Talk:Comfort Woman

Images inserted

These pictures are real comfort women.　Why did you remove these pictures?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Usagidot (talk • contribs) 01:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disambiguation page. It should not have images of any kind. It should only contain links that clear up confusion between several different articles with similar names. Knuthove (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page explanation is totally wrong. How to proof without images? Usagidot (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)usagidot[reply]

The explanation on this page is just a very short description of the main articles that are linked from this disambiguation page. If the article is changed so much that the description is no longer correct, then the summary here should be changed to reflect that. It should not change unless the linked article changes substantially. For other examples of disambiguation pages, see for example Japanese or Macbeth (disambiguation). Knuthove (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I updated because this explanation is wrong. Comfort women/woman means "prostitutes" in Japanese. Okay? Usagidot (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)usagidot[reply]

I agree that the current description also does not reflect a neutral point of view. As I wrote on Ianfu, I think the main article on comfort women makes it clear that there were both more or less voluntary prostitutes, and forced sex slaves among the women. So I think the neutral point of view would be something like what I wrote on that page. For example: "Comfort woman were the prostitutes and women forced into sexual slavery for the Imperial Japanese Army during World War II". Would that version be acceptable to you? Knuthove (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't try to reason with this person who is attempting to diminish the sex slavery aspect of the comfort women program, and increase the voluntary prostitute aspect, using images to do so. The images are not useful for that purpose; this person needs WP:SECONDARY sources to argue the position. And this person is trying to get a WP:POVFORK going, such that the comfort women article says one thing, while related pages say another. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I also gave up after a while. He is very clearly pushing a POV of diminishing the WWII Japanese war crimes. Thank you for pointing out that images are primary sources, and thank you for the "POVFORK" page! I am still learning the details of Wikipedia policy, and those two are precisely what I should have referred to here! Knuthove (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]