that Comfort Station were a clear human right violation; and there are also no questions that, as suggested by mirriads of testinonies, a very important portion of the women involved were forced sex slaves. However, plenty of primary evidence (cited by authors mentioned above) also shows that many were recruited prostitutes. The question as to what portion of them were forced or not remains perhaps open, but given the available evidence, and unless there is a source justifying that all women were in fact sex slaves, claiming "Comfort women were women and girls forced into being sex slaves by the Imperial Japanese Army" is not only non-representative of academic consensus, but factually wrong, at least according to the authors cited above (and many other respected authors). To quote the neutral point of view policy, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (...) "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.". We do not need to oversimplify the reality of Comfort Stations for it to be an affront to human dignity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doragoram (talk • contribs) 18:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the significant word in the NPOV policy is "proportionately", until there is evidence a significant number worked voluntarily, then WP:UNDUE should keep it out of the lead. Voluntary prostitution is brought out further down the article, so I see no violation of NPOV. --John B123 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. The problem here is the comfort system simply could not have existed without sex slavery - it's not completely irrelevant that in some cases local prostitution was incorporated into the system, but it is simply that - an incorporation into an institutionalised practice of Japanese imperialism.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2019

Please consider edit this line "Stations were located in Japan, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, then Malaya, Thailand, Burma, New Guinea, Hong Kong, Macau, and French Indochina" and include Singapore as part of the article. The Japanese had also set up at least 4 comfort stations in Singapore as well during World War 2. Kim Bok-Dong, a victim who worked as a "comfort woman", mentioned that the Japanese tried to hide the existence of these comfort stations after the war in Singapore and made these "comfort woman" to become war nurses in a hospital.

Sources: https://mothership.sg/2017/07/comfort-women-were-housed-in-cairnhill-during-japanese-occupation/ 

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsT97ax_Xb0&t=625s Weiyelim (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Upsidedown Keyboard gonna take my horse... (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

After Japanese occupation

The prostitution around American bases in South Korea has been described by some as a continuation of the comfort women system.

During the years of direct U.S. occupation from 1945 to 1948, the U.S. military government created an administrative state that was dominated by Koreans who had collaborated with Japan’s colonial rulers. The leaders of this first occupying regime outlawed prostitution, but got around the prohibition by building brothels for U.S. troops. These outposts were dubbed “comfort stations” after the Japanese wartime model, according to documents Park recently unearthed from South Korea’s Ministry of Health. The shift from Japanese- to American-coerced sex work was an easy transition, she said: “High-ranking Korean officials who served under Japanese colonial rule were familiar with the comfort station system.”

The distinction between the American kichijong and the Japanese comfort-women regimes became still blurrier at the day-to-day operational level, according to the testimony now assembled from former kichijong workers.

https://newrepublic.com/article/155707/united-states-military-prostitution-south-korea-monkey-house

However I don't see a suitable section to add this to.

Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

And history turns a full circle. Activist for both the Wianbu (comfort women) and yanggongju (yankee princesses) in Korea have spent years trying to get recognition that the two are different and one was not a continuation of the other as was previously assumed. To now say it was a continuation seems to be contrary to the testimonies and wishes of those actually involved. --John B123 (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
However this is supposedly the article for comfort women, not the splash page for either group. If there is sources that cite such, they need to be included. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
John, if you have a source for that, feel free to make it clear in the article so that readers won't make the same mistake I did. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. There's a sourced overview of the situation at United States Military and prostitution in South Korea. --John B123 (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Number of comfort women (200,000?? the article is not clear on this)

This edit caught my eye. The source cited immediately following the inserted assertion re the 200,000 figure is not readable by me, but the quote in the cite says nothing about the 200,000 figure and the assertion immediately following that a figure of "142,000 or 142,500" has been challenged is supported by a source which also challenges the 200,000 figure.

