Jump to content

Talk:Comfort women/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Comfort women

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 08:57, 31 January 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Proposal about ambiguity evasion

Circumstances

I thought that there should be the ambiguity evasion between this article and i-an-fu (慰安婦) in Japan after WWII or wi-an-bu (慰安婦) in South Korea after WWII. And I added {{About|comfort women in Japan Empire|comfort women in Japan after WWII|Recreation and Amusement Association|comfort women in South Korea after WWII|Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military}} twice. The template was removed by Mr/Ms Zmflavius at 1st time , and at 2nd time by Mr. Binksternet. So, I sent 2 questions to Mr/Ms Zmflavius and Mr. Binksternet , and reveived their answers.NiceDay (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Question from NiceDay to Mr/Ms Zmflavius and Mr. Binksternet

Hello!

I would like to make you two questions in relation to attaching a disambiguation template to the article comfort women.

The first is the question whether you know the fact that the word "comfort women"(慰安婦,i-an-fu) was used even after WWII in Japan and South Korea. This fact can be checked in Recreation and Amusement Association, Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military　( or ja:特殊慰安施設協会, ja:韓国軍慰安婦 or ko:특수위안시설협회, ko:양공주 ).

And the second is the reason why you don't need a disambiguation template.

Please reply to my questions.

Thank you 

(I have forgotten the signeture. This message was written at 2014-03-20T07:50:58 and 2014-03-20T07:54:55 )

Answer from Mr/Ms Zmflavius with aditional messages

(my questions)

The reason why the disambiguation templates do not belong is that because even though the same term was at times used, they refer to two entirely different concepts; the first towards the system of sexual slavery employed by the Empire of Japan, and the second towards the organized voluntary prostitution of the various Allied occupation (entirely voluntary) and post-war South Korean armies (in the second, with occasional uses of coercion). While the official terms may be similar, overall the fact that they refer to several very different systems means that the disambiguation tags establish a false equivalency contrary to the spirit of all three articles. Especially, there is the issue that while in official documents, the words used (wianbu and ianfu) employ the same characters, in the English vernacular, Comfort women refers almost exclusively to the Imperial Japanese system, with entirely different terms for the Japanese and South Korean system (in particular, I have never seen comfort women used in the English context to refer to the SK prostitution, except to explain the hanja term). Therefore, while it may be worthwhile to establish disambiguations for wianbu for example, it is certainly not accurate to establish redirects for the term comfort women specifically. Having said that, that does not mean that there should be no disambiguation tags, since evidently, there is some overlap in the use of terms, but the current proposed disambiguation tags without a doubt are two vague for usage. Finally, if we are to continue this conversation, I would recommend moving to the talk pages of the Prostitutes in SK article and/or the Comfort Women article, which is the proper place for such discussion.Zmflavius (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer.
Would you agree to post the contents of this section to Talk:Comfort women ?
If you can agree, I would like to continue to discuss at Talk:Comfort women .NiceDay (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Very well then, if that suits you.Zmflavius (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your agreement. Mr. Binksternet has agreed too. I will make a new section there. Please wait. NiceDay (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer from Mr. Binksternet with aditional messages

(my question)

In English, the use of the term "comfort women" is limited to the Japanese during their wars in Asia before and during WWII. Thus there is no need to help the notional reader who might be confused—the reader is not at all confused. In fact, your proposed disambiguation template is inappropriate because it would sow confusion. I get the impression that sowing confusion is your goal, that is, weakening the case against the Japanese. Binksternet (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer.
I sent the upper questions to two persons, you and Mr/Ms Zmflavius.
Mr/Ms Zmflavius proposed me that continuous discussion should be held at Talk:Comfort women .
Would you agree to post the contents of this section to Talk:Comfort women ?
If you can agree, I would like to continue to discuss at Talk:Comfort women .NiceDay (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Talk:Comfort women is where this discussion should take place. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your agreement. Mr/Ms Zmflavius has agreed too. I will make a new section there. Please wait. NiceDay (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The meaning of a proposal

  • I still think that the ambiguity evasion is required. But I am not an English native speaker.So, I want to hear what the English native speakers including Mr/Ms Zmflavius and Mr. Binksternet feel or know,、and make a consensus to carry out the ambiguity evasion.

Questions and answers, discussion, etc.

  • The word 慰安婦 was used not only in the Empire of Japan era, but also in Japan after WWII and South Korea after WWII.In Recreation and Amusement Association and Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military these are described. Mr/Ms Zmflavius and Mr. Binksternet do not oppose these facts. Both Mr/Ms Zmflavius and Mr. Binksternet think that we should not use the words comfort women except the Empire of Japan. At the first I want to confirm these.
  • Next, I have some questions.
    • There are another tlanslation words military prostitutes for 慰安婦. I think that the words military prostitutesare originally used and the words comfort women are coined as a literal translation words of 慰安婦 being conscious that Japanese and Korean words are euphemisms. Am I right ?
    • When did they start to use the words comfort women ? (This can be a difficult question. )
    • What words are used discribing on the 慰安婦 in Japan after WWII and in South Korea after WWII, in TVs or newspapers e.t.c. ?
  • I want to continue the discussion after the answers of these questions. Thank you.NiceDay (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • First and foremost, the term "comfort women" was coined by the Japanese—it is a purely Japanese construct, not a Korean one. The author 義明·吉見 (Yoshimi Yoshiaki) says in the book Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military During World War II (Columbia University Press, 2000), that the Japanese term really means "military comfort women" (jūgun ianfu). Yoshiaki says that the term "military comfort women" refers specifically to the women who were restrained, without any rights, under the control of the Japanese military, and forced to provide sex for Japanese military personnel. See page 39.
    In the book Legacies of the Comfort Women of World War II (M.E. Sharpe, 2001), authors Margaret Diane Stetz and Bonnie B. C. Oh confirm that the Japanese coined the term "comfort women". They say on pages 76–77 that the South Korean government in 1992 used the term ilcheha kundae wianbu which means "military comfort women under Imperial Japan". To refer to sex workers who service U.S. military personnel stationed in Korea, the term is simply wianbu, not comfort women.
    These two sources are but a few of the high quality books discussing the terminology. I don't think there is any confusion in English about the term "comfort women"—it always means sexual slaves for the Imperial Japanese military. Thus there is no need for a hatnote telling the reader about other terms. In fact, if the hatnote is put into place then the reader will be confused. Wikipedia should not try to confuse the reader. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
(sidebar comment) I am hoping that this interjection is useful and does not derail this discussion.
  • I observe that the term comfort women has been used in connection with Allied forces and specifically in connection with the RAA; e.g., in the following:
  • Yuki Tanaka (2003). Japan's Comfort Women. Routledge. pp. 133–166. ISBN 978-1-134-65012-5.
  • Yasuhiro Okada (2008). Gendering the "black Pacific": Race Consciousness, National Identity, and the Masculine/feminine Empowerment Among African Americans in Japan Under U.S. Military Occupation, 1945--1952. ProQuest. p. 239. ISBN 978-1-109-03682-4.
  • World War II GI's Shacked Up With Japanese Comfort Women, Military & Foreign Affairs Journal : Veterans Today
  • and in connection with "camp town comfort women" in Korea after liberation from Japanese rule
  • I suspect that other examples could be found for both of these alternative usages.
  • I further observe that the lead sentence of this article reads, "Comfort women were women and girls forced into a prostitution corps created by the Empire of Japan during World War II.", which is not inclusive of these usages. Possibly a second sentence could be added to the lead saying something like, "The term has also been applied outside of this restrictive usage, two examples of this being with regard to the Recreation and Amusement Association in post-war Japan and to Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military."
  • Alternatively, perhaps the lead paragraph can be rewritten along the lines of

The term comfort women is a translation of a Japanese name ianfu (慰安婦).[1][2] Ianfu is a euphemism for shōfu (娼婦) whose meaning is "prostitute(s)".[3] This article specifically concerns women and girls forced into a prostitution corps created by the Empire of Japan during World War II, and referred to as Comfort women. The term has also been applied outside of this restrictive usage, two examples of this being with regard to the Recreation and Amusement Association in post-war Japan and to Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military.

  • This would recast this article as an article about the term Comfort women rather than specifically about one use of the term, with the bulk of the article discussing the usage to which the term is mainly applied, and with disambiguation in the lead leading to other articles discussing other usage applications of the term. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's tell the reader that the Japanese jūgun ianfu is not the same as the Korean wianbu, per Yoshiaki. First off, the jūgun part is not directly translatable from Japanese to Korean; the Japanese word literally means "troop follower" but has elements of forced obedience. Its use in Japanese combined with ianfu does not mean "troop follower" but instead is generally military-related. In Korean, the closest term to jūgun is chonggun but there is no element of forced obedience—it is a purely voluntary meaning. So Japanese jūgun ianfu is not the same as Korean chonggun wianbu. This lack of translation equivalence confuses too many people. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me, that taking into account that certainly, while the Korean and Japanese systems were different, there almost certainly was some Japanese influence on the Korean system (after all, the officers of the early ROK army were by and large Japanese-trained, many even served in the IJA), but the amount of detail needed to explain this difference (same characters, different connotations and situation, etc.), it might be best for us to have a detailed explanation, but only within the article itself, as discussed here. This would eliminate the issue of the false equivalency being created by a lead or disambiguation tag at the top, while preserving the clarification itself within the article.Zmflavius (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a discussion of the terms should be in the article body, not the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Zmflavius and Binksternet. Please provide RS that the word jūgun ianfu was used during the war. As far as I know, it's a coined word in 1970s. Oda Mari (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I did not make the claim it was used during WWII. When the Japanese were shipping their sex slaves to different ports, they were labeled "military goods", not even listed by name as persons. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

how to make disambiguation

I think that the necessity for the disambiguation has become clear through the discussion. So I would like to discuss how to make the disambiguation. As I wrote first, I propose to add {{about}} on the beginning of the article. You may propose another way. Thank you.NiceDay (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No! There is no confusion in English about what is covered by this topic. I oppose any effort to diminish the culpability of the Japanese Imperial Army in establishing a comfort women program. Any system that is primarily voluntary prostitution cannot be the same topic. Any system that is not Japanese cannot be the same topic. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Hear hear. --Yaush (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)d
Good point made.Zmflavius (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
No! It is a fact that the term has more than one use in English -- the question is how to accomplish disambiguation between the several uses of the term. Accomplishing disambiguation between multiple uses of the term is not an effort to diminish the culpability of the Japanese Imperial Army in establishing a comfort women program. I suggested above one way in which the disambiguation could be accomplished. As proposed at the head of the subsection, an alternative to that would be the creation of a Comfort women (disambiguation) page, and the addition of an {{about}} template at the head of the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
It is not a fact, as it happens, that the term has more than one use in English; it is a fact that there seems to be some overlap within the terms. The distinction is important, because it means that disambiguation potentially could be called for for the term 'Wianbu', wherein the overlap seems to exist, it also means that the disambiguation for the term 'Comfort Women' is also entirely inappropriate since as has been mentioned, in the colloquial English usage, it is not used at all to refer to any other usages. This means, therefore, that the comfort women (disambiguation) page specifically is entirely inappropriate. In fact, there is already a Wianbu disambiguation page, which seems to have been created around the same time this page was created in its original form. In any case, the topic of discussion here is what further disambiguations are merited on this page. For this, the about template may or may not be accurate, taking into account the above points raised. In the original form it was added, definitely, the about template was inappropriate but one which uses more accurate terminology is not necessarily out of place.Zmflavius (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
(mainly to Mr/Ms Zmflavius) I do not expect that the template which I made is so bad. I want you to explain the reason why you think the template inappropriate a little more. NiceDay (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


