Talk:United States military and prostitution in South Korea

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gegill16. Peer reviewers: Yxurbi13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AGW24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 1 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saigmcgi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Poorly written and appears to contradict its own sources

Was this article translated into bad English by some machine? Some of the claims sounded odd, so I followed up one sentence, which went: "Other women were coerced into prostitutes by South Korean government and U.S. officials."[15] Following up on reference 15, it specifically contradicted coercion: "While the women have made no claims that they were coerced into prostitution by South Korean or American officials during those years..." It sounds like the governments might have facilitated prostitution, but not coerced it. Bad enough, as it is, but accuracy is important. Prostitution was certainly rampant; I was acquainted with at least two US soldiers who while in SK had live-in "rent-a-wives". But this article appears to be in serious need of attention from someone who knows something about the subject. Cyberherbalist (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. Some errors were corrected. I inserted "Most U.S. soldiers are ignorant of the trafficking, but sometimes help Filipinas escape from clubs.[37]". The sentence seems american soldiers are just the customers in good faith.--Syngmung (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

"Poorly written" is the tip of the iceberg. It's written by someone with minimal understanding of English grammar. It feels like most of this was translated via Google by someone with a huge POV bias. Meishern (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Wianbu: first use is about Japanese "comfort women" who are not prostitutes

If the word "wianbu" is included in the article, and I think it should be, then it must be defined for the reader as first applying to Japanese comfort women who were primarily not prostitutes, but instead were coerced, raped and even killed. When the term wianbu continued to be used after 1945, it was without the sense of coercion or violence. So its first use was as a euphemism for forced sexual slavery, but after Japan's surrender it was a euphemism for willing prostitute or willing war-bride. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Japanese cases have also some views, so in this article should not be written your POV, but only neutral. Cos this article is Western princess. I recommand you to write what you want in the article Comfort women. This page is no relation to Japanese cases. In addition, US cases have also forced or killed cases. You seem lacking of neutrality.--Syngmung (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I see we are going to get along very well.

The word wianbu and the term "comfort women" is of course related to the Japanese forced sexual slavery, even if the word and the term were used later, to describe prostitutes in South Korea who served US military men. That connects this article very closely to the comfort women article. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

@S. If this article has no relation to "comfort women" taken by Japanese, that's fine. That is what I thought. But then why did you restore reference to Japanese here: [1]? My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, this[2] was inserted by other user, Secondly, the term Wianbu's literal meaning was comfort women. And Wianbu was the official name for the prostitutes for Japanese, South Korean and UN millitaries. This should be written in the article. For long time, prostitutes for Japanese, Korean or US military was considered undifferent ones. The term Wianbu have been used for prostitutes for US till comfort women issue raised in 1990s.--Syngmung (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter who initially inserted material. If you revert to keep it here, this is your responsibility. One must clearly explain the difference between these "comfort women" and other, Japanese WWII "comfort women" (see Rape of Nanking). My very best wishes (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted and told you the contents should be written. Next, rape of Nanking is no relation to western princess. US was not the Japanese side. I dont care about your anti Japanese sentiment, it is ok for me. But this article is not Rape of Nanking, you should work off your sentiment in Rape of Nanking.--Syngmung (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't understand Binksternet's point of view. This article has an obligation to explain the official terms used. Shii (tock) 15:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The term 慰安婦 pronounced ianfu in Japanese and wianbu in Korean. Has always meant prostitute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.152.14 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The principle of wianbu in the Japanese army and after has been the same. Wianbu in the Japanese army had always been considered to be prostitutes in Korea until the early 1990's. That is why the name was used for military prostitutes after WWII, same job - same name. I don't understand why people nowdays say that the wianbu during WWII were not prostitutes - this is not history but politics. The definition of a prostitute is a women who sells sex, during WWII the wianbu were paid for sex - alot of money. Some estimates put the nationality of WWII ianfu at 40% Japanese.

There are 2 very important primary sources that most people avoid. I don't know why these sources are avoided - they are first hand reports. One is an official report from the USA army while WWII continued and the other is from a book interviewing mainly Australian POW's. The first is Report No. 49: Japanese POW Interrogation on Prostitution (http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/codex/Documentos/report-49-USA-orig.html). Burma Basic salary 1.5Yen 30mins (monthly salary of a 2nd class private in the Imperial army, in WWII was 6Yen).

Quotes "A "comfort girl" is nothing more than a prostitute" "They lived in near-luxury in Burma in comparison to other places." "The girls complained that even with the schedule congestion was so great that they could not care for all guests, thus causing ill feeling among many of the soldiers." "This meant that in an average month a girl would gross about fifteen hundred yen." - A HUGE AMMOUNT OF MONEY, OVER 20 YEARS SALARY OF A JAPANESE SOLDIER IN ONE MONTH "The girls were allowed the prerogative of refusing a customer"

The second is The Consolation Unit: Comfort Women at Rabaul (summarized here http://www.japanfocus.org/-Hank-Nelson/2426) New Guinea Basic salary 2Yen 30 mins Quote "Captain John Murphy, captured on a coastwatching mission in 1943, was the only Australian military prisoner alive in Rabaul at the end of the war. Having served as a government officer in the civil administration of New Guinea in the prewar, he was on familiar ground. He was imprisoned in Chinatown in Ah Teck’s tailor’s shop where he had been fitted for his newest pair of civilian trousers.[20] In another Chinatown building they would sometimes see, Murphy said, the women of the ‘8th Consolation Unit’: a barefoot ‘frumpy lot’ they were unlike the painted geishas the prisoners expected. They flashed their bodies, beckoned and mocked the prisoners. An American pilot imprisoned with Murphy, Joseph Nason, recalled that one day as the prisoners were returning from a work site, a guard, Okano, called the women: ‘One of the girls leaned over the balcony and squealed, “Fuckee, fuckee!” with appropriate gestures of her hand’ but the prisoners in their weakened state had no capacity to respond, let alone overcome what other moral and practical inhibitions might have restrained them. Seeing the lack of response, one of the women ‘coyly drew back her kimono and displayed her sex. The other girls playfully tried to cover her up again, but their efforts resulted in even more exposure’.[21] Nason asked a quiet (and embarrassed guard) where the girls were from and he said they were from China and Korea. When asked if they came willingly, he claimed he did not know. One night the prisoners heard a ‘wild disturbance’ and pistol shots coming from the direction of the ‘Comfort House’. Soon after, a brutally battered Japanese soldier was flung into their cell. That in itself was unusual: for a Japanese soldier to be so degraded that he was cast among prisoners of war meant that he had committed a gross violation of Japanese military law. The prisoners soon found that the soldier had died, but by leaving him propped up in a sitting position they were able to claim his rations for four meals. New Guineans were brought in to carry away the body. The prisoners were told that the dead soldier’s crime was trying to get into the Comfort House at a time when it was reserved for officers.[22]"

