Talk:Comfort women

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)

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." 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 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 [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], 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)

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)

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)

Proposal about ambiguity evasion

Circumstances

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

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

• copy and paste from User talk:Zmflavius#Please reply to my questions on comfort women and User talk:Binksternet#Please reply to my questions on comfort women

Hello!

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

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

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

Please reply to my questions.

Thank you

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

Answer from Mr/Ms Zmflavius with aditional messages

• copy and paste from User talk:Zmflavius#Please reply to my questions on comfort women

(my questions)

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

Thank you for your answer.

Would you agree to post the contents of this section to Talk:Comfort women ?

If you can agree, I would like to continue to discuss at Talk:Comfort women .NiceDay (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Very well then, if that suits you.Zmflavius (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement. Mr. Binksternet has agreed too. I will make a new section there. Please wait. NiceDay (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer from Mr. Binksternet with aditional messages

• copy and paste from User talk:Binksternet#Please reply to my questions on comfort women

(my question)

In English, the use of the term "comfort women" is limited to the Japanese during their wars in Asia before and during WWII. Thus there is no need to help the notional reader who might be confused—the reader is not at all confused. In fact, your proposed disambiguation template is inappropriate because it would sow confusion. I get the impression that sowing confusion is your goal, that is, weakening the case against the Japanese. Binksternet (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer.

I sent the upper questions to two persons, you and Mr/Ms Zmflavius.

Mr/Ms Zmflavius proposed me that continuous discussion should be held at Talk:Comfort women .

Would you agree to post the contents of this section to Talk:Comfort women ?

If you can agree, I would like to continue to discuss at Talk:Comfort women .NiceDay (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Talk:Comfort women is where this discussion should take place. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your agreement. Mr/Ms Zmflavius has agreed too. I will make a new section there. Please wait. NiceDay (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The meaning of a proposal

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

Questions and answers, discussion, etc.

• The word 慰安婦 was used not only in the Empire of Japan era, but also in Japan after WWII and South Korea after WWII.In Recreation and Amusement Association and Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military these are described. Mr/Ms Zmflavius and Mr. Binksternet do not oppose these facts. Both Mr/Ms Zmflavius and Mr. Binksternet think that we should not use the words comfort women except the Empire of Japan. At the first I want to confirm these.
• Next, I have some questions.
  • There are another tlanslation words military prostitutes for 慰安婦. I think that the words military prostitutesare originally used and the words comfort women are coined as a literal translation words of 慰安婦 being conscious that Japanese and Korean words are euphemisms. Am I right ?
  • When did they start to use the words comfort women ? (This can be a difficult question. )
  • What words are used discribing on the 慰安婦 in Japan after WWII and in South Korea after WWII, in TVs or newspapers e.t.c. ?
• I want to continue the discussion after the answers of these questions. Thank you.NiceDay (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• First and foremost, the term "comfort women" was coined by the Japanese—it is a purely Japanese construct, not a Korean one. The author 義明·吉見 (Yoshimi Yoshiaki) says in the book Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military During World War II (Columbia University Press, 2000), that the Japanese term really means "military comfort women" (jūgun ianfu). Yoshiaki says that the term "military comfort women" refers specifically to the women who were restrained, without any rights, under the control of the Japanese military, and forced to provide sex for Japanese military personnel. See page 39.
  In the book Legacies of the Comfort Women of World War II (M.E. Sharpe, 2001), authors Margaret Diane Stetz and Bonnie B. C. Oh confirm that the Japanese coined the term "comfort women". They say on pages 76–77 that the South Korean government in 1992 used the term ilcheha kundae wianbu which means "military comfort women under Imperial Japan". To refer to sex workers who service U.S. military personnel stationed in Korea, the term is simply wianbu, not comfort women.
  These two sources are but a few of the high quality books discussing the terminology. I don't think there is any confusion in English about the term "comfort women"—it always means sexual slaves for the Imperial Japanese military. Thus there is no need for a hatnote telling the reader about other terms. In fact, if the hatnote is put into place then the reader will be confused. Wikipedia should not try to confuse the reader. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

(sidebar comment) I am hoping that this interjection is useful and does not derail this discussion.

