Talk:Comfort women

The existence proof of kidnapping

I'll show the newspapers by Dong-A Ilbo.

Date and Year	Source	Picuture
30/06/1933	Dong-A Ilbo(Korean Newspaper)	A girl kidnapped on the road
5/5/1930	Dong-A Ilbo(Korean Newspaper)	A girl forced prostitution
15/03/1936	Dong-A Ilbo(Korean Newspaper)	A Virgin girl and kidnappers
04/12/1938	Dong-A Ilbo(Korean Newspaper)	Many virgin girls were trafficked
31/08/1938	Dong-A Ilbo(Korean Newspaper)	Over 100 virgin girls were kidnapped

--Lulusuke 02:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Women's Tribunal and other Efforts at Redress Section missing

http://www1.jca.apc.org/vaww-net-japan/english/backlash/whydowesue.html#02 Women's International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan's Military Sexual Slavery

in 2000 reviewed the existing evidence up to that date and heard testimony in line with international law, took 1 year to review the evidence and render a verdict. one can note criticisms of the tribunal, but it has been widely reviewed and considered sound by UN agencies and international law experts.

Its also part of the ongoing debate not least because NHK self-censored a program about it in response to pressure from right-wing groups and 'general comments' by now Prime Minister Abe. in case anyone wants to contest this too: This was proven in recent court trial, and in fact Abe admits he made the comments and was invited to talk to NHK execs about it, but he says this was not a censorship attempt. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070130a1.html the verdict was published also in asahi and mainichi newspapers on jan 30 this year.

It is kind of strange to have left this out here. seems like the efforts at getting teh information suppressed are continuing here at wikipedia!

- harvard asian quarterly article on the censorship issue by a scholar involved in the program http://www.asiaquarterly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=110&Itemid=5 Crabclaw 11:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of the fact, Rieko Ikeda one of the masterminds of the trial is also a NHK producer. The NHK was aware of the neutrality issue of this program. Abe "was invited to talk to NHK execs about it" AFTER the show has been broadcast. This is a difficult issue. 58.183.10.46 12:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

other Sources of Information missing

2003 reports to the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of violence against women: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/29sess.htm:

1. Japanese government official report p.16 details japanese official efforts at "atonement": http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N98/355/16/IMG/N9835516.pdf?OpenElement

2. shadow report criticizing the governmental efforts in detail by NGO VAWW-net: http://www1.jca.apc.org/vaww-net-japan/english/whats_new/shadow_report_CEDAW.PDF "The Judges of the Tribunal also noted that Japan remains under a continuing obligation to acknowledge and disclose the truth of crimes against humanity and war crimes, and that it had not fulfilled this obligation in regards to the ‘comfort women.'"

- VAWW-net homepage: http://www1.jca.apc.org/vaww-net-japan/english/ Crabclaw 11:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The existence proof of military comfort women

Now Japanese right wing disallows the existence of military comfort women. But there exists a smoking-gun evidence of military comfort women. See This!.

(A) Wanted: military comfort women

• Destination(行先): Unit XX's brothel
• Qualification requirements:(募集資格) Age 18-30 , who are in robust health
• Starting and Deadline date(募集期日):27 Octobe-8 November.
• Departure date(出発日): Around 11 November
• Contract and treatment(契約及待遇): We decide all at our job interview.
• Number of Adoptor(募集人員):tens of people.
• For applicant(希望者): Contuct and come to the next address
• Contact address: Mr. Ho(허)
  

Chosun Inn(朝鮮旅館), 195, 樂園(낙원)町 Chongno-ku(鐘路区), Seoul(京城府). L-2645

Mae-il Sin-bo (毎日新報,매일신보）No.13372, 27th Oct. 1944.

The above recruitment advertising for Military Comfort Women on the Japanese Governor-General_of_Korea's newspaper. --Lulusuke 09:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Now Japanese right wing disallows the existence of military comfort women." I have heard of Japanese rightist who claim that the comfort women were "voluntary" prostitutes, but I have never heard of rightists who claimed that comfort women did not exist. Source please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.163.12.72 (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

This means that the comfort women were merely foreigner prostitutes. A lot of prostitutes of Chinese and the South Korean are working at the advanced country now. Why? Is the government of the advanced country compelling them? NO! They are working for money. The serviceman in Japan paid a lot of money. There might have been a lot of comfort woman slaughtered like current prostitutes has many risks. However, they were obtaining money any more. So some Chinese and Korean women might have applied to the above advertisement. So the comfrot women is merely prostitutes.

Anyway, Is Mr. Heo a Japanese? 58.183.10.46 19:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ho" is not a Japanese name, so he's a korean. Maybe Japan-bashers want to say that he's a Japanese pretending to be a Korean, though. Whatever, what this evidence shows us is that comfort women were well-paid and that they were anything like "sex slaves". ps: if you want to label me with words like "history white-washer", just go on. I don't care. I'm speaking my opinion based on a trustful evidence.

Yoshida admitted he had said lie.

Yoshida's story was denied by a journalist 許栄善 of Cheju Sinmun(済州新聞) on August 14, 1989. According to that report,

Coming the 44th years of liberation, the record, that the 205 women of Cheju Island were taken out to the comfort women in Japanese colony age, was published, and is given a big impact. However, there is no testimony of support and it produces a sensation.

(Omission)

Inhabitants say "It is unreliably", and are presenting the doubt strongly to the reliability of this writing. A 85-year-old old woman said "If as many as 15 persons were taken out from our village of only 250 households, it would be a big matter. However, There was not its fact in those days."

According to Japanese magazine "Shokun!(諸君!)" on November, 1998, Yoshida said "I who was used by specialists of human right was wrong."

According to Japanese magazine "Weekly Shincho(週刊新潮)" on May 2-9, 1996, Yoshida said "It write to hide the facts, and to blend their opinions -- the news papers also do. (So, I may do also.) It cannot be helped to be inconsistent." Objectman 07:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In spite of yoshida's testimony, Prof. Yoshimi, is said to have written in his book, Jūgun ianfu wo meguru 30 no uso to shinjitsu (30 Truths And Lies On Comfort Women), Ōtsuki-Shoten, 1997, as follows: It has not been verified that there was impressments of "comfort women" like slave-hunting in Korea and Taiwan. (p. 24) I am going to make sure that it is surely written before I add this to the article. 58.183.10.46 21:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Further Info

I'm doing some research on the issue right now. In regards to this quote: "In 1990 the Korean Council for Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery, with help from Japanese organizations, filed suit"

Can the original writer give me some examples of the organizations in Japan that are assisting with their case? Are they cause lawyers? Korean Organizations in Japan? --Jayc12 01:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

US and South Korean use

Recently added: "US had same system in occupied Japan after World War II, and it was stopped by Eleanor Roosevelt. Even South Korea had same system in Korean War and Vietnam War."

References: "

• Molasky, Michael S. American Occupation of Japan and Okinawa, Routledge, 1999. ISBN 0415191947 ISBN 0415260442

• Moon, Katharine H. S. Sex Among Allies, Columbia University Press, 1997. ISBN 0231106424"

The online reference seems to discuss organised prostitution, which is not quite the same thing as CW. Am I missing something? Markalexander100 09:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We can know about RAA or Japanese Comfort Women Center for Occupation Force here.

Most of them are wrote in anti-Japanese context. Please read facts among political words.

Also this page says about it too. But "When USA occupation forces to Japan came to Tokyo, what they said first was 'Prepare comfort women club for military officers' Do you know this ?? They loved this club much for long years." is incorrect. It was prepared from Japanese side, stopped in 1946 not "long years", and is not only for officers but also soldiers.

Here is report on Korean kidnapped Comfort Women in Korean War. But it is Japanese text page of Korean News Paper, JoongAng Ilbo. Unfortunately, this page is not accepted machine translation.

Comfort Women system of other nations including South Korea is here.

This is machine translation of a Japanese page. I'm searching English page. Language barrier is serious problem among us.Kadzuwo 12:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Language barrier

"Language barrier is serious problem among us." I agree. :) Maybe this would be a better place to put the material, in Japanese? Is there an online reference for a US or Korean government program of rape? Isolated acts of individuals, or paid prostitution, are not the same thing. (I've reverted your edits until we sort something out). Markalexander100 02:18, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

RAA was prepared by Japanese side in just same manner of Japanese Comfort Women system. Why don't you understand it? Korean systems are much worst, according to _Korean_ scholars. you can read Japanese pages in English thru machine translations.Kadzuwo 10:30, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kadzuwo, please feel free to post links to Japanese sources here -- some of us can read them without translation. Jpatokal 02:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow! Good news!! I recoｍmend a book これでは困る韓国 ISBN 4879195707. This is conversations of two Korean Scholars.