For reference, please refer to the following reliable sources:

A former comfort woman's saving:

• Soh, Chunghee Sarah (2008). The comfort women: sexual violence and postcolonial memory in Korea and Japan. University of Chicago Press. pp. 183–184. ISBN 0226767779. The discovery of her savings account records at the Shimonoseki post office in 1992 revealed that it had a balance of 25,245 yen saved during her life as a comfort woman in Burma and Thailand from 1942 to 1945
• Ishikida, Miki Y. (2005). Toward Peace: War Responsibility, Postwar Compensation, and Peace Movements and Education in Japan. iUniverse. p. 63. ISBN 0595350631. One Korean former comfort woman, Mun Ok-chu, working in Burma, saved 26145 yen for two years and seven months, 843 yen a month, and sent 5000 yen back to her parents, though she was not able to withdraw money when military currency lost its value in 1945.
• Driscoll, Mark (2010). Absolute erotic, absolute grotesque: the living, dead, and undead in Japan's imperialism, 1895-1945. Duke University Press. p. 309. ISBN 082234761X. Even though these establishments were expensive to operate and prices were high— one short session with a forced sex worker normally cost between 1.5 and 2 yen ( when the monthly salary of a Japanese soldier was between 6 and 10 yen)—many profited handsomely.

Wikipedia somehow manages to contain the spread of revisionism on the 'Comfort women' page, let's be very clear here as well. 'Comfort women' is the euphemism referring to victims of sexual slavery for Imperial Japan military until 1945. This article is about prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military, who happened to have been often referred to by the same term until surviving victims came out and differences became clear for everyone except die hard revisionists. Abuses and coercion did happen in the post-war system, and they also deserve full investigations, apologies and compensations, but that certainly doesn't absolve Imperial Japan's war crimes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephane mot (talk • contribs)

Please provide RS/old documents/records, not recently written books, that 'comfort women' is the euphemism referring to victims of sexual slavery for Imperial Japan military until 1945. Preferably old documents/records in ja as there are lots of propaganda books. And if you want a major change, use talk page and ask for consensus. Oda Mari (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to restrict our reliable sources to old documents and records. In historiography, analysis with the benefit of hindsight is preferred to contemporary accounts. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

And please, Oda Mari, please stop censoring documented facts that don't fit your points of view. This is the second time that you delete blocks on this page that are supported by quotes (latest: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostitutes_in_South_Korea_for_the_U.S._military&oldid=612333753&diff=prev, and the first time, you had the gall to write on my user page and negate the existence of quotes that already existed before and still stand now). I understand that we don't share the same appreciation of a dark moment of history, and that - judging by your edits - you stand on the side of revisionism, but deleting documented facts is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Because that's a key issue to understand the whole page and the different views, I regrouped the appellations in one chapter, which includes the 'Comfort Women' issue (and parts already validated there). I ended this segment with the significant use of 'miguk wianbu' (often by progressive medias), an expression that focuses on the parallel with Imperial Japan's sexual slavery system, and gives away some resentment towards both the US and Korean rulers... Stephane mot (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternative names

There are many alternative names in the lead section. According to MOS:LEADALT, "if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section". I think it will improve the readability of the lead. The lead should be more focused on the summary of this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Article title

I am not confident about this proposal, so I don't initiate a requested move this time. The initial title of this article was Western princess, then it was moved to Korean prostitution for the U.S. military and further to the current name Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. I think the title should be Prostitutes for the U.S. military in South Korea because the focus is not "Prostitutes in South Korea" but apparently "Prostitutes for the U.S. military". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

How about South Korean prostitution and the U.S. Military? Other articles on the subject use "prostitution" in the tile. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 04:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

POV issue

The article appears to be highly focused on a POV which serves to be negative towards those service in United States Forces Korea and its relation to illegal prostitution. As such I am tagging this article, and suggesting it be worked on.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, RightCowLeftCoast again. Your argument have closed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military moment ago.--Syngmung (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In the AfD one suggestion was rather than taking to AfD, was to summarize the content and merge neutrally stated will referenced content into the main article about Prostitution in South Korea. Just because this article survived AfD, doesn't mean that that shouldn't be done; and it doesn't mean that this article doesn't contain POV issues.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. This article has an axe to grind, a cause to carry forward. It should be trimmed of its non-neutral tone. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest making a balance between:

1. those who celebrate, approve of, tolerate, or condone US servicemen's use of prostitutes in Korea
2. those who regard all sexual relations, paid or not, as ordinary as eating food
3. those who oppose prostitution, Korean prostitution, or US servicemen's use of prostitutes (in Korea or anywhere)

It is definitely an issue which is emotionally charged. So lets separate the facts (what has been happening) from the attitudes (how do Koreans and other feel about it).

Here's some information contributing by a U.S. soldier which simply tries to "tell it like it is". [3] --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The link above might fall into WP:ELMAYBE but is not a reliable source and might fall under WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. Removing opinions would be a great start to neutralizing the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is indeed a very biased propaganda piece written by Japanese nationalists. Perhaps they should worry more about China right now but that is beside the point. The aim of the piece is to equivocate the comfort women issue of mass rapes by the Japanese during World War Two. Political projects like that have no place on Wikipedia, no matter how desperately they are written up. Akafd76 03:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akafd76 (talk • contribs)

Personal experience

Hi, I'm a wikipedian, but I'm also an active duty United States military member currently in Korea. I came across this page and I'm going to try to expand it and improve it as possible. I think that it's good that this page exists, because the issues that this article covers are important simply because they have a substantial impact on United States South Korean relations. This article is also relevant to the history of the United States Military. Just a few months ago, in June of 2013, a change in U.S. policy regarding "Juicy" bars resulted in almost a month of large scale protests in korea, and weeks of coverage on national korean television. I will provide references for any material I add, and I am open to reasonable compromise on any issues. Also, I know that this is an international encyclopedia, and I will try to remove my own bias as an U.S. military member as much as possible. I thought I would try to contribute, because very few people have the first hand experiance with these specific issues in this article like I do.--DrunkDriver (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in, DrunkDriver. I would like make sure that our coverage of this issue is even-handed and accurate. Your first-hand knowledge of restrictions placed on folks from the 7th should be backed up by a newspaper article or military bulletin. Otherwise the hard policy of WP:No original research is in danger. Also, the restriction for the 7th should be shown to be a significant development rather than a routine military matter. If it was routine then WP:NOTNEWS would apply. Binksternet (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ideological Sources