• I observe that the term comfort women has been used in connection with Allied forces and specifically in connection with the RAA; e.g., in the following:

• Yuki Tanaka (2003). Japan's Comfort Women. Routledge. pp. 133–166. ISBN 978-1-134-65012-5.
• Yasuhiro Okada (2008). Gendering the "black Pacific": Race Consciousness, National Identity, and the Masculine/feminine Empowerment Among African Americans in Japan Under U.S. Military Occupation, 1945--1952. ProQuest. p. 239. ISBN 978-1-109-03682-4.
• World War II GI's Shacked Up With Japanese Comfort Women, Military & Foreign Affairs Journal : Veterans Today

• and in connection with "camp town comfort women" in Korea after liberation from Japanese rule

• C. Sarah Soh (2008). The Comfort Women: Sexual Violence and Postcolonial Memory in Korea and Japan. University of Chicago Press. p. 211. ISBN 978-0-226-76777-2.

• I suspect that other examples could be found for both of these alternative usages.
• I further observe that the lead sentence of this article reads, "Comfort women were women and girls forced into a prostitution corps created by the Empire of Japan during World War II.", which is not inclusive of these usages. Possibly a second sentence could be added to the lead saying something like, "The term has also been applied outside of this restrictive usage, two examples of this being with regard to the Recreation and Amusement Association in post-war Japan and to Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military."
• Alternatively, perhaps the lead paragraph can be rewritten along the lines of

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

• This would recast this article as an article about the term Comfort women rather than specifically about one use of the term, with the bulk of the article discussing the usage to which the term is mainly applied, and with disambiguation in the lead leading to other articles discussing other usage applications of the term. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's tell the reader that the Japanese jūgun ianfu is not the same as the Korean wianbu, per Yoshiaki. First off, the jūgun part is not directly translatable from Japanese to Korean; the Japanese word literally means "troop follower" but has elements of forced obedience. Its use in Japanese combined with ianfu does not mean "troop follower" but instead is generally military-related. In Korean, the closest term to jūgun is chonggun but there is no element of forced obedience—it is a purely voluntary meaning. So Japanese jūgun ianfu is not the same as Korean chonggun wianbu. This lack of translation equivalence confuses too many people. Binksternet (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me, that taking into account that certainly, while the Korean and Japanese systems were different, there almost certainly was some Japanese influence on the Korean system (after all, the officers of the early ROK army were by and large Japanese-trained, many even served in the IJA), but the amount of detail needed to explain this difference (same characters, different connotations and situation, etc.), it might be best for us to have a detailed explanation, but only within the article itself, as discussed here. This would eliminate the issue of the false equivalency being created by a lead or disambiguation tag at the top, while preserving the clarification itself within the article.Zmflavius (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a discussion of the terms should be in the article body, not the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Zmflavius and Binksternet. Please provide RS that the word jūgun ianfu was used during the war. As far as I know, it's a coined word in 1970s. Oda Mari (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not make the claim it was used during WWII. When the Japanese were shipping their sex slaves to different ports, they were labeled "military goods", not even listed by name as persons. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

how to make disambiguation

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

No! There is no confusion in English about what is covered by this topic. I oppose any effort to diminish the culpability of the Japanese Imperial Army in establishing a comfort women program. Any system that is primarily voluntary prostitution cannot be the same topic. Any system that is not Japanese cannot be the same topic. Binksternet (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hear hear. --Yaush (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)d

