Jump to content

Talk:Comfort women/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Historical stuff

I'm surprised the latest work on the issue by Cunghee Sarah Soh was not integrated into the article at all. I rewrote the lede and started a stub of a "History of the issue" section, but others are welcome to expand on it. Shii (tock) 00:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for being very WP:BOLD with the lede, I sometimes do silly stuff early in the morning. I'm absolutely okay with people reverting the lede and stuff but I hope my addition of the C. Sarah Soh references is useful for adding context for readers. Shii (tock) 10:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

POV and Voluntary vs. Involuntary nature of comfort women

The discussion of this issue above is too disorganized and broad to make my point, so I'm starting a new section here. My point is simply that the point of view that comfort women were 'forced' in general is incorrect and misleading. Some may have been forced, and there are some accounts of it, but with respect to Korean comfort women especially, most were voluntarily working prostitutes.

The first citation in the article, to the Soh book, is a good example. If you look at her discussion of the many cases in which former comfort women changed their stories or lied about being forcibly recruited, you can see that even an apparently very left-wing author has to admit that the evidence of forcible recruitment (in the case of Korea at least) is slim. Her conclusion is essentially that some appear to have been forced into it, but most were not.

Based on this view, the introductory paragraphs of the article giving a definition of 'comfort women' as those 'forced' into prostitution by the Japanese is clearly misleading, because at the very least it implies that most or all were forced into it. I think this needs to be revised to give a more accurate picture. It should allow that although some were forced, most did it voluntarily. Torokun (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are basing your conclusion solely on the Soh book then you are not seeing the whole picture.
  • "Between 100,000 and 200,000 women were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military between the early 1930s and 1945." True stories of the Korean comfort women: testimonies ISBN 0304332623
  • "According to Kathleen Barry (1984), female sexual slavery is present in a social condition of sexual exploitation and violence from which a woman or a girl cannot escape. Testimonies of former comfort women reveal that they were forced... There is no way to determine precisely how many women were forced to serve as comfort women, but estimates range between 70,000 and 200,000—about 80 percent of them were Korean." The historical encyclopedia of world slavery ISBN 0874368855
  • "During World War II the Japanese military enslaved some 200,000 women from occupied territories, forcing them to serve as comfort women in brothels operated and used by military personnel." Women and War: A Historical Encyclopedia from Antiquity to the Present ISBN 1851097708
  • In Southeast Asia: "Japan occupied much of the region and forcibly recruited thousands of women... Most of the comfort women were forced to perform a dozen or more times a day and were beaten..." Routledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and Knowledge ISBN 0203800974
  • "142,000 Korean comfort women died. The Japanese soldiers killed them." Diet Representative Seijuro Arahune, 1975. "Under the comfort women system, an estimated two hundred thousand women were held as sex slaves for the Japanese Imperial Army. Through abduction, coercion, and false promises, women and girls as young as twelve were taken... Each was then raped by soldiers and officers some fifteen to thirty times a day." When Sorry Isn't Enough: The Controversy Over Apologies and Reparations for Human Injustice ISBN 0814713327
  • "Between 50,000 and 200,000 women staffed more than 1,000 comfort stations... The vast majority of them were between 14 and 18 years old... Some were deceived by promises of good jobs, others were taken from their families in payment of debts, and more were simply kidnapped by force. The Japanese argued that women were willing to serve, but the number of volunteers in the girls' army was quite small. Even if a woman chose to accompany the troops, it was a decision rooted in economic deprivation and fear for the welfare of her family who were terrorized by local police." Encyclopedia of Rape ISBN 0313326878
  • "During World War II, approximately 200,000 women from all over the Asia-Pacific region were kept in rape camps (peculiarly called 'comfort stations') and forced to provide sexual services to Japanese soldiers. These women were rarely purchased or sold; they were kidnapped, coerced and deceived into sexual slavery." Supranational Criminal Prosecution of Sexual Violence ISBN 9050955339
  • "In the Philippines... an extremely large number of women were forcibly seized by the Japanese Army." Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military During World War II ISBN 023112032X
  • "A large number of women who were not prostitutes appear to have been forced to render sexual service to the Japanese troops." Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery & Prostitution During World War II & the US Occupation ISBN 0415194008
  • "The most common expedient used in Korea and Taiwan was deceit—false promises of employment... In Indonesia... deceit was also a common tactic... In the Philippines the Japanese troops directly secured 'comfort women.' Furthermore, their methods were wanton: abduction, rape, and continuous confinement for the purpose of sexual exploitation." Comfort Woman: A Filipina's Story of Prostitution and Slavery Under the Japanese Military ISBN 0847691489
This gives a wider view. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's only testimonies.
  • "According to"
  • "Women and War" is "Collection of testimony"
  • "ISBN 0203800974" isn't exist
  • There is no Physical Evidence of any kind in Seijuro Arahune(荒舩清十郎)'s remarks. It's already found that lied in order to show the results political excessively. First of all, he said "Japan has outrageous things against South Korea. However, I have to discount the $ 100 billion in grant aid." It is inconsistent with the S.Korea's claims "Japan still don't compensate". Prior to that, Japan made a grant of $ 300 billion for South Korea. It is full of lies.
  • "Encyclopedia of Rape" : There is no "Physical Evidence". It is present the alert flyers that "Increasing the number of police officers because many Korean vendors take to the comfort station deceiving women". 軍慰安所従業婦等募集ニ関スル件
  • "Supranational Criminal Prosecution of Sexual Violence" : There is no "Physical Evidence".
  • "Comfort Women" : Yoshimi Yoshiaki....Iwant to see a scene in which he will submit the Physical Evidence at least once. It's nothing but a few criminal acts proof.
  • Tanaka Yuki's book was quote the Yoshida Seiji's book "My war crime(私の戦争犯罪)" that Yoshida himself was said to lie.
  • In the Philippines, there was such a case. And Japanese forces punished the criminal by the death penalty. And the book is not evidence that the Japanese military abduction to take the lead.Wingwrong★ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 09:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
One case in the Philippines? Just one? That's where there were the most obvious rapes, the most obvious direct action by the army rather than going through intermediaries. If you are questioning the Philippines you are way off the mark. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have read through this discussion although I am not fully aware of this talk, still. So what is the core contents of you guys? It's likely to offend many people in greater scope. It's full of conservative politicians' idea. There are no physical evidences? Are you sure about this issue? Second, FEW criminal issues. Just search Youtube. I will keep keen eye on this biased talk. Mar del Este (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Comfort Women are generally defined as women who provided sexual services to men in the Imperial Japanese Navy and Army, as well as civilians working for the military in the territories occupied by the Imperial Japanese Military at wartime brothels in the 1930's and 1940's. A narrower definition puts more emphasis on the coercive aspect.[1] The term is also used for the women engaged by the South Korean government for sexual services for US Military personnel in the 1950's [2].

It seems like this opening paragraph gives too much weight to the view that the "comfort women" were largely voluntary, paid prostitutes. Although that may have been the case for some, AFAIK the overwhelming majority of credible sources show that the Imperial Japanese Army maintained a massive system of sexual slavery and that voluntary prostitues were a small minority only. The opposing viewpoint seems to come from revisionist Japanese nationalists only. In addtion although the term may have also been used by brothels maintained by South Korea for use by Americans in the Korean War, that seems like a seperate issue. 206.213.251.31 (talk) 01:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all your points. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the OP, I hesitate to make any edits for fear of triggering an edit war, but a better opening sentence would be something to the effect of: "The term comform women is most commonly used to refer to women who were forced into prostitution to service the Imperial Japanese military during the second world war." Other usages of the term, or the debate over how many were voluntary or how many were enslaved should go later in the article. AnarchistMatt (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the idea that we should try to avoid an edit war :). I'm still thinking about the opening paragraph. I have no problem emphasizing the idea of "forced into prostitution" being the dominant theory, but I don't think we should go so far as to define it that way. I also don't think we should leave out the Korean military compulsion either, as I believe the term is commonly used for that purpose, too (though less often). Let's try to craft a changed version here before editing the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
To me, the mention of South Korean military prostitution in the 1950s, without any further information in the body of the article, comes across as the intellectual equivalent of a drive-by shooting. It's simply out of place here. --Yaush (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
To me, a source-supported assertion that the term Comfort women was used to describe women providing sexual services for US Military personnel in Korea in the 1950s is not out of place in the opening paragraph of an article titled "Comfort women". This paper (published as Modern-Day Comfort Women: The U.S. Military, Transnational Crime, and the Trafficking of Women, Violence Against Women September 2007 13: 901-922 here and elsewhere) says, "several sources say that some of the original 'comfort women' used by the Japanese army were in turn used by U.S. troops following the defeat of Japan (Kim, 1997). The experiences of the women are similar; except now, the U.S. troops refer to them by other euphemistic and derogatory terms, such as 'guest relations officer,' 'bar girls,' 'hostesses,' 'entertainers,' and 'juicy girls' (Kim, 1997; Donato, 2002; Demick, 2002." The paper contains full cites for those sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Huh, for some reason I thought that info was in the body. Info (except for basic factual info) should never be in the lead and not the body, and thus I support removal of that info from there. However, if based on the source that Wtmitchell provides we can pull together a quality paragraph or two in the body, then keeping a sentence in the lead is fine, though the lower prominence means it should probably go farther down the lead. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like someone edited it: the new lead seems better, but still not perfect: Comfort women were women and girls forced into a prostitution corps created by the Empire of Japan.[1] The name "comfort women" is a translation of a Japanese name ianfu (慰安婦).[2][3] Ianfu is a euphemism for shōfu (娼婦) whose meaning is "prostitute(s)".[4] The earliest reporting on the issue in South Korea stated it was not a voluntary force,[5] and since 1989 a number of women have come forward testifying they were kidnapped by Imperial Japanese soldiers.
I think the reference to South Korea could be put back in if a paragraph expanding it can be put in the body. 206.213.209.31 (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 May 2013