A text search for "200,000" in the article turns up a number of appearances. Some of these, on quick reading, appearing to disagree with others elsewhere in the article. Could someone more familiar with details here than I please take a look at this? It seems to me that clarification with WP:DUE in mind is needed, that the Number of comfort women section would probably be a good place to clarify this, and that other mentions of this elsewhere in the article ought probably to refer back to that section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be the place to make this suggestion, but maybe it's impossible and part of the general coverup... I cannot find anything in the article about the testimony of the soldiers who USED the comfort stations. If there had been sincere investigations of the comfort women, then one of the most obvious ways to get evidence about the number of victims would be to ask on the other side. Surely they could have put the soldiers under oath and most of them would have told the truth. Even if they didn't want the truth to come out for the sake of the truth, they would still have been afraid of getting caught in perjury when other soldiers did testify truthfully. I suppose they could have offered immunity, too, but I doubt that would be necessary, both because there is a statute of limitations and because the soldiers were not instigators of the crimes, only witnesses and relatively uninformed participants. Actually, even at this late date there are probably enough survivors from the large numbers of troops who were involved to get more solid numbers. So returning to the suggestion aspect, if such evidence exists, then it should be included in the article and cited more clearly... Shanen (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Political issue raised by ex-'comfort woman'

On May 13, 2020, Lee Yong-soo, a 92-year-old survivor of the ex-"comfort woman", accused Yoon Mi-hyang, former head of the Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance for the Issues of Military Sexual Slavery by Japan, for pocketing the council's money. Lee also accused the council of misappropriating money donated for the welfare of the former "comfort women." The council refused to disclose any financial documents to manifest.[1][2] Politics appears to have affected on this title. --Wavethesecond (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20200513000600315
  2. ^ https://www.reuters.com/places/japan/article/us-southkorea-comfortwomen/victims-absent-from-south-koreas-comfort-women-rally-amid-graft-allegations-over-ex-leader-idUSKBN22W112

I apologize for my incompetent editing. "Comfort Women > Establishment of the Comfort Women System > Countries of Origin" contains an image titled "Chinese and Malayan girls forcibly taken from Penang by the Japanese to work as 'comfort girls' for the troops". The source provides that same description in addition to "Allied reoccupation of the Adaman Islands,1945". Given that many of the subjects are smoking cigarettes and one subject appears to be a male infant, I suspect that it may not be an image of captive sex-slaves. Given that the source provides 2 conflicting descriptions of the image, maybe iwm.org.uk isn't a reputable source. I suspect that the veracity of this image should probably be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.159.76 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Women raped by Korean soldiers during Vietnam war still awaiting apology

It is reported that South Korea utilized sex slaves as 'comfort women' in Vietnam War between 1964 and 1973, but never acknowledged claims of sexual violence against thousands of women and girls as young as 12, by its troops.[1] The fact should be added in this article. --Wavethesecond (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jan/19/women-raped-by-korean-soldiers-during-vietnam-war-still-awaiting-apology

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2020

Vietnam at the time was a satellite of Japan called "Empire of Vietnam" and Thailand was an ally of Japan. Both countries were basically allies of Japan so that there couldn't be any rape cases toward the women in these countries. 118.70.54.24 (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. I don't believe that this is so merely by virtue of your definition. In any case, the content is sourced. El_C 06:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
BTW, Korean people were citizens of Japan at the time on Japan-Korea Treaty, not by a war nor invasion.

[1] In addition, economic activities were drastically improved during the period in Korea by the infrastructure built on Japanese budget, not from Korea. [2] Essentially, there is no point nor evidence to consider that Japanese needed to rape Korean people specifically, as far as historical documents tell. Wavethesecond (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Korea_Treaty_of_1910
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_under_Japanese_rule

Is double standards the Korean standard?