(edit conflict) Zmflavius asserts that it is not a fact that the term Comfort women has more than one use in English, and Binksternet agrees. I take that as unsupported expression of strongly held editorial opinions by two WP editors. My understanding is that both of these editors contend that the only use of the term Comfort women in English is to refer to (as described in the lead section of this article) women and girls forced into a prostitution corps created by the Empire of Japan during World War II.
I'm not an expert here. I only know what I read (or, actually, what I'm able to find online via my currently really awful internet connectivity situation).
  • The WP article section Recreation and Amusement Association#Comfort Woman Terminology says, "Brothels [speaking here of RAA brothels] were referred to with the euphemisms 'comfort stations' and 'comfort facilities', and prostitutes [speaking here of the prostitutes working in RAA brothels] were referred to as 'comfort women'". There's no supporting source cited directly after that assertion, but we apparently have a {{contradict other}} situation here. The second paragraph in that section cites
  • On Page 2, i the paragraph just before the Selling Sex Under Occupation section, I take the term "comfort women" used there to refer to Japanese prostitutes selling sex to occupation forces in Japan subsequent to the Japanese surrender.
  • In the second paragraph on page 7, the term "comfort women" is used in reference to sex work during the occupation.
  • In the fourth paragraph on page 157, the term "comfort women" is used in describing "... women who served Allied soldiers [...] -- including the military comfort women under Japanese occupation" (speaking there of the period of allied occupation of Japan)
(as long as we're reading in that book, I'll mention that the paragraph bridging pages 157-158 there makes an interesting point which is unrelated to the issue I'm focusing on here)
  • The lead section describes the term Comfort Women as having been used to describe prostitutes servicing members of the US military in South Korea .
  • The History section describes the term comfort women and several Korean language terms as having been used to refer to prostitutes for the U.S. military until the early 1990s, citing page 164 of Patricia Ticineto Clough; Jean Halley (2007-06-21). The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-8960-6.. That page says that the term comfort women was used (paraphrasing) to describe sex laborers for the Japanese and the U.S. military.
  • The Military Government section says, "In 1962, 20,000 comfort women were registered, and the charge to the American soldiers was two dollars for a short time and five dollars for a long time.", citing a Korean language supporting source.
Binksternet says above, "the term 'comfort women' was coined by the Japanese—it is a purely Japanese construct, not a Korean one. The author 義明·吉見 (Yoshimi Yoshiaki) says in the book Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military During World War II (Columbia University Press, 2000), that the Japanese term really means 'military comfort women' (jūgun ianfu). Yoshiaki says that the term "military comfort women" refers specifically to the women who were restrained, without any rights, under the control of the Japanese military, and forced to provide sex for Japanese military personnel." I don't dispute that that was probably once true, but it appears to me that an assertion that this describes the only use of the term in the English language today is a false assertion. Look at just the titles alone of a couple of the books I've mentioned above.
  • Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II and the US Occupation
  • The Comfort Women: Sexual Violence and Postcolonial Memory in Korea and Japan
I assert that the term is ambiguous in today's English language, and that it needs to be disambiguated. If this article persists in insisting that the term has no other use in today's English language than to refer to sex slaves under the WW-II Japanese military, we have a {{contradict other}} problem to deal with in relation to some other WP articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
added points
I suspect that a number of other sources exist in which the term "comfort women" is used in English to refer to women other than those who served as WW-II sex slaves for the Japanese military. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Having looked at the cited pages, I'm rather at a loss to see how you came to the conclusion in your above post.
To wit; in Kovner's book, I do not see how, outside of some unorthodox reading of the sources, you can reach the conclusion that comfort women refers to prostitution in Occupation Japan. For example, the example in page 2, "the experience of the comfort women under Japanese occupation" does not make any sense, except as a reference to Japanese occupation policy in foreign countries. Page 7, too, is also a stretch; Google books is prohibitive to copy/pasting, but in the linked page, WtMitchell's conclusion, again, is a great stretch; especially given the entire sentence, which explicitly notes that comfort women refers to situations in the 'larger context of East Asia.' More tellingly, on page 8, Kovner clearly draws a contrast between comfort women and RAA prostitutes. Especially, for page 157, I do not see at all how one goes from the phrase " the term "comfort women" is used in describing "... women who served Allied soldiers as part of a longer history of victimization -- including the military comfort women under Japanese occupation" as referring to the RAA." Japanese occupation, in this sentence, quite clearly, refers to, well, Japanese occupation. In short, it is quite clear, that Kovner refers to comfort women exclusively in reference to the Japanese system, only through a very unorthodox and not particularly logical reading can I see it being defined as referring to the RAA prostitutes.
Similarly, in such snippets that I can find in the other books, such as Tanaka's, Soh's, and Molasky comfort women is almost exclusively used to refer to the Japanese war-time system, and is at times used to provide context for the post-war Japanese system and the Korean system. In Soh's book, the connection to the use of the description with the postwar Japanese system appears to be non-existent; in Tanaka's and Molasky's, the usages appear primarily to be to, in a similar vein to the above, to provide context by comparison, and not as a simple equivalent usage of a similar term. To refuse to provide any disambiguation, I think, is out of place, but definitely, the original disambiguation (in response to Nice Day) as well, which did not differentiate between the systems, was also inadequately clear.
The Korean system, as described in The Affective Turn, is somewhat different. This is primarily because in this case, it is clear (something which, despite WtMitchell's assertions, has not been denied by either I or Binksternet) that there is some overlap between the terms. Wianbu, and later, Yanggongju, while referring to the Korean prostitution system, however, is also mentioned as having significant differences to the Japanese system (principally forced vs. voluntary).
What this essentially is, is a return to my original point; that even if a disambiguation is merited, that it should, nevertheless, take note of the differences in meaning of the terminology, and more importantly, that the reference to comfort women does not mean the same thing in different circumstances, when it actually refers to them in these circumstances in the first place. So, therefore, the original disambiguation, which referred to 'comfort women in Japan after WWII' and 'comfort women in South Korea for the US military' is certainly entirely inappropriate, and achieving a moral equivalency. This is partly because of the complete lack of any clarifying terms, and more importantly, the fact that attempts to play down the extent of the war-time system, and equate it with post-war systems, is a major political talking point among Japanese politicians, particularly of the far-right variety. Thus, the original disambiguation, which did not differentiate between the systems, essentially was creating additional confusion, by failing to adequately resolve the additional issue of lack of clarity caused by the equation of the systems with each other in far-right rhetoric. So, rather, this, I think would be a good disambiguation: 'This article is about the war-time system of forced prostitution in the Empire of Japan. For the system of official prostitution in Japan after WWII, sometimes termed comfort women, see Recreation and Amusement Association. For the system of official prostitution in South Korea after WWII, sometimes termed wianbu or comfort women, see Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military.'
Finally, I would like to emphasize that there is absolutely no need to be so shrill, as the talk page is not a battleground, and such a combative attitude is, IMO, out of place for what should be a calm discussion. In particular, I would appreciate it if my own posts were not strawmanned to achieve a false impression of my writings.Zmflavius (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Re page 2 of the Kovener book, the paragraph containing the reference to "japanese occupation" begins as follows: "The period of this study includes the most dramatic events in Japan's twentieth century, including total war, unconditional surrender, and foreign occupation." It goes on, speaking of post-surrender Japanese women, to say "[d]ressed in brightly colored dressses, wearing pancake makeup and with cigarettes dangling from their lips, the panpan -- or streetwalkers -- seemed to embody both the fall of Japan's empire and the rise of something shockingly new. Decades later, the way the Japanese talked about sex under occupation -- above all, the experience of comfort women under Japanese occupation ...". I take the mention there of "Japanese occupation" as referring to occupation of Japan, not occupation by Japan. Certainly the thrust of the paragraph concerns the societal impact in Japan of panpan or streetwalkers occupation of Japan. I don't think that is unorthodox reading.
Re page 7, the relevant paragraph begins, "But if sex work during the Occupation needs to be situated in a broader context," and goes on speaking of post-surrender matters. I read that as speaking of "comfort women" during the occupation. I've gone back and reread the paragraph, and see that it makes no mention of pre-occupation matters. I had missed the mention on page 8, however, and now see the contrast drawn there. Perhaps I did misconstrue Kovner's use of the term.
You say that in other books, the term "comfort women" is almost exclusively used to refer to the Japanese war-time system. I agree that that is by far the most frequent use of the term. I argue, however, with the claim that "it is not a fact that the term Comfort women has more than one use in English". The use of this term in reference to Japanese military sex slaves during WW-II is the prevalent use in English, but it is not the only use (witness examples of other uses which I pointed out above). I do not disagree with "almost exclusively used". I do disagree with "exclusively used".
BTW, I did a bit of googling around, and I see the term used in some other WP articles not speaking about Japanese WW-II sex slaves: Lai Đại Hàn, Santhal rebellion (with a WP:SS wikilink to this article), Louisiana Creole people.
Re shrillness -- I have not been trying to be shrill, I have been trying to be clear. I have been a bit abrupt -- partly because I was surprised to find my that internet connectivity situation during parts of today wasn't too awful and I was trying to get my comments here researched, drafted up, and submitted during that window of not-awful connectivity -- partly because I do tend to say what I mean in a pretty straightforward manner without a lot of warm & fuzzy windowdressing. If you perceived shrillness, be assured that shrillness was not intended.
You seem to agree now that disambiguation is not inappropriate (and, perhaps my understanding that your earlier position that "It is not a fact, as it happens, that the term has more than one use in English; it is a fact that there seems to be some overlap within the terms." implied that disambiguation was not appropriate was mistaken). OK. I suggested wording above to disambiguate this in the lead paragraph; NiceDay suggested that it be disambiguated by adding a {{about}} hatnote. In conjunction with either or both of these suggestions, the term might be disambiguated in a Comfort women (disambiguation) page. Do you agree with any of these previous suggestions? If not, do you have a suggestion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The examples you show are mentions of the term "comfort women" used for comparative effect, to compare a different system to the one involving forced sexual slavery for the Japanese Imperial Army. The term "comfort women" is not used as an established term for a system of primarily voluntary prostitution, such as the 1945–46 RAA in Japan serving US soldiers, or the prostitution in Korea in the 1950s. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
While I still disagree on the reading of Japanese occupation, overall, I would agree generally with the thrust of your post. However, wrt to the creation of a comfort women (disambiguation) page, as noted above, among these three articles, the comfort women article definitely is the primary article, and said disambiguation page would only be for these two other articles, these two being the only ones which use the similar term to any great extent (and, as mentioned above, rarely even as the primary descriptive term). In this case, I am not clear on wikipedia policy for disambiguation pages, but it seems to me that with only two articles (one of which already has its own disambiguation page at Wianbu (disambiguation), which is the primary term used to refer to the Korean system, in any case, it would not appear worthwhile to create a new disambiguation page, when the about hatnote could redirect readers directly to the other two pages. As to the about hatnote, I would, likewise, support a format suggested in my above post.
The other examples, Lai Dai Han and Santhal Rebellion do not appear to be related at all to the WWII system. Frex, with the Santhal Rebellion, comfort women appears to have been a term appropriated to describe a similar system of forced sexual slavery during a 19th century conflict. In the case of Lai Dai Han, it also appears to me that a similar situation is the case. In the wikipedia article for Santhal Rebellion, there does not appear to be any sources, reliable or otherwise, in Lai Dai Han, there appear to be only a broken link and a link to the Japanese wikipedia article, on which the Japanese term "慰安婦" does not appear. Googling did find the apparent sources of those claims, but no reliable sources, only blog sources. It appears that in those cases, it was either a situation of a similar term being appropriated to describe a similar system (this appears to be the case with the Santhal Rebellion), or, to judge from the blogs I did find about Lai Dai Han, the product of anti-Korean screeds by Japanese far-right bloggers. Either way, I do not think either are actually reliably sourced. In any case, the term does not seem to have achieved common usage among scholars of either subject.Zmflavius (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) I've outdented here because we've apparently put the offshoot discussion about whether to disambiguate to rest and gotten back to the question of how to disambiguate.
Zmflavius says above that an {{about}} hatnote could redirect readers directly to the other two pages, and that he would support a format for that which he had suggested. I probably ought to have picked up on his format suggestion when he offered it a couple of comments back, but I missed doing that at the time. I have now boldly added disambiguation to the article based on my understanding of that suggestion.
I am still a not completely comfortable with this, as I think that the term comfort women has entered the English language with a wider meaning (indicated to some extent by the (mis?)use of the term in the Lai Đại Hàn, Santhal rebellion and Louisiana Creole people articles mentioned in passing above) than just the three highly specific meanings covered by the disambiguation I've added. After having been through this discussion, I think that it might be a good idea to have a separate WP:SS WP article about the term Comfort women itself and its relation not only to the three specific usages disambiguated here but as it relates generally to sexual slavery. I'm not about to rush right out and create such an article, though.
I think that the disambiguating hatnote is a useful addition to the article. As far as I am concerned, further discussion and improvements are welcome. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