Now, "us"? Are You a group?Kadzuwo 11:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And by the way, the single link on the Japanese page isn't very neutral, with titles like "The Lie of Forced Comfort Women" (慰安婦強制連行のウソ) and criticisms of sources with terms like "silly little book" (インチキ本)... Jpatokal 02:59, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know it. I think just neutral is very difficult about such problems. So, we must see both sides like a good judge. Anyway always we must remember anyone can be a liar occasionally.Kadzuwo 11:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Now, is :慰安婦強制連行のウソ "The Lie of Forced Comfort Women"? It is transated as "The lie of comfort-women forcible taking" by my reccomended machine translation.Kadzuwo 11:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, I would personally translate that as "The Lie of Forced Comfort Women" too. I haven't read the article, but it seems to be fairly straitforward. --theKiyote

Saying that RAA women were forced into the job is a minority view, it's your job to produce evidence for it. In particular, do you have a source to back up the bit about "virgins"? Jpatokal 09:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Like most of Korean comfort women, they were persuaded in situation they can not say "No". I know a case of Korean comfort women said "No", she did only non-sexual works like laundry for other women.

Please see Japanese page of Recreation and Amusement Association. it has some reference books.Kadzuwo 11:30, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed the line regarding official settlement of the comfort women issue since 1) no source was given; 2) if the issue were settled, the following sentence about victims still seeking official compensation and refusing the semi-/unofficial compensation does not make any sense; 3) the issue of comfort women has quite obviously not been officially settled since it is an ongoing obstacle to South Korean-Japanese relations; 4) the statement attributes the settlement to the 1965 normalisation treaty, the text of which is available here on Wikipedia, and that treaty is deafeningly silent on the issue.

AFAIK (I'm not the one who wrote the line) the Japanese government's view is that the 1965 normalization treaty closed all outstanding issues between Japan and S. Korea. Many South Koreans obviously disagree on a personal level, but I'm not sure what the SK government's official view on this is...? Jpatokal 12:44, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It seems the 1965 treaty was part of a package which included an "Agreement of Economic Cooperation and Property Claims". I've added that, and made it clear that this is the Japanese position. We also need to do something about the headings. :) Markalexander100 01:51, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think that's fair. In answer to the question above, the South Korean government's official view is that the treaty was not a settlement of all issues, though they also do not mention comfort women specifically as an outstanding issue. The entire comfort women issue has been conspicuously avoided by both governments and is effectively confined to non- or 'semi'-governmental (as mentioned in the article) activism in both countries.

---

To put Comfort women under the category of prostitutes is not accurate. They do not get monetary returns for what they are forced into doing. Mandel 11:40, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm that depends. {Prostitute = Paid Sex Worker} is correct and incorrect. Prostitute could simply means women who work on brothel or women who provide sexual service. Otherwise, used of words such as "Forced Prostitution" won't happen. Having said it, in the context of "comfort women" destinction of "forced prostitution" would be unambigious and non-PC so will leave at that. FWBOarticle

I agree that by the dictionary definition (just one online example)and by common English usage a "women who works in a brothel" providing sex acts is QED a prostitute. It doesn't matter whether or not they are paid by each "customer" or indeed, even paid at all.

On the other hand, the word "prostitute" has pejorative connotations far beyond it's dictionary definition. Especially given the subject at hand, it might be wiser to adopt more neutral language when possible. "Woman who works in a military brothel" doesn't have nearly the bite that "prostitute" does. Another possibly more neutral expression would be "sex worker".

On a somewhat related subject, that may be somewhat obscured by the very term "comfort women"--were there no, none, zero, nada boys or men involved as sex workers in this military brothel system? That seems beyond belief, given the wide extent of the system and relatively large numbers of people involved. If any such men or boys were involved in this system, it would seem that they deserve at least a small mention in an article on the subject.

Bhugh 03:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Major Rewrite

Done major rewrite. Feel free to correct my engrish or any NPOV problems. I'm going to bed. Good night. FWBOarticle 05:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I probably need rewrite the last section. It was basically attempt to put togeter info like RAA or Korean Military Brothel system. It is pretty much Me-steal-but-others-steal-too-so-I-should-get-off argument. I will try to do better contextualisation. FWBOarticle 22:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The comfort women question is a very complex issue. I should know I've been working on it for the last five years ( more specifically on the issue as it is presented in the English speaking newspapers of Korea). What strikes me in this comment page is that people try to demonstrate that one systeme was worse than another . Prostitution as a whole is horrible; forced prostitution even more. Now to make it really clear the japanese governement acknowledges the suffering of the comfort women, go check the MOFAT website, but do not want to directly compensate them (they want to establish private funds publicly financed). Offers have been made since the 1990's, but they were dismissed as "too little too late" by the Comfort Women. What they really want is an official apology and enough money to live out their lives decently. It is striking to see that most of the victims still living are in poverty and subsist (in Korea) thanks to the governement money. Which at any rate is far from enough. I personnaly believe that the women are victimized a second time by the debate on wether or not they were forcefully drafted. You may check horrendous comments on Amazon.com where japanese readers bombastically dismiss any books that would cover the atrocities committed by their troops during WWII. This is not to say that the Japanese are brutes, my fellow Frenchmen were also commiting war crimes in Indochina and Algeria, and we have yet to put them on trial.

Odd statistics

The Japanese who subscribed in the licensed pleasure quarter made up 40%. Koreans made up 20% and the Chinese 10%. The woman who were forced to join in Japanese-occupied countries except Korea and China or the battlefield formed the remaining 40%.

Anybody find anything wrong with this? silsor 22:43, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Euphemesims

I daresay serve has an air of voluntarism about it. "Forced to work as prostitutes" is more accurate.

Also, does the article mention the murders of the used-up ones? Some of my East Asian friends tell of soldiers placing 100 women in a cave and then blowing them all up with explosives. Are these mere rumors? -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 4, 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Dr. Ikuhiko Hata.

>However, Yoshida admitted afterward his confesses were not true, according to research of Dr. Ikuhiko Hata.

What is the foundation? That Yoshida admitted that his work had not been true is a forgery of the rightwing revisionists. Everton 01:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Need to confirm information from Hata.

According to Irischang.net: "...failed to tell readers that Hata is not regarded as a serious scholar in Japan or the United States, very much because he is a regular contributor to ultra right-wing Japanese publications like Bungei Shunju..."

The article has several references to Hata. This article must be updated. Hunfe 06:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. one mention of Hata is more than enough. one should really know that there have been concerted right-wing efforts to suppress information about the comfort women issue in general and the Women;s Tribunal in particular. it seems that these efforts are continuing here, creating the impression that there is uncertainity about points few serious researchers contest. Kind of like how it used to be with global warming! Prof. Hata is not a credible major source, but a highly controversial scholar. His views should be placed in context, e.g. he is also a co-author of the infamous history textbook that caused such an uproar (against which history teachers associations in japan were also outraged and most schools dont use it). In any case, its not good to give the views of one radical scholar the same weight as the large number of resaerchers who disagree with his findings. its not neutrality if research not well corraborated is given the same space as the views of the academic mainstream.Crabclaw 11:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Hata is thought to be moderate maintenance in Japan. He values the original source, and his investigation is evaluated, "Become the standard of the discussion". It is a person criticized least in researchers even if the book review of Amazon is seen. However, to value the testimony, people like iris Chang will feel him a troublesome person. In Japanese Wikipedia, it is "秦郁彦" --Elementy 18:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bobbybuilder, Taiwan, and vandalism

I wish that Bobbybuilder would stop marking his changes as "rv. vandalism". The changes he is reverting may or may not be correct, and they may or may not have been made in good faith, but it is clear that they are not vandalism.

-- Dominus 13:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dominus, the matter has been explained before, yet someone deliberately reversed to the incorrect version. I think the first time is out of POV or ignorance, but doing that purposely for weeks then that should be called vandalism. Bobbybuilder 00:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I disagree. That is not what vandalism is. Vandalism is an indisputably bad-faith change that is made as a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. What we have here is a disagreement about the facts of the matter. The person disagreeing with you may be stupid, wrong-headed, ill-informed, stubborn, or unreasonable, but that does not make them a vandal. And when you call it "vandalism" when it clearly is not, you weaken your own claim to be acting in good faith. -- Dominus 13:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Denying the fact that there were also comfort women from Taiwan is similar to denying there were Jews from Hungary got gassed in the concentration camp. Both are war crimes from WWII, both are indisputable facts. There are still Taiwanese comfort women alive at the moment for god sake. If you check the vandal's history, that person's belief belongs to the extreme right group in Taiwan. They deny the Japanese war crimes like Neo-nazis deny the Nazi war crimes. Again, the first time this person does so, you can educate him (let's look at the possibility that he failed his social science in elementary school), if he consistently doing so, then there is no doubt that this person wants to add "bad-faith changes" "to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia".