Just a quick comment: Many of the sources for this article seem to me to be highly ideological and of dubious reliability. It is very common for dishonest people to attempt to create the impression of factual documentation by providing many footnotes to sources which appear to be aimed more at winning converts to some ideological position and fomenting hatred and conflict. It seems to me Wikipedia is supposed to be scientific history, which is about documenting the facts of the past, not assigning blame. I would urge the contributors of this page to take another look at the reliability of the sources from this perspective. Thanks. Gunnermanz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I got here from researching information on WW II comfort women, and while I might differ with some of the details of the above argument, I certainly endorse the thrust that there is a lot of bias in this article. While not as overblown as some other infamous Wikipedia articles (such as that on Angeles City, Philippines before the editors imposed some discipline on the battle of deletions and reinsertions), there is a lot of cherry-picking of data and conflation of fact with opinion. Tito john (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You are right. The article is a mess because it was created in anger by Syngmung who was focused on adding lots of non-neutral information about rape by soldiers. Syngmung was later topic-banned, prevented from editing on military rape, and cannot edit articles such as this one. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military → Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.N. military – Because not only U.S. soldiers were client NiceDay (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC) As we can see in File:Registration of comfort women.jpg, comfort women did not work only for U.S. soldiers. So the article name is incorrect. --Relisted. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC) NiceDay (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What does "U.N. military" mean? What do you think of using the phrase "United Nations forces", since that phrase is found in many sources? Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree to United Nations forces. NiceDay (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Both versions of the title are bad. First, it should be about "prostitution", not "prostitutes"; then, the order of modifiers is grammatically awkward (if anything, it would be far more natural to say "prostitution for the XYZ military in South Korea"). A simple, natural title would be Military prostitution in South Korea, which is what many reliable sources use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I would suggest an universal article on "Military prostitution after World War II" that covers South Korea, Japan and other countries. STSC (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Military prostitution in South Korea is probably fine. But I also support the move to U.N. forces Red Slash 02:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.N. military, Prostitutes in South Korea for U.N. forces, or anything similar. Only one half of one section of the article is about the UN forces; the rest is about Americans. If a move is really necessary, Military prostitution in South Korea would require expansion of the article to include info on prostitution in the ROK military. Any other options to limit it to foreign or American military? —  AjaxSmack  09:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130930060256/http://www.hanulbooks.co.kr/tot.book/content.asp?pBID=3965 to http://www.hanulbooks.co.kr/tot.book/content.asp?pBID=3965
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130930053132/http://www.hanulbooks.co.kr/tot_book/content.asp?pBID=3965 to http://www.hanulbooks.co.kr/tot_book/content.asp?pBID=3965

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107141521/http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0000067241&PAGE_CD= to http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0000067241&PAGE_CD=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121107141521/http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0000067241&PAGE_CD= to http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0000067241&PAGE_CD=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430220310/http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2896741 to http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2896741
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130619000725/http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2600608 to http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2600608
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130304175405/http://www.presstv.com/usdetail/279266.html to http://www.presstv.com/usdetail/279266.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

POV

I attempted to clean up the article further, but the concerns previously voice by others about a heavily biased Point-of-View and statements that disagree with citations still haven't been fully addressed. A few of the linked sources are in Korean, so if we could get a Korean-speaker to verify that statements are actually in citations that would help.

I also agree with an earlier editor that this should likely be merged into the article about Prostitution in Korea to avoid redundancies.

Daskies (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC) User:Daskies

What exactly is the POV here? Zezen (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Formal merger proposal.

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.

---

As a previous posters have noted, this page should probably be folded into the Prostitution_in_South_Korea page. There's a great deal of redundancy between the two and placing the relevant bits of this page there will hopefully even out some of the ongoing POV issues.

Ergo I'm initializing a formal merger proposal.

Reve (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - To engage in prostitution, or sex work, means to offer sexual services in exchange for payment, be it money, goods, services, or other benefits the transacting parties agree on in the absence of any physical, verbal or other coercion. At this point, this page includes instances of coercive labour situations in businesses catering to U.S. military personnel, i.e. women being forced into these businesses. Since the conflation of sex work and commercial sexual exploitation of adults ("human trafficking") is already an opened can of worms, I suggest to leave this page separate. One could discuss the merits and demerits of folding this page into the Comfort_women page but that might draw a strong response as these issues are very contentious. Happy to discuss this further, keeping it concise for now.

I would like to apologise if commenting on this proposal via editing this entry is not the appropriate procedure.

Satellithias (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2017 (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.

Editing conflicts

I note there has been some conflicting editing. I have made changes as follows.

1. Reinstated 1 million prostitutes. This is well referenced. If an individual doesn't agree with that it's not relevant.

2. Reverted back to 'Since the 2000s, the majority of prostitutes have been Philippine or Russian'. Again this is well reference. The state report does say 'Some foreign women on E6-2 entertainment visas—mostly from the Philippines, China, and Kyrgyzstan—are subjected to forced prostitution in entertainment establishments near ports and U.S. military bases., but this is talking about trafficked women not the prostitutes overall.

3. The trafficked women is significant fact so I have included that (but used the 2017 Trafficking in Persons Report as the reference John B123 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Needs to be expanded...