Dang, I really really hate this hatnote:

This article is about the war-time system of forced prostitution in the Empire of Japan. For the system of official prostitution in Japan after WWII, sometimes termed comfort women, see Recreation and Amusement Association. For the system of official prostitution in South Korea after WWII, sometimes termed wianbu or comfort women, see Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military.

It is lengthier and therefore more intrusive the one I had reverted twice from our Japanese editor who now goes by NiceDay:

This article is about comfort women in Japan Empire. For comfort women in Japan after WWII, see Recreation and Amusement Association. For comfort women in South Korea after WWII, see Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military.

Of course I do not want to return to NiceDay's hatnote because it assumes wrongly that the two systems serving the US soldiers were also forced sexual slavery rather than primarily voluntary prostitution.
The basic problem I have with this kind of hatnote is that there is really just one article people will be looking for if they type the search term "comfort women". More than that, I hate how the hatnote lends credence to the uncommon usage of the English term "comfort women" to refer to various systems of primarily voluntary prostitution. I would much rather remove any hatnote at all. The only recommendation I can offer to these other two articles is to create more redirects pointing to them, for instance 1950s Korean comfort women or Korean comfort women for US soldiers or Japanese comfort women for US soldiers. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Dang, Bink.
I reacted to the last response from Zmflavius, thinking that the discussion had run its course. I didn't see your response just above his.
As I understand it, you have two concerns.
  1. You still do not agree that any disambiguation should be done here.
  2. If disambiguation is done, you really really hate the current format of the this hatnote.
Let's take these one at a time. #1 first.
Re #1, you say, "The basic problem I have with this kind of hatnote is that there is really just one article people will be looking for if they type the search term comfort women". Such people, of course, will have arrived at the article they were seeking and clearly need no disambiguation.
Disambiguation here would be a navigation aid for people who were not seeking an article about sexual slavery by the Japanese military during WW-II when they typed "Comfort women" or clicked on a wikilink pointing to this article, but who had something else in mind. The {{about}} link is not placed here as a statement of philosophical viewpoint, it is placed as an aid to navigation for people who arrive at this article seeking information on something other than sexual slavery by the Japanese military during WW-II. You seem to be convinced that no such people exist. I, OTOH, do not find it inconceivable that some people might type the term "comfort women" or click on a wikilink pointing to an article named Comfort women with something in mind other than sexual slavery by the Japanese military during WW-II. I see it as not unbelievable that persons who have read material such as that found in [1], [2] or [3] (to use a few examples already mentioned above) might have the term Comfort women in mind in connection with activities of U.S. military personnel in Japan or Korea, or Korean military personnel in Viewtnam (I've stuck there just to book sources involving prostitution and the U.S. military in Japan and Korea -- two areas where the term comfort women is used in a different sense than the sense covered by this article, and two areas where WP articles currently exist. There do exist other areas which likewise use -- and which misuse -- the term Comfort women in senses different from this article but for which no WP articles exist currently; see e.g., [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. People might arrive at this article after having looked at sources such as those).
Bink, can you bring yourself to accept that there are persons in this world who do not share your perception of the clear, narrow, specific, one-and-only meaning of the term Comfort women -- or who are not yet sufficiently enlightened to have arrived at that perspective? Can you understand that if such a person does arrive at this article, it might be a good idea to give him or her a bit of help navigating onwards to a different WP article which might be closer to what he or she had in mind? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the uncommon usages can be worked into the article body in a brief section about alternate uses of the term. Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
That would work to satisfy the curiosity of persons who did not arrive here needing disambiguation. It probably would not work as well as a disambiguating {{about}} link as an aid to renavigation for persons who arrived here in need ot disambiguation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Not inconceivable isn't very compelling here. The chances of a reader typing "comfort women" and expecting anything other than forced prostitution by the Empire of Japan are slim, and we can't throw a disambiguation hatnote on every article whose title may have been misunderstood by somebody somewhere. Blackguard 07:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
How about the people who typed "comfort women" here or here or here? (or wikilinked here, and how about persons arriving at this article because they clicked that wikilink?) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, "comfort women" has been used incorrectly by Wikipedia users. I'm saying we shouldn't bend over backwards for those edge cases. Can you imagine a disambiguation for extrapolation or high concept because somebody somewhere used those terms differently than their definitions? By the way, and it's completely understandable that this was missed, but the first example you gave is a contribution from an edit-warring IP making flagrantly POV revisionist changes to Japanese-related articles [9][10], which is exactly the kind of culpability reduction User:Binksternet was worried about. Blackguard 00:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'm argued out for now. I got into this because I saw other people discussing it, because I had seen the term used in regard to topics not covered by this article, and because I agreed that disambiguation would be a good thing. I didn't expect to end up making the case for disambiguation on my own. I'll take a break from this for now (for tonight, anyhow -- probably for longer), and will probably look back to see what other discussion has developed, if any. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The term "comfort women" is the widely used common name for the sexual slavery system used by the Imperial Japanese during wartime. The hatnote is totally unnecessary; the other less common uses can be put in the "See also" section. STSC (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear that the words comfort women may be used in other situations, just only if the linkage are made in See also section, because the names of the articles Recreation and Amusement Association and Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military do not include the word comfort women. If you want to propose to change the names of these articles including the word comfort women, I don't oppose the proposal.NiceDay (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The Necessity for Disambiguation

I feel that the necessity for disambiguation is clear from above discussion. But some may not think so. So let us discuss on the necessity for disambiguation again before discussing how to make the disambiguation.NiceDay (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC) What I think is As written above the words comfort women may be used as other meaning discribed in this article. So we need to make some disambiguation.NiceDay (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the scorecard so far: Zmflavius, Binksternet, Yaush, Blackguard_SF and STSC are against any kind of hatnote giving disambiguation. Wtmitchell and NiceDay are in favor of a hatnote. I don't think any further discussion is necessary. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I feel that those who deny the necessity for disambiguation do not have explained in detail enough. Please explain your claim not by the mass of the documents but by the detail of them. By the way, I want you to comment next texts if you can. That is, editors should concider the readers' diversities as a generality.NiceDay (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I also feel that the necessity for disambiguation is clear. The term "comfort women" is used for women other than women during WWII. In addition the term "comfort women" is used for voluntary prostitutes who worked for prostitution houses during WWII. The current description wrongly associates "women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese Imperial Army during World War II" with the numbers "as low as 20,000 to as high as 200,000, ...". The latter refers to broader meaning of the term. There were "women and girls forced into sexual slavery or prostitution for the Japanese Imperial Army during World War II" but the number is apparently much less than described here. A case for Jan Ruff O'Herne in Indonesia is such a case but the Japanese military has closed the facility after the superiors had known the crime and the criminals were punished after the war, including one by hanging.
This issue is used by South Korea in their "Disregard Japan" campaign. Wikipedia should not be influenced by that.
Binksternet worries about diminishing the crime of Japan but isn't this what Wikipedia need not and should not worry about? It is known that some soldiers in our US military had abducted some North Korean women during the Korean war. Are we so clean enough to accuse some others for events that occurred more than 70 years ago by some erroneous information? Even if we suppose the US position is close to South Korea, Wikipedia should not be influenced by the US position. English Wikipedia pages do not represent the US position. They should only be based on historical facts.
A report by the US Army depicts one of the actual situations. The Wikipedia article should not contradict with this report.
Report No. 49: Japanese POW Interrogation on Prostitution (http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/codex/Documentos/report-49-USA-orig.html).
Quotes
"A "comfort girl" is nothing more than a prostitute"
"They lived in near-luxury in Burma in comparison to other places."
"The girls complained that even with the schedule congestion was so great that they could not care for all guests, thus causing ill feeling among many of the soldiers."
"This meant that in an average month a girl would gross about fifteen hundred yen." (a huge amount of money)
"The girls were allowed the prerogative of refusing a customer"
"A "comfort girl" is nothing more than a prostitute" contradicts with this article.
Ronald Slusky (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ McKellar, Robert (2011). Target of Opportunity & Other War Stories. AuthorHouse. p. 189. ISBN 1463416563. The "comfort women," which is a translation of the Japanese euphemism jugun ianfu (military "comfort women"), categorically refers to women of various ethnic and national backgrounds and social circumstances who became sexual laborers...
  2. ^ Soh, C. Sarah (2009). The Comfort Women: Sexual Violence and Postcolonial Memory in Korea and Japan. University of Chicago Press. p. 69. ISBN 0226767779. It referred to adult female (fu/bu) who provided sexual services to "comfort and entertain" (ian/wian) the warrior...
  3. ^ Fujioka, Nobukatsu (1996). 污辱の近現代史: いま、克服のとき (in Japanese). Tokuma Shoten. p. 39. 慰安婦は戦地で外征軍を相手とする娼婦を指す用語(婉曲用語)だった。 (Ianfu was a euphemism for the prostitutes who served for the Japanese expeditionary forces outside Japan) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

Please put this picture

”Comfort women crossing a rever following Japanese solders.”