Good point made.Zmflavius (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

No! It is a fact that the term has more than one use in English -- the question is how to accomplish disambiguation between the several uses of the term. Accomplishing disambiguation between multiple uses of the term is not an effort to diminish the culpability of the Japanese Imperial Army in establishing a comfort women program. I suggested above one way in which the disambiguation could be accomplished. As proposed at the head of the subsection, an alternative to that would be the creation of a Comfort women (disambiguation) page, and the addition of an {{about}} template at the head of the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not a fact, as it happens, that the term has more than one use in English; it is a fact that there seems to be some overlap within the terms. The distinction is important, because it means that disambiguation potentially could be called for for the term 'Wianbu', wherein the overlap seems to exist, it also means that the disambiguation for the term 'Comfort Women' is also entirely inappropriate since as has been mentioned, in the colloquial English usage, it is not used at all to refer to any other usages. This means, therefore, that the comfort women (disambiguation) page specifically is entirely inappropriate. In fact, there is already a Wianbu disambiguation page, which seems to have been created around the same time this page was created in its original form. In any case, the topic of discussion here is what further disambiguations are merited on this page. For this, the about template may or may not be accurate, taking into account the above points raised. In the original form it was added, definitely, the about template was inappropriate but one which uses more accurate terminology is not necessarily out of place.Zmflavius (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(mainly to Mr/Ms Zmflavius) I do not expect that the template which I made is so bad. I want you to explain the reason why you think the template inappropriate a little more. NiceDay (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Zmflavius asserts that it is not a fact that the term Comfort women has more than one use in English, and Binksternet agrees. I take that as unsupported expression of strongly held editorial opinions by two WP editors. My understanding is that both of these editors contend that the only use of the term Comfort women in English is to refer to (as described in the lead section of this article) women and girls forced into a prostitution corps created by the Empire of Japan during World War II.

I'm not an expert here. I only know what I read (or, actually, what I'm able to find online via my currently really awful internet connectivity situation).

• The WP article section Recreation and Amusement Association#Comfort Woman Terminology says, "Brothels [speaking here of RAA brothels] were referred to with the euphemisms 'comfort stations' and 'comfort facilities', and prostitutes [speaking here of the prostitutes working in RAA brothels] were referred to as 'comfort women'". There's no supporting source cited directly after that assertion, but we apparently have a {{contradict other}} situation here. The second paragraph in that section cites

• Sarah Kovner (2012-02-08). Occupying Power: Sex Workers and Servicemen in Postwar Japan. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-8346-0. Pages 22-23 are cited supporting assertions in the second paragraph, but I also see in there

• On Page 2, i the paragraph just before the Selling Sex Under Occupation section, I take the term "comfort women" used there to refer to Japanese prostitutes selling sex to occupation forces in Japan subsequent to the Japanese surrender.
• In the second paragraph on page 7, the term "comfort women" is used in reference to sex work during the occupation.
• In the fourth paragraph on page 157, the term "comfort women" is used in describing "... women who served Allied soldiers [...] -- including the military comfort women under Japanese occupation" (speaking there of the period of allied occupation of Japan)

(as long as we're reading in that book, I'll mention that the paragraph bridging pages 157-158 there makes an interesting point which is unrelated to the issue I'm focusing on here)

• Toshiyuki Tanaka (2002). Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II and the US Occupation. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-19401-3. Page 166 is cited in support of assertions made in the second paragraph. Not much of that book seems to be previewable, and most of the viewable snippets shown here do clearly speak of comfort women under the Japanese military wartime system. However, looking at the snippet from page 214, I infer that it is using the term "comfort women" in reference to sex workers under post-war occupation.
• C. Sarah Soh (2008). The Comfort Women: Sexual Violence and Postcolonial Memory in Korea and Japan. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-76777-2. Page 209 is cited in support of assertions made in the second paragraph. That book seems to focus on "comfort women" under the Japanese wartime military.
• Michael S. Molasky (2005-08-12). The American Occupation of Japan and Okinawa: Literature and Memory. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-65279-2.. Page 105 is cited in support of assertions made in the second paragraph, but I also see page 110, which speaks of "wartime and postwar 'comfort women systems'"

• In the WP article Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military:

• The lead section describes the term Comfort Women as having been used to describe prostitutes servicing members of the US military in South Korea .
• The History section describes the term comfort women and several Korean language terms as having been used to refer to prostitutes for the U.S. military until the early 1990s, citing page 164 of Patricia Ticineto Clough; Jean Halley (2007-06-21). The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social. Duke University Press. ISBN 0-8223-8960-6.. That page says that the term comfort women was used (paraphrasing) to describe sex laborers for the Japanese and the U.S. military.
• The Military Government section says, "In 1962, 20,000 comfort women were registered, and the charge to the American soldiers was two dollars for a short time and five dollars for a long time.", citing a Korean language supporting source.