Some articles tell that "South Koreans are quick to complain when they are the victims of racism, but some are less concerned about intolerance at home" [1], and that“Most K-pop videos portray women as sex objects and that includes all the female K-pop singers and groups, too,”[2]. They are not historical issues, but on-going concern. The article "Comfort woman" should be reviewed as well from that viewpoint. --Wavethesecond (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://asiatimes.com/2020/03/in-korea-double-standards-on-racism/
  2. ^ https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-04-25/k-pop-s-gross-double-standard-women
1) What exactly are you proposing adding to this article, and 2) Is this your first Wikipedia account? Blackguard 06:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Blackgurad 1) I want to add facts concerning to this issue from the recent news, because some description would be questioned. In this article, one-sided view is emphasized too much and I also want to explain the background of why the story is told. I wanted to revise the article to comply with Wikipedia's NPOV accordingly. Unfortunately, I myself have no permission to do so. So I wrote them in the talk page. 2) No, it is not. I used use another a few years ago. I abandoned it because I could not login for I forgot the password and I did not register email. Wavethesecond (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
While Korean Government holds the position criticizing Japanese past, to which almost nobody in the current population committed, they turn a blind eye to more recent evil deed of their own, of which many of the executors and the victims are still alive as mentioned in the above section. They keep demanding apology to Japan for the sin of ancestor, while they do not their own deed. They even ignore that. What do you call this if other than double standards? This article is written only from Korean side of the view. Wavethesecond (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is about sex slaves held by the Japanese military during World War II. South Korea's sexual slavery in Vietnam is already covered in Lai Đại Hàn. As for your account - if I asked about getting indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia articles in November, 2018, you would have no idea what I was talking about, right? Blackguard 06:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It is the imbalanced point of view, not neutral. BTW, am I banned indefinitely? For what reason? Something incorrect politically? Wavethesecond (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I have have to agree with Blackguard_SF, whatever the Koreans may have done since WWII is beyond the scope of this article. --John B123 (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Blackguard_SF and John B123. I also note that Wavethesecond appears to be a single use account (possibly block evading) pushing a fringe POV, we’ve probably been as tolerant as we need to be of them and can probably regard further requests of this nature as disruptive especially if the former account issue isnt cleared up. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
In old Japan, they did have the culture of brothels, but it is quite different from what is described here. Culture would not change so much so quickly. That's culture. And no editor would know the Japanese culture at the time in terms of prostitution, do you? Well, at that time, almost everywhere in the world bore the prostitution system. One can blame other country only if your country did not have such culture. I doubt anybody can. In addition, you would not know the latest news Korean NGO’s Role in Supporting ‘Comfort Women’ Questioned. The leader of NGO, Yoon Mi-Hyang, involved the activity ONLY FOR HER SAKE TO COLLECT MONEY, NOT FOR 'VICTIMS'. True fact was not important. She even tweeted once that the ex-'Comfort Woman', Lee Yong Soo, was not real Comfort Woman. Lee was placed on that position because that was useful for Yoon. There actually was a confusion. Some of the ex-comfort women were of not of Japan military, but of Korean War. Well, I just want to dig out the facts, not to blame. Wavethesecond (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
That sounds like POV-pushing to me, and pushing of a POV which is off-topic for this article. WP:DUE provides for airing of all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, but that would be in the context of an article on a topic where the viewpoint has relevance. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Comfort gays

This is a WP:BRD discussion.