If you want to spin like that, please give me an example of vandalism that is not "a disagreement about the facts of the matter". It is disturbing to know some Taiwanese people deliberately deny Japanese war crimes during WWII, it is even more disturbing to see someone actually believes that's okey to do so. Bobbybuilder 22:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not disputing that there are comfort women from Taiwan. And I am not "spinning" anything. I am just saying that the changes are not vandalism, and you should not call them vandalism. Holocaust deniers are wrong also, but that does not make their changes vandalism. holocaust-denying changes should be reverted, but because they are incorrect, not because they are vandalism. Similarly, I agree with your reversions; my only objection is your use of the word "vandalism" to describe the changes you are reverting.

Here are some examples of vandalism that are not due to a disagreement about facts. [1] [2] [3] [4] I hope this helps make clearer to you what vandalism is.

Is it possible that our difficulties are caused by your unfamiliarity with English? I was surprised that you used the word "spin" to describe what I was saying. Like "vandalism", that is also an insulting and pejorative term, and it does not accurately describe what I was doing in my earlier message. I guess that you did not mean to insult me or to dismiss my point as being propagandistic and indended to deceive the public. Is this true? -- Dominus 13:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you trying to twist my words and say that I claimed you deceived the public? I was just curious about your motive for trying to reduce "hiding war crimes" into merely "a disagreement about the facts of the matter". By the way, he who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones. Even with my unfamiliarity with English, I still know intend has a t in it.

I think our difficulties are due to your definition of "bad faith changes" being different from mine, and if you are not too self-assured to open a dictionary and check, you may find that constently fabricate information falls into the category of "bad faith". Bobbybuilder 14:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to twist your words. You used the word "spin" to describe something I said. "spin" in this context connotes deception; see Spin. I specifically said that I did not think you were trying to accuse me of this. I'm sorry you couldn't understand me. But I'm going to give up on this discussion because I think that your English is too poor and that you are too defensive to understand my point. I wish you good luck in your work on this article. -- Dominus 15:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you need someone to summarise the discussion for you because it seems like you are not smart enough to understand it. You were arguing the constent deletion was not out of "bad faith", and I corrected you on that, then you were "cherry picking" on my reply, and finally came up with the entire irrelevent argument about "the definition of spin" and "the English ability". I'm sorry that you have to assume everyone else's English is poor, and I believe that's your own insecurity talking. However, I do sympathise your situation: if I was getting bald, and my grasp in my first and only language wasn't as good as I thought, then I would be as insecure as you. I sincerely hope that you will find a solution for that.

By the way, you wrote "I guess that you did not", and I don't know since when does "I guess" equal to "I don't think", I believe that "I guess" is phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths. Bobbybuilder 22:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

== A good presentation of this issue may be found in 'A Public Betrayed', by Adam Gamble and Takesato Watanabe. Washington, DC: Regnery Publ., 2004. Chapter: "Attacking Former Sex Slaves".

== I've decided to delete the exceprt " South Korea had a similar system during the Korean War and the Vietnam War. The women who worked in those brothels were at least partially kidnapped sex slaves, as was the case with the Japanese" from the article after careful consideration. Isolated acts of individuals or paid prostitution should be distinguished from the mass sex slavery program practiced and by the Japanese government during World War II. Users Kadzuwo and Jpatokal failed to support their argument about the excerpt " South Korea had a similar system during the Korean War and the Vietnam War. The women who worked in those brothels were at least partially kidnapped sex slaves, as was the case with the Japanese" by listing broken URLs and Japanese websites that contain speculation. There is no substntial (or actual) evidence that the South Korean Military headquarters set up brothels and kidnapped 100,000+ Vietnamese women to use them as sexual slaves.

Military brothels, human trafficking, and sexual slavery in context

This whole section has little or nothing to do with the opening paragraph:

Comfort women ..., or military comfort women ... is a euphemism for women who were forced to work as sex slaves in military brothels in Japanese-occupied countries during World War II.

So I am removing it as it makes the article unfocused and as the section does not carry citations it fails WP:V. If someone thinks that this information should be in Wikipedia (and the brothels that follow International peace keeping missions is probably worth one), then it should be in an article which focuses on this issue not this one.--Philip Baird Shearer 17:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fucking idiot

Changes

I made some changes attempting to make this thing read a little bit more an encyclopediac topic and less like some depravity perversion porno rant or political soapbox for either side.

I am neither Japanese nor Korean. For the record, my position within this realm is that we ought to focus on the sex crimes and abuses that are being committed today, that we can do something about, and not try to exploit ancient historical events that we can do nothing about.

There is more slavery and greater sex trafficing, including child sex trafficing, today than there has ever been in history.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4038249/ 195.82.106.244 02:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The focus of the article is on the Comfort women that were forced to work as sex slave in World War II, not sexual slavery in general and current state of sexual slavery. There is a seperate article on that. Deiaemeth 03:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Too much divergence from the Japanese language version

I would like to note that there are some differences between the Japanese version and this English version regarding this issue. Before determining the Japanese version to be false, please note the below:

The address made by the Japanese Army regarding so callled "abduction" of non-Japanese women into brothels is completely false. The original text reads:

「支那事変地ニ於ケル慰安所設置ノ為、内地ニ於テ之ガ従業婦等ヲ募集スルニ当リ、故ラニ軍部了解等ノ名義ヲ利用シ、為ニ軍ノ威信ヲ傷ツケ、且ツ一般民ノ誤解ヲ招ク虞アルモノ、或ハ従軍記者、慰問者等ヲ介シテ不統制ニ募集シ社会問題ヲ惹起スル虞アルモノ、或ハ募集ニ任ズル者ノ人選適切ヲ欠キ、為ニ募集ノ方法、誘拐ニ類シ警察当局ニ検挙取調ヲ受クル者アル等、注意ヲ要スル者少ナカラザルニ就テハ、将来是等ノ募集ニ当タリテハ、関係地方ノ憲兵及警察当局トノ連繋ヲ密ニシ、以テ軍ノ威信保持上、並ニ社会問題上、遺漏ナキ様配慮相成度、依命通牒ス。」

The text reads that the problem happens in recruitment of comfort women in the Japanese mainland by civilian middlemen, and it warns military units to take care that no such problems should rise, as it will damage the integrity of the armed forces. [5]

Also, in the discussion, someone claims that the comfort women were unpaid- this is a false accusasion. They were actually paid. [6]

Also, I doubt the wisdom of trusting South Korean sources regarding this issue too much before understanding South Korea's strong nationalistic policies.[7][8]

Everytime an ultra-nationalist revionist tries to deny past war crimes (i.e Nanking massacre, state of comfort women, etc.), a kitten dies. True story :-(. Deiaemeth 06:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I've got totally fed up with those who try to label their opponents with words like "ultra-nationalist", "history whitewasher", "revisionist" and so on. Don't disturb faithful discussion. If you have some opinion, try to find an evidence to support your theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.140.223.32 (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Euphemism Revisited

I think the title Comfort Women is a euphemism for 'sex-slaves' or 'forced-prostitutes'. What do you think? Janviermichelle 05:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The article specifically notes that the Comfort Women indeed is a euphemism, and many women were indeed worked as forced sex slaves. I think the article is pretty clear on that point. Deiaemeth 06:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comfort Men?

I've heard of special units of comfort "men" existing to satiate the sexual desires of Japanese soldiers who were homosexuals, and I've found some interesting facts. Apparently, many boys were taken as sex slaves, especially from the Philippines. [9] There was even a movie based on such subjects [10]. I'm going to add a section on it soon, but its hard to find too much information on it online. Deiaemeth 06:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There's an article by Rina Jimenez-David titled There were comfort gays, too on Philippine Daily Inquirer, Jan 27, 2000. googled it, but failed. Quotes from the article "Homosexuals were also used by the Japanese military in this way. Walter Dempster Jr. was working in Manila nightclubs as a cross-dressing entertainer during the war. While out walking one night dressed in women's clothes, Walter and his friends were taken to military headquarters where they were raped at least three times every day. " [11] Janviermichelle 07:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wianbu (comfort women) were paid.

This is taken from "The Transformation of Sexual Work in 20th-Century Korea" Gender and Society, Vol. 9 No. 3, June 1995 pgs 310-327 by John Lie

"Although they were virtually sexual serfs, Wianbu were paid. Japanese women received 3 to 5 yen per intercourse, whereas Koreans received 1.5 to 2 yen."

He goes on to say that this matterered little, since the Japanese Yen became worthless after the war, but regardless, they were paid for their services. It should be noted that this only refers to the women institutionally integrated into the Japanese "comfort divisions" by the military, not women taken by force or through outside channels.