Binksternet says above, "the term 'comfort women' was coined by the Japanese—it is a purely Japanese construct, not a Korean one. The author 義明·吉見 (Yoshimi Yoshiaki) says in the book Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military During World War II (Columbia University Press, 2000), that the Japanese term really means 'military comfort women' (jūgun ianfu). Yoshiaki says that the term "military comfort women" refers specifically to the women who were restrained, without any rights, under the control of the Japanese military, and forced to provide sex for Japanese military personnel." I don't dispute that that was probably once true, but it appears to me that an assertion that this describes the only use of the term in the English language today is a false assertion. Look at just the titles alone of a couple of the books I've mentioned above.

• Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II and the US Occupation
• The Comfort Women: Sexual Violence and Postcolonial Memory in Korea and Japan

I assert that the term is ambiguous in today's English language, and that it needs to be disambiguated. If this article persists in insisting that the term has no other use in today's English language than to refer to sex slaves under the WW-II Japanese military, we have a {{contradict other}} problem to deal with in relation to some other WP articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

added points

• Mariko Izumi (2007). Rhetorics of Responsibility: Comfort Women Reparation Debates and the Ethos of Postwar Japan. ProQuest. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-549-30832-4. By 1970, the term 'comfort women' appeared in the Kojien the Japanese dictionary defined as 'women who served as entertainers of soldiers'.
• Jin-kyung Lee (2010). Service Economies: Militarism, Sex Work, and Migrant Labor in South Korea. U of Minnesota Press. pp. 53. ISBN 978-0-8166-5125-2. This uses the term "comfort women" in a description (in English) of South Korean soldiers forcing Vietnamese women to provide sexual services during the Vietnam war.
• Yuki Tanaka (2003). Japan's Comfort Women. Routledge. p. 174. ISBN 978-1-134-65012-5. The postwar comfort women system that the Allied occupation soldiers extensively utilized in Japan ..."

I suspect that a number of other sources exist in which the term "comfort women" is used in English to refer to women other than those who served as WW-II sex slaves for the Japanese military. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at the cited pages, I'm rather at a loss to see how you came to the conclusion in your above post.

To wit; in Kovner's book, I do not see how, outside of some unorthodox reading of the sources, you can reach the conclusion that comfort women refers to prostitution in Occupation Japan. For example, the example in page 2, "the experience of the comfort women under Japanese occupation" does not make any sense, except as a reference to Japanese occupation policy in foreign countries. Page 7, too, is also a stretch; Google books is prohibitive to copy/pasting, but in the linked page, WtMitchell's conclusion, again, is a great stretch; especially given the entire sentence, which explicitly notes that comfort women refers to situations in the 'larger context of East Asia.' More tellingly, on page 8, Kovner clearly draws a contrast between comfort women and RAA prostitutes. Especially, for page 157, I do not see at all how one goes from the phrase " the term "comfort women" is used in describing "... women who served Allied soldiers as part of a longer history of victimization -- including the military comfort women under Japanese occupation" as referring to the RAA." Japanese occupation, in this sentence, quite clearly, refers to, well, Japanese occupation. In short, it is quite clear, that Kovner refers to comfort women exclusively in reference to the Japanese system, only through a very unorthodox and not particularly logical reading can I see it being defined as referring to the RAA prostitutes.

Similarly, in such snippets that I can find in the other books, such as Tanaka's, Soh's, and Molasky comfort women is almost exclusively used to refer to the Japanese war-time system, and is at times used to provide context for the post-war Japanese system and the Korean system. In Soh's book, the connection to the use of the description with the postwar Japanese system appears to be non-existent; in Tanaka's and Molasky's, the usages appear primarily to be to, in a similar vein to the above, to provide context by comparison, and not as a simple equivalent usage of a similar term. To refuse to provide any disambiguation, I think, is out of place, but definitely, the original disambiguation (in response to Nice Day) as well, which did not differentiate between the systems, was also inadequately clear.

The Korean system, as described in The Affective Turn, is somewhat different. This is primarily because in this case, it is clear (something which, despite WtMitchell's assertions, has not been denied by either I or Binksternet) that there is some overlap between the terms. Wianbu, and later, Yanggongju, while referring to the Korean prostitution system, however, is also mentioned as having significant differences to the Japanese system (principally forced vs. voluntary).