This picture is stating the another view of comfort women.--218.47.22.50 (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy of photos

Although all the rest of photos on the web evidencing its existence, why the comfort woman statue in front of japanese embassy cannot be seen on Seoul's photos from Google Street View? Outdated ones? Photo edition for hiding the statue? Is this statue such a mobile installation? --Mizukane203 (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The article has a source-supported assertion saying that the statue was emplaced in December 2011. Further support for that assertion is easy to find. This photo of the Japanese embassy in Seoul, which I just found on google street view is captioned "일본대사관 : 18-11 Junghak-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul, South Korea : Street View - Oct 2009". Being from October 2009, the photo cannot reasonable be expected to show a statue which was emplaced in December 2011. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Revert-warring

There's been far too much reverting on this article in the last few days, and no use of this talk page at all. The next person who reverts on this article without first explaining their concerns on this talkpage and waiting to give the other side an opportunity for response before carrying out the revert, will be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This article has several multi links of the same articles.

"recruited" and "by force" are inconsistent word choice.76.171.14.188 (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"Approximately three quarters of comfort women died,"...

I checked the citation of this statement (de Brouwer), but it's just a cross-reference to another citation of the statement, which is again another reference to another citation of the statement. I could not get to the original source of the statement, eventually running into a paywall that (given that it was in the introduction of the text) was also likely another citation to another paper which had the statement written in it.

The citation for this statement needs to either A) be changed to the original source of the statement (if anyone can find it) or B) be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.112.115.99 (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

inappropriate picture should be removed

"Studio portrait of Jan Ruff O'Herne, taken shortly before she, her mother and sisters, as well as thousands of other Dutch women and children were interned by the Japanese Imperial Army in Ambarawa. Over the following months, O'Herne, along with six other Dutch women, were repeatedly raped, day and night, by Japanese military personnel" Way less than 1% of females were RAPED by the CRIMINALS that went AGAINST the government policies. This has nothing to do with comforting prostitution. Similarly, CDC estimates that there are over 1.3 million rapes per year in USA, which has nothing to do with LEGAL prostitution in Nevada. Real7777 (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Rape statistics in the USA??? Legal prostitution in Nevada????? You might take a look at the supporting source cited in the image caption, the Jan Ruff O'Herne article, the Fifty Years of Silence article and the Fifty Years of Silence book. If you still feel that another viewpoint needs to be represented on this in the article, please see WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

IWG report

IWG report[11][12] should be shown in this article. Accroding to this report, the evidences that Japanese army force taken comfort women has never found, in spite of the investigation of the enormous material.--218.47.20.188 (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Which report, and what exactly does it say? Give us the precise source details for that report, and give us a reliable secondary reference discussing its significance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

New York Times articles about systematic harrassment and history revisionism

I thought that somebody might want to incorporate references to this information into the article: http://nytimes.com/2014/11/15/opinion/comfort-women-and-japans-war-on-truth.html http://nytimes.com/2014/12/03/world/asia/japanese-right-attacks-newspaper-on-the-left-emboldening-war-revisionists.html David A (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

China/S Korea started newly intensified campaign of Japan bashing with lies, hate, and distortion after Aoyama disclosed there are huge metanhydrate and potential for normal gas/oil around oceans of japan. There are 500,000 chinese working for 50 cent army who do cyber espionage and oppression. Korean VANK cyber japan bashing group are financed by korea and china. They try hard to push lies in effort to steal island from japan and asia. As for NYT, chinse pour lots of money in to the company so it is too biased to use as a source.Real7777 (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The New York Times tends to criticise China far more than it does Japan, and has received very angry reactions from China in the past due to its articles about corruption within the country. David A (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The New York Times have a partnership with the Asahi Shimbun which had reported false information, such as comfort women were taken away by force, for a long long time. In 2014, the Asahi Shimbun have admitted their misses and apologize it in Japan. However, they do not admit that they have made it scatter to the international community. In Japan, the left-wing group or communist are tends to insist that comfort women were taken away and forced to be prostitute. And The Asahi Shimbun is a typical left-leaning newspaper in Japan.--IP58xv (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The New York Times has completely different editorial biases than the Asahi Shimbun, which did not deny that thousands of women were essentially tricked into becoming sexual slaves for the Imperial Japanese Army. The only thing that Asahi Shimbun apologized for was the posting of one man's false account. The many true accounts of kidnapping, prostitution, and sexual slavery remain untouched. Both right- and left-leaning American historians agree on this point. It's not a political dispute. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
So, please show the many true account which talking kidnapping or sexual slavery except for O'Herne's case. (O'Herne's case was a crime of the certain soldiers, that was not a crime of the Imperial Japanese Army.) Essentially, fabricated testimony of Seiji Yoshida has become the basis of kidnapping and sexual slavery story.--IP58xv (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the fabricated testimony of Seiji Yoshida has been used by right-wing Japanese nationalists to try and deny the entire comfort women system. Their tactic is that one bad source puts a bad taint on every other source, which is not a logical argument. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
It's your delusion that right-wing Japanese is trying for something. If Japanese army did kidnapping or something, then, why are there no clear evidence except for testify, in spite of a left-wing great effort for years?--IP58xv (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Japanese Prisoner of War Interrogation Report No. 49

It should be talken in this article.[13][14]--219.167.4.77 (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No, we regard primary sources as less trustworthy than the analysis of those sources by historians. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
That is not promary source, the report is one of the most valuable source that was reported by U.S.Army.--218.47.20.188 (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a primary source, a field report that was made by one officer in one location. It is not representative of the whole. We need to feature WP:SECONDARY sources in this article to remain neutral. It is certainly true that this report is discussed by some secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not a proimary source. According to the WP:SECONDARY, primary sources are written by people who are directly involved and offer an insider's view of an event. USArmy was not a insider.--IP58xv (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a primary source because it was written during the war – a war report with a limited scope of evidence. Wider evidence is what we use for references, analyzed by historians. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you tring to hide something?--IP58xv (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you trying to change history? Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what is true history, however I'm trying to be neurtral. How about you?--IP58xv (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Comfort women recruit ad.

”Newspaper advertisements for recruitement of comfort women for the Japanese Imperial Army.”

Please put this ad. The left one was published in Oct 27th 1944, Qualification requirements:18~30 years of age. Healthy women. The right one was published in July 26th 1944, Qualification:17~23 years of age. More than 300 yen monthly income, getting an advance of 3000 yen is possible. 300 yen was approximately 1.05 million yen in the current monetary value. --218.47.20.188 (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:SECONDARY analysis published by historians is more important than individual examples which may be selected without regard for balance. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
So, please explain why this ad break the balance?--218.47.20.188 (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Because it is a primary source which allows a misrepresentation of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a picture. We cannot use except for secondary-picture?--IP58xv (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
We cannot use it because it misrepresents the topic. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
What is the topic? Is it significant than real evidences?--IP58xv (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Assuming this ad is authentic, its mere inclusion without context could lend itself to a false perception that most or all comfort women were voluntary hires, a pretense which almost nobody really accepts outside of extreme conservative circles in the Japanese establishment. See WP:UNDUE. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Comfort gays"

I've moved the following content from the article (the lead sentence) heree for discussion:

(plus a small number of men)[1]

As I see it, there are two issues here:

  1. The question of whether the subtopic of males forced into homosexual sex slavery belongs in this article.
  2. The term Comfort gay as a descriptor for males forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army.

Re issue #1, see e.g. the comment at [15] saying "... Young boys no older than 10 were raped by homosexual Japanese military, ...", which is attributed there to "http://www.coconutconnections.blogspot.com Thea Bisenberger-van der Wal". I don't know whether reliable sources about this exist; my guess is that some probably do. If RSs do exist, info about this supported by such sources may merit inclusion in WP.

Re issue #2, "No!". The Ref[1] in the removed material requoted above is completely off the rails. It apparently relies on info from this WP article about a Filipino biographical-drama from the year 2000. During WW-II, the word "gay" was not generally associated with homosexuality. One source ([16]) says that the slang meaning "homosexual" (adj.) begins to appear in psychological writing late 1940s, evidently picked up from gay slang and not always easily distinguished from the older sense. Another source ([17] says that the word gay had acquired the new added definition of meaning homosexual males by 1955.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b These were usually referred to as "comfort gays". See Walterina Markova.
Dutch boys were also used as sex slaves by the Japanese. There should be a section on here about the male victims.Rajmaan (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I find it entirely plausible that there were male sex slaves of the Japanese Army. However, I would bet dollars to beans that "comfort gay" is an anachronism. --Yaush (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Please put this picture

”Comfort women crossing a rever following Japanese solders.”

This picture is stating another view of comfort women.--218.47.20.188 (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No, this photograph is not typical, so it would not be neutral. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Typical? Who decide it? This is one of the typical piccture and necessary to keep the article in the neutral--218.47.20.188 (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
No, this picture shows a happy woman while the article describes a terrible situation. The photo does not match the text. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Why should this article describes only women in a terrible situation? Who did dicide it?--IP58xv (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Because the dichotomy of describing horrible circumstances juxtaposed with happy pictures would be highly disrespectful towards the victims of crimes against humanity, in much the same way that we do not let European neo-Nazi genocide deniers turn Wikipedia into a marketing tool? David A (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not written in Wikipedia's rule. In Wikipedia, everyone must argue in conformity with a rule of Wikipedia.--IP58xv (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This photo is not neutral because it conflicts with the text describing a terrible situation. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Does the situation have to be terrible?--IP58xv (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The literature describes a terrible situation. Anybody who wants to show otherwise is working on the fringe belief that the comfort women were happy, or at best, the Japanese nationalist revisionist viewpoint that the comfort women were not forced. However, the literature says they were forced and unhappy. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, there're multiple evidences that they are not so tribble, like this. However you revisionists are tryiing to hide it.--03:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP58xv (talk • contribs)
(To Mr/Ms Binksternet) It is a reversed insistence that the evidence is not neutral to the sentences. The collision of the evidence and the sentences show that sentences aren't neutral. (To Mr/Ms David A) Forbiding to discussion on Nazi genocide is not a scientific decision but a political decision of some nations including Germany. There is no such policy about the Japanese Empire. NiceDay (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
These assertions that the image depicts happiness seem to boil down to original research interpretations made by WP editors here. That's how it looks to me too — the women don't look overcome with unhappiness, at least not at the moment the picture was snapped — but that's my subjective interpretation and it is not based on much knowledge about these particular women and their emotional states long term, short term, or momentary.
I see that the image page describes the image as 日本語: 兵士の後から川を渡る慰安婦 (English: Comfort women crossing a river following soldiers) and cites a page in a book as the source: 映像が語る「日韓併合」史: 1875年--1945年. 労働経済社. 1987. p. 297. ISBN 978-4-947585-29-5. That page numbered book source could be cited in support of the photo and its caption. If we assume good faith, we would assume that the book describes the photo as it has been captioned here. Whether the image might be inappropriate or WP:UNDUE for the article for other reasons would be another matter. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