He cites Fumiko Kawada on this point from a 1987 article entitled Sekiga no ie: Chosen kara kita jugun ianfu. Tokyo: Chikuma Shobo.

Read the cited sources in the article. Very little were paid, most were abducted against their will and brutally raped. Also please read an interesting excerpt above about a homosexual detachment of Comfort women (or Comfort men). Deiaemeth 08:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comfort woman's salary from 慰安婦 in Japanese Wikipedia.------- One of the former comfort women did the restoration claim lawsuit of the postal savings 26,145 yen saved while it was starting work 2 and a half years. However, it was assumed that it had solved it by the Japan-South Korea claim and the agreement of economic cooperation that accompanied Japan-Korea Basic Relations Treaty, and lost a suit. --------Full general's salary at that time was about 6600 yen in year, and soldier's such as two salary was 72 yen a year. Hereafter, it can know the hugeness of the amount of money of 26,145 yen. --------Quotation end

It seems that the situation is different by the battlefield and time.--Elementy 16:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

discussion in English

I request that this discussion be in English, the language of this Encyclopedia, so that all editors can follow what is being written about. Thanks Hmains 15:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

AWF to be closed March 2007

Found this link in the german version of this article, which otherwise is a lot less informative than the English or Japanese versions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4202629.stm

131.130.146.6 20:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Please settle your differences at talk.

• 59.22.251.156: Please provide sources for your claim
• Dollarfifty: Please rebute them
• All participants, please respect WP:3RR. Try to find a compromise.

Give me a note, after the issue is settled and the article is ready to be unprotected abakharev 03:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I changed the level of protection to semi-protect. 59.22.251.156 - Please provide sources before inserting challenged info abakharev 04:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Points of Contention in the article

Can someone explain to me what the points of contention in this article are? I'd like to help resolve the issues. Davidpdx 08:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This section Responsibility and compensation discusses only the South Korean victims/workers, that covers only 20% on the people involved. The info box has Korean and Chinese languages but what about Thai, Vietnamese. The article has and extensive list of references, I prefer to the use of online sites so that references can be checked. Gnangarra 12:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It is highly debateable, some might say even a blatant lie, to claim that only 20% of the sex slaves were from Korea just because a Japanese researcher said so.

Technicalities aside, the vast majority of the sex workers were from China and Korea, and so it is not surprising that there is not enough information among Wikipedians about Vietnamese or Thai responsibility and compensation. In addition, China and Japan have been very tense over this issue. China has refused to recognized anything less than a full apology from Japan, and Japan, likewise, has moved from dodgy admittance to complete denial. I am not completely sure of details, but the undiplomatic and nascent state of compensation and responsibility between China and Japan means it is not nearly as important as that between Korea and Japan.

Books are perfectly good references, some might even say better than online sources.

Have a good day :) --King 01:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Starved to Death

I have removed the following: "As the Japanese war effort suffered reversals and the military evacuated their positions in South-East Asia, non-Japanese comfort women were often left behind. Many comfort women starved to death on desert islands thousands of miles away from home. A few managed to make incredible treks thousands of miles across mainland Asia to return to their homes in Korea and northeastern China" since (1) where the Japanese withdrew from were occupied by the allied forces directly afterwards, thus the women were protected by the allied forces (eg. Imphal), (2) Most of the Japanese Army units were anyway not allowed to withdraw (eg. Okinawa, Iwo Jima, etc), (3) There was often no means of transport at all, thus soldiers starved to death along with the women (New Guinea), and (4) there is no such place as mainland Asia. --TokyoJapan 15:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Financial Matters

I have deleted Also, the issue of who caused the financial hardship on these families need to be evaluated. The Japanese government promoted Japanese businesses and heavily taxed the local colonies. This unfair situation caused people to either die of starvation or be sold in to prostitution since the claim of the Japanese occupation of, for example, Korea and Taiwan causing financial damages to the local population through taxation is not substanciated. --TokyoJapan 15:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

why is my contribution deleted ? why is it vandalism?

Is merely stating the fact taht this article on comfort omwne cites too many Japanese sources? Im trying to reduce the amount of bias that can be found in this article.

Isn't it natural that most of the sources are from Japan when we're talking about Japanese military? We should argue whether each source is trustful or not from scientific and neutral point of view. Do you want to say that Japan is always on the side of evil and not trustful or something? You mean Korean sources are always trustful? Come on!!!

Page protected

Until the two sides can work out their differences and come to a consensus on what changes (if any) should be made to this article, this page will remain protected. There have been too many editors working in concert to avoid various policies, and too much POV-pushing back and forth on this article. This needs to stop now. Discuss things here first, and then we'll see about unprotecting the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Incredible language barriers and nationalism on both sides prompts me to believe this will forever remain protected.

However, in the good spirit of discourse I'd like to propose that we look at sources authored by people with no part in this nationalistic charade. I'm a bit busy at this moment, but I have faith that there are studies done by foreign countries about this tragedy. I know I have just joined the debate, but I feel very strongly that this subject matter deserves a fair, informational article on Wikipedia. --King 01:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this really an A-class article?

This article has been listed as A class, it failed GA for having significant pieces of information ommitted from the article. The article in the lead says the following ethnic break down of the comfort women is 40 % Japanese, 20 % Koreans, 10 % Chinese, with others making up the remaining 30 %(uncited), yet the article only covers the event surrounding Korean women, that leaves 80% of the article still to be completed. The article is currently has on going edit wars over the information and its presentation. To be A class the article needs to be . At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status it needs also to Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic This article doesnt meet this criteria and I suggest that it be re-assessed. Gnangarra 09:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It's been fixed. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

no encyclopedia

no encyclopedia

I think these writings under the entry of "comfort women" are filled with wrong information, most of which is borrowed from Japanese documents and scholars. This reflects the unfair distribution of the historical exploration of the "Japanese Military Sexual Slaves." This page needs to be edited by the very treatment of historical truth. Numbers count, but there are many numbers that are wrong. The majority of the "Japanese Military Sexual Slaves" were Koreans. Please refer to the following websites, www.twotigers.org and www.comfort-women.org.

What's more, the first sentence of the section of "Responsibility" "Japan regards all World War II compensation claims to be settled" is problematic. Even though the Japanese government "regards" this issue to be settled, the "victims" have never been free from the pain and suffering from the Japanese military sexual slavery. There is a compelling need to get the official apology and reparation from the japanese government.

Think about the Holocaust. Germany admits their crime, even though the cruel memory does not fade away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.145.10 (talk • contribs) .

That may be, but this is wikipedia. Go edit it yourself if you see something wrong and add ext links. Good luck. -ScotchMB 15:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, the page is protected. No-one's adding anything. -- Dandelions (NLI)

History's written by the powerful who care. Opinions aside, I feel this article is very apologist of the terrible Japanese practice and needs serious attention from people representing other viewpoints. Indeed, this has been protected for a while, it seems. It is hardly a Wikipedia article, let alone one of encyclopedia standards, if it cannot be editted.

--King 01:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

External link

I have found an interesting article : The "Comfort Women" SystemKim976 13:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Needs real document

About the documents found by Yoshimi Yoshiaki, the document actually reads "Some agents claim themselves as Japanese military and try to recruite women. That should be stoped. Any agents who try to kidnap women will be in jail." So the Japanese military at the time actually was trying to stop forced porostitution. It does not indicate "the military was directly involved." That gives wrong impression to readers. By the way I have a picture of original documents. Besides the "agents" was not Japanese.

The truth

<a href="http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/codex/Documentos/report-49-USA-orig.html">Report No. 49: Japanese POW Interrogation on Prostitution.</a> "This report is based on the information obtained from the interrogation of twenty Korean "comfort girls" and two Japanese civilians captured around the tenth of August, 1944 in the mopping up operations after the fall of Myitkyin a in Burma."

The above is one of fact.

Do you read Japanese characters?

　These are advertisings on the Korean newspapers("Everyday hot news" and "Daily Seoul").

These said

"Wanted! Comfort women!"

Age: 18-30 17-23

Payment: 300YEN/month( You can draw wages in advance up to 3000Yen.)

At those time, average monthly salary　of Korean women's was about only 10-20Yen.

Please image $ 20,000 monthly salary for very young ladies.......

How do you think about these advertisings.

The advertisings refers to an unfortunate history, and I think there may be some victims and willing sex worker.