Please add reference to the following documentaries:

- animation documentary "Her story", here is a link to the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phZQudarZP0

- Documentary called "50 years of silence", directed by Ned Lander, Carol Ruff and James Bradley


Thank you

Peksemi

Peksemi (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No thanks, unless you can show that this clearly, unequivocally meets WP:ELYES. Who was the filmmaker? What credentials do they have to make us believe their reporting is accurate--that those are, in fact, actual recorded voices of Comfort women, and that the translations are at all accurate? Who produced the film--is it an advocacy group, or a respected documentary producer? Also, does this video offer resources that are somehow better than other, more "normal" resources (texts, the actual recordings, etc.)? Finally, is the uploader of the film the copyright owner? Note that while the beginning questions can be a matter of debate, unless we are 100% certain that the uploader is the copyright owner, we cannot even consider linking to it per our policy on copyrights. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Her story has factual errors. The most fatal error is that she was raped by a Japanese officer at the age of 15 in Indonesia. According to the end of video, she was born in 1924, and it would be 1939 when she was 15. But it was December 1941 when the Japanese started their conquest of Southeast Asia. See Japanese occupation of Indonesia. There was no Japanese military post nor airbase in Indonesia in 1939. I think the video is unacceptable. Oda Mari (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

[Please add at bottom of Controversies section]

Tōru Hashimoto (Mayor of Osaka city and co-leader of the nationalist Japan Restoration Party) also expressed controversial views on the subject. See Tōru Hashimoto#Views on prostitution and "comfort women" for details.

This page is not semiprotected now. You can make this edit yourself. If the mayor is still alive read WP:BLP first. RudolfRed (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, yes Mifter just kindly downgraded to PC. I don't think BLP applies to this specific edit since it simply references stuff that already lives on the LP's page. Doing change now. 106.189.85.247 (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: what is the scope of the comfort women article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a very clear consensus here that the topic of this article is only about the Japanese comfort women system during WWII. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Should this comfort women article be only about the women used by the Japanese military during World War II, or should it include instances of military brothels, prostitution or military rape after World War II, performed by other nations' military forces? Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Only Japanese military during WWII. Too many nationalist Japanese editors have come to this page to deny the seriousness of the comfort women program, and they have used various stratagems. One tactic has been to point out that other countries have employed women to service their military, especially US military forces stationed in Korea and Japan directly after WWII. However, we have articles for those topics: Prostitution in South Korea, Korean prostitution for the U.S. military, and Recreation and Amusement Association (the latter about brothels in Japan). There is a big difference, though: the Japanese WWII comfort women were mostly unwilling, coerced, raped and even killed. The later programs were primarily about willing women, with far less brutality aimed at them.
    Other editors have come here because they want to tell the world how bad were the US military brothels in South Korea beginning in 1945, about how these brothels upset the traditional way of life, luring Korean girls away from their families and homes. Again, we have separate articles about that topic, which is primarily about willing women and far less brutality.
    It is true that the term "comfort women" has been used after WWII to describe a more willing form of such service, but this is because of the very notable previous example set up by the Japanese, involving primarily coerced women—tens of thousands of them. This article should have a clear focus: it should be about one program only. Near the end of the article we can describe what the legacy of the Japanese program is, how it is viewed by this and that group, what other programs arose in its place, etc. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree. We should keep it focused on war crimes by Japanese military during WWII. According to nearly all sources, that was forced and therefore goes more along the lines of abduction, rape and human traffic (speaking in more modern language). My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Only Japanese military during WWII I agree with the previous two comments. Wiki should have an article specifically about the women used by the Japanese military during WWII, and this is it. It should also have (and in fact has) other articles about the women used by other militaries in various wars. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Obviously this article is only about the Japanese military, but we should also be answering the question, "when were the Japanese camps closed?" If the answer is that the Allies did not close the camps but only took over their management, there is no reason to leave out that fact. Shii (tock) 22:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Only Japanese military during WWII. This is an article with a topic in this scope. Anything else would be a clear attempt to downplay the topic's notability, because this topic can and does stand on its own. --Cold Season (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree- Comfort Women is a specific historical reference. Expand the title if the subject gets expanded. However, possibly include a small section on 'later usage', to indicate the depth to which it sank into conciousness such that it became a generic term. That will please the Japanese nationalists. Basket Feudalist 10:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
    • There is no credible reason to include a "later usage" section of a term, especially not to please "nationalists". This article is about a specific topic (here at en.wiki) and not about the general word. It does not belong here in this article instead of elsewhere where its relevant to its topic. --Cold Season (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
      • An analogy could be made with "Tearoom", which is a tea-drinking establishment. However, the term is also used as a supposedly gay slang term (later usage) for... Anyway, it is irrelevant for the former topic. As such, it is absent at that article, but it is available in its disambiguation page to link where it is relevant to the topic (where it should have been included). --Cold Season (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Only Japanese military during WWII. For all the reasons already laid out by others. --Yaush (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I should add that links to other Wikipedia articles that make other usages of the term are perfectly appropriate.
  • Only Japanese military during WWII. If we look at what google gives us the usage of common women has been primarily about the women who were forced to prostitute themselves to the occupying Japanese forces. Although the term may be used infrequently to other women, I think WP:COMMONNAME & WP:SCOPE should be referred to, and thus why I support the focusing of the scope of this article to only during the World War II women forced to give "comfort" to Japanese forces. I am unaware of this term being used for those who prostituted themselves to German forces, American forces, or any other forces that I am aware of.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Nothing should be hidden - so Wikipedia should have a full series of article on instances of military brothels, prostitution or military rape after World War II, performed by other nations' military forces. Let's not indulge in any Japan-bashing. Copious "see-also" links should be placed in the Comfort women article so that our readers can see how common it was for other military forces, in the recent or distant past, are guilty of the same thing. But I wouldn't want the term comfort women turned into a generic phrase to hide what the Japanese did either. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • "Let's indulge in any Japan-bashing." I often have difficulty telling if someone is being sarcastic, particularly in print. This comment seems sarcastic (I certainly hope so) and leaves me wondering which of your other comments are meant to be taken at face value. Please clarify. --Yaush (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I am very sorry, because I should have read my own comment; if I had, I would have caught my typing error. I meant to say let's NOT indulge in Japan-bashing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Noted, but... What's your position on this matter, that is, the scope of this article? From your words, is it right to presume that your position is that this article is in the context of the Japanese as mentioned? --Cold Season (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Only Japanese military during WWII. Binksternet gives a good argument here. There are other articles dealing with similar practices by the militaries of other countries. These could be linked at the bottom of this article with a "See also" bullet list. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added a disambiguation link to the top of the article:

For postwar prostitutes also called "comfort women", see Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military.