On adding further template to Legacy in South Korea section

  • I added a further template to Legacy in South Korea section, and Mr/Ms STSC undid my editing with a message We had discussion before, no consensus was reached to add the link. Surely we discussed on adding some disambiguation templates or links. But we had never discussed on adding further template. You can see that almost the same contents are( is ?) described in Legacy in South Korea section and in Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military article. So the further template is useful for the readers. Please post your opinions.NiceDay (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
In this discussion: About the necessity for the linkages, there's no consensus to add the link in the article. The link should be rejected due to coatracking. STSC (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
In the discussion Is disambiguation between the article comfort women and other articles useful or useless ? next to About the necessity for the linkages, there were obtained the next result Result: Disambiguation would be useful. There is consensus that disambiguation would be useful, but no consensus and no clear proposal as to what form such disambiguation might take. Given that previous proposals have not gained consensus, further discussion is needed before disambiguation can be implemented. These sentences indicate that those discussions were on disambiguation and there were no discussion on template:further in Legacy in South Korea section. So please discuss on this proposal. NiceDay (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I have already pointed out adding the link is coatracking, therefore is unacceptable. STSC (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. The link is coatracking and also POV-pushing by NiceDay who has been blocked on Chinese Wikipedia for this kind of disruption. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Coatrack is an essay not refering to the links but refering to the contents. So, if you feel that it is coatracking to describe about western princess in this article, you should propose to remove Legacy in South Korea section or merge the section to Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. NiceDay (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC) & 10:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC) & 10:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I would just delete the entire 'Legacy in South Korea' section because it does not really belong to this article; you're of course free to incorporate its content into any other related article. STSC (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I have undid the removal of the section by Mr/Ms Binksternet, because it was done with no proposal. Please propose the removal in new section. NiceDay (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
A "proposal" is not needed when the material is in violation of the WP:UNDUE guideline. The literature about comfort women (the Japanese comfort women program which operated from the late 1930s to 1945) never talks about the U.S. military presence in Korea as part of the topic. So your section is off topic – undue emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Insistence of WP:UNDUE is a chicanery. It has been only taken out because Mr/Ms Binksternet do not want to discuss.There was no discussion on WP:UNDUE. There was only some dicussion on Wikipedia:Coatrack. The section can be coatracking. But removal or partial merging based on Wikipedia:Coatrack should be proposed BEFORE editing, because Wikipedia:Coatrack is only a essay. I will oppose to the removal but I will not oppose to the partial merging. NiceDay (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you understand. The section is off topic and should not be there. We don't need some kind of official discussion for people to decide whether it's off topic or not, since it certainly off topic.
Text that is challenged should remain out of the article until a consensus is formed to bring it back in. If you want to try and convince others that it is part of the topic then you are welcome to open such a discussion. The section will stay out unless consensus determines it will go in. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
A merge process may or may not start with a proposal but a bold edit does not need any proposal. User Bliksternet has already given his reasons for his edit. You're just being disruptive on here if you just revert and do not give your reason regarding the disputed content, as you're well-known for being disruptive elsewhere on Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I have made new section #On removal of Legacy in South Korea section to discuss on the removal. Please join. NiceDay (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the myth

Here are interesting arguments about the origin of the myth of the “200,000 Korean women who were drafted to sexual labors”. http://www.rjkoehler.com/2007/10/18/japanese-plastic-kit-maker-causes-stir/ --210.143.16.39 (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in that link about a myth, or about the number of women. For your information, scholars argue various numbers of comfort women, and their arguments cover a wide range: 20k, 50k, 100, 200k, 300k and more. It's not a myth, it's just very difficult to count the women under wartime conditions. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
This kit is not a comfort women but a member of the Women's Volunteer Labor Corps (or Women's Volunteer Corps, 女子挺身隊, 조선여자근로정신대). As long as I know, not only Mr. Takashi Uemura but also many Koreans confused the comfort women with the Women's Volunteer Corps. So the correct English translation of the "Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan" is the "South Korean Council for the Measures for Women's Volunteer Corps" (정신대문제대책협의회:　한국=South Korea, 정신대=Women's Volunteer Corps, 대책=measures, 협의회=council). Then they confused the number of comfort women with that of the Women's Volunteer Labor Corps. Takabeg (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Many women of Women's Volunteer Labor Corps eventually also ended up as comfort woman. All those shameless revisionist editors should stop making a fuss about the actual number of comfort woman on Wikipedia; even just one victim of Japanese sexual slavery would be too many. STSC (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Uemura admitted that he had confused the comfort women with the Women's Volunteer Corps. While it's true that Mr. Uemura and his former employer Asahi Shimbun revised their mistakes, he and his colleagues should not be viewed as revisionist. I think their courage is worthy of high praise. Please don't call them "shameless revisionist". Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The shame of revisionism falls on anyone who tries to undermine the validity of the many thousands of women who were forced into sexual slavery for the Japanese military. Your own attempt here is included. Binksternet (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Binksternet. I simply shared true information on this kit with a questioner and other users. You must read Wikipedia:Assume good faith & Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX again. Takabeg (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
You extended yourself to say that "many Koreans confused the comfort women with the Women's Volunteer Corps" which is not in the link, and is not true. Anybody who tries to confuse the comfort women issue, to diminish it by pointing to single examples of error, without acknowledging the many reliable sources on the subject, is a denialist. It's a classic denialist/revisionist tactic: point to one example of error to blanket the larger literature with doubt, when no such degree of doubt is appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Confusion between 挺身隊(정신대,volunteer corps) and 慰安婦(위안부,comfort women) is also polluting English. You can recognize it with translating ko:조선여자근로정신대 from Korean to English with Google Chrome translation. So you must take care considering truth or falsehood of Takabeg's message written at 11:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC) above. NiceDay (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a waste of time, people. The blog link, rjkoehler's blog, is not a reliable source. Let's stick to the many well-respected publications that have discussed the comfort women issue. Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am tranlating ko:조선여자근로정신대 to Korean Women's Volunteer Labour Corps. (The current title is disputed. ) I am very pleased if you join the translation. Thank you. NiceDay (talk) 09:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This Page Needs Proofing

I read through this page on comfort women, while researching WWII in general, and it needs to be proof read. There are numerous spelling and grammar errors, or just generally poor usage of wording. Especially down toward the bottom, such as the Taiwan section.

Since the 1990s Taiwanese survivors have bringing to light the comfort woman issue in the Taiwanese society. And gain support from woman rights activist and civil groups. Their testimonies and memories has been documented by newspaper, books, and documentaries films.

Survivors claims against Japan government have been backed by Taipei Women's Rescue Foundation (TWRF) a non-profit organization helping woman against violence, and sexual violence. This organization gives legal and psychological support to Taiwanese comfort women, also help to recollect testimonies and do scholar research. In 2007 these organization was responsible for promote awareness in the society making meetings in universities and high schools where survivors gave their testimonies to students and general public. TWRF has produced in exhibitions giving survivors the opportunity to be listened in Taipei but also for Women’s Active Museum on War and Peace based in Tokyo.

Thanks to these awareness in the society and with the help of TWRF Taiwanese comfort women have gain the support their government, which in many opportunities had ask Japan for apologize and compensation.

In November 2014, "Song of the Reed" a documentary film directed by Wu Hsiu-ching and produced by TWRF, won the International Gold Panda documentary award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antaus2112 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

On removal of Legacy in South Korea section

(Purpose of this section) Mr/Ms Binksternet has removed Legacy in South Korea section. I think that there is a consensus for the existence of the section. So I ask him/her to propose to delete the section BEFORE editing, but he/she did not agree as you can see above. So I want to ask your opinion on Mr/Ms Binksternet's removal . NiceDay (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(My opinion) Legacy in South Korea section has continued for more than one year. It seems me that there was a consensus for the existence of the section. Mr/Ms Binksternet has edited the article comfort women more than ten times in this period. It shows that he/she agreed to this consensus in this period. Of course we can change our opinions. But I feel Mr/Ms Binksternet selfish, because he/she did this removal with no notice as soon as his/her opinion changed. NiceDay (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I never "agreed" to the presence of the section. You are supposing incorrectly that I have kept very close watch on the whole article; what I do instead is try and deal with this article as little as possible, with the aim of making my life better. I despise the nationalist Japanese effort to downplay the large size of the comfort women program, to downplay the terrible human tragedy of it.
The section about post-WWII Korea is an attempt at misdirection, to say that Japan's crimes are not so bad because the USA also used Korean prostitutes for the military. It's a pathetic attempt because it is off topic, being about prostitutes rather than sexual slavery. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
To user NiceDay - I repeat: "You're just being disruptive on here if you just revert and do not give your reason regarding the disputed content, as you're well-known for being disruptive elsewhere on Wikipedia." STSC (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


WP:UNDUE is a rule for opposition between theories.There exist no opposition between theories around the section. There only exist some opposition between wikipedia users. So Mr/Ms Binksterne's assertion that the section violates the WP:UNDUE is wrong. I will obey to the consensus of other users about the section edit in any reason except WP:UNDUE. Thank you, NiceDay (talk) 07:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE is more than a rule for opposition between theories. Read the explanation of the policy again. You are making a coathanger out of this article.
And abiding by the consensus isn't really optional at Wikipedia. --Yaush (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I undid the Binksternet's 2015-07-06T03:17:13 edit, because it ‎is violating Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building in talk pages. Such bold edit should be done after the discussion. NiceDay (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
(To Mr/Ms Yaush) Please read carefully I wrote I will obey to the consensus of other users about the section edit in any reason except WP:UNDUE. NiceDay (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Not good enough. If we only abide with the consensus we like, we're not abiding with the consensus. --Yaush (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Binksternet and STSC. Attempting to justify, cover up, or rationalise war-crimes of any sort is unacceptable for Wikipedia. David A (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that poor English and euphemistic expressions caused misunderstanding. So, I write directly. I neither agree nor oppose the section removal. Please remember the fact that I am the first who referred to the possibility of the section removal. I am just requesting you to propose. I do not know why you (plural) hesitate to propose the removal. NiceDay (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is a misunderstanding here. The section was removed because its contents were off topic. The removal of the section is supported by four editors here. One editor wants the section restored, but four outweigh one. That is why there is no need for a proposal to remove the section – it's already removed by consensus. Binksternet (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm hoping not to get drawn into this discussion, but I think that it may be useful for me to observe that this seems to be revisiting the earlier long discussion here. The current lead sentence of the article reads, "Comfort women were women and girls who were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army in occupied territories before and during World War II." My understanding is that some WP editors hold a strong opinion that this is the only correct usage for this term in the English language. I disagree, and I observe that some other WP articles and some outside sources do use the term in other senses, but I don't want to argue about it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a viewpoint that the term 'comfort women' is also about the Korean "comfort women" after WWII. Just do a search for "comfort women" on Google, we can hardly find a source that links 'comfort women' to the Korean "comfort women" after WWII.
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it." as stated in WP:UNDUE. STSC (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that there exists a consensus to remove the section NOW. But the consensus did not exist 'AT THE FIRST TIME when Mr/Ms Binksternet removed the section in 2015-07-02T19:40:56‎. NiceDay (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

May I add Korean Women's Volunteer Labour Corps in see also section ?