--Lulusuke 11:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes,there were a lot of ads like that. And much of the media was Japanese controlled, not to say some Coreans didn't profit. If the alternative was starvation/hunger anyone would answer that ad, the term "willing" is used loosely in many instances throughout history. Not every person who answered to these articles could have been compensated. There was(and still is) a culturally sexist attitude in Asia towards women and it wouldn't be hard to imagine some Japanese soldier refusing to pay money to a very young girl for her "services". I know it comes down to proving with evidence but human nature is predictable.Cindydaperky 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You said "it wouldn't be hard to imagine...". I am not interested in your imagination. Give me an evidence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.140.223.32 (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Legality

Prostitution was certainly legal, cf. Prostitution in Japan. "Bonded labour" is a harder one -- how do you define the term? Jpatokal 07:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Is this article's neutrality still disputed? I read it for a first time today and it seems neutral to me. Makes me question whether this tag was placed due to neutrality disputes, or because somebody denies that this ever happen... which, I think can be said pretty clearly, it did. We should consider removing the tag, if a consensus can be achieved that this article has been brought up to par. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems mostly neutral; there's a lot of sarcasm here and there, though, sneers about the sincerity of the Japanese, mostly. Also, the statistics should be sourced right off, with footnote-targets. The Koreans and Chinese want to make their victimization seem worse, the Japanese want to make it seem better, and it's important to know whose stats are being quoted, so one can immediately judge the accuracy (as in, "Hmm, it's a Korean scholar, he's probably taking the highest numbers he can find" or "This number's from a Japanese magazine, they're probably using the most favorable of all the stats out there").

Also, some finessing should be done. A lot of the article makes it seem that all of the Comfort Women were kidnapped, or that all of this was done officially. In real life, nothing's ever that simple. There was probably a mix of kidnapping, dupes, and willing participants. There was probably a mix of government-sponsored kidnappings (etc); illegal action taken by criminals that was ignored by the officials, either because of its perceived military benefits or because of graft; and out-and-out illegal activity that commanders tried to stop. After all, you're talking about a huge army on a huge region over almost twenty years. Oskar Schindler and Dr. Mengele were both in the same army, weren't they?71.223.50.45 10:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the neutrality is an issue as many of the sources are Japanese and more than others. Japan, Corea, and China especially are distrustful of one another when it comes to their shared histories. There is a long history of cover-ups, false accusations and false claims. For Coreans, they have been "pushed around" a lot. And even today Corea is struggling with the Goguryeo dispute with China and the +30,000 historical artifacts stolen or sold from Corea to various places, mostly Japan. A significant part of the Corean culture has been or is being corrupted.

The Japanese sources shouldn't be dismissed but the bias should be noted, Japan and China both have very strong nationalistic attitudes as well. Of course, there is a large amount of nationalism in Corea and that does get in the way of the facts as well. But even those Coreans who aren't overly nationalistic are suspicious about Japan and China's intentions and agendas whether they seem good or bad.

I don't think any of us should expect to know everything that happened to the comfort women. The South Corean government is reluctant to do anything which serves as a huge advantage for Japan's ability to evade this issue. I definitely agree that nothing is ever simple.Cindydaperky 20:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect from "Comfort Station"

Comfort station redirects to here comfort women. I read the old article and see the connection between comfort women and what I would precieve as a comfort station (western perspective) more like a rest area. (IMO) The phrase is used on the page Tourist trap on several others as place to "go" that is not in the woods with other aminitess . I am thinking of building the page Comfort station in that meaning with a disambig link here. Thoughts? Jeepday 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Any references to "Comfort station" being something more like a rest area? I've never heard it used like that but if it's a common usage of the term it might work better as a disambig than a redirect. IMFromKathlene 20:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Example of usage - Halfway down, on their Indian gardens claim, the Camerons set up a ramshackle place called a “hotel,” which had the only drinkable water available. They even charged for the “comfort stations” along the way. What a deal, and it was all theirs!

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/albright2/pdf/ch20.pdf From Horace M. Albright and Marian Albright Schenck: “Creating the National Park Service: The Missing Years, Page 265, University of Oklahoma Press, 1999, ISBN 0-8061-3155-1

As used in the reference for the article Tourist trap Jeepday 03:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Want to make it a disambig page? I'm not totally sure what to put in the little descriptions for the different pages. IMFromKathlene 18:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you disambiguated it, what would you name the two division? Comfort station (rest) & Comfort station (sex)? Jeepday 23:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Comfort station completed. Jeepday 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The place where the comfort woman exists was "Iansho" in Japanese, and the literal translation is "Comfort place". The signboard there was "Special comfort place" . In Japanese, "comfort station" in the meaning of public lavatory is Sagesshou to the woman who makes love to anybody. Victim's supporter made the word known for the campaign in the sphere in English or it was sometimes used in the place where no Japanese prostitute discriminating, and they are can be imagined. --Elementy 20:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Which references were actually used in the article?

I'm not sure that the sources listed in the References were actually used used in the article. Where, for instance, was Keller's work of fiction used as a source for the article? If the sources weren't actually used in the article, they should be moved to the External Links section. Patiwat 06:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of uncited material

As unpalatable as some of the truth of this topic are, as Wikipedians we have a responsibility to easily verifed sources of reliable information.

WP:CITE and other Wiki policy such as WP:VERIFY state that every contributor has responsibility to provide citations and remove unreferenced material.

To quote WP:VERIFY, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.".

To quote founder Jimmy Wales, "Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced".

I note that an unverified tag has been placed on this article since December, can we please now cooperate to provide relaible sources for this contentious topic? 125.203.207.252 03:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for detailed references and statistics

I have to agree to the comment from Patiwat above. There seems to be a very slack use of sources in general on this topic.

• Can anyone help me by providing a detailed breakdown of a number of statistics used in the article?

The 200,000 figures seems to have entered the popular imagination to be repeated ad nauseum as "fact". What ever the truth of it is, it is clearly being used as for propagandistic purposes where there does not seem to have been presented an inadequate breakdown, e.g.

• number of Japanese prostitutes already working in Korea
• number of Korean and other nation's prostitutes already working in Korea
• number of Korean agents/pimps
• the relative proportions of different nationalities
• the relative proportions of those used for sexual purposes and those used for general purposes such as menial servants, cooks, nurses
• the relative proportions of those with previous experience as prostitutes
• the relative proportions of those voluntarily involved or sold into prostitution either by themselves or by their families
• the relative proportions of those engaged through local/Korean agents and those taken involuntarily
• timeframe and extent over which the alleged practises developed

I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue, both on the Wikipedia and in the international community as a whole, that invoked a number of political issues but it is not being made any better by unwarranted or exaggerated claims being made. In the last case, I am challenging the given perception that Korean was a innocent, blissful place for all women out of which all of a sudden evil Japanese extracted 200,000 women in 1939 and raped them daily for 6 years until 1945.

There exist sound estimates of the extent of Korean prostitution during the Korean War of 1950 onwards, and today, with figures given being in excess of 1,000,000 Korean women (src; Katharine H. S. Moon, Columbia University Press). Today that figure is said to be over 1.2 million with over 300,000 establishments existing related to the provision prostitution [12].

• Given that we are talking about a period separated by only 5 years, either the figures for the time during the Japanese occupation and WWII seem quite modest or there must have been a significantly higher number of voluntary prostitutes also working at that time.

• How did the two groups co-exist?

I hope that we can skip the politics that seem rife in Japanese-Korean relations and cooperate in the first place to provide the best sources of objective statistics

125.203.207.252 05:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

CNN not reliable source

As per title, CNN is a tertiary source - at best - with its own politics and therefore not reliable source, see; WP:VERIFY. Given quotation were pretty much pure shock propaganda.

I have put to you a series of question for adequate documentation. If you want to be taken seriously, let us give them some thought and come up with some references.