This is because the official, legal term for a Korean military prostitute was "comfort woman" up until around 1990. Shii (tock) 08:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Please provide evidence from reliable sources that they were regularly called that in English, or remove the note. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
But the English term is just a translation of the Japanese and Korean. This is the opinion expressed by User:Yaush above. Shii (tock) 08:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Korean and Japanese terms are irrelevant to our readers' disambiguation needs. Disambiguation links are only needed if English-speaking readers are likely to expect the term to be used in that sense, in English. I see no reason why they would. The English term is pretty much exclusively used in the specific historical sense of this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
In line with what I said in Nothing should be hidden above, we should make clear to our readers the extent of both forced and voluntary prostitution. Similarly, we should avoid any pretense that it was only the Japanese military which employed prostitutes: we have a lengthy Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military article about G.I.s paying women for sex. However, we do not use disambiguation links for editorial emphasis: it's just a quick way of letting the reader know whether he's reached the article he wanted. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Edtorial decisions regarding this should be guided by WP:DUE, which is part of the WP:NPOV editorial policy. Quoting a snippet: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, all the viewpoints that are represented by reliable sources should be included. Absolutely. It seems to me that there are several editors on here that wish we could just have a good guy and a bad guy and keep it simple, regardless of what the reliable sources actually say.Markewilliams (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not averse to complexity when it is indicated, but I think the actual topic of this article should be very clearly stated, and not buried in counteraccusations or dismissive obfuscation. A clear voice should be given to the mainstream view, with minority views allowed a lesser role, in accordance with the references. This article should be very easy to understand, written in plain language. Binksternet (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reference to Tooru Hashimoto

Hello. I seek to introduce a link to Tōru Hashimoto, specifically the section about comfort women. My first attempt has been reverted with a comment mentioning a problem of style, but later the reverter specified that it was actually also a matter of contents.

I do not see why it would be contentious to give examples of politicians who have famously justified this practice, if their page already has a whole, well-referenced section about the controversy. 106.189.85.247 (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Besides, the sentence claimed as already including the information I added ("Some Japanese politicians have argued that the former comfort women's testimony is inconsistent and unreliable, making it invalid.") does not really apply to, or anyway cover, what Hashimoto has said about the subject matter. 106.189.85.247 (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

...and in fact Hashimoto is not even a signatory of the source that backs that sentence. Therefore, I am adding an explicit reference to Hashimoto. 106.189.85.247 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"A majority of the women were from Korea, China, Japan and the Philippines"...

I'm neutral as to whether this is accurate or not, but the source cited doesn't mention Japanese comfort women. 182.249.241.6 (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Only a few Japanese women were recruited. Not a "majority" at all. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
There are some indications that Japanese comfort women were more likely to already be prostitutes when brought into the system, rather than being brought in by deception or force, than non-Japanese comfort women. The Asian Women's Fund, for example, quotes documents suggesting that the police in Japan complained of deceptive or forcible recruitment of comfort women, and the Japanese Home Ministry responded with regulations requiring comfort women to already be prostitutes -- but this regulation was published only in Japan, not in Korea. (And I recognized that Asian Women's Fund is not an entirely disinterested party.) --Yaush (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Right. The few Japanese women involved in the program can be characterized as a group composed primarily of prostitutes, and some other non-prostitutes. Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
That most recent comment caught my eye. A glance back at prior comments gave me the impression that WP editors here were discussing here what might have happened, based upon I'm not sure what (WP:OR, possibly). I took a quick look at the article, and see that it currently uses the word majority twice in the article prose;
  • once in the lead, saying, "A majority of the women were from Korea, China, Japan and the Philippines,", citing this supporting source, which says, "During World War II, the Japanese established military brothels in countries they occupied. Women, many from occupied countries including Korea, China, and the Philippines, ...".
Clearly the "majority" assertion in the article here is not supported by the source cited, which says, "many" and which does not say, "the majority". Clearly, the mention here of Japan is not supported by the supporting source cited.
  • and once in the Country of origin section, saying, "According to State University of New York at Buffalo professor Yoshiko Nozaki and other sources, the majority of the women were from Korea and China.", with two Refs.
  • The first Ref cites Nozaki 2005, which says, "The majority of these women were Korean and Chinese (there were also some Japanese), but they included women from many other countries, including Thailand, Taiwan, Indonesia, East Timor, Malaya, and Holland." and also cites Dudden 2006, which says, "The largest number of women -- including girls as young as 12 years old -- were Korean, while many others were Chinese, Taiwanese, Filipino, Indonesian, and Dutch."
  • The second Ref quotes from other sources, as follows:
  • "An estimated 200,000 to 300,000 women across Asia, predominantly Korean and Chinese, are believed to have been forced to work as sex slaves in Japanese military brothels.", citing BBC 2000-12-08;
  • "Estimates of the number of comfort women range between 50,000 and 200,000. It is believed that most were Korean", citing Soh 2001;
  • "A majority of the 80,000 to 200,000 comfort women were from Korea, though others were recruited or recruited from China, the Philippines, Burma, and Indonesia. Some Japanese women who worked as prostitutes before the war also became comfort women.", citing Horn 1997;
  • "Approximately 80 percent of the sex slaves were Korean; [...]. By one approximation, 80 percent were between the ages of fourteen and eighteen.", citing Gamble & Watanabe 2004, p. 309 and Soh 2001, also cited above.
Whew!
Based on my reading of the above, I will change the (apparent mis-)use of the word "majority" in the lead to "many", which is what the source cited in support says, and I will remove the mention of Japan here, which is not supported by the supporting source cited. I'll leave the word "majority" in the Country of origin section unchanged, as the supporting sources cited there seem to support that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The opening descriptions in Comfort Women is against Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

The opening description in Comfort Women is against Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The argument in Comfort Women has got to "Sex Slave". Making no reference to another Comfort Women cases is a critical problem. The present descriptions become civil-rights violation to the present Japanese people and a act of racial discrimination to the present Japanese people. I would like you to request to edit as the following neutral descriptions .

"Comfort Women" is a generic term used to refer to women and girls forced into a prostitution corps at the front, the place of presence and the war exercise in World WarⅡ, Korea War, Vietnam War and the presence of UN Force. The first Comfort women was created by the Japanese Imperial Army in World War Ⅱ. At that time, many women and girls were estimated to force the prostitution. Estimates vary as to how many women were involved, with numbers ranging from as low as 20,000 from some Japanese scholars to as high as 410,000 from some Chinese scholars, but the exact numbers are still being researched and debated. Most of the comfort women in World WarⅡ were Japanese women, but there are many of the women from Korea, China, and the Philippines, although women from Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia and other Japanese-occupied territories were used for military "comfort stations". Stations were located in Japan, China, the Philippines, Indonesia, then Malaya, Thailand, Burma, New Guinea, Hong Kong, Macau, and French Indochina."

Koo Richard (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no "racism" or "discrimination" in describing from reliable sources the actions of the Empire of Japan. Your incoherent proposed text conflates over half a century of history under two vastly different governmental systems, apparently to minimize the criminality of the scheme carried out under the Empire. Your version would be the NPOV violation, not the present one. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Diary written by Korean worker at comfort stations found

See "New evidence of Japan’s wartime sexual enslavement emerges".[1] Excerpts from the diary is available in Japanese.[2]

Korea Herald ignores all other descriptions written by the worker. The diary mostly focused on the women's savings and the office procedure of their return to home. The situation is quite similar to that written in the U.S. Interrogation report.[3] The stereotypes of the comfort women, abducted, enslaved and killed are far from this evidence.

Excerpt from the diary.

  • August 13, 1943 Comfort women went to see a movie saying that the railway corps will run a movie.
  • May 26, 1944 A woman called 李○梅 who moved from Kikusui Club to Timor last September visited us as she returned to Singapore.
  • July 4, 1944 Submitted a Request for Retirement for 許○祥 as she became seventh month of pregnancy.
    • September 5, 1944 Comfort women 許○祥 was hospitalized this evening and gave birth to a boy safely at 23:30.
  • August 31, 1944 Received a post card from 尹○重 who returned home this April saying she returned home safely.
  • October 25, 1944 A serving lady who worked for Daiichi Shiro Botan as a comfort woman married today. I was invited to the cerebration party with her acquaintance at Ryogoku restaurant tonight.
  • October 27, 1944 Remitted 600 yen for 金○先 from her savings by her request.
  • December 4, 1944 Went to the Shokin Bank and remitted the permitted 11,000 yen for 金○守.
Note. The monthly salary of a low-level civil servant at the time was 40 to 50 yen.[4] 11,000 yen corresponds to 20 year salary of a low-level civil servant.
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
One diary does not replace, remove or eliminate the studies of many comfort women. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Is there a suggestion for a change to the article content based on info from this article and supported by citing it? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

All the the secondary sources quote and re-quote each other, impossible to find where the information originally came from. Primary sources from the time have a much higher value, surely. I have been trying to find primary source reports detailing instances of kidnaping women to become comfort women - can anyone help me here by posting a list? Individual testimonies by living comfort women have little weight as you would not expect them to say they volunteered. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.152.14 (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not on Wikipedia. Secondary sources are always better than primary sources. Well, not "always", but about 99% of the time. Primary sources have not been "fact checked", while secondary sources have (assuming they're by reliable publishers and authors). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request #2 on 21 October 2013

Hello, I would like to suggest an edit to the article. In the "History of the Issue" section, "Following multiple testimonies the Kono Statement of 1993 was issued claiming that coercion was involved.[57]" is inaccurate. It should be changed to "After three Korean former comfort women sued the Japanese government in December 1991, introducing documents found by Prof. Yoshiaki Yoshimi, and Yoshimi published these documents in a Japanese newspaper in January 1992, the Japanese government conducted a 20-month study on the issue of comfort women. The Japanese government announced the findings of this study in August 1993, along with which they released the Kono Statement. In the Kono Statement, they admitted that coercion was involved, and also sincerely apologized to the comfort women."