I'm translating Korean Women's Volunteer Labour Corps from ko:조선여자근로정신대 and I added Korean Women's Volunteer Labour Corps in see also section, because ko:조선여자근로정신대 is in ko:위안부#같이 보기(comfort women#see also). But Mr/Ms STSC undid it . May I add it again ? NiceDay (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

If that link is in Korean Wikipedia, it does not mean it should be also included everywhere. STSC (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that the link to this was removed from the article, as it's pretty directly related to the comfort women. Convincing young Korean women to work at factories overseas was one of the most common ways of deceiving them into becoming comfort women and there is a popular conception in Korea that the name of the Volunteer Labor Corps was frequently invoked for this purpose. This has lead to widespread misconception within Korea that the two are synonymous (the volunteer corps is the "unrelated factory program" mentioned in the article in the "Number of comfort women" section). This is true to the extent that "jeongsindae" (chongsindae) the Korean name for the corps is at least as commonly used as the Korean term for the comfort women as "wianbu" is. --Cckerberos (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I know the fact that many those workers eventually became comfort women but it's not the real reason for including the link in 'See Also' because the KWVLC article does not actually have such information. STSC (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a related topic that is included in any serious book dealing with the comfort women. That that information has not yet been added to the KWVLC article doesn't change that. If anything it just means that it should be added to that article (and to this one). And as an aside, Soh (2008) disagrees that many of those workers became comfort women. --Cckerberos (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no Primary source in the article. All the citations are Secondary sources and the diaries are "authentic and provide actual details of the brothels and the lives of “comfort women."[18]. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

My edit summary actually means the link to the article just about a book (primary source) is not appropriate for 'See also' in the 'Treatment of comfort women' section; for an example a link to another article that is mainly about the treatment of comfort women would be acceptable. However, I would not object that link to be included in the general 'See also' section. STSC (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Your reason is hardly persuasive because you are concealing your true reason. The lives of comfort women described in the article were not miserable at all. So the article is an inconvenient truth for you. However, as the most of such descriptions were deleted by your team,[19], there is not much cause for your concern. Your argument that the link is not inappropriate in the "Treatment of comfort women" section but appropriate in the "See also" section is logically inconsistent. If you insist to remove the link, please provide a relevant guideline supporting your argument.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Not miserable? How many forced acts of sex per day are required to make one miserable? Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Phoenix7777, I agree with STSC that the link should go in the general See Also section, not under the "Treatment of Comfort Women" section. Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
This is now settled by the consensus of 3 against 1. I shall not enter into any argument on the issue. STSC (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is not achieved by a vote. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Misleading Info

Under "Apologies and Compensation," the info makes it seem as if South Korean comfort women are constantly requesting and refusing compensation for their forced slavery. However, I have found a source that adds another specific reason why the Asian Women's Fund was refused by some survivors. Some considered it an insult as it was a private fund and not from the government.KwondaMasta (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just chiming in with a couple of sources supporting this: [20], [21]. Note the quote from Jan Ruff O'Herne in the second of these. It looks like there are lots of other relevant sources out there ([22]). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

book: "Comfort Women of the Empire"

A book that may be relevant for this article (or perhaps its own): Disputing Korean Narrative on ‘Comfort Women,’ a Professor Draws Fierce Backlash The Saturday Profile By CHOE SANG-HUN New York Times DEC. 18, 2015: "“Comfort Women of the Empire,” "Ms. Park’s book, published in Japan last year, won awards there." and "In February, a South Korean court ordered Ms. Park’s book, “Comfort Women of the Empire,” redacted in 34 sections where it found her guilty of defaming former comfort women with false facts." Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph?

I was surprised to fine the following paragraph within this article, since it does not provide a source for the "trend" and appears to veer towards opinion (albeit an opinion with which I agree). Should a source be added or the paragraph removed?

"In recent years it has become something of a trend in certain quarters of Japanese netizenry to excuse sexual slavery practiced by Imperial Japan by likening it to "ordinary" sexual misconduct on the part of soldiers of warring nations in general -- for example, Soviet soldiers in WWII Germany, American soldiers in the Middle East and South Korean soldiers in Vietnam; outside of Japan, however, this is seen as a transparent attempt to cloud the issue and disperse the blame that rightfully rests with the Japanese government. While it is true that soldiers commit rape and other crimes in war, the officially-sanctioned, systematic, large-scale sexual enslavement of female subject populations is a practice unique in modern history, practiced only by Imperial Japan." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjkistler (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Ugh. Indeed. Quite a plausible opinion, but definitely not something that ought to be in the article in this way. Thanks for flagging it up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Vietnamese comfort women for the Koreans in Vietnam

[23] Apparently, the Vietnamese women who serviced the 320,000 Korean troops who served with the US in the Vietnam conflict were also called "comfort women" according to the Japan Times article I cited, which is a reliable source. Since this article is titled, "Comfort women", not "Comfort women for the Japanese", then there is no other place to put this information than in this article. Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Here are some more sources: [24] [25] [26] [27] Cla68 (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
[28] I have read the above discussion, and there is not a clear consensus to remove that section, so I will readd it. Cla68 (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently, the Koreans coerced Vietnamese women to provide sexual services during the Korean War and coerced Korean women to provide services to Korean and American military during the Korean War. The sources I looked at all use the phrase "comfort women" to describe this situation. Again, since this article isn't titled "Comfort women for the Japanese" then this is where the information needs to go. Since it was apparently thousands of Korean and Vietnamese women who were forced by the Koreans to do this, I'm kind of wondering how some of you can claim that this is "undue" to include in this article. What happened to these women needs to be told and not suppressed. Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The consensus had been reached to remove the undue contents. I suggest you read the WP:UNDUE and put your edits in other articles regarding the Vietnam War. STSC (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Since this article is called "comfort women" and these women are called "comfort women" then this is where it goes. This issue appears to have been suppressed in Wikipedia until now. I'm kind of surprised by the pushback here and I've invited additional input from the GenderGap Task Force and WikiProject Feminism. Cla68 (talk) 05:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, this edit doesn't appear to be supported by the sources. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it" as stated in WP:UNDUE policy. STSC (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
You are referring to the thousands of women who were allegedly forced by the Koreans into sexual slavery as this "small or limited minority?" I don't think they would appreciate that characterization. Cla68 (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it does not mean that. There's only a very small minority of sources that borrow the term "comfort women" in other cases, therefore the 'Undue policy' comes into play. STSC (talk) 10:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
"Comfort women for the Japanese" is exactly the topic here. Only the Japanese institutionalized the practice, which separates their WWII effort from any other. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Your Nation of Change source is a reader's blog post, not a news blog which is official and made by an agent of the publication. Similarly, your iReport CNN source is a reader's post, specifically labeled "Not verified by CNN", just like his three other posts which are also not verified. Likewise, the Daily Koz source is a "diary" – a reader's contribution, and not reliable. Finally, your Asahi Shimbun article is primarily about the reactions of a few surviving WWII Japanese comfort women who are examining evidence of sexual violence in Vietnam during the Vietnam War; the Vietnamese women are referred to as "victims of sexual violence" whereas the Japanese program is the comfort women program, complete with a "system of brothels" etc. Binksternet (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Binksternet's belief is "an article about Comfort women should describe a terrible situation, anything which describes the opposite should not be included".[29][30] This clearly against WP:NPOV. See also Talk:Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

Since there are, apparently, more than three sources that document the use of comfort women by the Koreans in Korea and Vietnam, I suggest we start a separate article titled Comfort women of the Koreans and rename this one Comfort women of the Japanese. Then place at the top of each article a "see also" directing readers to the other article if that's what they're looking for. That should take care of the concerns for including it in this article. Cla68 (talk) 06:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No need. The content of your edits is not substantial enough to form an article. If time permits, I'll incorporate some detail of your edits into the articles on Korean War and Vietnam War. STSC (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind creating a new article on the topic. I have access to some commercial library databases, so I'll see what else I can find on the topic beyond the five sources already located. Once that's done, all you'll need to do is link to the article from this and the Korean and Vietnamese War articles. Cla68 (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
There's room to write articles about forced prostitution for other armies than Imperial Japan's. Since every other case of forced prostitution is radically different than Japan's, lacking the high level organization of housing, shipping and supply, this article continues to be about Japan's sophisticated program. Japan's program is the main topic for the term "comfort women". Comparisons between Japan's huge program and the much smaller cases for other armies may be made in this article, but the point is not to lessen Japan's guilt. The great majority of sources talking about Japan's guilt outweigh everything else that has some small resemblance. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Translation- NO!!! DON'T POINT OUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN JAPAN!!!! Seriously, you are currently looking like the posterchild that those who would deny Japan's guilt would hold up as why this topic is anti-Japanese. If we're stating something is undue, show that it is indeed undue. Otherwise, I see no issue with either inclusion OR renaming.--Jusenkyoguide (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Binksternet, what do we care if Japan is more guilty or not? We don't take sides on these issues. And, I don't think I suggested altering anything in this article about Japan's comfort women, so you're using a straw man argument. I only said, that because this article is called "Comfort women", and the sources are using the same title to refer to the women who provided sexual services for the Koreans in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, then this is where information on that issue also belongs. However, I'm just as willing, as I said above, to create separate articles. Cla68 (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Sexual violence and forced prostitution happened in many wars. You're of course free to create any article on the issues but you'll have to find better sources than the ones you provided which are mostly from blogs. STSC (talk) 06:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree about this. If you can find considerably more reliable sources than obscure blog posts, then by all means, create another article. No war crimes should be hidden from public view, but this article is specifically focused on Japan. David A (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is a book reference and this is an open letter to the UN by former Vietnamese comfort women of the Koreans asking for an investigation. Looks like they've started a petition about it on Change.org. Cla68 (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
My feeling is that if a source refers to people as comfort women then they belong in this article. Even if people were unaware of different nations wartime acts, when the article was first written, they have become relevant now. Of course because of the balance of sources, the focus should be on the Japanese use of comfort women, but it is wrong to exclude other mentions if there are good sources. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Your sources are not good sources, please read user Binksternet's comment above about the sources. STSC (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
"Your Nation of Change source is a reader's blog post, not a news blog which is official and made by an agent of the publication. Similarly, your iReport CNN source is a reader's post, specifically labeled "Not verified by CNN"... Likewise, the Daily Koz source is a "diary" – a reader's contribution, and not reliable." STSC (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I didn't notice that, thanks. [1] this source seems more reliable. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=CmaWblhxJsEC&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=korean+comfort+women+in+vietnam&source=bl&ots=WWmfWy8z5c&sig=MOFnW-QtDdcvuhofyFMzsxZ4LYY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwADgUahUKEwiXxNWD54LJAhXCMqYKHdX8DFY#v=onepage&q=korean%20comfort%20women%20in%20vietnam&f=false
Park Yu-ha is well-known for her dissentient view on comfort women. STSC (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
As a professor in Sejong University, and in particular her research on Japan-Korea relationships, her work might be a perfect source to give the article some form of balance. Also, is her work considered to be a minority view world-wide, only in Korea? or only in Asian countries with anti-Japanese sentiment? Either way, considering her background, it wouldn't count as a fringe theory. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Her view is in the minority in Korea and mostly concerning Korea; I would not object to mentioning her in the 'Controversies' section. STSC (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Source for the picture, "Chinese and Malayan girls forcibly taken from Penang"