Otherwise, this is just POV to the point of racism. I am sorry but you have to face it, 125.204.39.85 05:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Computational method of 200,000 women

How was the number of 200,000 women counted ?　
どのような計算によって従軍慰安婦の数が20万人になったのか数えたのか教えてください。
Japanese army had 700,000 soldiers in WWⅡ. (170,000 soldiers remained in Manturia.)
当時、中国に展開していた日本軍（関東軍）は70万人でした。(17万人は満州に残っていました)
Two soldiers and one comfort woman. This is a militarily impossible combination.
兵士2人に慰安婦１名。こんな行軍は常識的にありえません。
Please count based on the source that can be trusted.
信頼できる情報源からの引用を行ってください。--ShinjukuXYZ 11:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

---

The number does not mean "AT THE SAME TIME" It actually means "IN TOTAL"

Also the women are not only from Korea, China, and Japan - the women from South East Asia like the Philippines are also drafted.--Chiyah 20:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

---

As Chiyah says, the number is total. According to the World War II casualties entry, "Casualties by Country" section lists 2,000,000 dead military personnel from Japan. By this number alone the ratio goes down to 1:10. Count the soldiers who survived the war and the figure should go down further.Empraptor 21:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In a word, are you insisting that the comfort woman was offered to all Japanese armies? In the defeat of Japan, it is a big cause that the replenishment line was cut. If the comfort woman was offered instead of food, the reason why the Japanese treated her as food can be understood. --ShinjukuXYZ 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements cited to CNN and Boston Globe are not "dubious" unless contradicted by more authoritative sources. And "authoritative sources" mean independent, reputable publications, not Japanese right-wing think tanks and bloggers that keep echoing each other with the same BS "talking points." I have deleted uncited rambling commentary and added citation requests as appropriate. Do not revert without citing better sources. Herrich 21:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of South Koreans were doing prostitution to a Japanese army according to the report of the United States of America government in 1944. [13] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShinjukuXYZ (talk • contribs) 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for that link. While it's just field observation, it proves that these girls were recruited fraudulently by the Japanese military:

"The nature of this "service" was not specified but it was assumed to be work connected with visiting the wounded in hospitals, rolling bandages, and generally making the soldiers happy. 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.".melonbarmonster 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

One remark insertion, if analyzing it relies on only "Independent and reputable publications", and both are not compared, it is dangerous. The entire information might be near the left if it thinks Mr. Hata to be a right wing only because of the rumor by specific people. Elementy 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

PM's recent statement

It seems that some of the subtlety in language may have been missed when translating the PM's statement from Japanese to English, from what I read from some blogs. Apparently, what he said was that he acknowledged that the women may have been coerced by circumstance, but he denied that the Japanese government or military had any role in direct coercion. The statement he made about the comfort women should be clarified and dismabiguated better, by someone knowledgable in the language. I don't know if it's a major difference in translation, but I'm noting it here in case.--Yuje 23:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you can get that from the reported translation too. I don't see much difference. But if you have link that clearly illustrates this I'd love to check it out.melonbarmonster 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this Daily Yomiuri's editorial?http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/20070307TDY04005.htm PM Abe said "The fact is, there is no evidence to prove there was coercion in the narrower sense.". AP Press omitted "in the narrower sense". Nabetsuneonline 14:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Abe's strategy is called "One stone, two birds" He denies Yohei Kono's 1993 apology inside Japan, but succeeds Yohei Kono's 1993 apology outside Japan.

Japanese Revisionst claim that Comfort Women were common prostitutes

Tropicaljet, 61.116.114.225, Odst, Nightshadow28 have made unexplained edits claiming 200,000 were recruited as prostitutes. Reference given, http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/codex/Documentos/report-49-USA-orig.html clearly states comfort women were fraudulently recruited through 'false representations'. This document verifies that the Japanese military fraudulently recruited innocent girls into forced prostitution. Here's recent Japantimes article on a soldier who confirmed sex slavery. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070304a1.html melonbarmonster 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw Jan Ruff-O'Herne, author of Fifty Years of Silence (1997), interviewed on TV yesterday and she said, "how can they deny what 200,000 women say?" But the Japanese nationalists (and I don't mean patriots) will still try. And try to smear the comfort women as prostitutes and anyone else who disagrees with them as propagating North Koreans propaganda.

Japanese PM's denial upsets 'comfort woman'

By Todd Cardy

March 05, 2007 03:53pm

Article from: AAP

[...]

Jan Ruff O'Herne, 84, said she was one of the thousands of women interned in brothels as prostitutes, now known as "comfort women", for Japanese soldiers during the war.

The Adelaide woman testified last month at a US House of Representatives hearing in Washington that she had been raped "day and night" for three months by soldiers when she was just 19.

[...]

Ms O'Herne accused the Japanese Government of failing to take responsibility for their crimes.

She said the Japanese did not want to pay compensation to victims and rewrite history.

[...]

Ms O'Herne, a Netherlands-born Australian, said she was 19 when she was seized from a prisoner of war camp in Indonesia and forced into a brothel to become a prostitute.

She said many high ranking Japanese military officers had admitted to her that they had used the military brothels during the war.

[...]

Ms O'Herne said she had forgiven but would never forget the atrocities committed against her.

[...]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21327548-2,00.html

Grant | Talk 07:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that great article but can you delete the text of the article and just leave a summary instead with the link? Better yet, add it to the article with citations. melonbarmonster 07:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:220.97.89.172 made unexplained edits again. I reverted the edit since we have two citations that support the existence of sexual slavery and women were not common prostitutes. Please contribute to this TALK PAGE to resolve differences instead of making unexplained edits contrary to available citations.melonbarmonster 07:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Confort women were prostitutes in war time. It was a historical fact. See fig.1 in the article.

YOU CAN'T READ THESE SENTECES??

Fig.1. Recruitment advertising for Comfort women in newspapers in Korea. (Right: Keijō nippō, July 26, 1944) "Comfort Women Wanted, Urgent!" Age: 17-30. Place of Employment: entertainment for non-frontline unit [obscured]. Monthly Salary: More than 300 yen. (You can receive an advance on salary up to 3000 yen.) From 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., ...[obscured]. [Contact at] [Address(unreadable)] Imai [Employment] Registry Tropicaljet 09:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try not to violate WK:CIV with sarcastic comments in caps.

These women were recruited fraudulently, kidnapped and raped. Referenced are discussed above which you are not addressing. The correct term for these women is "comfort women", hence the title of this article. To describe them as "prostitutes" is inflammatory and historically inaccurate. You need to address the references provided if you want your views taken seriously instead of reverting people's edits without discussion.melonbarmonster 19:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fig.1.'s original address is here[14].This homepage is made by Korean government. I think they can't read it. I don't make assertion that no recruiting frauduletly, kidnapped and raped, but make assertion that almost everybody in Korea and Japan in 1940's knew that "comfort women" is prostitute. And so there were many prostitutes who had gotten the job with knowing that "comfort women" is prostitute as a matter of course.Tropicaljet 23:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So some women we recruited and went voluntarily. That does not obscure the fact that many were forced. To say that they were all prostitutes for monetary gain, and on a voluntary basis, is inflammatory and nothing more than extreme nationalist propaganda. Grant | Talk 04:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In our time we know there are many prostitutes which are exploited by prostitution agents. But we usually call all of them prostitutes. In those days in Korea and Japan, the people called them "comfort women" as a euphemism of prostitute. That's all. Tropicaljet 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

In the English language, if not in other languages, the term "prostitute" is regarded as factually incorrect and highly offensive to people who were forced/deceived into becoming sex slaves. Grant | Talk 06:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I respect your sense of ethics. But there are some countries which have legalized　prostitution like Netherlands and Australia. England don't prohibit Independent Escort and prohibit systematized prostitution. Japan prohibited prostitution in 1956. And Korea prohibited prostitution in 2004.Tropicaljet 07:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not the legality or otherwise of prostitution; the problem is that in modern English, it is no longer acceptable to refer to women as "prostitutes" when they are forced to take part. In modern usage, a prostitute or sex worker is someone who has chosen to do that work, for their own financial gain. Coercion means that they have been raped and/or subjected to sexual slavery, not that they are "prostitutes" Grant | Talk 10:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, so the woman who have been raped and/or subjected will be called sexual slavery. But what do you call them who borrowed in advance and engaged in work ? We know many women in those days were in that situation. I think what we call them is a difficut problem. Perhaps you don't know but in those days especially Tohoku district of Japan and Korea were very poor, so many women borrowed in advance and engaged in work for their family. Perhaps some times those were contrary to their will, because the parental authority was very strong to do that in those days. Anyway I think that the situation of those women must be objectively confirmed as far as possible and Japanese government's responsibility must be done the same. And I must say that those two problems are two different ones. Tropicaljet 11:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide references that show what women voluntarily became prostitutes and we will discuss them. According to ALL the references we have above women were kidnapped, raped, or fraudulently recruited. Women were recruited with advances without being told they were going to be hired as prostitutes.