Sources:

"Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono on the Result of the Study on the Issue of "Comfort Women" 4 August 1993 

The Government of Japan has been conducting a study on the issue of wartime "comfort women" since December 1991. I wish to announce the findings as a result of that study."

(http://www.awf.or.jp/e6/statement-02.html)

"the Government of Japan, since December 1991, has been conducting a study by means of individual hearings of former military personnel and others concerned in parallel with a search for relevant documents. In addition, for five days from July 26 to 30 [1993], the Government of Japan conducted detailed regarding of former comfort women.. Furthermore, in the course of the study, government officials were sent to the United Sates to search for official U.S. documents and a field study was conducted in Okinawa as well.

The following gives the details of the study, and a list of the documents discovered by the study is attached.

Institutions covered by the study: the National Police Agency; the Defense Agency; the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Ministry of Education; the Ministry of Health and Welfare; the Ministry of Labor; the National Archives; the National Diet Library; and the U.S. National Archives.

People covered by individual hearings: former comfort women; former military personnel; former officials of the Government-General of Korea; former operators of comfort stations; residents in the areas where comfort stations were located; and history researchers, etc.

Domestic and foreign documents and publications used for reference: the study report compiled by the Government of the Republic of Korea; collections of testimonies by former comfort women, compiled by those concerned including the Association of Pacific War Victims and Bereaved Families and the Korean Council for the women Drafted for Sexual Slavery by Japan; and also practically all of the numerous Japanese publications on the subject matter were perused.

On 6 July 1992, the Government of Japan announced the results of its study on this issue conducted up to that time. In view of the further progress of the study since then, the Government has decided to announce the findings reached as below." (http://www.awf.or.jp/e6/statement-03.html)

A 5-volume compilation of the materials found by the Japanese government during this study is available here: http://www.awf.or.jp/e6/document.html


"I [Yoshimi] found six pieces of evidence that had survived the destruction of documents and was able to publish them in the newspaper." (Yoshimi, Yoshiaki.Comfort Women,2000. p.35)

"The public announcement of the first six pieces of evidence had a profound impact. On January 12 [1992], the day following the publication of the documents in the newspaper, then Chief Cabinet Secretary Kato Koichi publicly acknowledged the Japanese military's participation in organizing the comfort station system. On the 13th, he announced talks on formulating an apology. On the 17th, then Prime Minister Miyazawa Kiichi, who was visiting Korea, officially apologized at a meeting of top Korean and Japanese leaders." (Yoshimi, p.35)

"After these announcements, the government conducted a limited survey.. The government announced the findings of its inquiry on August 4, 1993." (Yoshimi, p.36)

Thank you. Jk765 (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request #1 on 21 October 2013

Hello, there's typo in the article.

In the 'Apologies and Compensation' section, "They introduced documents found by history Professor Yoshiaki Yoshida that had been stored at the Japanese Defense Agency since their return to Japan by United States troops in 1958.[64]" should be changed to "They introduced documents found by history Professor Yoshiaki Yoshimi that had been stored at the Japanese Defense Agency since their return to Japan by United States troops in 1958.[64]"

Thank you. Jk765 (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(not-done icon removed) This is original research. Actually, FN64 makes no reference to the three women, no reference to the 1991 lawsuit, and no reference to Yoshiaki Yoshida/Yoshimi. For now, I have tagged it as {{Failed verification}}. If you know of sources covering all these statements, that would be a great help. --Stfg (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I have struck a couple of things above since I see that your two further edit requests provide several useful sources. As there is a lot of material in those, I am reopening this request and will leave it to someone who knows the subject better to handle all three. But FN64 still fails verification. --Stfg (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I will look for more sources too. Thank you.Jk765 (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Technical 13 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm new to Wikipedia and am unfamiliar with the editing procedures. I'll need to cancel my first two edit requests and resubmit them.--Jk765 (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request #3 on 21 October 2013

Hello, I have one more edit request. In the 'Apologies and Compensation' section, "In 1994, the Japanese government set up the Asian Women's Fund to distribute additional compensation to South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and Indonesia.[61] Each survivor was provided with a signed apology from the then prime minister Tomiichi Murayama.." should be changed to

"In 1994, the Japanese government set up the Asian Women's Fund to distribute additional compensation to South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and Indonesia.[61] However, many former comfort women rejected the compensations because the funds did not come from the Japanese government but from private donations. Each survivor who accepted the AWF compensation was provided with a signed apology from the then prime minister Tomiichi Murayama.."

Sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6530197.stm)

""The very first criticism we received," he said, "was that the Japanese government was running away from their responsibility and using the Asian Women's Fund as cover."

"It is true that it was not state compensation. Although the Japanese government spent lots of money on this, we were not able to give the impression that the government was taking full responsibility.""

"There were further difficulties with the letter of apology signed by the prime minister, which was given to each victim.

Copies of the letter were delivered by the Asian Women's Fund rather than by diplomats.

Activists in South Korea and Taiwan claimed that the letter was a personal not an official one, and that the money available was from charity funds rather than state compensation.

They persuaded more than half the former comfort women in the two countries not to accept the money.

In fact, the women in these countries were compensated locally if they said they did not want to receive the Japanese money.

Mr Wada said there was a similar debate in the Philippines.."

http://www.awf.or.jp/e3/korea.html

"Of the 207 authenticated [Korean former comfort women], 72 had died, 135 were still alive, with 2 of them residing outside the country, as of November 2002."

"the media in [South Korea], with only a few exceptions, criticized the Fund's project implementation."

"seven victims.. received Fund benefits"

http://www.awf.or.jp/e3/taiwan.html

"The [Taipei Women's Rescue Foundation] demanded that Japan pay state compensation and strongly opposed the Asian Women's Fund".

http://www.awf.or.jp/e3/netherlands-00.html

"Immediately after the Asian Women's Fund was established in 1995, the Foreign Ministry of Japan began preparations to facilitate implementation of Asian Women's Fund projects in the Netherlands. Because the right to claim reparation for war damage had been already settled through the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the Government of the Netherlands urged Japan to speak directly with those concerned. As the result, discussions took place with those who were related to the JES. "

"The Foundation of Japanese Honorary Debts (JES, established in the Netherlands in 1990) demanded that the Japanese Government recognize legal responsibility and pay compensation.. The standpoint of JES was that only the Japanese Government was directly responsible for compensation."

"After long negotiations, it was agreed that medical and welfare assistance was to be provided for the individuals and the total amount of the fund from the Japanese Government was to be 255 million yen."

Jk765 (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed your duplicate edit requests. There is no reason to include the same request more than once--it does not increase the speed on which they are acted. I'll take a look at the requests now. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that that new sentence is valuable, so I've added it--I slightly changed the order just to make sure the citations go with the right information. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. But could you also add that "The AWF was controversial among Taiwanese, Filipino, and Dutch victims as well because the compensations did not come from the Japanese government?"--Jk765 (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't a duplicate request.
After I submitted the initial edit request I realized that there was another problem with the original article text. (as Stfg pointed out)
So I made some changes and resubmitted the request. (Maybe I should have deleted the original request? But I don't know how to do this.)
Now that the new request is gone, should I repost it?--Jk765 (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@Jk765: to avoid things getting confused, I recommend treating your first three as done and dusted, and making a completely fresh edit request proposing changes to the version of the article we've arrived at now. By the way, rather than creating more than one section with the same header, it's a good idea to vary the section titles like this:
  • ==My genius idea==
  • ==My genius idea (2)==
so that section links will go to the intended one. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
@Stfg: Okay, thank you for the advice.
Will do.--Jk765 (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request #2 on 24 October 2013

Hello, I would like to add a sentence to the article.

In the 'Apologies and Compensation' section, after the sentence "Eventually, 11 former comfort women accepted funds from the AWF along with the signed apology, while 142 others received funds from the government of Korea.[63][64]",

it should be added that "The AWF was controversial among Taiwanese, Filipino, and Dutch victims as well because the compensations did not come from the Japanese government but from private donations."