I have reverted this series of edits, which would have changed the MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE of this article to begin with, "Comfort women and comfort gays", citing what was apparently intended to be a link to this as a supporting source. This change is inappropriate for an article titled Comfort women. Whether or not the substance of this change and the source supporting it belongs in this article needs to be discussed here before it is again added to the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Its not inappropriate, all victims of this practice should be included regardless of gender. This page is about the practice of sexual slavery by the Empire of Japan, also just FYI traditionally the comfort men (or comfort gays as that piece prefers) were loped in under the name “Comfort women” so this is most certainly the place to include such information as covered by WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It's WP:Undue weight to put it in the lead sentence like that, though. It was not equally affecting men and women; it far more had to do with women. Crossroads -talk- 02:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes you’re right, only about 10% were men but it might be due mention in the lead... Especially as more information about it is added to the article. Currently I agree with you that its probably undue for the lead. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Just mentioning some items I found by googling around: Diaz, Robert G. (2007). "Film Review Queer Undoing : Comfort Gay". - Women in Performance: A Journal of Feminist Theory. 17 (1). Taylor & Francis: 113–116. doi:10.1080/07407700701246448 – via tandfonline.com. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) and this book page link. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that all victims of the practice should be included in the article regardless of gender. Regarding the undue weight, as a compromise and to build consensus, it may be undue for the lead for now, but that does not invalidate the real experiences of gay sexual slaves during the occupation and the importance of it's inclusion within the article. Ggrandez17 (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
No, this experience related by a handful of gay men is not part of the comfort woman topic. Every description shows the "comfort gay" experience to be unofficial. There was no Army system with doctors hired to keep the sex slaves healthy, for instance. And the numbers are miniscule compared to the comfort woman topic. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Academics have generally treated the comfort men as a part of the comfort women, so just FYI they’re already accounted for statistically on the page so why not include them in detail? We also run into the tricky situation where in hindsight many of these men were what we would now identify as trans, its not an easy situation to figure out but it certainly belongs and removing it with the blatantly homophobic addendum “It's just a few gays” is questionable as all hell. Even if you don’t think it belongs on the page you went about this the completely wrong way. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
What academics? Cite them.
Homophobic my ass. You're assuming. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I’m not assuming anything, that statement is plainly offensive. Also edit warring the topic under discussion off the page while the discussion is ongoing is the exact opposite of what you’re supposed to do, properly sourced material remains on the page until the conclusion of the discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The principle of WP:BRD is that the contentious material stays off the page until such time as consensus is reached to add it. It is not that material is added and then a consensus is needed to remove it. --John B123 (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
A related BRD discussion had *already* been started on the talk page when Binksternet made their reversion. This also doesn't appear to be contentious material in the traditional sense, neither the material or the sources are being challenged we just have a discussion of DUE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Binksternet correctly made a reversion after the content was re-added by the sock after the discussion started. The material is contentious in that its addition has been reverted by three separate editors. --John B123 (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any comment on the issue at hand or is this purely technical notes? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Content was written by a serial sockpuppeteer, no reason to trust that it represents the sources, that the sources are any good, or that it doesn't cherry pick sources. Simple WP:Block evasion that we can revert and ignore. Crossroads -talk- 18:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Crossroads: Per WP:BURDEN as the last person to restore the material technically *I* added it and have responsibility for it, not the sock... Whats your issues with the text? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

As John B123 notes, it was reverted by three separate editors, and this was before anyone knew it was by a sock. Sockpuppetry is dishonest and thus what they write is not trustworthy. You have given no evidence of verifying that this content is accurate to the sources, that the sources are reliable, and that it is not cherry-picked before you endorsed it. Crossroads -talk- 17:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I did all of those... The sourcing is good enough for our purposes but might benefit from including a feminist critique or two of the "comfort gays” so as to satisfy WP:due, and most of the edits I have not endorsed... For instance I don’t think it should be mentioned in the lead just yet, but the discussion here is both about the specific edits and the larger question of if its sourced to WP:RS do we include male sexual slavery under Japanese occupation the page? I would be interested to hear your answer to that second question. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The film review certainly talks about how some genetically male people identifying sexually as female or at least as cross-dressers were forced into sex slavery by the Japanese. However, a strong connection to the topic of comfort women is never established. Comparisons are not made between the large comfort women program and the much more localized and unorganized experience of comfort gays. Without this strong connection, the comfort gay material is entirely off topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, so we have consensus to include at a later date if a strong connection to the topic of comfort women is established by WP:RS? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed seemingly non-factual statement citing Watanabe (1999)

I removed a dubious sentence citing Kazuko Watanabe (1999), which stated that the intention of the forced prostitution system was to humiliate men or degrade women of other nations. This notion is neither supported by historical records nor is it realistic from a political or strategic perspective. It directly contradicts other statements regarding the purpose of the system given in this article and further conflicts with the fact that the facilities exhibited a preference to hire voluntary prostitutes. Given the above points, it seems reasonable to conclude that this is an opinion of the cited author and not based on known historical facts.

If anyone has a counterargument, let me know.

EDIT: I checked the original source, and found the origin of the statement:

"Today, in Japan, there are three different kinds of action groups fighting against sex tourism and trafficking in women. One group consists mostly of men and emphasizes racism, colonialism, and imperialism.” Members of this group say that the Japanese military used sexual enslavement to castrate Asian men and terrorize and dehumanize Asian women as a way of occupying and colonizing their countries".