The girls being "comfort women" and being "forcibly taken" are doubtful. A boy is with her mother. It is insulting for those women to be captioned as comfort women if those women were not actually comfort women. This notion should include sufficient source or otherwise, this notion should be deleted.RonSlusky (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@RonSlusky: the answer is in the source. You can click on the photo and see the source: Imperial War Museums. It is the original description provided for the photo by the museum. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 12:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Teemeah: Then, I believe "Chinese and Malayan girls forcibly taken from Penang by the Japanese to work as 'comfort girls' for the troops" should be changed to "Imperial War Museums describe this photograph as Chinese and Malayan girls forcibly taken from Penang by the Japanese to work as 'comfort girls' for the troops". Two women are smoking cigarette and there is a boy and those women don't look like they were forcibly taken. It may cause defamation against those women to be captioned as comfort girls if they were not. I believe that Wikipedia should not just "copy" words from a web page of a museum. RonSlusky (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You know, just because you believe something, it's not going to be true. Or because you think they don't look like something. This is an encyclopedia, based on sources not a church, where you believe things. We are not going to change the description provided by a reliable source just because you think these women look like something to you. This is not a guessing game here. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 08:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a source cited in this article in support of that caption, so it appears to be unsupported here. I looked at the info at File:The Allied Reoccupation of the Andaman Islands, 1945 SE5226.jpg, at the source cited there, and at another source mentioned there as the source for the photo, and I didn't see any support for that caption. I've added a {{cn}} tag to the caption. Did I miss seeing the reliable source to which you refer? If I did, please cite it. If not, the existing caption may be removed or rewritten as something supportable per WP:BURDEN. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The 'Imperial War Museums' of London is a reliable source and they provided that description for that image; just what are you disputing? STSC (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not disputing anything. As far as I am concerned, this is not a content dispute. I am not disputing that the image was sourced from The 'Imperial War Museums' of London. I am pointing out that the image description provided by the editor who uploaded the image is not a reliable description, and would not be considered such if it were cited in support of its repetition in the caption being discussed here. A reliable source supporting that description may exist, but it has not been cited in the article and I was unable to find it on a quick bit of digging. I am pointing out that WP:BURDEN says, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.", and I am saying that a reliable source which supports the assertion in the image caption be cited in this article in support of that assertion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
You claim you looked at the source and could not find the description reliable? The source, which is the Imperial War Museum, has the exact same image description: [31]. You basically claim that the Imperial War Museums is not a reliable source for this image description. What makes you think so? Please provide sources that the Imperial War Museums are not trustworty with their content. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 08:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I asked, "Did I miss seeing the reliable source to which you refer?" I now see that I must have. I had seen the same on rechecking and was about to add that cite myself. Thank you for citing a supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@Teemeah: I understood your position. RonSlusky (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
It is possible to argue that even if IWM London is a reliable source, a simple two-line description without any supporting information is not -- just as a children's science book written by a reputable physicist is not regarded as a reliable source for encyclopedia. I do not insist on the removal of the picture, but would like to point out that there must be a better source. If IWM is a reliable source, I would expect them to have checked the facts, and the relevant records should be kept in their archive. I hope someone will somehow dig them up and add the information to the article. (I tried myself, but with my limited language skills and access to English sources, I failed.) --Dwy (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Number of comfort women who were forced into sexual slavery

This article defines comfort women as "Comfort women were women and girls who were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army ..." However, it mentions the numbers as "ranging from as low as 20,000 (by Japanese historian Ikuhiko Hata[6]) to as high as ..." Ikuhiko Hata did not mention the number 20,000 as "comfort women who were women and girls who were forced into sexual slavery". He mentioned the number as "comfort women who engaged in prostitution in general". A widely acknowledged view of "comfort women who were forced into sexual slavery" in Japan is that only the cases of Dutch comfort women were forced into sexual slavery. The number is dozens. Thus, "ranging from as low as 20,000 (by Japanese historian Ikuhiko Hata[6])" should be changed to "ranging from as low as dozens (number for Dutch comfort women)"RonSlusky (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Please find and cite a source for "dozens". I fear that it is your own personal reckoning and not representative of scholarly research. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
@Binksternet: Here are some sources. "This compares to the punishments including the death penalty, which the 1948 Dutch military tribunal served on nine Japanese army personnel who were responsible for the sexual slavery of 35 Dutch women during the war period (Howard, 1995)." [32], "In 1948, thirteen Japanese soldiers were punished by the Batavia Court for forcing about 35 Dutch women to become ‘Comfort Women’ in Indonesia during the Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies."[33] "approximately 35 Dutch women and women of mixed race were forcibly taken as comfort women from ..."[34] Therefore, I propose changing to "ranging from as low as 35 (number for Dutch comfort women)". RonSlusky (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@Binksternet: According to a Japanese wikipedia article on the Dutch comfort women case [35], the number 35 is from documents in Batavia trials (Case No. 69), and the documents can be accessed at Japanese National Archives. RonSlusky (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@Binksternet: There is an English article by the Japanese historian Ikuhiko Hata [36]. It cites Ms. O'Herne's statement that she was taken forcibly but mentions that there are misconceptions about comfort women on organized or forced recruitment in general. RonSlusky (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to change this part, "ranging from as low as 20,000 (by Japanese historian Ikuhiko Hata[6])" to "ranging from as low as 35 (a number for Dutch comfort women)". If there are any objections or any suggestions, please write here with a reason. RonSlusky (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

35 is the number of confirmed cases that one specific group of perpetrators in one specific incident were charged with. There is no way you could pass that off as an estimate of the total number everywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
As you can understand from the above article by the Japanese historian Ikuhiko Hata [37], he regards women who were forcibly taken by Japanese military as only the Dutch comfort women. In any case, current description of his estimation that 20,000 women being forcibly taken by Japanese military is wrong. We need to either correct (including deleting) the number or change the definition of comfort women. The latter has been already discussed here many times. RonSlusky (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Now, I understood what you meant. You are right. The sentence begins with "Estimates vary ..." It seems we have to find another expression. RonSlusky (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

To me, it appears that the problem lies in the definition of "comfort women" rather than their number. Since most comfort women were recruited by private agents, and not directly by the Japanese military, "forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army" does not reflect the reality. --Dwy (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be the crux of the matter. There's a sentence early on in this section of the Talk page which highlights the point:

A widely acknowledged view of "comfort women who were forced into sexual slavery" in Japan is that only the cases of Dutch comfort women were forced into sexual slavery.

I don't know what the sources for this are, but prima facie this would seem to contradict the recent agreement between Japan and South Korea. (Japan is to fund the 46 former "comfort women" forced to work in Japanese brothels during World War Two who are still alive in South Korea, according to the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-35188135 ) Given that the Japanese government seems not to support the view that only Dutch women were enslaved, we would need some reliable sources for this to be able to use it in the article. Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The official position of the Japanese government is "The then Japanese military was, directly or indirectly, involved in the establishment and management of the comfort stations," but "The recruitment of the comfort women was conducted mainly by private recruiters."
  • According to Argibay cited in the article, the means of recruitment included deception (by private recruiters) and indentured servitude (then not illegal). In cases where the private recruiters took advantage of the ignorance of young girls to make them to sign a contract to serve as a prostitute, or where girls were sold by their parents to private agents to pay off their family debt, I am not sure how much responsibility the Japanese military must assume. In these cases, I would hesitate to say "forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army."
  • The article says the number of comfort women were estimated based on "the ratio of the number of soldiers ... to the number of women, as well as ... replacement rates of the women." Apparently, the estimates include Japanese prostitutes, who, the article says, volunteered. I would also imagine that some of the ianfu from other countries made their own decision to take the good pay offered to ianfu. I don't know if it is appropriate to include those women in the number.--Dwy (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Stop trying to figure out a number. We have been and will continue to use numbers published in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
We do need to correct (or delete) the wrong number that Ikuhiko Hata regards as women who were forcibly taken. RonSlusky (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I am not trying to figure out a number, and I have no objection to using the numbers in the RS. I am just pointing out that the numbers in the RS clearly include those who were not "forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army", and it is not consistent with the definition of comfort women in the article.
As I said earlier, I am of the opinion that the definition, rather than the number, is the problem. I think that comfort women should more appropriately be defined as "girls and women who were taken to the Japanese military brothels and forced to perform sexual services for the Imperial Japanese Army in occupied territories before and during World War II." As a matter of fact, this definition is actually more consistent with the description in the source cited in the article than the definition in the current version.--Dwy (talk) 07:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In Dec. 1997, after the Kono Statement and series of investigations on forced recruitment, the Japanese government issued a cabinet decision that they have found no materials directly showing that (Korean comfort women) were forcibly taken by military or authorities.[38] In 2007, they issued another cabinet decision confirming the same. RonSlusky (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@Polly Tunnel:Why do you think the recent agreement contradicts? The Japanese government has applogized many times but they never mentioned or agreed that those Korean women were forcively taken by the Japanese military or Japanese authories then. Kono Statement admits that there were some women who were forcively taken by the Japanese military or authorities, but after that, the Japanese government has replied in the Diet that they had not found such cases other than the Dutch case (so the Kono Statement refers to Dutch case). There are many other reasons why the Japanese government has appologized (e.g. those women are a result of the war and the annexation). Further, it is Ikuhiko Hata's position that many of those women were forced to work by their parents (for their debt) or being deceived by private recuiters in Korea then [39] so BBC's wording of 'forced to work' is not completely wrong from his view. RonSlusky (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The contradiction I was referring to is between the BBC's use of the term "comfort women" to include the 46 surviving Korean women and the alternative use of the term which covers only the 35 Dutch women. The difference in definition is the key, as is indicated in a linked BBC article on terminology. They say:

One of the main debates in Japan about "comfort women" has been whether or not they should be called "sex slaves". Some argue that they chose to work for the Japanese army, lured by high salaries, citing a job advertisement from the 1930s.

The BBC clearly define comfort women in a way which does not necessarily only include those who were enslaved. This seems consistent with other sources. The Japanese government does not appear to deny the existence of non-Dutch comfort women. Instead it is concerned about whether the comfort women were enslaved and what culpability the Japanese government may or may not have.
As this article is called "comfort women" it should presumably cover all comfort women - Dutch, enslaved or otherwise. This article's opening definition ("forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army") is presumably intended to be interpreted broadly, with compulsion by the Army occurring at any stage in the process. As the BBC go on to say:

Others say that if the women were not allowed to leave freely, that is enough to constitute slavery.