This article is inaccurate. I served in Korea with US military from 2005-08. Woman from many countries, not just the Philippines are known as "juicy" girls. Another is that while regrettably the US besmirched it honor allowing the practice to proliferate by many members utilizing them, they cracked down hard on it. Even before the crackdown other foreign national laborers still keep the practice going strong even though US military has cracked down. Jwunderwood007 (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox photo

The infobox for the current version of this article depicts two women identified as North Korean nurses standing in the middle of four men identified as US & ROK Soldiers. Given the scene and the source article, we do not know if these particular women were indeed forced to become prostitutes, do we? As actual people photographed and depicted, who may or may not still be alive, who have their image being used on Wikipedia in these circumstances, we should probably be using a different photograph if we want some kind of illustration for the infobox. What do other editors think? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The photo for this article does not relate to the article's content. The photo needs to be deleted and another one needs to be uploaded. I uploaded a file that could be used instead. File:South-koorea-the-united-states-mi.jpg

Any thoughts? Katherinegrace0 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Katherine

I agree with your points against retaining that image in this article, but the suggested replacement image appears to have questionable or problematic copyright status (see File:South-koorea-the-united-states-mi.jpg) and WP:BLP issues of its own along the lines that you describe for the image under discussion here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Is there any way we can remove the current photo before finding a replacement? I have been unable to figure it out despite reading the tutorials for it. Katherinegrace0 (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that three editors agree the article should not be using that image due to the inherent problems with it, I will swap it out with the US Forces Korea UCMJ warning poster that already appears further down in the article. A better infobox image may be found down the line, but this will remedy the concerns for now. AzureCitizen (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit implemented here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Fake Data

'By 1953, the total number of prostitutes amounted to 350,000[44][45] as camptown prostitution became a permanent structure in South Korea after the Korean War. Between the 1950s and 1960s, 60% of South Korean prostitutes worked near U.S. military camps.[44][45]'

First, Korean government statistics are more reliable than individual claims.

I saw these books. but The authors of these books provide no basis.

Sceond , Based on U.S. military numbers, their claims are common sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Korea#Number_of_U.S._soldiers_stationed_in_South_Korea_by_year

1953 326,863 1954 225,590 1955 75,328 1960 55,864

In 1953, The total number of U.S. military numbers was 326,863 and was withdrawn sequentially. Although the total number of customers is below 330,000 , it is against common sense that 220,000 are prostitutes.

In addition, since 1954, the number of prostitutes has been greatly reduced since the USFK has been significantly reduced. In 1953 and 1954 and later, the pattern was completely different.

'as camptown prostitution became a permanent structure'  : Also, this part is missing from the book.

Therefore, the description is wrong.

'In 1992, there were about 18,000 registered and 9,000 unregistered South Korean women around U.S. military bases.[68]'

Korean government statistics are more reliable than Philippines NGO.

Most of all, U.S. military prostitutes are required to register, but it does not make any difference to official statistics.

and

Since the mid-1990s, foreigners make up 80–85% of the women working at clubs near military bases.[74] : Let's pay attention to this

This would be false if there were 27,000 domestic prostitutes. Contradictions with other facts occur.

Therefore, the description is wrong.

The Korean government or news is most reliable than other country data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight 정보통통통통 (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason why the South Korean Government should be more reliable than independent sources. Government figures are often massaged to suit political ends. --John B123 (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

'Government figures are often massaged to suit political ends.': You are making a very uncertain claim. Please provide evidence about S.korea government.정보통통통통 (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

What's needed here is for both figures to be reported in this article, with one attributed to the official government reports and one attributed to independent non-government sources. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen: That is what I did yesterday but the non-government data was deleted again today. I have reverted to the revision that gives both sets of figures. Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

there is not independent non-government data. There is only fake data. I will explain below.정보통통통통 (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

I repeat

First,'By 1953, the total number of prostitutes amounted to 350,000[44][45] as camptown prostitution became a permanent structure in South Korea after the Korean War. Between the 1950s and 1960s, 60% of South Korean prostitutes worked near U.S. military camps.[44][45]'

Original : ,'By 1953, the total number of prostitutes amounted to 350,000, 60% of South Korean prostitutes worked near U.S. military camps.'

This opinion is only a minority opinion. It contradicts other major sources. Even this opinion is more fake data than minority opinions.

==> Cho, Grace M has no authority over the Korean government or major news company.

==> In 1953 ,According to the Korean government( , total number of prostitutes amounted to 17,300 only.

https://newslibrary.naver.com/viewer/index.nhn?articleId=1953121200329202029&editNo=1&printCount=1&publishDate=1953-12-12&officeId=00032&pageNo=2&printNo=2364&publishType=00020

==> The number of 350,000 people does not reveal what the basis is.

==> 'as camptown prostitution became a permanent structure' : Original text is unreliable. However, this part is the original distortion. 350,000 is the total number of prostitutes.

==>No data claims 210,000 prostitutes. It is a squeeze material by author.

==>The author did not provide an official source. Even if I admit it, the situation has changed since 1954 with the massive withdrawal of the USFK. The scale of 350,000 cannot be maintained. Military prostitutes are proportional to USFK numbers.(https://newslibrary.naver.com/viewer/index.nhn?articleId=1970072900329203001&editNo=2&printCount=1&publishDate=1970-07-29&officeId=00032&pageNo=3&printNo=7635&publishType=00020)

(U.S. military numbers 1953- 326,863 , 1954-225,590 , 1955-75,328 , 1960-55,864) , The expressions of the 50s and 60s are irrelevant. It's distorting as if the 210,000 prostitutes persisted.

Second,' Studies in 1992

show that there are about 18,000 registered and 9,000 unregistered Korean women around the U.S. '

This opinion is only a minority opinion too. It contradicts other major sources. Even this opinion is more fake data than minority opinions.

=> In 1992 , According to Korean government, There are only 1,129 Korean women for U.S.

https://www.hankyung.com/news/article/1993100501671

=>'registered' : Registration is to the Korean government, and there can be no errors. The Korean government knows better than the Philippines NGO. '18,000 registered' : It is an absurd lie.

=>'Studies' : It is not revealing at all what 'Studies' identity is.

=>Philippines NGO has nothing to do with prostitutes in South Korea.

I have proved enough. According to Wikipedia regulations , I will delete this opinion if you cannot prove minority opinion.정보통통통통 (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@정보통통통통: It doesn't work like that. This all needs to be discussed and resolved on the talk page. Simply deleting the content you don't like could well lead to sanctions against you. --John B123 (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

'around 8,000 in 1995.'

That part is my contribution. Most of 8,000 are foreign women.

and I find that the news does not speak of the 1995 data.

also That data is not government data,

you can see 'Since the mid-1990s, foreigners make up 80??5% of the women working at clubs near military bases.[77]'

전체적으로 약 15개소의 클럽, 그리고 1개 업소에 보통 1~2명이 남아있으며 몇 년 전부터는 새로 유입되는 여성들이 거의 없다. (파주군 연보, 1995)

1990년대 이후, 기지촌의 모습은 많이 달라졌습니다. 1992년 미군에게 잔혹하게 살해된 윤금이 씨 사건으로 기지촌 여성의 처우 문제가 사회적으로 공론화됐습니다. 성병에 감염된 기지촌 여성 일부가 수용되던 경기여자기술학원은 1995년, 감금 상태를 못 이긴 수용 여성의 방화로 37명의 희생자를 남긴 채 불타버렸습니다. 이후 기지촌 여성들을 수용하던 성병관리소도 사라졌습니다. 이렇게 한국 여성들은 점차 기지촌을 떠났습니다. https://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1005274435정보통통통통 (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I really want to discuss.