This part cited another article by Watanabe, titled "Watanabe, “Militarism, Colonialism and Trafficking of Women.”, which I also checked. However, I failed to find any mention of said action group.

As such, I will remove the statement permanently. Not only does it appear to conflict with known historical facts, but it was based on an indirect citation of an indirect citation of an unspecified source, effectively rendering it equivalent to original research.

Bavio the Benighted (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

One-sided presentation

I believe that this article presents a one-sided view on an issue that is by nature controversial. That is, the Korean government narrative is mostly presented as factual. The Japanese scholars point of view (visible on Japanese Wikipedia page) for example provides plenty of contradictory arguments with sources on topics worth mentioning: difficulty to prove absence of consent, remuneration of the alleged "slaves", hiring process instead of constraint, lack of direct relationship to the military, etc.

Would it be worth adding a "historiographic controversy" section or something of the sort for a more balanced article?

I am also wondering if a balanced section on how this issue has been used in public relations by both parties, with Japan focusing on national communications while Korea invested heavily on shaping the West's public opinion. Chrsmrc (talk) 06:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I am of course aware of undue weight but (1) although for several reasons the Korean narrative is more widely accepted international and in particular in the US, (2) Japanese narrative cannot be considered as a minority view not worth mentioning in an issue concerning the Japanese government.

I believe there should be at least a small section in that sense. Would you agree? Chrsmrc (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC) the Korean narrative is more widely accepted

Wikipedia reflects what is widely accepted by reliable sources and is under no obligation to give weight to fringe or revisionist theories. Blackguard 18:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Blackguard SF:

Wikipedia aims to be a neutral, balanced source of factual information; it should most certainly not represent the narrative of any particular country, regardless of how loudly they have voiced their opinion in the past. If the content is not based on actual historical facts that can be confirmed by modern historians, it must be balanced with cautionary notes or statements by other equally valid sources to restore objectivity.

Remember: "wide acceptance" is irrelevant when sources cite anecdotal evidence, as anecdotal evidence cannot, by its very nature, be validated.

Analogously, the statement "God exists" cannot be written as fact regardless of how widely accepted it might be, but must instead be phrased as, say, "According to a study by university X, more than 100,000,000 people claim to believe in God" in order to maintain objectivity.

In the case of this article in particular, most of the content is based on anecdotes (interviews, hearings) with very few sources citing hard data, thus resulting in much of the content being inherently biased.

Bavio the Benighted (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

So on one hand we have two academic journals,[1][2] a book[3], and two government statements.[4][5] On the other hand we have a website run by the Japanese government that says "No survey has been done". And finally we have one Wikipedian inserting his own personal commentary into the article. This is the sort of thing that absolutely needs consensus first, not edit warring, although typically sources beat WP:FRINGE on Wikipedia. Blackguard 18:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I saw this in passing. I have not dug into it and, from a quick look, it is not obvious to me what part of the article is being discussed here. The initial statement said in part, "Japanese scholars point of view [...] provides plenty of contradictory arguments with sources ..." and was quickly dismissed as a fringe view. I haven't seen the source with that POV or the cites there, and WP only judges a cited source on its own WP:RS merits and not on its cites. if the source is weak but its cites are stronger, perhaps the sources cited there ought to be cited directly here in support of whatever viewpoint is argued to have due weight for coverage here. (just a drive-by comment) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Blackguard SF: if you're referring to my deletion of a dubious statement by Watanabe, I made a separate section for that above. If you're referring to the edits I made in the 'Treatment of Comfort Women' section, then you clearly didn't read the sources; all of the changes I made improved the correlation between the sources and the text on Wikipedia. I made zero changes that contradicted the content of the actual citations, I only fixed text that was either inaccurate or unobjective. If you disagree, quote the sources and show explicitly which parts you feel contradict my edits. And please take this issue to the relevant section of the talk page (link: 'Better sources needed for statistics'), since this section pertains to the neutrality and balance of the article as a whole. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Brouwer, Anne-Marie de (2005). Supranational Criminal Prosecution of Sexual Violence: The ICC and the Practice of the ICTY and the ICTR. Intersentia nv. ISBN 978-90-5095-533-1.,
  2. ^ Watanabe, Kazuko (1999). "Trafficking in Women's Bodies, Then and Now: The Issue of Military "Comfort Women"". Women's Studies Quarterly. 27 (1/2): 19–31. ISSN 0732-1562.,
  3. ^ Felton, Mark (2010). The Real Tenko: Extraordinary True Stories of Women Prisoners of the Japanese. Pen & Sword Military. ISBN 978-1-84884-048-5.
  4. ^ "Allies in adversity, Australia and the Dutch in the Pacific War: Comfort women | The Australian War Memorial". www.awm.gov.au. Retrieved 2020-09-10.
  5. ^ "Statement of". web.archive.org. 2007-02-28. Retrieved 2020-09-10..