What this essentially is, is a return to my original point; that even if a disambiguation is merited, that it should, nevertheless, take note of the differences in meaning of the terminology, and more importantly, that the reference to comfort women does not mean the same thing in different circumstances, when it actually refers to them in these circumstances in the first place. So, therefore, the original disambiguation, which referred to 'comfort women in Japan after WWII' and 'comfort women in South Korea for the US military' is certainly entirely inappropriate, and achieving a moral equivalency. This is partly because of the complete lack of any clarifying terms, and more importantly, the fact that attempts to play down the extent of the war-time system, and equate it with post-war systems, is a major political talking point among Japanese politicians, particularly of the far-right variety. Thus, the original disambiguation, which did not differentiate between the systems, essentially was creating additional confusion, by failing to adequately resolve the additional issue of lack of clarity caused by the equation of the systems with each other in far-right rhetoric. So, rather, this, I think would be a good disambiguation: 'This article is about the war-time system of forced prostitution in the Empire of Japan. For the system of official prostitution in Japan after WWII, sometimes termed comfort women, see Recreation and Amusement Association. For the system of official prostitution in South Korea after WWII, sometimes termed wianbu or comfort women, see Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military.'

Finally, I would like to emphasize that there is absolutely no need to be so shrill, as the talk page is not a battleground, and such a combative attitude is, IMO, out of place for what should be a calm discussion. In particular, I would appreciate it if my own posts were not strawmanned to achieve a false impression of my writings.Zmflavius (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Re page 2 of the Kovener book, the paragraph containing the reference to "japanese occupation" begins as follows: "The period of this study includes the most dramatic events in Japan's twentieth century, including total war, unconditional surrender, and foreign occupation." It goes on, speaking of post-surrender Japanese women, to say "[d]ressed in brightly colored dressses, wearing pancake makeup and with cigarettes dangling from their lips, the panpan -- or streetwalkers -- seemed to embody both the fall of Japan's empire and the rise of something shockingly new. Decades later, the way the Japanese talked about sex under occupation -- above all, the experience of comfort women under Japanese occupation ...". I take the mention there of "Japanese occupation" as referring to occupation of Japan, not occupation by Japan. Certainly the thrust of the paragraph concerns the societal impact in Japan of panpan or streetwalkers occupation of Japan. I don't think that is unorthodox reading.

Re page 7, the relevant paragraph begins, "But if sex work during the Occupation needs to be situated in a broader context," and goes on speaking of post-surrender matters. I read that as speaking of "comfort women" during the occupation. I've gone back and reread the paragraph, and see that it makes no mention of pre-occupation matters. I had missed the mention on page 8, however, and now see the contrast drawn there. Perhaps I did misconstrue Kovner's use of the term.

You say that in other books, the term "comfort women" is almost exclusively used to refer to the Japanese war-time system. I agree that that is by far the most frequent use of the term. I argue, however, with the claim that "it is not a fact that the term Comfort women has more than one use in English". The use of this term in reference to Japanese military sex slaves during WW-II is the prevalent use in English, but it is not the only use (witness examples of other uses which I pointed out above). I do not disagree with "almost exclusively used". I do disagree with "exclusively used".

BTW, I did a bit of googling around, and I see the term used in some other WP articles not speaking about Japanese WW-II sex slaves: Lai Đại Hàn, Santhal rebellion (with a WP:SS wikilink to this article), Louisiana Creole people.

Re shrillness -- I have not been trying to be shrill, I have been trying to be clear. I have been a bit abrupt -- partly because I was surprised to find my that internet connectivity situation during parts of today wasn't too awful and I was trying to get my comments here researched, drafted up, and submitted during that window of not-awful connectivity -- partly because I do tend to say what I mean in a pretty straightforward manner without a lot of warm & fuzzy windowdressing. If you perceived shrillness, be assured that shrillness was not intended.