I have provided enough data and plz respond . It is against the Wiki rules for someone to support minority opinions without submitting data.

'While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity'

'Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. :::::::Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight

Let me summarize now.

=>In 1954 , The Korean government(치안국보안과) officially said the number of prostitutes was 17,300.

https://newslibrary.naver.com/viewer/index.nhn?articleId=1953121200329202029&editNo=1&printCount=1&publishDate=1953-12-12&officeId=00032&pageNo=2&printNo=2364&publishType=00020

'Cho, Grace M , 350,000 prostitutes ' : Unreliable opinion , Minority opinion , She can't count the numbers alone.

She must provide reliable data, but she does not.

According to the Korean government website , Cho, Grace M's statistics said there was no basis at all. She is a cheater.

http://db.history.go.kr/item/level.do?levelId=oksr_005_0020_0020

'The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)' -------- Cho, Grace M is not a reliable writer. She is not an expert.

She even has a biased political inclination. She is a feminist bias.

https://twitter.com/Cacaolate/with_replies

=>n 1992 , According to Korean government, There are only 1,129 Korean women for U.S.  :::::::https://www.hankyung.com/news/article/1993100501671

' Studies in 1992 show that there are about 18,000 registered and 9,000 unregistered Korean women around the U.S.' , '18,000 registered' : Fake data

https://www.catw-ap.org.ph/ -- This is an organization whose reliability has not been verified.정보통통통통 (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Grace M. Cho is a well respected academic and her work has received positive peer reviews. CATW is also well respected and their evidence is accepted by the EU in policy making. These are not "minority opinions", but independent research. The South Korea Government has previously tried to rewrite history so may not be reliable. Both Government and independent figures are currently included in the article for balance. I can see no reason to change this. --John B123 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur, the best way to handle this is to include both, and with attribution so that readers understand who is making the assertion (Grace Cho vs the ROK Government). It is then left to the reader to make their own informed decision as to what the putative information is and knowing who provided it. I do have a question since I haven't read Cho's books: Is she saying that in 1953 there were 350,000 prostitutes in all of Korea (servicing all manner of clients), or is she saying that there were 350,000 prostitutes specifically servicing military personnel? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen: Cho states 350,000 prostitutes in South Korea with 60% servicing the US Military. John Lie, Susie Woo and Hosu Kim give the same figures. Lie gives "S. P. Yi 1964, 227" as the source for the figures (but I couldn't find that work). Woo gives a government report as the source.--John B123 (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

References

@AzureCitizen: (Grace Cho vs the ROK Government) -> maybe(a debate that proves who gave the statistics true.)누가 더 진실된 통계를 제시했는지 여부가 관건인거 같습니다. but I think Cho and other author were talking about (the total number of) man-days, not real number. The South Korean government data was referring to the actual number.1.233.19.77 (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

'According to Grace M. Cho: By 1953, the total number of prostitutes amounted to 350,000[44][45] as camptown prostitution became a permanent structure in South Korea after the Korean War. Between the 1950s and 1960s, 60% of South Korean prostitutes worked near U.S. military camps.'

Even in 1954, the number of US troops in Korea declined significantly.

Statistics from 1954 cannot be reflected after 1955.정보통통통통 (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

your opinion: 'South Korea Government has previously tried to rewrite history so may not be reliable'

rewrite history

This news has nothing to do with Korean prostitutes. also This news is about Korean textbooks and has nothing to do with national statistics.

Even that controversial topic in this news is North Korea and communism.

your opinion is against 'Core content policies' and 'Do_not_create_hoaxes'

'Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material

Denying official government statistics is an exceptional argument.

In this case, You should give your opinion according to 'WP:EXCEPTIONAL'

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources'

The topic we are talking about is not a academic theory or view point, but an obvious number.

=>'By 1953, the total number of prostitutes amounted to 350,000, 60% of South Korean prostitutes worked near U.S. military camps.' ( extremely small minority, exceptional claim)

In 1953 ,According to the Korean government , total number of prostitutes amounted to 17,300 only. (mainstream sources)

It is difficult to attack government statistics even with enormous academic evidence.

But even Grace M. Cho made that claim without evidence.It even makes a big difference from official statistics.

Even her book is not about numbers, it's about human rights only.

Even she has a history of lying about international marriage statistics.(Naturally, international marriage and immigration statistics are managed by the state.)

The Korean professor Lee Young-hoon, Ph.D. of Seoul National University calculated the number of prostitutes in 1950s-60s to 26,000-39,000 based on the number of sexually transmitted diseases.

https://mediawatch.kr/mobile/article.html?no=254009 He is an expert in economic statistics at Korea's top universities.He presented the basis for the calculation.His results are not much different from government statistics.

so his claim is acceptable.

but she doesn't prove exceptional argument. She has no basis for calculation.

We can't imagine that she counted numbers one by one. No expert like Professor Lee Young-hoon recognizes her.

'For example, The American population is 330,093,000. Some American assistant professors claimed that the US population was 300 billion by publishers in other countries.

This person is a assistant professor and his book has been published. but Naturally, this man's claim should not be mentioned in Wikipedia. The person is no better known than the US government or experts in the United States.

Asheley R. Landrum is also assistant professor. ( http://www.asheleylandrum.com/) but 'Flat Earth' that she supports is not acceptable in Wikipedia.'

If she wants to deny the government's announcement, she must provide more surprising evidence. ( 'WP:EXCEPTIONAL')

But she doesn't say anything about government statistics, rather than giving evidence.

Let me summarize. , her claim ( 350,000 prostitutes) is exceptional claim and extremely small minority becasuse It is very different from the government's official statistics.

It is severely different from the results of other experts. She has no basis for calculation. her book is not 'multiple high-quality sources'. her claim is a minority opinion with no academic basis.

According to Wikipedia 'Due and undue weight and Scholarship' , Her claim cannot be described in parallel with government statistics. Wikipedia cannot trust uncertain data. her data should be deleted.

'Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. Secondary sources, such as meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship

'Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.'