Better sources needed for statistics (death rate + incidence of infertility in survivors)

The 'Treatment of Comfort Women' section of the main article originally included a claim that three-fourths of the comfort women died during service, and another stating that the majority of those who survived were left infertile. I read each of the sources as well as their sources (because for some reason, all of the sources were second-hand or third-hand citations and failed to provide any details on the source) and found that the 75% death rate seems to be a fabrication by a former representative of the Japanese Diet, Seijuro Arafune. On the other hand, the origin for the infertility rate statistic seems to be entirely unknown at this point. As far as I'm aware, no large-scale study has been performed on either of these issues.

If someone can find the real origin of the infertility rate estimate, please add it to the article (and preferably add a note here, in this part of the talk page). And please do not (completely) reverse my changes unless you find a good source that actually explains how the number first came into existence; currently, the numbers have no reliable (traceable) source to back them up and this should be reflected in the article. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that WP:POV is coming in here. Established sources are being questioned here but a webpage with no indication of the author is being taken as gospel. If we are going to question where the figures in the original sources came from, then Arafune being "an untrustworthy source" without further explanation should also be questioned. --John B123 (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The webpage is not meant to be an authoritative source. On the contrary, it seems about as reliable as the sources which cite the figure given by Arafune, i.e. not very reliable at all. I added it for the sake of balance.
It is important to note that the original sources are far from established: I read each and every one carefully and followed the chain of citations, and found that every source could be traced back to Arafune, who seemingly pulled the numbers out of thin air. The same goes for the webpage; none of the claims seem verifiable, one way or the other.
The issue could easily be settled if someone was able to find the original statement by the Korean "authorities", but the sources currently listed in the section are a dead-end; they all blindly cite Arafune, and none of them actually state where the original estimate came from. Maybe someone who knows Korean will be able to find the relevant source.
Until then, we only have a low-quality source (Arafune's statement) claiming one thing, and another low-quality source (the webpage) that completely refutes the validity of the first source. I feel that at this point, it may be prudent to remove the statistics altogether until someone can pinpoint where they originated.
Bavio the Benighted (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Were there comfort men as well

or was it just the women the japanese used for comfort — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.207.184 (talk) 12:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Sociological questions

Aside from the appalling injustice to women, what does the comfort women phenomenon say about the character of Japanese males? Was the ruthless exploitation simply a passing phase brought about by the stresses of war, or did it reveal something deeper about Japanese character? The rape of Nanking occurred 13 years before WWII. Why is there no discussion of this issue? Is such a question politically incorrect because is might lead to stereotyping? Does truth matter anymore? When did social science become the servant of ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.137.86 (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Wartime rape is extremely common throughout history, regardless of race, culture or time period. The attempt by the Japanese government to replace widespread rape with institutionalized prostitution was certainly novel, but upon examining the rationale behind the establishment of the system you should quickly realize that a similar idea could have occurred to anyone in power.