You seem to agree now that disambiguation is not inappropriate (and, perhaps my understanding that your earlier position that "It is not a fact, as it happens, that the term has more than one use in English; it is a fact that there seems to be some overlap within the terms." implied that disambiguation was not appropriate was mistaken). OK. I suggested wording above to disambiguate this in the lead paragraph; NiceDay suggested that it be disambiguated by adding a {{about}} hatnote. In conjunction with either or both of these suggestions, the term might be disambiguated in a Comfort women (disambiguation) page. Do you agree with any of these previous suggestions? If not, do you have a suggestion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The examples you show are mentions of the term "comfort women" used for comparative effect, to compare a different system to the one involving forced sexual slavery for the Japanese Imperial Army. The term "comfort women" is not used as an established term for a system of primarily voluntary prostitution, such as the 1945–46 RAA in Japan serving US soldiers, or the prostitution in Korea in the 1950s. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

While I still disagree on the reading of Japanese occupation, overall, I would agree generally with the thrust of your post. However, wrt to the creation of a comfort women (disambiguation) page, as noted above, among these three articles, the comfort women article definitely is the primary article, and said disambiguation page would only be for these two other articles, these two being the only ones which use the similar term to any great extent (and, as mentioned above, rarely even as the primary descriptive term). In this case, I am not clear on wikipedia policy for disambiguation pages, but it seems to me that with only two articles (one of which already has its own disambiguation page at Wianbu (disambiguation), which is the primary term used to refer to the Korean system, in any case, it would not appear worthwhile to create a new disambiguation page, when the about hatnote could redirect readers directly to the other two pages. As to the about hatnote, I would, likewise, support a format suggested in my above post.

The other examples, Lai Dai Han and Santhal Rebellion do not appear to be related at all to the WWII system. Frex, with the Santhal Rebellion, comfort women appears to have been a term appropriated to describe a similar system of forced sexual slavery during a 19th century conflict. In the case of Lai Dai Han, it also appears to me that a similar situation is the case. In the wikipedia article for Santhal Rebellion, there does not appear to be any sources, reliable or otherwise, in Lai Dai Han, there appear to be only a broken link and a link to the Japanese wikipedia article, on which the Japanese term "慰安婦" does not appear. Googling did find the apparent sources of those claims, but no reliable sources, only blog sources. It appears that in those cases, it was either a situation of a similar term being appropriated to describe a similar system (this appears to be the case with the Santhal Rebellion), or, to judge from the blogs I did find about Lai Dai Han, the product of anti-Korean screeds by Japanese far-right bloggers. Either way, I do not think either are actually reliably sourced. In any case, the term does not seem to have achieved common usage among scholars of either subject.Zmflavius (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) I've outdented here because we've apparently put the offshoot discussion about whether to disambiguate to rest and gotten back to the question of how to disambiguate.

Zmflavius says above that an {{about}} hatnote could redirect readers directly to the other two pages, and that he would support a format for that which he had suggested. I probably ought to have picked up on his format suggestion when he offered it a couple of comments back, but I missed doing that at the time. I have now boldly added disambiguation to the article based on my understanding of that suggestion.

I am still a not completely comfortable with this, as I think that the term comfort women has entered the English language with a wider meaning (indicated to some extent by the (mis?)use of the term in the Lai Đại Hàn, Santhal rebellion and Louisiana Creole people articles mentioned in passing above) than just the three highly specific meanings covered by the disambiguation I've added. After having been through this discussion, I think that it might be a good idea to have a separate WP:SS WP article about the term Comfort women itself and its relation not only to the three specific usages disambiguated here but as it relates generally to sexual slavery. I'm not about to rush right out and create such an article, though.

I think that the disambiguating hatnote is a useful addition to the article. As far as I am concerned, further discussion and improvements are welcome. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Dang, I really really hate this hatnote:

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

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

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

Of course I do not want to return to NiceDay's hatnote because it assumes wrongly that the two systems serving the US soldiers were also forced sexual slavery rather than primarily voluntary prostitution.

The basic problem I have with this kind of hatnote is that there is really just one article people will be looking for if they type the search term "comfort women". More than that, I hate how the hatnote lends credence to the uncommon usage of the English term "comfort women" to refer to various systems of primarily voluntary prostitution. I would much rather remove any hatnote at all. The only recommendation I can offer to these other two articles is to create more redirects pointing to them, for instance 1950s Korean comfort women or Korean comfort women for US soldiers or Japanese comfort women for US soldiers. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Dang, Bink.

I reacted to the last response from Zmflavius, thinking that the discussion had run its course. I didn't see your response just above his.

As I understand it, you have two concerns.

1. You still do not agree that any disambiguation should be done here.
2. If disambiguation is done, you really really hate the current format of the this hatnote.