Sources:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6530197.stm

http://www.awf.or.jp/e3/taiwan.html

http://www.awf.or.jp/e3/netherlands-00.html

Thank you. Jk765 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Although this page is semi-protected, your user rights currently allow you to edit it yourself.Celestra (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible Contradiction

I just wanted to check up on this possible contradiction. In the first section, third paragraph it states:

"It revealed that a total of 300 Dutch women had been coerced into Japanese military sex slavery."

However in the description text for the image of Jan Ruff O'Herne it states:

"shortly before she, her mother and sisters, as well as thousands of other Dutch women and children were interned by the Japanese Imperial Army"

As this page concerns "Comfort Women" and is talking about women who were kidnapped for the sake of sexual slavery this is somewhat confusing. Were these women captured and coincidentally raped, or were they kidnapped for sexual slavery. If the former is true, than it seems a little misleading to include it, as it isn't talking about women who were enslaved. However if the latter is true then one of these numbers is wrong. Either it's thousands of Dutch women, or 300 Dutch women.58.7.222.115 (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what "thousands of other Dutch women and children" means, however "it revealed that a total of 300 Dutch women had been coerced into Japanese military sex slavery." based on the China daily's report "Historians estimate that some 200,000 women were forced to serve as sex slaves for Japanese forces during WWII, including about 300 Dutch women and girls in the former Dutch colony of Indonesia."[5] is incorrect. According to the published report by the Dutch Government, 200 to 300 Dutch women worked at Japanese military brothels, of which “some sixty five were most certainly forced into prostitution.”[6]―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
To serve as sex slaves, 300 women were pulled out of a group of thousands of women and children. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request price of tme with comfort women

Can we have the price range it cost for a Japanese or Korean in the Imperial army. To pay for a comfort woman 1.5 Yen - 2 Yen. When a soldiers monthly pay was 6 Yen per month. You can use the US army source [18] and the Australian source [51] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.85.104 (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request price of tme with comfort women

Modern idealist revision should be struck out. Confort women were considered prostitutes until the early 1990's in Korea. The South Korean government provided them during the Korean war to both Korean and US soldiers. see relative wiki article. The South Korean government provided them after the Korean war to the US based soldiers. Both times they were still called wianfu. It was never considered a bad thing until the 1990's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.85.104 (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request #1 on 24 October 2013

Please note that this is not a duplicate request. This is a new edit request.

In the "History of the Issue" section, "Following multiple testimonies the Kono Statement of 1993 was issued claiming that coercion was involved.[57]" is inaccurate.

It should be changed to "After three Korean former comfort women sued the Japanese government in December 1991, and Prof. Yoshiaki Yoshimi published documents in a Japanese newspaper in January 1992 indicating that the Japanese military had played a large role in running the comfort women system, the Japanese government conducted a 20-month study on the issue of comfort women. The Japanese government announced the findings of this study in August 1993, along with which they released the Kono Statement. In the Kono Statement, they admitted that coercion was involved in the recruitment of the women, and also sincerely apologized to the comfort women."

Sources:

http://www.awf.or.jp/e6/statement-02.html

http://www.awf.or.jp/e6/statement-03.html

http://www.awf.or.jp/e6/document.html

Yoshimi, Yoshiaki. Comfort Women, 2000. p.35-36

Footnote 66

Thank you. Jk765 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Although this page is semi-protected, your user rights currently allow you to edit it yourself.Celestra (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Japanese government was coerced into accepting most of changes requested by S Korea. It was foolish of Japan to trust S Korea that verbally offer to not further pursuit the issue if Japan grant such changes in statements. Sources for this NOT academic yet, but I think it is enough to make this addition very questionable.Real7777 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Section heading: Controversies

The heading of this section does not seem to describe its content. I don't see any information about controversies in there, but rather information about disagreements from Japanese sources with the source-supported material presented in other sections of the article. "Disagreements from Japanese sources" seems clumsy, but perhaps someone can come up with another heading which better describes the content of this section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Korean comfort women system

This is a semi-protected space, so I understand content is more sensitive. If you have objections to including a section on the post-WW2 legacy of the comfort women system in Korea, please include your reasons here. It is my understanding that aftermaths are usually very helpful in giving historical context to a particular phenomenon (in this case, the Japanese comfort women system). And yes, the South Korean system did included girls forced into prostitution. Thanks!--Imbored2013 (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there any links to online source where people can read about Korean system with forced prostitution (I'm guessing you mean they were unpaid sex slaves forced by the Korean Government)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.90.227 (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

abducted from their homes

"It must be noted that so long as even one was abducted...it becomes a crime." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.238.175.109 (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

These type of misleading statement from relatively isolated incidents should be removed. Majority of comfort women were Japanese and Japanese and Korean solders PAID. Korean recruiters recruited. "According to testimony, young women from countries under Japanese Imperial control were abducted from their homes. In many cases, women were also lured with promises of work in factories or restaurants. " Statement itself is contradiction. Person cannot be "lured with promises" and "abducted from home". Korea had Korean police, Korean recruiters, Korean leaders, and some Korean solders were recruited. There was no frequent report of abduction. So proper wording should be. Korean recruiter sometimes lured with promises...

USA war report "Japanese Prisoner of War Interrogation Report No. 49." "The inducement used by these agents was plenty of money, an opportunity to pay off the family debts, easy work, and the prospect of a new life in a new land, Singapore. On the basis of these false representations many girls enlisted for overseas duty and were rewarded with an advance of a few hundred yen.

The majority of the girls were ignorant and uneducated, although a few had been connected with "oldest profession on earth" before. The contract they signed bound them to Army regulations and to war for the "house master " for a period of from six months to a year depending on the family debt for which they were advanced ...

Approximately 800 of these girls were recruited in this manner and they landed with their Japanese "house master " at Rangoon around August 20th, 1942."[1] So clearly they were NOT abducted. And comfort women was NOT rescued, but part of "japanese prisoner of war". Real7777 (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you are at odds with the many mainstream accounts of comfort women. The great majority of our sources describe them as forced into sexual slavery. I'm sorry you think the article needs changing but I think it is representative of the mainstream position. Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I note that the source cited by Real7777 above (Report No. 49: Japanese Prisoners of War Interrogation on Prostitution. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF WAR INFORMATION Psychological Warfare Team Attached to U.S. Army Forces India-Burma Theater (Report). exordio.com. undated. {{cite report}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |publisher= (help)) appears to support his assertions in re those particular 800 girls in Burma. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Got to keep in mind though that that's a primary, war-time source and as such not a reliable basis for anything we do here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Understood -- it just looked to me that the sourcing mentioned here but not highlighted had been missed in this discussion, so I upgraded its visibility. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense just from Comfort Women wikipage " In many cases, women were also lured with promises of work in factories or restaurants. Once recruited, the women were incarcerated in "comfort stations" in foreign lands." "organized prostitution to serve the Japanese Armed Forces" "coerce women into serving in these stations."

"Many women responded to calls for work as factory workers or nurses, and did not know" "In the early stages of the war, Japanese authorities recruited prostitutes through conventional means." "Many women were tricked or defrauded into joining the military brothels." "especially in the countryside where middlemen were rare, the military often directly demanded that local leaders procure women for the brothels." "The South Korean government designated Bae Jeong-ja as a pro-Japan collaborator (chinilpa) in September 2007 for recruiting comfort women." "estimated the number of women working in the licensed pleasure quarter was fewer than 20,000 and that they were 40% Japanese, 20% Koreans, 10% Chinese, with others making up the remaining 30%." "200 to 300 European women working in the Japanese military brothels, “some sixty five were most certainly forced into prostitution.” "The Japanese officers involved received some punishment by Japanese authorities at the end of the war.[48] After the end of the war, 11 Japanese officers were found guilty with one soldier being sentenced to death by the Batavia War Criminal Court.[48] The court decision found that the charges those who raped violated were the Army's order to hire only voluntary women." "He quotes from the diary of Gordon Thomas, a POW in Rabaul. Thomas writes that the women working at the brothels “most likely served 25 to 35 men a day” and that they were “victims of the yellow slave trade.”" "During World War II, the Shōwa regime implemented in Korea, a prostitution system similar to the one established in other parts of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. Korean agents, Korean Kempeitai (military police) and military auxiliaries were involved in the procurement and organization of comfort women, and made use of their services.[53] Chong-song Pak found that "Koreans under Japanese rule became fully acculturated as main actors in the licensed prostitution system that was transplanted in their country by the colonial state"." "In 1973 a man named Kakou Senda wrote a book about the comfort women system but focused on Japanese participants. His book has been widely criticized as distorting the facts by both Japanese and Korean historians" "Japanese historian and Nihon University professor, Ikuhiko Hata estimates the number of comfort women to be more likely between 10,000 and 20,000.[4] Hata writes that none of the comfort women were forcibly recruited" "Kobayashi's book contains an interview with Taiwanese industrialist Shi Wen-long who stated that no women were forced to serve, and that they worked in more hygienic conditions compared to regular prostitutes because the use of condoms was mandatory" "In the aftermath of the war, the women recalled bouts of physical and mental abuses that they had experienced while working in military brothels. In the Rorschach test, the women showed distorted perceptions, difficulty in managing emotional reactions and internalized anger." And here's link to website with countless references. http://www.sdh-fact.com/index.html [2] Real7777 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