However, the preposition into ("forced into sexual slavery") can be interpreted as implying the recruitment stage only. To avoid any such ambiguity we could begin with a definition such as the BBC's "forced to work in Japanese wartime military brothels" Equally we could use Dwy's suggestion: "taken to the Japanese military brothels and forced to perform sexual services". Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you. RonSlusky (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

As Fut.Perf. has pointed out, 35 is not an estimated number so I decline writing 35 as an estimate. However, since Ikuhiko Hata did not estimate 20,000 as the comfort women as defined in this article, the description "20,000 (by Japanese historian Ikuhiko Hata)" is wrong and should be deleted. Leaving only the highest estimated number of 360,000 to 410,000 (by a Chinese scholar) seems inappropriate. Therefore, I propose deleting the numbers in this sentence. "Estimates vary as to how many women were involved, with numbers ranging from as low as 20,000 (by Japanese historian Ikuhiko Hata) to as high as 360,000 to 410,000 (by a Chinese scholar)". Please write here if you have any objections or comments. RonSlusky (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Your point that Hata did not estimate 20,000 comfort women as this article defines comfort women seems to be based on reasoning that because (a) the article's lead sentence asserts, "Comfort women were women and girls who were forced into sexual slavery ..." and (b) Hata has contended here that none of the comfort women were forcibly recruited, it must be concluded that the 20,000 comfort women Hata refers to who were not forcibly recruited must some women other than the forcibly recruited comfort women discussed in this article. I think that it is an error to conflate the question of whether or not any, all, or some portion of comfort women were forcibly recruited together with an estimate of the number of comfort women. Hata's estimate is explained pages 10-11 of this source cited in support of the article's assertions regarding Hata's estimate, his estimate is explained. It involves assumptions abut the size of the army and and about the ratio between the number of soldiers and the number of comfort woman (regardless of how the comfort woman came to be in their situation). Also, the opinion of a Wilipedia editor that a cited source outside of Wikipedia "is wrong" is not a valid reason for removal of content supported by a citation of that source -- please see WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This is non-issue. "Comfort women were women and girls who were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army" refers to all those comfort women who were forced into sexy slavery during the whole process of "comfort women" slavery system, i.e., everyday they were forced to serve as a sex slave in Japanese military "comfort stations". The number of comfort women includes all the comfort women enslaved by the Japanese military regardless how the women and girls were captured. STSC (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Hata estimated the number of comfort women to be around 20,000, of whom 40% were Japanese. The article describes them as "Japanese volunteers." Nobody forced them into sexual slavery -- their creditors may have demanded, their parents may have asked, but It was basically of their own making -- even if the Japanese Imperial Army was responsible for establishing and maintaining the hell in which they fell.
Another example. In Dutch East Indies, 200 to 300 European women were put to work in the Japanese military brothels. The Dutch Government commissioned study report, concluded that of the 200 to 300 European women, some 65 were most certainly forced into prostitution, but "the majority of the women concerned does not belong to the group of women forced into prostitution." According to STSC's explanation above, were the majority of comfort women there forced into sexual slavery, but not into prostitution? It sounds a bit weird to me. I think we need to work out better wording for the definition than "forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army."--Dwy (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)!
STSC, what you wrote is your understanding and not Hata's. Hata's estimation should not be used as an estimation for people Hata had not intended. RonSlusky (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • This article describes an estimation of Hata for another group of people. Even though this source mentions "comfort women", Hata did not estimate the number for women as defined in this article. Ianfu in Japanese language means "women who engaged in sexual services for military in general". It is an issue if this Wikipedia article describes as an estimation for women as defined in this article an estimation for another group of people. With the definition "Comfort women were women and girls who were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army ..." and the description, "Estimates vary as to how many women were involved, with numbers ranging from as low as 20,000", readers of this article understands that Hata estimates the number of the defined women as 20,000 and there are no studies that the number is far less. This contradicts with Sarah Soh's studies and Park Yu-ha's studies. In other words, this article should not write that there are no studies such as Sarah Soh's and Park Yu-ha's. Thus, the description should be deleted or corrected. RonSlusky (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that there is still an open proposal from RonSlusky on the table. I will requote from above:

I propose deleting the numbers in this sentence. "Estimates vary as to how many women were involved, with numbers ranging from as low as 20,000 (by Japanese historian Ikuhiko Hata) to as high as 360,000 to 410,000 (by a Chinese scholar)".

There have been comments by several editors, including myself, but nobody has spoken directly to the proposal. I'll rephrase my comments above in that form below:

Oppose removal - Per my comments (here). Also, it would be WP:SYNTHESIS to conflate Hata's estimate on pages 10-11 here with his assertions here that no comfort women were forcibly recruited without citing a secondary source tying them together. Two comments: (1) If this article limits itself narrowly to the topic of "women and girls who were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army ..." (per the lead sentence), and if some women providing sexual similar sexual services were doing so voluntarily, then a note may be needed clarifying the point that Hata's estimate did not distinguish between women working voluntarily and women who were forced. (2) Perhaps the details of the differing estimates would be better placed in the Controversies section instead of in the lead. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for requoting my proposal. I'd like to add a comment regarding the source tying together. The 20,000 estimate of Hata is in his book, "Ianfu to senjo no sei" published in 1999 [40]. In his book, he used the word "ianfu" in a broad meaning and did not estimate "ianfu" as defined in this article. RonSlusky (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Strong oppose - per user Wtmitchelle. We don't change everything for the sake of Hata; a note can be inserted regarding Hata's estimate. STSC (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for writing your view. I'm not proposing for the sake of Hata (but I also think that nobody has a right to uncorrectly use Hata' estimation). I'm proposing the removal (or correction) because the article writes an estimation for different group of people as a result of WP:SYNTHESIS as explained by Dwy. RonSlusky (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 Comment: RonSlusky's proposal has nothing to do with WP:SYNTHESIS as he is not proposing to add synthesized information, or any information for that matter. On the other hand, it is clear that WP:SYNTHESIS is in the current version of the article; by presenting side by side (1) rather unorthodox definition of comfort women and (2) Hata's and others' estimation based on somewhat different understanding of comfort women, the article is giving false impression that Hata and others estimated the numbers based on the rather uncommon definition of comfort women in the article. RonSlusky's proposal for removal is therefore perfectly logical.
Having said that, I do not spport his proposal because, as stated above, I am of the opinion that we should revise the definition, rather than remove the synthesized information.--Dwy (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you should express your position based on the current definition. RonSlusky (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose removal The main problem I see with the proposal as it stands is that the contradiction will still remain in the Number of comfort women section of the article, where it says "…most international media sources quote about 200,000 young women were kidnapped by Japanese soldiers to serve in Japanese military brothels. The BBC quotes "200,000 to 300,000"…". In the source cited, however, the BBC instead phrases it as "…forced to work as sex slaves in Japanese military brothels". If we remove the estimates of numbers from the lead, we should presumably also remove them from the Number of comfort women section. Do any of us actually want this? It will be a strange article if it gives no idea of the scale of the issue. None of this will be necessary if we change the definition, and so far nobody seems to have explicitly opposed such a change. If it is permissible I would like table the counterproposal that we use Dwy's definition: "Comfort women were girls and women who were taken to the Japanese military brothels and forced to perform sexual services for the Imperial Japanese Army in occupied territories before and during World War II." Until such a change has been considered I would oppose the proposal to delete the numbers. Polly Tunnel (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any objections if the definition is changed. BBC's definition may be better as it is simple. Would you propose the change of the definition below by creating another section? RonSlusky (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
OK. See Proposal to change this article's definition of "comfort women" (new section, below). Polly Tunnel (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to change this article's definition of "comfort women"

The section above (Number of comfort women who were forced into sexual slavery) discusses at length the issues concerning the implications of the definition of "comfort women" used by this article upon estimates of their numbers. I have suggested widening the definition to match that used by mainstream media (and indeed other Wikipedia articles such as the sexual slavery one). This is to ensure that we can then use the estimates of numbers that are given in those media. RonSlusky suggested that I create this new section to make the proposal. I have chosen a form of words which minimises the change to the sentence by replacing the problematic "forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army" with the BBC's words "forced to work as sex slaves in Japanese military brothels" (taken from this article). Please provide your comments below:

I propose changing the opening sentence of this article as follows: "Comfort women were women and girls who were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army to work as sex slaves in Japanese military brothels in occupied territories before and during World War II."

Polly Tunnel (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Now it is apparent that the Japanese government has objection to calling comfort women "sex slaves". Moreover Asahi Newspaper admitted and apologised their fabrication about comfort women. The fact is so-called "comfort women" were just only prostitutes for soldiers. They charged Japanese (some of them were Korean and Taiwanese) a large amount of money. [41][42] [43] I don't think it is NPOV to include the term "sex slaves" in the definition; the controversy over "sex slaves" should be described in a neutral manner later in the article. As for the definition, I would like to make an alternative proposal as follows:

I propose changing the opening sentence of this article as follows: "Comfort women were women and girls who were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army to provide sexual services in Japanese military brothels in occupied territories before and during World War II."

--Dwy (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is like calling an apple "the fruit of a Malus tree" instead of calling it an apple. There are plenty of trustworthy sources attesting that these women were sex slaves, whether the Japanese government refuses to use the term or not. That can be included in the article, that the japanese govt does not accept the sex slave term. We are an encylopedia, not a political forum, to "tone down" expressions because some party or another doesn't like it. Neutrality does not mean we need to change definitions accepted by majority of the scholars dealing with the topic, bubt it means we include all points of views, including that of the scholars and the Japanese government, too. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 13:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Since it has come out recently that the Korean government also used sex slaves/comfort women during the Korean and Vietnam wars, it is especially important that we get the naming convention right in this article. Cla68 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A problem with including "sex slaves" in the definitions is that the interpretation of the term veries from one person to another. You may argue that all prostitutes are sex slaves; or that prostitutes are not sex slaves because they are paid; and there are any number of variations in between. "Sex slaves" therefore will not help define "comfort woman." It will rather increase the ambiguity.--Dwy (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
They were held there against their will. Taken by force from villages and towns and forced to provide sexual servies. Sorry, but that is not the definition of prostitution. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 07:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done – No consensus. Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Vietnamese comfort women

I didn't know anything about the vietnamese comfort women issue until today, so I did a little research. It seems there are enough sources to make this notable, reliable and relevant to this article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Cla68 (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Number Fix and Unused Citation

Hi. Two points. First, could someone please fix the faulty numbers in the final opening paragraph? At present it claims: "Between 100,00 and 200,000 Korean girls and women were recruited." The first number is not an amount (unless it is meant to represent "100" in which case it's a question of inconsistent use of commas between the first and second amount.

Second, I have a source which I feel could be utilized in this article which provides quite strong proof (from Japanese sources, no less) that sexual slavery of women by the Imperial Armed Forces of Japan did in fact take place in at least one location. Here's the link:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/03/23/national/imperial-army-paid-to-hush-up-sex-slaves/#.Uy7lLmdj51k

I hope someone is able to use this report, since it claims both sexual slavery and its cover-up by Army officials afterwards. Thank you very much153.229.105.43 (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Number changed. Tagging user:Binksternet as a courtesy to confirm the source says 100,000 and not one hundred point zero Koreans. Blackguard 07:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we have multiple sources for an estimated range of 100,000 to 200,000 victims. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Comfort women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Comfort women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

More on the consulate statue

CNN: [44] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women/Archive_7&oldid=1136629651"