The main reason for why the Japanese government chose to invest in the project was due to its perceived usefulness in controlling the spread of STDs among frontline soldiers, and as a way to prevent rape, which they feared would instill hostility in the local populace and consequently make them more difficult to rule. Of course, we know in hindsight that the system ended up failing to live up to these expectations. On that note, there is little evidence indicating that this system of prostitution caused more damage than it prevented; for all we know, victims of the system may well have been treated considerably better than victims of uncontrolled wartime rape, given how (seemingly) many of them survived to tell the tale.

For a modern day example of governments that display a similar level of utilitarianism, we need not look further than the CCP in China, or the modern North Korean government. And utilitarianism is far from a trait unique to governments in Far East Asia; the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were infamous for their ruthless functionalism. And who knows, the Allies may have dabbled in similarly questionable pursuits, and we might simply be unaware of this due to lack of historical records. Either way, we do know wartime rape has always been (and still is) commonplace on all continents.

As for the reason for why wartime rape is so prevalent, several sociological, psychological and evolutionary biology-based explanations have been proposed. Gottschall's article "Explaining wartime rape" (published in the Journal of sex research in 2004) offers a good review on the subject. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The recruitment of voluntary comfort women at the beginning of the war

Since a user decided to start an edit war to revert to an older version of the introductory sentence that defines the term "comfort woman", I will add this talk section to address their point.

As is already mentioned in the article, the system started out as a program of voluntary prostitution, but derailed into a form of sexual slavery once the army could no longer bring enough voluntary prostitutes from Japan to meet an ever-increasing demand for comfort women, and consequently chose to outsource the process of procuring the sex workers to local middlemen. A source (pp 3-5) is already given in the article.

As such, given that voluntary "comfort women" did in fact exist, the first sentence of the article should take this into account in order to maintain neutrality and accuracy. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This topic would not exist if it was only about paid, voluntary prostitutes. The basis of the topic, the global outrage against the Japanese, comes from taking women and girls from occupied lands and forcing them into sexual slavery.
You have repeatedly tried to normalize the Japanese comfort women program, to explain the Japanese actions as logical or reasonable. Insisting on the mention of paid prostitutes is part of that push. You are trying to skew the topic away from global outrage, but that's how it is presented in the great mass of sources, so your push is non-neutral. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Accurately portraying history is not an attempt to normalize anything, there were voluntary women who were apart of the comfort women program just as there were those who were there against their will, purposefully omitting one while keeping the other is biased. Wikipedia is not about outrage but about building an encyclopedia, "global outrage" is not the focus of the article historical accuracy is, please remember that. XiAdonis (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Establishing a false balance is biased, not neutral. If a tiny fraction of the comfort women was voluntary, then giving that fraction equal prominence is false balance and biased. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Assuming your hypothetical example of giving equal prominence to both voluntary and unvoluntary women without regard to portraying matters as they actually were historically were true then yes that would be false balance.
"false balance is biased, if a false balance is done then that is biased", yea no shit buddy. If your going to say something say something of substance and not this pointless nonsense. XiAdonis (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Guys, just reminding that it'd be good to remain civil and avoid any personal attacks in this talk page, especially on a really controversial topic like this. After all, all edits are presumed in good faith and should be treated as such. Feel free to consult WP:TPG for any guidelines on how to handle a talk page discussion. NettingFish15019 (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Source without public confidence cited in the section 'Treatment of comfort women'

On the first paragraph, the line "... although the validity of this statement has since been brought into question as the number does not seem to be based on an actual investigation on the matter." cites a webpage of Japanese fund AWF as its basis of assertion. That webpage claims that statements from Korea-Japan Treaty negotiations, which were cited by Representative Seijuro Arahune of the Japanese Diet as evidence of his report of death toll, do not exist. However, that webpage does not provide any citation data to support such claim. Mmmmmmmg0 (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

That would be probatio diabolica. The source says that no investigation 'seems to have been conducted', which is easy to disprove: all we need to do is to find a source that details where those numbers came from. Currently we don't have a source for that.
If the statements can't be traced to their origin, that's a good indication that the numbers were made up by the senator, as noted by the second source. In that case we should remove the paragraph completely. The article is too opinionated as it is, starting from the lede. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women/Archive_8&oldid=1083510380"