That website is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Sorry. The topic is defined by mainstream sources such as George Hicks' The Comfort Women: Japan's Brutal Regime of Enforced Prostitution in the Second World War, which says 100,000 to 200,000 comfort women were recruited during the war. Also defining the topic is the convention on comfort women held in September 1996 at Georgetown University. These and other mainstream works establish the depth of the terrible subject. The sources you wish to emphasize are comfort women denial viewpoints, which employ various stratagems to mislead the reader. My role here at this article is to help it retain the core of mainstream literature, retain the sense that the comfort women program was a horrible blow to human rights, which is how the topic is portrayed in mainstream accounts. Please do not try to distort that. Binksternet (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Webpage is digitization of war document if you have problem, find a website you like or order it from USA government. Long lists of quotes are from THIS wiki topic which contradict misleading first sentence. Predominately tricked was repeated over and over where as forced is very misleading as it somewhat implies something like all comfort women were abduction by military government.Real7777 (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Why are you avoiding discussion of the Philippines? A large number of comfort women were abducted there. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that there has been any deliberate avoidance of discussion of the Philippines, though there might have been a lack of contributions regarding that. In that regard, see [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
"Webpage is digitization of war document if you have problem, find a website you like or order it from USA government." You seem unclear on the idea that Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources. These digitizations are primary sources, which Wikipedia editors are encouraged to avoid using, for a number of good reasons. Please read WP:RS carefully. --Yaush (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is less

Case of Japanese comfort women by the U.S. Army. Description of this fact Where is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.119.209.71 (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

About the comfort women in Japan after WWII, it is described in Recreation and Amusement Association, and about the comfort women in South Korea after WWII, it is described in Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. The existance of those comfort women are thought as fact, and there is no discussion on the existance of them. What discussed here is only the necessity of the disambiguation between the comfort women in Japanese Empire and the comfort women in Japan after WWII and the comfort women in South Korea after WWII.NiceDay (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The U.S. did not set up a comfort women program. Instead, they used a system of prostitution set up by Japan in 1945 after the war. They also paid prostitutes in South Korea in the 1950s. None of these are "comfort women" programs with the outstanding characteristic of forced sexual slavery. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It has not been alleged here that the U.S. did set up a comfort women program, if the meaning of the term comfort women is taken as unambiguously referring to ww-II sex slaves of the Japanese military. What has been alleged here is that the term comfort women is sometimes used to describe post-wwII activities involving U.S. servicemen and paid prostitutes in Korea and Japan as well as to describe sexual slavery practiced during ww-II by the Japanese army (see the two articles linked above by NiceDay for more on that). It has been alleged that this multiple use of the term with different meanings has introduced some ambiguity into the meaning of the term. It has been suggested here that disambiguation would be helpful in resolving this ambiguity. One other way of dealing with this ambiguity would be to eliminate ambiguous use of this term within Wikipedia. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The meaning of compulsory is not contained in the words comfort women itself. Therefore, when describing the public or quasi-public military prostitution systems of postwar Japan or South Korea, using the word "comfort women" does not mean compulsory. Whether they were compulsory or not and who were at the core are problems which should be examined at the note of each argument.NiceDay (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Japanese jūgun ianfu is not the same as Korean chonggun wianbu, because jūgun contains the sense of forced obedience, while chonggun does not. The term "comfort women" in English is based on the Japanese sense of forced sexual slavery, not voluntary prostitution. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
The word "jūgun ianfu " was not used in WWII, the occupied Japan, and the Korean war. The word "jūgun" does not contain the sense of forced obedience in ja. [12], [13], and [14]. Why the word was translated incorrectly? What is the Japanese sense of forced sexual slavery? Oda Mari (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2014

That it is written here, is biased content lies, false 153.185.51.231 (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (WP:SNOW) closure). The nominator is strongly advised to find something else to do on Wikipedia than continuing to push the agenda of relativizing the significance of this topic by mixing it up with others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


Comfort women → Comfort women in Empire of Japan – Because this article makes it ambiguous that the words comfort women are literal translation words of Japanese word 慰安婦(いあんふ) and Korean word 위안부(慰安婦). NiceDay (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose - The words "comfort women" are commonly used to describe women abused by the sexual slavery system under Empire of Japan. This move request is just an attempt to "normalize" the comfort women. STSC (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - in English sources, "comfort women" refers almost exclusively to the topic covered by the article. It's accurate and concise. -Zanhe (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yet another attempt to water down the impact of Japan's crime, by the same editor who has been working this angle for months. The term "comfort women" means one thing in English—the Japanese taking women in most cases against their will, forcing them to serve as sex slaves during WWII. Binksternet (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