Let's take these one at a time. #1 first.

Re #1, you say, "The basic problem I have with this kind of hatnote is that there is really just one article people will be looking for if they type the search term comfort women". Such people, of course, will have arrived at the article they were seeking and clearly need no disambiguation.

Disambiguation here would be a navigation aid for people who were not seeking an article about sexual slavery by the Japanese military during WW-II when they typed "Comfort women" or clicked on a wikilink pointing to this article, but who had something else in mind. The {{about}} link is not placed here as a statement of philosophical viewpoint, it is placed as an aid to navigation for people who arrive at this article seeking information on something other than sexual slavery by the Japanese military during WW-II. You seem to be convinced that no such people exist. I, OTOH, do not find it inconceivable that some people might type the term "comfort women" or click on a wikilink pointing to an article named Comfort women with something in mind other than sexual slavery by the Japanese military during WW-II. I see it as not unbelievable that persons who have read material such as that found in [6], [7] or [8] (to use a few examples already mentioned above) might have the term Comfort women in mind in connection with activities of U.S. military personnel in Japan or Korea, or Korean military personnel in Viewtnam (I've stuck there just to book sources involving prostitution and the U.S. military in Japan and Korea -- two areas where the term comfort women is used in a different sense than the sense covered by this article, and two areas where WP articles currently exist. There do exist other areas which likewise use -- and which misuse -- the term Comfort women in senses different from this article but for which no WP articles exist currently; see e.g., [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. People might arrive at this article after having looked at sources such as those).

Bink, can you bring yourself to accept that there are persons in this world who do not share your perception of the clear, narrow, specific, one-and-only meaning of the term Comfort women -- or who are not yet sufficiently enlightened to have arrived at that perspective? Can you understand that if such a person does arrive at this article, it might be a good idea to give him or her a bit of help navigating onwards to a different WP article which might be closer to what he or she had in mind? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the uncommon usages can be worked into the article body in a brief section about alternate uses of the term. Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That would work to satisfy the curiosity of persons who did not arrive here needing disambiguation. It probably would not work as well as a disambiguating {{about}} link as an aid to renavigation for persons who arrived here in need ot disambiguation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not inconceivable isn't very compelling here. The chances of a reader typing "comfort women" and expecting anything other than forced prostitution by the Empire of Japan are slim, and we can't throw a disambiguation hatnote on every article whose title may have been misunderstood by somebody somewhere. Blackguard 07:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

How about the people who typed "comfort women" here or here or here? (or wikilinked here, and how about persons arriving at this article because they clicked that wikilink?) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "comfort women" has been used incorrectly by Wikipedia users. I'm saying we shouldn't bend over backwards for those edge cases. Can you imagine a disambiguation for extrapolation or high concept because somebody somewhere used those terms differently than their definitions? By the way, and it's completely understandable that this was missed, but the first example you gave is a contribution from an edit-warring IP making flagrantly POV revisionist changes to Japanese-related articles [14][15], which is exactly the kind of culpability reduction User:Binksternet was worried about. Blackguard 00:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm argued out for now. I got into this because I saw other people discussing it, because I had seen the term used in regard to topics not covered by this article, and because I agreed that disambiguation would be a good thing. I didn't expect to end up making the case for disambiguation on my own. I'll take a break from this for now (for tonight, anyhow -- probably for longer), and will probably look back to see what other discussion has developed, if any. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

the necessity for disambiguation

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

Here's the scorecard so far: Zmflavius, Binksternet, Yaush, Blackguard_SF and STSC are against any kind of hatnote giving disambiguation. Wtmitchell and NiceDay are in favor of a hatnote. I don't think any further discussion is necessary. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel that those who deny the necessity for disambiguation do not have explained in detail enough. Please explain your claim not by the mass of the documents but by the detail of them. By the way, I want you to comment next texts if you can. That is, editors should concider the readers' diversities as a generality.NiceDay (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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. [16], [17], and [18]. 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)

• Oppose. The title should be the name of the subject as it appears in English language material. The cheerful dwarf (talk) 13:45, 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 - Unneeded specificity when the title is already consistent with sources. I also question the motive. Blackguard 19:47, 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)

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)