'If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

=>' Studies in 1992 show that there are about 18,000 registered and 9,000 unregistered Korean women around the U.S. '

I repeat.

'Jean Enriquez' and 'CATW-Asia Pacific' is nothing to do with Korean women.

When it comes to Korean women's issues, they are not authoritative about Korean women in Korea.

The 'Studies' they say was not published by them.

also

'there are about 18,000 registered' : Registration is to the Korean government, and there can be no errors. The number registered with the Korean government is only 1,129 in 1992.

https://www.hankyung.com/news/article/1993100501671

This studies has turned out to be false and has no reliable value.정보통통통통 (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@정보통통통통: Your comments are now becoming libelous, I would ask you to moderate your comments in future.

A government's attempts to rewrite history, in this case regarding North Korea, which is well documented, brings their reliability into question. It doesn't matter if it's a different subject. It's a simple fact not opinion.

The claim of 350,000 prostitutes is not just from Cho, other academics give the same figure. Susie Woo gives a government report as the source for the figure.

References

The other editors in this conversation and myself have assumed good faith on your part in regard to the references you have added. However, as you have precipitated the need to analyse the sources, you need more substantive sources than scans of Korean newspapers from 65 years ago to back up what you claim are government figures. --John B123 (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: Iam a Korean student studying related field and I will use a translator because I am not used to English writing. I ask for your understanding.Let me analyze this text. (나는 관련분야 공부중인 한국학생이고 영작이 익숙하지 못해서 번역기를 사용합니다.이해 부탁드리고 당신이 언급한 논문에 대해 분석해보겠습니다.

• Lie, John (1995) original text 'According to one government report,there were about 350,000 prostiutes in 1953,(S.P.Yi 1964,227)The Korean government`s figure for 1963 was 19,031 , when there were roughly 62,000 American soldiers stationed in Korea.' [[4]]

1. I don't know one government, but it's probably referring to the Korean police department. The past name of the Korean police department is the "치안국"Government data At that time, the government released statistics through media outlets. This is clear.

[[5]]

(나는 one government 가 어딘지는 모르겠지만 아마 한국경찰일 것이고 그들의 당시 명칭은 '치안국'이었습니다.그때 치안국은 언론을 통해 통계를 발표했습니다.저 자료는 명확합니다

2. Lie, John's data says: The Korean Government's image for 1963 was 19,031.The 1963 and 1953 data are contradictory. Generally speaking, The prostitutes population of 1961 exceeds that of 1953.number in 1953 is questionable. (저자는 1963년에는 19,031명이라고 했는데 1963년과 53년은 차이가 많이 납니다.일반적으로 1963 매춘인구는 53년보다 훨씬 많습니다.1953년 데이터는 의심스럽습니다)

3. Susie Woo is not referring to government data. Susie Woo copied the words of Lie, John's.(수지우라는 사람은 정부자료를 첨부한 것이 아니라 라이 존의 글을 그대로 옮겨 적은 겁니다)

4.I think they were talking about (the total number of) man-days, not real number. The South Korean government data was referring to the actual number.

It is correct to describe in article the number of prostitutes as 17,349 because it causes confusion among non-professional readers in wiki.(내 생각은 그들이 말한건 실제 인원이 아니라 성매매 행위에 대한 연인원을 말한거 같습니다. 한국정부 치안국보안과는 한시점 실제 인원을 말한 것입니다. 위키독자들의 혼란을 피하기위해 본문에는 17,349명이라 서술하는 것이 맞습니다.)

6.My opinion is correct to delete both to avoid a editing war.(그러나 제 생각은 분쟁을 피하기 위해 그냥 둘다 삭제하는 것이 좋을거 같습니다)

• you mentioned the issue of protesting state-authored history textbooks.You have to understand the political situation in Korea to mention this problem.The progressive political group protested against the conservative political group.It is a very sensitive issue for Koreans.The protest is as follows: "In pro-Japanese group, the indulgence of Park Chung-hee is covered up, the collusion between politics and business is glorified."

[[6]]

The protesters protested for glorifying the state-authored history textbook pro-Japanese group during the Japanese colonial era or Park Chung-hee in the 1970s.They were protesting against the Park Geun-hye government(2013 ~ 2017) It is no relation to Korean government and the U.S. military in 1953.

(당신은 국정교과서 이슈를 언급했습니다. 이것을 이해하려면 한국 정치상황을 이해해야 합니다.진보집단이 보수집단을 향해 항의한 것이고 한국에서 매우 민감안 사안입니다 시위의 요점은 '친일파 , 박정희 , 정경유착'문제 입니다. 시위대는 국정교과서가 일제시대와 70년대 박정희 시대를 미화한다며 항의한 것입니다.시위대상은 박근혜정부이며 1953년 한국정부와 미군과는 아무런 상관이 없습니다)

I edit by IP address so that I want to let you know where I am.1.233.19.77 (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

'I tell 1.233.19.77' , I generally agree with your opinion. But I think they weren't talking about man-days,they were just mistakes.Of course, your thinking makes sense.정보통통통통 (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

'I tell John B123 ' => Korean government rewrite ??

You are now confronting the Korean government without evidence.Your news has nothing to do with Korean women, nor with governments in 1953.

Even if the Korean government rewrite it as you say , What does the viewpoint of Korean government in 21c have to do with the Korean ::::::::::::::government`s statistics in 1953 ? and You must provide evidence that the Korean government in 1953 had fabricated statistics.

Above all, those books that you prefer claim that '350,000 prostiutes' is the Korean government's claim.we don`t need comment on the controversy over the Korean government rewrite.

=>books published and exact statistics

Thanks to you and other people's efforts, we were able to make an important discovery.Woo, Susie(2019) , Kim, Hosu (2016) , Cho (2008)

All of them referenced Lie, John(1995)'s opinion.This books that claim that '350,000 prostiutes' is the one government's claim.In short, they are not counting numbers, but relying on other data(one government).but one government is uncertain source. We don't know about it.

On the other hand, we know the exact statistics.https://newslibrary.naver.com/viewer/index.nhn?articleId=1953121200329202029&editNo=1&printCount=1&publishDate=1953-12-12&officeId=00032&pageNo=2&printNo=2364&publishType=00020

Official statistics show that the number of prostitutes is 17,000.This news is not a media claim, but an official announcement from the government by '경향신문'Although there are few opinions from the media, it is an official figure.Of course, some people claim that there are more than that.so The Korean professor Lee Young-hoon, Ph.D. of Seoul National University calculated the number of prostitutes in 1950s-60s to 26,000-39,000 based on the number of sexually transmitted diseases.https://mediawatch.kr/mobile/article.html?no=254009 but they(Woo, Susie(2019),Kim, Hosu(2016),Cho (2008),Lie, John(1995)) are quoting the wrong data.