About the necessity for the linkages

Before Mar. 2014, or before, the term comfort women have been used in Recreation and Amusement Association and Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. So the neccessity for some linkages to those articles is obvious. First, I thought the usage of template:about the best way. So I proposed that way. But I could not make the consensus on this proposal. Second, I thought the usage of template:redirect like Microsoft Windows and proposed to change the article name. (windows redirects to Microsoft Windows and template:redirect to Windows (disambiguation) exists in Microsoft Windows.) But I could not make the consensus, too. The usage of comfort women in those articles continues today. So, as the third way, I have made simple linkages to those articles. If you think that the term comfort women should not be used on Recreation and Amusement Association and Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military, you should remove this term from those articles with the consensus in Talk:Recreation and Amusement Association and Talk:Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military, before removing the linkages in this article. Technically the removal of the term from those articles is not difficult. Just replacement of the term comfort women with ianfu in Recreation and Amusement Association and replacement of the term comfort women with wianbu in Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military are enough. If you seem it difficult and you want me to propose the replacement, I will make the proposal there. So please ask me hear.NiceDay (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Mr./Ms. Blackguard SF undid my editing and wrote Seek consensus on talk page in edit summary. But there is no consensus which prohibit making linkages to those articles. Just I have failed to make some consensuses. If you (include Mr./Ms. Blackguard SF) think that there should be the consensus which prohibit making linkages to those articles, please make a new section to discuss it with the reason. Thank you. NiceDay (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I think I understand what you're saying, but I encourage you to take a look at Wikipedia's article on consensus: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." I'm afraid these links will continue to get reverted until consensus is reached right here on this talk page. No need for a new section. Blackguard 17:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
No! Stop pushing to diminish the crime of Japan by regularizing the term "comfort women". The term "comfort women" was used in those other articles as a comparison only. There is no confusion, so there is no need to disambiguate. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Binksternet's opinion The term "comfort women" was used in those other articles as a comparison only. is not correct. Surely some comfort women in these articles mean the ianfu of the Empire of Japan. But we can find the sentence At a cabinet meeting on August 21, Deputy Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe expressed concern about potential mass rapes to Prime Minister Higashikuni and suggested the establishment of a "comfort women system" within Japan. in Recreation and Amusement Association and the sentence 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. in Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. (enhancement have been added by me) Obviously the term comfort women in these sentences do not mean the ianfu of the Empire of Japan. Please read my message above carefully. I have suggested the 4th method for decreasing ambiguity. Please think of this 4th method.NiceDay (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
What Binksternet said. --Yaush (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
NiceDay, the articles on voluntary prostitutes are absolutely not relevant to this article about sexual slavery. I now oppose to adding those links you tried to include in this article. STSC (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • support adding links as see also. I'm shocked that people would want to purposefully make it harder for readers to find related articles. If you think the re-use of the word comfort women was some sort of coincidence you have a rather droll view of language and history. Linking them in the see also section is not equivalent to claiming that there wasn't sexual slavery going on and doesn't diminish the import of this article - the see also section simply links to other related articles and especially those where the term comfort women was used in a different way. This is also not synth or OR - reliable sources make this direct connection - see title of this article [15] as an example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
see also chapter 6, of Tanaka's book "Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II and the US occupation" By Toshiyuki Tanaka, where the title of the chapter is about Japan setting up a comfort women system for the US army. I have a feeling Binksternet sees things in a very black and white fashion - what the japanese imperial army did was bad bad bad sexual slavery, whereas what the japanese and korean governments did, along with the US army, after the war, was happy go lucky prostitution by choice, and maybe he believes none of the same women were used and none of existing recruitment vehicles were reused and none of the locales were reused and none of the terminology was reused. But sadly the world isnt black and white and despite his disbelief the flood of sources of people outside the wiki using 'comfort women' to describe post WWII happenings will continue, and its not up to us to tell them 'this is wrong!!' Im especially stunned again at experienced editors opposing navigational hatnotes and see-alsos which are purely navigational in purpose and do not suggest an equivalence any more than a hatnote to Sexual Harassment (The Office) was intended to deminish Sexual harassment.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • support adding links in see also, per Obiwankenobi. Actually, I think that it would be much better to have a small section in the article about alternative usages of the term. I've said more about that in the #Questions and answers, discussion, etc section above where I eventually gave up on that discussion as a waste of time. I'm not following this comment-by-comment but it seems to me that a core group of editors strongly focused on this article have a parochial groupthink WP:POV position about alternative usages which boils down to "I just don't like it". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
yeah, a section in prose might be better, but as a start a see also is obvious.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have advocated for a section of prose within the article, explaining how the term has appeared elsewhere. Prose is superior because it can deliver nuance. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I reject what your said about a "core group of editors"; me and the other editors just have the common ground for protecting this article from editing with any political or nationalistic motive. STSC (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Your suggestion that there are political and nationalistic motives at play here is ridiculous. I'm not Japanese nor Korean, I only came here because something else hit my watchlist, and I see absurd statements by editors that attempt to paint this as black and white (one is sexual slavery, the other is consensual prostitution, no relationship between them!!!), and willfully oppose reasonable and rational ways to connect readers with articles on similar topics that use the same terminology and in some cases, used the same women, and were set up by the same government...They aren't the same thing, but they're not unrelated either.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
This is English site. Those links are not related to the common usage of "comfort women" in English. STSC (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
you seem to be the only one claiming there is no connection and lots of reliable sources disagree, several have been provided above. Even Binkster 'there is no connection'-net agrees to cover this in prose. The topics are related and the historical circumstance link the prewar comfort women system with the post-war one. There are many allegations that japenese women were coerced into serving as comfort women for American GIs so if anyone is whitewashing here it's American editors who can't believe their troops might have slept with women, some of whom who were more or less forced into prostitution.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Obiwankenobi: just so you understand the apparent heat in this discussion, let me try to explain. What we have seen on this and some other articles is a long-standing campaign of a seemingly never-ending series of – usually Japanese – single-purpose accounts and sockpuppets pushing an agenda of relativizing Japanese war crimes with crude tu quoque style arguments, typically directed against Koreans. Nobody is saying that you are motivated by such an agenda, but it has unfortunately been quite obvious in many editors who have been here previously, so assuming good faith about yet another new account re-igniting these discussions may seem a bit difficult to some of those who have been around longer. I guess few people would actually object against some coverage of the Recreation and Amusement Association situation in Japan in this article – after all, it seems pretty clear that that actually was an extension of the same kind of system, initiated by the same government using rather similar methods. What makes me suspicious though is whenever these socks and SPAs show such an obsessive insistence on emphasizing the situation in Korea. They typically use the fact that the same word was used in the native languages (not typically in English!) for both systems, as a pretext for pulling that topic in here, but it's hard not to suspect that the true motivation is an attempt at using that miserable old tu quoque logic. It's a bit as if we had hordes of German editors swarming over the Holocaust talk page insisting that that page ought to be covering also the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. Why else the insistence on Korean prostitution, of all things, and not equally on the US presence in Vietnam, the Philippines, or any of the dozens of other cases world-wide where the presence of foreign military has sparked mass local prostitution? In some of the cases we've seen here, the agenda was really disgustingly obvious, amounting to a barely disguised implication of "Korean people just are naturally prone to prostituting themselves, so those women had it coming". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, but we must also be aware of letting the pendulum swing too far to the other side - the fact that some editors opposed see also links is frankly ridiculous - one of the other 'see also' links is for sexual slavery of Jewish prisoners by Nazis - yet no-one is suggesting the comfort women system and the nazi system were set up and run in a similar fashion - it is simply a similar situation that happened on the other side of the world, and it too is an obvious see also. I think we should go where our sources lead us - the tanaka book covers both in a single volume and is used as a ref here. I'm not suggesting changing the scope of this article and that was already voted on, but mentioning potential linkages should not be ascribed to nationalist motives. A fair number of sources have linked the imperial comfort women programme with the post-war one, so we shouldn't shy away from making such linkages ourselves, and should be able to have a reasoned and frank debate on the best way to do that without histrionics. As for the korean system, I think there are also clear linkages pointed out in the literature that I've scanned, the reuse of the term is only the tip of the iceberg, and there are sources which talk about the pre-war experience of korean comfort women with the post-war one, I even found a story of japanese officers who entertained American ones with korean comfort women - so these women continued to be used and abused after the war. It's not forgiving the crimes of japan to make this clear but we should also not whitewash the actions of the Americans by making it seem like their side of the story all on the up and up (we have a whole article about rape during the occupation of japan if you want to see how some of our GIs behaved...). I just think this goes further than simple reuse of an English language term.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is disambiguation between the article comfort women and other articles useful or useless ?

See box. Formerip (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.

There were also comments about whether the article content is neutral or not, but that is out-of-scope for this RfC.