In any case what you're talking about doesn't affect the correct term for these women. "Comfort women" was and is a Japanese term for official military brothels. Whether you argue that some of them weren't forced doesn't change this fact. Thank you for not reverting and discussing here, I hope others will follow your lead.melonbarmonster 15:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Comfort women" wasn't and isn't a Japanese term for official military brothels. But "Comfort women" was and is a Japanese term for military brothels in the private sector. They were not emploied by army. But "Comfort women" and their agent made commercials with soldiers. Of course under military administration Army provide many advantage like medical treatments and improved transportation facilities for them. And sometimes army's high command made acknowledgment to Korea and Japan that they should take care prostitution agent not to break a law like kidnapping. Those records remain in existence. But many of them in Japanese. In those days those were commercial acts. Notorious Yoshida evidences which first made out that Army kidnapped women are denied by 許栄善 a korean newspaper writer in Cheju(済州島) and 金奉玉 researcher of local history,(「慰安婦の戦場の性」Hata Kunihiko(秦郁彦)　新潮選書　1999/6　323頁 ). And so there are no evidence that Army kidnapped and this is common belief in academy after contentions. And I think that probably it is true that Army didn't kidnapped esp in Korea. Because sometimes a prostitut's gainings rose more than full general Tojo Hideki(東条英機）'s annual earnings for high risk high return market function (these had records), so prostituts and their agent were strongly invited. And if the army and govenment kidnapped in Korea, many of Korean officers and soldiers in Army would revolt or refuse orders, it would made army dissolution or defeated. I think Japanse people and govenment were wanted for efforts of explain those controversy and credences. I will do what I can do. Tropicaljet 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you about claims that have no bearing on edits being discussed. Try to stick to the topic. "Comfort women" is the right term to refer to these women and we should stick to that convention. Thanks. melonbarmonster 22:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Fig.1.'s original address is here[15].This homepage is made by Korean government. It was written that Fig.1. Recruitment advertising for Comfort women in newspapers in Korea.(Right: Keijō nippō, July 26, 1944) "Comfort Women Wanted, Urgent!" Age: 17-30. Place of Employment: entertainment for non-frontline unit [obscured]. Monthly Salary: More than 300 yen. (You can receive an advance on salary up to 3000 yen.) From 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., ...[obscured]. [Contact at] [Address(unreadable)] Imai [Employment] Registry. Monthly Salary up to 3000 yen was about 5 times more than full general salary (6600yen by year). It is too huge to take the words easy, but reading in USA report[16], it would not be so exaggeration. In this report an average month a girl would gross about fifteen hundred yen.

And Confort woman was written in novel "春婦伝"(Syunpu den"　in 1940's, this novel was filmized two times, "暁の脱走" (1950)(Escape At Dawn )co-written by 黒澤明 (Akira Kurosawa) and directed by 谷口千吉(Senkichi Taniguchi)　and "春婦伝(1965)(Story of a Prostitute)" by 鈴木清順(Suzuki Seijun), however in first film the "Confort woman" was rewrite to be a singer.

So in those days in Japan and Korea they usually knew that the "Confort women" were prostitutes.Tropicaljet

The distinct proof of "Confort wommen"'s high wage is here in USA document[17]. In this report an average month a girl would gross about fifteen hundred yen. This is more than double wages of full general Tojo Hideki(東条英機）'s(6600yen by year). The American Army in those days was beyond Japanese imagination about luxury. From their sight "Confrot women"'s wage would be low. But that's the case.Tropicaljet 05:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of reffering to movies made in the fifties like the ridiculous "Story of a prostitute" and arguing about dubious word interpretation, you should be careful to not vandalize verbal proof such as the testimony of Yasuji Kaneko from the washingtonpost. I notice his citation disapeared. Is it because somedody do not like what he said? --Flying tiger 16:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason which I reffered the movies is that in 1940 in Japan and Korea, people usually knew that "confort women" were prostituts. That's all. I know 金子安次(Yasuji Kaneko) the member of Chugoku kikokusya renrakukai (ja:中国帰還者連絡会). But I have no way of telling about him. In the meantime I suspended to estimate his testimony. By the way why you can make a critical attack on someones's conduct with doing same conducts that erased citations. I can't understand your morals. Tropicaljet 17:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review WIKI policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Your trying to make points that have nothing to do with pertinent edits being discussed.melonbarmonster 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. But please make more clear which point you are indicating if you want to bear a part.Tropicaljet 18:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yasuji Kaneko's Testimony apparently contradicts the report by the UNITED STATES OFFICE OF WAR INFORMATION, which says "The girls were allowed the prerogative of refusing a customer. This was often done if the person were too drunk.". http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/codex/Documentos/report-49-USA-orig.html . Thus, his testimony just suggests his personal brutality and does not reflects the truth of the comfort women system. I think it is not appropriate to cite his testimony on our article. (Nabetsuneonline 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

You just make a personnal interpretation of a testimonial proof. You were not there, neither I. This report does not pretend to cover all the cases. Kaneko talks about rape of comfort women during his campaigns in China. I think that is inapropriate to make personal point of view in this article. --Flying tiger 19:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. That's the same document that proves that Japanese military lied in to recruit comfort women. Whichever girl was interviewed may have had the right to refuse a customer but that is an overwhelming minority.melonbarmonster 21:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Revisionist Edits

These edits and reversions are becoming a nuisance. Tropicaljet you've continued to make edits and reverts without explaining yourself. You need to limit your contributions to this talk page to explain your edits rather than using it as a soapbox in violation of WP:NOT#SOAP.

Please propose serious edits here and gain consensus before reverting or editing. Thank you.melonbarmonster 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

This Revisionist word is obviously personal attack word. melonbarmonster is a personal attacker. Please keep the rules.Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I think you are Korean. And now it is important for your country and east asian future to know the truth. And the truth can't be found without many facts. Please don't eliminate citations to be selfish without any representations. Thanks. Tropicaljet 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You're ranting and raving that Comfort Women were common prostitutes, they were paid well, etc.. Those views are known as Japanese revisionism around the world. That's a fact.

You'd do better to quit reversions and explain your edits and seek consensus instead of using the talk page to violate WP:NOT#SOAP. You still haven't explained your edits.melonbarmonster 06:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained Edits continued

I've been trying get involved parties to at least explain their edits to no avail. I'll list the edits that are problematic here.

1. "The majority of the women were recruited by force or deception, and became sex slaves. " This line is being deleted over and over again. Citation backs up the statement. Regardless of personal opinions on the matter, the facts referenced is clear. Competing citations are welcome for discussion.

2. "However, Seiji Yoshida's evidence, which first made out that the Army kidnapped women, is denied by 許栄善, a Korean newspaper writer and 金奉玉, a researcher of Korean local history in Jeju Island (済州島). Then it was reported that Seiji Yoshida came round that he made fabricated history in 1996.. After argumentations historians accept that no such orchestrated action was undertaken by the Japanese military. This section is being added without explanation. Details and explanation of this theory that Yoshida made up his previous claims need to be given. Furthermore, citation from Daily Yomiuri(last footnote) in no way states that "no orchestrated action was undertaken by the Japanese military." This is poorly written and a coherent explanation and a reasonable proposal is needed before proper integration into the article.

3. Abe's quote was changed from "The fact is, there is no evidence to prove there was coercion" to "The fact is, there is no evidence to prove that such orchestrated action was undertaken by the Japanese military." The original quote is referenced and unless competing references are provided for discussion, personal translations are not proper.Melonbarmonster 01:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Please explain where ""The majority of the women were recruited by force or deception" was told in your citations.

"A majority of the 200,000 women whom historians estimate were forced to provide sex for Japan's former Imperial Army were from the Korean Peninsula, which was then a Japanese colony." "Historians believe at least 200,000 young women were forced to serve in the Japanese army's brothels during World War II." from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6411471.stm. Please let us know if you have any references that state otherwise.

2. Daily Yomiuri's statement made an assertion of these argumentations and YOMIURI is largest paper in Japan. So it is fully worth to cite.

Except the article that you cited doesn't state Japanese military wasn't "orchestrating", et.. If you provide a clear quote, I'd be happy to look at it.

3. This translation was deleted the context. Abe stated that no orchestrated action was undertaken by the Japanese military. This is same to the conclusion of history Society.

Like it or not, that's the way it was translated in the references. I didn't provide my own translations and neither can you. NYT and Washington Post are the sources. Again, if you provide citations from History Society, we can look at it.

4. Why do you delete Japanese women in first paragraph so many times? They were majority of "confort women" in cited all studies below. Tropicaljet 02:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

BC, the most references even in that first paragraph state that most were from Korea and China. Only Hata's estimates Japanese comfort women at 40% whereas all other citations state otherwise. Even Hata's estimates show that most comfort women were not Japanese in any case.melonbarmonster 02:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quotes and explains of 1-3. I will search adequate citations. But deleting YOMIURI article is a vandalsm. It's equally worth to NYT and Washington Post about this problem. For other people never delete again. And amoung the studies of "comfort women", the only one which stated the ratio of ethnic is written that Japanese were most, so Japanese must be stated in the first paragraph. Thanks.Tropicaljet 03:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with Yomiuri. But the article doesn't support the portion of the article. That's why it wasn't belong there. You need to cite it correctly. As for including "Japanese" I'll concede if you really want it there. There were certainly Japanese women who were victimized although I still think the citations support majority being non-Japanese.