Can they make mistakes? yes,they can too. I will present evidence.

Lawrence H. Summer is far more authoritative in the American academic world than they are.

'he say "In Seoul, Korea, in 1970, it is estimated that there were close to 1 million child prostitutes."

In fact, there were about 5.5 million total residents of Seoul in 1970, and only about 680,000 females between the age of 10 and 19 at the time, according to a Texas A&M University website.

Summers acknowledged the mistake, saying in a statement that he “misremembered” the statistic.'

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/7/16/summers-apologizes-for-korea-remark-university/

In the statistics of Korean prostitutes, American professors often make mistakes.Even if they are famous professors,we never should take indiscriminately their books.According to the above user, ,Lie, John(1995) say that there were 19,031 prostitutes in Korean in 1963.From a common-sense point of view, 350,000 prostiutes' is incomprehensible.

Primary, secondary source : newslibrary (Government statistics)

secondary source : Journal (by The Korean professor Lee Young-hoon, Ph.D.)

Tertiary-source  : book (by Woo, Susie(2019),Kim, Hosu(2016),Cho (2008),Lie, John(1995)) , Philippine NGO

'Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere.'

Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources

'"If it's written in a book, it must be true!"'

'Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes from time to time, such as misspelling a name or getting some detail wrong. Such mistakes, when found, should be ignored, and not be employed to describe a non-existent dispute.

Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#Social_sciences 정보통통통통 (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

and Philippine NGO's data is palpable lie.I explained enough above.정보통통통통 (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

If it's written in a book, it must be true! - Your comments about this apply equally to 60 year old newspapers. I would repeat my request for more substantive evidence of the government's statistics. --John B123 (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

=>We can`t deny historical data.

That news is Primary, secondary source.

That news itself contains statistics issued by the government.

Data published in 1953 are historical in itself.

When we deal with statistical problems , the data at that time was more authoritative than sentence in book described after the 1990s.

Your argument is like asking why there are no two historical data.

=>I refuted the errors in those books.

You need to answer other users' questions.

According to other user , Lie, John (1995) original text 'According to one government report,there were about 350,000 prostiutes in 1953,(S.P.Yi 1964,227)The Korean government`s figure for 1963 was 19,031 , when there were roughly 62,000 American soldiers stationed in Korea.

His claim is nonsense. 'The 1963 and 1953 data are contradictory. Generally speaking, The prostitutes population of 1961 exceeds that of 1953.number in 1953 is questionable.'

Historical news(경향신문 1953) is Primary, secondary source. The news has priority over the books.

The book`s claims have contradictions compared to other years.

=>Summary

Even if you disregard the the statistics of the Korean government, there are so many attacks against the claims of those books too. At least, controversial claims should be eliminated.정보통통통통 (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any further sources to substantiate your claim of what the government statistics for various years were? --John B123 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. We already have them. maybe you already know them.

'According to other user , Lie, John (1995) original text 'The Korean government`s figure for 1963 was 19,031 , when there were roughly 62,000 American soldiers stationed in Korea.Korean government(보건사회복지부) figures give 10,000-30,000 prostitutes servicing the U.N/U.S. military in the South Korea in 1954,[49] about 20,000 prostitutes in 1966,[50] reducing to 13,000-14,000 in 1969.[51]'

The 1954 statistics(17,000 prostitutes) match many of the other years.but '350,000 prostitutes theory' does not fit with other statistics.

There is other evidence.

In 1955, According to the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare , There are only 46,375 sexually transmitted screenings against prostitutes.(one prostitute can receive multiple times.)https://mediawatch.kr/mobile/article.html?no=254009

In 1990 , According to Korean government, There are only 1,667 Korean women for U.S.In 1991 , According to Korean government, There are only 1,483 Korean women for U.S.In 1992 , According to Korean government, There are only 1,129 Korean women for U.S.

In 1993 , There are only 926 Korean women for U.S.https://www.hankyung.com/news/article/1993100501671

These statistics are very specific.정보통통통통 (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

'According to other user , Lie, John (1995) original text 'The Korean government`s figure for 1963 was 19,031 , when there were roughly 62,000 American soldiers stationed in Korea.Korean government(보건사회복지부) figures give 10,000-30,000 prostitutes servicing the U.N/U.S. military in the South Korea in 1954,[49] about 20,000 prostitutes in 1966,[50] reducing to 13,000-14,000 in 1969.[51]' Most of that is not from Lie but copied from the article here. The [49], [50] and [51] in the text are the links on the page to the references you have added.

To be absolutely clear, can you provide a link to other sources that confirm 10,000-30,000 in 1954, 20,000 in 1966 and 13,000-14,000 in 1969 that you claim are Korean Government figures. --John B123 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I have already presented numerous evidences and materials.I already said

'The 1954 statistics(17,000 prostitutes) match many of the other years.but '350,000 prostitutes theory' does not fit with other statistics.'

I even presented other figures and evidence.

'In 1955, According to the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare , There are only 46,375 sexually transmitted screenings against :::::::::::::::::::prostitutes.(one prostitute can receive multiple times. [[7]]'

(Even if you don't know Korean, you can see the picture in the link.)

On the other hand, you are not providing any evidence for '350,000 prostitutes theory'.You should bring other evidence that the Korean government supported the '350,000 prostitutes theory'.

'Lie, John (1995) original text 'According to one government report,there were about 350,000 prostiutes in 1953,(S.P.Yi 1964,227)'We can't find the evidence anywhere but uncertain these books.You are not even presenting theoretical evidence.

'"If it's written in a book, it must be true!"Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes from time to time, such as misspelling a name or getting some detail wrong. Such mistakes, when found, should be ignored, and not be employed to describe a non-existent dispute.Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#Social_sciences

'Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

That nonsense theory should be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 정보통통통통 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

According to the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare, There are only 46,375 sexually transmitted screenings .... If each prostitute was screened several times, the number of prostitutes could be lower than 46,375, if not all the prostitutes were tested then the number of prostitutes could be higher. As there are unknown variables connected to this statistic, it doesn't support you claim of the government figues.