The term comfort women is a literal translation of a Japanese term ianfu or a Korean term wianbu. Concerning Recreation and Amusement Association and Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military these words are used in a different meaning from the article comfort women where the comfort women in the Japanese Empire era is described. Since I thought some disambiguation between the article comfort women and other articles necessary, I proposed some methods. But I could make no consensus. So I want to ask you weather the disambiguation is useful or useless ? NiceDay (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Useful. If not disambiguated in some fashion, articles with undisambiguated contradictory usages should be tagged {{contradict other}} or {{contradict-other-multiple}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Useful, for the reasons Wtmitchell gives. Note also that it should also be the singular form comfort woman per WT:AT.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • comment This RFC is a bit convoluted. Is disambiguation useful or useless? Well it's as equally useful as it is useless. It all depends on context and you do not offer context in this RFC. You don't even offer how you propose to disambiguate anything in this RFC. I'm sure it's above somewhere on the talk page but honestly TL;DR. Do you want to use hat notes? A Disambiguation pages? What?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Useful per nominator. I also think the clarification is needed that not every comfort woman was sex slave. There were voluntary comfort women too. Oda Mari (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    • comment, Do you have any reliable sources for what is, to be honest, a quite remarkable statement, that goes against a great deal of historical consensus, and which, even in a generous interpretation, very likely doesn't refer to the subject of the article itself (ie, traditional systems of military prostitution vs. comfort women which arose to meet shortages of demand from the former)?Zmflavius (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
      • comment This appears to be off topic for this RFC discussion, but I don't see an assertion that not every comfort woman was sex slave as remarkable. Contrarily, I would see as an assertion to the effect that every single comfort woman without even a single exception was an involuntary sex slave as remarkable and needing support. As for RSs that there was at least one voluntary comfort woman, some googling turned up this Time magazine article which speaks among other things of one Moon Ok Ju as having been "found to have volunteered" (though later forced to relocate to and serve in Burma). [the web's foremost Asian American activism, identity, feminism, and pop culture blog! this] article on a website which describes itself as having been since 2001. "the web's foremost Asian American activism, identity, feminism, and pop culture blog!", mentions "... particularly when Japan realized that its initial efforts to enlist voluntary prostitutes from Japan would be insufficient to fill all the Comfort Stations.", from which I infer that some number of women in Comfort Stations probably were voluntary prostitutes from Japan (that is that those efforts, though producing insufficient result, probably did not produce exactly zero result). I would not doubt that true volunteers were a tiny minority, but I would see an assertion that there was not even one single true volunteer as an extraordinary claim needing strong evidentiary support in reliable sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
        • First things first, I think it is worth making clear that the linked Time article does not in fact speak of one Moon Ok Ju who was found to have volunteered but the mention in fact appears to be someone from the comment section of said article, which actually is a random internet commenter attacking the "fascistic pro-comfort women blackshirts." A cursory google search of the name Moon Ok Ju likewise links mostly to blogs and other such sites publishing nationalist screeds, while google scholar itself does not turn up any such claims. Having said all this, part of the reason this is to be considered a remarkable statement is that the terminology by and large refers specifically to the system of forced prostitution enacted by the IJA. It is, for obvious reasons, quite absurd to presume that before WWII, the IJA did not have any system of prostitution whatsoever, in fact, the article specifically refers to the first "comfort station" as being an entirely voluntary enterprise established by prostitutes imported from Japan. However, comfort women, in virtually all historical cases, including the sources used for this article, refers to the system of forced prostitution that was enacted in order to deal with a great shortage of willing volunteers as a result of the expansion of the war, meaning that we too, should be careful to not give undue weight towards exceptional or outlier cases that in the sources, both as individual sources and as representatives of consensus among historians, do not receive near so much weight. Thus, it would not be inaccurate, and a cursory examination of the article (principally under the Establishment section) reveals that this is already so indicated, that forced recruitment of comfort women was the direct result of a scarcity of comfort women volunteers, indicating that initially, the comfort stations were staffed by volunteers. Thus, we can see there are either two options, to leave the article as is, because said clarifier already exists, or to expand this clarification, which I gather is the proposal. The problem with this, however, is that for the same reasons mentioned by Fut. Perf. and Binksternet above, the expansion of such clarifiers serves very little purpose with regards to article quality itself (because, as mentioned above, the point is already made, to the same extent and degree it is made in the sources used in the article), but quite often, appears to be the product of editors with agendas to attempt to give undue weight towards talking points commonly aired by Japanese nationalists, typically including but not limited to minimizing the extent of comfort women, often by diluting the scale of atrocities. Especially, it is not even particularly clear how expansion of this point could be made in a way that does not give undue weight to this particular point (ie, editing the lead to say "most of whom were forced into prostitution" is not only needlessly wordy, but also not particularly accurate with respect to the principal point of the article, which highlights the forced prostitution that ensued as a consequence of the comfort stations suffering from a lack of volunteers). In short, the proposed expansion is probably redundant at best, and at worst, provides significant undue weight towards fringe viewpoints.
            • Having said all of the above, it is worth mentioning that there is one other way to interpret the sub-proposal, which is to say, that even after the onset of war and coercion, that there were still significant numbers of volunteers. Naturally, as mentioned in the above paragraph, voluntary pre-war sources very likely continued throughout the war. However, if we examine the sources related to comfort women, we find that overall, most give little to any weight to discussion of any purported significant "voluntary" participation in the comfort women system after the expansion of the war (which, it should be mentioned, does not mean that there were no voluntary prostitutes serving in the comfort women system, but rather that in the context of the article and sources, that after the onset of coercion, these volunteers were generally an irrelevancy). Because of this, emphasis that "throughout the war, voluntary participation remained a constant" barring the addition of any new reliable sources (which remains unlikely, given the historical consensus), outside of the above statements which exist already in the article would certainly be following the same pattern mentioned above of giving undue weight to or reinforcing the fringe viewpoint that there was no or at best partial evidence of coercion in the comfort women system.Zmflavius (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
When you're right, you're right. Zmflavius is right above and I was wrong about what I asserted that the TIME article said re Moon Ok Ju. I wrote that comment while in a rush to finish up a session in a noisy internet cafe so badly lighted that I couldn't see the keyboard. I screwed up. I should not have been commenting in a contentious discussion thread while in that situation and environment. My bad. Having acknowledged that screwup, I'll also say that I am in general agreement with the rest of Zmflavius' reaction above to my comment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • comment: Finally, seeing as to how I have made neither vote nor comment yet, I will merely expand on serialjoe's point that the RFC is actually quite vague on the subject of precisely what ought to be done. Disambiguation pages for the specific words ianfu and wianbu already exist, for example, as well as relevant clarifications in the three articles relevant to this point. I do not think that, at present, there is any support for editing those disambiguation pages, or removing these clarifications, and so, one could indeed say that the answer is "useful, but already exists." Based on NiceDay's posting history in this talk page, and the fact that this RFC was created in the first place, I would gather that NiceDay feels that the present disambiguation is inadequate, something which those new to this page may not be aware of is an issue which has been discussed quite heavily in the above sections. However, for those who have read the above sections, consensus among editors leaned very strongly against the disambiguations proposed by NiceDay. So to conclude, I would like to note that while one could hardly say that diambiguation is useless in this situation, I would like everyone here to keep in mind that this is not a question which at any time in the history of these articles or this talk page which was seriously in question. Finally, owing to the (to an extent understandable) venom which permeated this talk page at times, I would like to note as well that while an argument can be made for the reasons I have mentioned here that the RFC is not being made in good faith, and addresses a non-existent question to enact an unnecessary answer, that overall, such allegations are not in keeping with the expectations of civility, and that we should certainly at all times strive to me civil on the talk pages, but however, at the same time, we should strive to ensure that the discussion here does not turn an apparent total consensus on this RFC towards the above "answering a non-existent question to provide an unnecessary answer."Zmflavius (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • comment: see below. (Hope that makes it more clear.)
  • Useful per nom and per Oda Mari. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


[Here is more or less what you see at: ]

Ianfu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Japanese term ianfu (慰安婦,いあんふ) is a euphemism for military prostitute. It may refer to:

See also: wianbu

[Here is what you see at]

wianbu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wianbu may refer to:


  • Comment - The English Wikipedia policy states that, "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." (WP:NOT) The widely accepted knowledge regarding "comfort women" is about "sexual slavery" as in the majority of English sources. STSC (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
There is at least one paper I found that discusses the use of the term "sexual slavery" vs "forced prostitution". We should not take sides on this debate, and use both terms, since reliable sources use both terms.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you understand what is UNDUE? STSC (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and you keep on making claims of "majority of sources", but every source I look at calls this "forced prostitution", as well as sometimes "sexual slavery", and sometimes both on the same page. The word "prostitution" appears about 30 times on the page, and in several of the titles of the works cited. I have no idea why you are trying to erase any connection of this system from prostitution. It was forced prostitution, but the women were in some cases paid, and it was an outgrowth of an earlier voluntary prostitution system, and after the war the system was repurposed towards a semi-voluntary prostitution system for American GIs. Attempting to draw a sharp line around this system and de-link it from what preceded and what happened afterwards is the very definition of POV editing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Why do you persistently want to link the "comfort women" to ""prostitutes"? STSC (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't. The sources do. Persistently. There are several hundred articles in google scholar which call the comfort women system "forced prostitution", including many of the sources used to build this article. Why do you want to ignore such sources?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
This debate is about the linking to "voluntary prostitutes"; why are you talking about "forced prostitutes"? I noticed many of your past edits have been linking "comfort women" to "voluntary prostitutes", are you trying to confuse people on comfort women? STSC (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Which voluntary prostitutes are you talking about? The ones tricked into servicing american GIs, and coerced into doing so? Do you really believe they were 100% voluntary???? forced prostitutes are a type of prostitutes, forced prostitution is a type of prostitution. This is how categories work, they are meant to help navigation. I don't think anyone believes the Category:Prostitutes categories are only for people who have willingly chosen that trade, indeed many people have been tricked or coerced or forced by circumstance into being prostitutes. Claiming the post-war system was entirely voluntary goes against the sources which describe it, even if it was seemingly much more voluntary than the imperial system.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Forced prostitutes become sex slaves, they are no longer defined as prostitutes. Linking "comfort women" to "prostitutes" in any way does not improve the article at all but confusing people on comfort women unless that's your motive. STSC (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
You should go argue semantics with the sources, not with me. Sorry. The only confusion here would come from a ridiculous sort of censorship whereby the post-war comfort women system becomes totally delinked from the system that was in place during the war, in spite of what every single source has to say on the issue - that the same infrastructure was used, and indeed made the system able to be created very quickly, and in some cases the same women were reused (and of course the same terminology).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. In my humble opinion, the story that comfort women were prostitutes forced into slavery by the Japanese Army is a hoax. Here is my evidence to support it:

1. In the U.S. Army's Japanese Prisoner of War Interrogation Report No. 49, it is said that comfort women were recruited on their own volition, that they lived comfortably and could turn down Japanese soldiers if they wanted to, that marriages took place, and that they could go into town on they own and buy stuff, they had plenty of food, and that some women were sad that they were unable to service all of the Imperial Army soldiers. Do sexual slaves really feel that way? I verily think not. Source: http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/codex/Documentos/report-49-USA-orig.html.

2. The testimony of Seiji Yoshida, on which most "facts" about the comfort women are based, was fraudulent; Yoshida himself confessed to this.

Sayonara!

-A Japanese historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.4.43 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/codex/Documentos/report-49-USA-orig.html
  2. ^ http://www.sdh-fact.com/index.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women/Archive_6&oldid=1136629642"