You should bring other evidence that the Korean government supported the '350,000 prostitutes theory'. It doesn't need to be supported by the Korean government to be factual. --John B123 (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The Korean professor analyzed and interpreted the data. As a result, he expected to have 26,000 to 39,000 prostitutes in South Korea.I am not an expert and so are you.I have consistently demonstrated through other data as above.Even the Korean government's data comes first.'It doesn't need to be supported by the Korean government to be factual'It's a ridiculous dogmatic attitude. The books certainly referred to the South Korean government. You must prove it. '350,000 prostitutes theoryListen very carefully: You are trying to get the full and considered views of those who care enough to disagree with your edit. If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time. You should not accept "It's policy, live with it."'

'However, don't get stuck on the discussionWhichever side you happen to be on, try to move the discussion towards consensus by getting pro/con points identified so that a new edit may be attempted as quickly as possible. '

'Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions, so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle

The number of Korean prostitutes in 1953 is expected to be around 20,000-35,000.

but

In accordance with the Wikipedia policy, I am in favor of deleting the entire 1953 data in this article.정보통통통통 (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Repetition of the same thing doesn't make your argument more persuasive. There is no need to prove the "350,000 prostitutes theory", there are already four sources in the article to support it.

A compromise has already been made, as suggested by AzureCitizen, that both statistics are included in the article. --John B123 (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

'Repetition of the same thing doesn't make your argument more persuasive. ': This argument applies to you. You have no basis other than a similar and uncertain book.

Even I argued for the possibility of their mistakes. I have doubled not only historical data, but also figures from real other experts.

You insist that you have agreed with someone who doesn't participate properly in this page. You are now claiming minority theory without grounds.

'Listen very carefully: You are trying to get the full and considered views of those who care enough to disagree with your edit. If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time. You should not accept "It's policy, live with it."'

'However, don't get stuck on the discussionWhichever side you happen to be on, try to move the discussion towards consensus by getting pro/con points identified so that a new edit may be attempted as quickly as possible. ' 'Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions, so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle정보통통통통 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I object strongly to you talking to me as if I were an errant schoolchild with phrases such as "Listen very carefully".

The simple fact is there is controversy about the number of prostitutes. That being so, it is legitimate to include that controversy in the article in attempt to give as full an account as possible. As it is contentious, it must be presented a neutral way, which it is. Whether individual editors favour one side or another is irrelevant. --John B123 (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Re HI! I am 1.233.19.77.I made an ID to participate in the opinion.I do agree with 정보통통통통. 가장 신뢰있는 자료 한개가 고만고만한 여러가지 보다 낫습니다.One of the most reliable data is better than many others with lower ratings.자료의 갯수가 중요할까요?Is the number of data important to you?그렇게 따져도 정보통통통 유저가 더 많은 자료를 제시했습니다.Even so, 정보통통통통 presented more data.두 개 자료는 서로 공존불가입니다.Two data(Korean government vs CHO) cannot coexist.두 개 자료중 하나는 거짓말을 하고 있습니다.One of them is lying.공식통계는 한개이고 차이가 날수 없습니다.There is only one official statistic and there is no difference.35만명은 상식적으로 말이 안됩니다 350,000 people have no common sense.조씨를 비롯한 책의 저자들은 하나같이 공정하지 못한 패미니스트로 한국에서 유명합니다The authors of the book is unfair in South Korea is famous for feminist. https://namu.wiki/w/양공주#s-3 그리고 필리핀 자료는 더 명백하게 거짓말 하고 있다.And Philippine data are more obviously lying.한국정부는 9천명을 등록한적이 없다.The Korean government has never registered 9,000 people.이 분야는 거짓말이 매우 많습니다.Too many false statistics in this Prostitution area.KoreanstudentQA (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello 정보통통통통. I'm sorry, but I do agree with JohnB123 here on the fundamental point. The article currently lists both sets of figures, the ones from the Government that you prefer and the ones that Cho et al (Cho and the other authors) put forward. If this was a situation where we were only permitted to list one set of figures, we could have debates and arguments here over which ones are the most correct. But we are not in that situation. Instead, we will do what Wikipedia prefers us to do: Give both sets of figures, provide attribution to who is putting those figures forward (Cho et al on the one side, the Korean Government on the other side), and then we leave to the reader to decide what they want to make of the information. You are arguing that Cho's figures should be deleted and only the Korean Government's figures should be included. That makes about as much sense as arguing that the Korean Government's figures should be deleted and only Cho's figures should be included. So your argument that it should only be the one way is not likely to gain traction with other editors who might stop by and examine the issue here. I know that may be frustrating for you. We do not want you to be frustrated. But we're not going to move away from our position that the correct Wikipedia policy compliant way to address this is to include both sets of figures along with attribution to the sources. Please present some new, novel line of argument that hasn't been considered yet, or just accept that this article is going to continue to provide both sets of figures. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@AzureCitizen: Hi I do agree with 정보통통통통.The reasons are as above.KoreanstudentQA (talk) 07:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello AzureCitizen I'm fine. I respect you. I am not interested in my achievements. I just hate false statistics. I have collected other materials of the time and contribute now.정보통통통통 (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the 350,000 either needs to be reworded at least. Something like "the number of prostitutes has been reported to be as high as 350,000" with much more focus on the more valid sources. The 350,000 number does not come from sources that majorily focus on the topic, or to be more precise, that have no empirical methods. They just recite the number. The stated original source indeed seems very hard to find (S. P. Yi 1964). Yi Sang-paek is actually a very famous sociologist, but without the original source, the quality of that stated number cannot be assessed. The given year (1964) is two years before his death and he does not seems to have anything published then. Anyways, sources with empirical analyses show much lower number, even those that consider dark figures and recognize that underaged people were not registered. When searching in Korean, there can be find a lot, but I think the given sources are already appropriate for the article. --Christian140 (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I asked the professor (John Lie), who wrote the paper, about the source Yi, Sang-paek 1964, 227 as I also searched for it and could not find anything. He said he remembers it to be an essay in a Korean periodical, but also couldn't find it anymore when he did an internet search. He suspects he could have made a Romanization mistake. It seems the source for the 350,000 is lost forever. I tried everything and nothing comes up at all. --Christian140 (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Essays are not evidence as academic materials. All data from Korean scholars in the United States are not reliable. And I found some data to close all the arguments. The Korean government, lawmakers and all experts(include Yi, Sang-paek) have calculated the total number of prostitutes for UN(US) military for legislative activities. It's 32,490 people over the decades. [[8]] '350,000/60%' The previously described figures should be completely deleted. KoreanstudentQA (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)