There are quite inflammatory edits being made without edit explanation and discussion in spite of my numerous requests. I'm going to request a page protection if this persists. Any and all comments are welcome.melonbarmonster 20:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't come into line with your disagreeing with quoting Japanese women in first paragraph. They were most of them. It's a machination of disguising the fact. If you want delete it, first of all, you must testify to that Japannese women were not most of them. If you can't do it, you mustn't delete Japanese women from your standards. You will be mere a Vandal.Tropicaljet 04:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got a collection of a few more reference links which support the theory that the majority of comfort women were non-Japanese.

• BBC article "An estimated 200,000 to 300,000 women across Asia, predominantly Korean and Chinese, are believed to have been forced to work as sex slaves in Japanese military brothels"
• Mainichi Daily News article "Historians say thousands of women -- as many as 200,000 by some accounts -- mostly from Korea, China and Japan worked in the Japanese military brothels"
• University of Carolina publication:"A majority of the 80,000 to 200,000 comfort women were from Korea, though others were recruited or kidnapped from China, the Phillipines, Burma, and Indonesia. Some Japanese women who worked as prostitutes before the war also became comfort women."
• A Public Betrayed"Approximately 80 percent of the sex slaves were Korean;"
• Japan Policy Research Institute publication "Estimates of the number of comfort women range between 50,000 and 200,000. It is believed that most were Korean." Phonemonkey 13:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. But these are secondary samples. The resarches cited in the artice are resuts of their investigations. They are more authoritative than these. I am looking for such papers. Tropicaljet 14:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we get this page protected, please? The teenagers from Japanese chat sites have no concept of what an encyclopedia is, and their revisionist rants are just embarassing. This has really gone on long enough. OpieNn 15:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of these "users" are sockpuppets though. See USer:ShinjukuXYZ. Mackan 19:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not confirmed that they are sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ShinjukuXYZ. --Kusunose 15:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, (I for one do not think that tropicaljet is a sockpuppet), but it is very likely. See [18]. And don't you find it mysterious that new users/anonymous users pop up like mushrooms wherever ShinjukuXYZ is revert warring? Look at the Joji Obara article you reverted. Also, ShinjukuXYZ user page reads "I am Japanese", while Necmate's reads "Am I Japanese?". I do not understand why you would defend ShinjukuXYZ. Mackan 17:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I provided the result of the most recent check user for your information. I'm not defending him/her. --Kusunose 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

edits to the first paragraph

I've re-phrased the first paragraph to try to avoid emotive language. I feel the phrase "there is evidence some were highly paid prostitutes", especially at the end of the opening paragraph, implies too strongly (to native english speakers anyway) that the women were somehow in the business voluntarily to enjoy a life of luxury, and is therefore inappropriate. On the other hand I also understand how some people may feel that the term "sex slave" is too simplistic as a generalisation of all comfort women (because some - a minority - were indeed paid prostitutes). The fact that the term "comfort women" refers to all women who worked in pre-1945 Japanese military brothels, whether they were prostitutes or sex slaves, whether they were in it for the money or were abducted at gunpoint, so I think it is best to keep the details out of the opening paragraph so it's not seen to swing either way. Phonemonkey 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't like what you did to it (but I'd like to stress that I don't question your motives). I think the usage of the term "sex slave" is entirely in its place. I almost feel that the Japanese revisionists would be happy with the way it reads now. In these times, it's more important than ever not to water down the article because of Japanese revisionist claims. See this for example, a depressing read [19]. Also, why "a minority was highly paid", I mean, even if some were PAID, why stress it, if they were a minority? Does that fact (if it is one) even belong in the first paragraph? And also, why "highly", if anything, say "some were paid". Mackan 21:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, look at this article, which, if it isn't already referred to, definately should be: Japan Times - Soldier confirms wartime sex slavery. Mackan 21:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you Google "comfort women", you'll find pretty much all major English news organizations use "sex slavery" "sexual enslavement" or some form.

I think citing to contemporaneous U.S. military reports on interviews with 20 women in one location is improper interpretation of a primary source (WP:A), because we can't draw broad conclusions from such a limited scope document. We should be citing reputable secondary sources.

For a similar reason, I don't see a need to describe in such detail the writings and disputes of specific Japanese writers Hata and Yoshida, since there is pretty much no mention of them in English media reports on comfort women. It's more of a distraction from the actual topic of the article.Etimesoy 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that even Abe doesn't deny the comfort women existed or that they were sex slaves, but only that they the Japanese state had any responsibility for what happened. Why give this much ground to extreme revisionists?? Mackan 23:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that giving revisionist editors some sort of an opportunity to present their case somewhere within the article would be a better way than protecting the page as a means of ending this depressing edit warring which I've been watching for a few days now. Well perhaps now that Mackan and Etimesoy has put forward a reasoning to their edits it would be nice if any countereditors put forward their arguments here on the talk page instead of merely reversing. I for one support Etimesoy's latest contribution to the opening paragraph apart from the fact that it completely restricts the definition of comfort women to sex slaves from Korea & occupied areas (who were indeed the overwhelming majority and should of course be the focus of this article), and I feel that slight inaccuracies like this give other editors an excuse to revert his/her entire edit. I'm going to make slight changes to the paragraph accordingly. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Thanks,Phonemonkey 00:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The revisionist claims, and the revisionist debate, must obviously be covered by the article, but in a way that makes it clear that the revisionist debate is something that (naturally) is only occuring in Japan. Critics of the revisionists must also be cited (there are loads of articles and editorials on the subject at The Japan Times Online). And the intro needs to focus on what's important. As the revisionist controversy continues, more and more people will come to Wikipedia for answers. It is extremely important that we give a fair picture of what happened. Mackan 09:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This Report is "No. 49: Japanese POW Interrogation on Prostitution."[[20]] is UNITED STATES OFFICE OF WAR INFORMATION Psychological Warfare Team's Report. And the inflationary profit of prostitute which an average a month a girl would gross about $60000 in present value means there were some kind of commercial acts between agents or prostitutes and soldiers. We must make clear what those were.Tropicaljet 15:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That report is based on interviews with 20 girls in Burma. As Etimesoy said, you cannot say anything about 200,000 comfort women all over the Japanese empire based on one primary source. And exordio.com, as far as I can tell, is a blog, not a reliable source in itself. "Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources." "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." See WP:A. OpieNn 15:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In this problem we can use some papers which are written by academic reserchers and archives of US.government. Those are primary sources. And as secondary sources we can use newspapers, but those are in conflict each others. So from every view points of WP:A, we should pay serious attention to primary sources. And you say "200,000 of comfort women", but this number of head-count's is Prof. Hayashi's theory. Prof.Hata says about 20,000. You must say what you know about it. We must say what has substantial reasons. And we must say what we don't know that we don't know.Tropicaljet 16:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I have mistaken in assortment. Academic papers and US.government "report" are belongs to secondary souces from WP:A. So we can use both as authoritative souces. Tropicaljet 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your opinion.>Phonemonkey. The inflationary profit of prostitute which an average a month a girl would gross about $60000 in present value would made demiurge to prostitutions and their agents. We had'better avoid giving a straight answer to both views in first paragraph. Tropicaljet 11:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If Hata and Yoshimi were significant, reputable scholars, their "research" would be taken into account by the professional writers, researchers, fact-checkers, and editors of the NYTimes, Washington Post, BBC, and CNN. So quit your cherry-picking of Japanese revisionist scholars, Ikedanobuo.

Moving on to improving the article: There probably should be separate sections on the 1992 revelations and 1993 "apology", one on the private women's fund, one on the U.S. congressional bill, and one on Abe's recent comments. Hope other editors can cobble together these sections from the recent press coverage. There is plenty of material from reliable sources, without resorting to some poor translation of foreign language sources. I think the Japanese right-wing views can be presented in the section describing the recent Abe comment. Etimesoy 03:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume you refer to Yoshida and not Yoshiaki Yoshimi as the later is a respected scholar who has received international recognition... --Flying tiger 16:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

About the material of the United States

Is not an official document of the United States worthy? The user who directs New York Times keeps deleting an official document of the United States.

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF WAR INFORMATION Psychological Warfare Team Attached to U.S. Army Forces India-Burma Theater APO 689 (Date of Report: October 1, 1944") [21] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necmate (talk • contribs) 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, it is the official policy of Wikipedia to prefer reliable secondary sources over primary sources. See discussion above. CronusXT 17:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the reason why this first information cannot be trusted. The official statement of the U.S.Army will be able to be trusted more than the newspaper article. And, does not the policy of Wikipedia trust Uncle Sam's official information? --Necmate 17:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Read this WP:A. Of couse, if there are primary sources, it is the official policy of Wikipedia to prefer primary souces over secondary souces.Tropicaljet 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you guys read English? Tropicaljet, you've got it backwards. "Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources." "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." OpieNn 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you read this? "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. " . In descripitive claims's radius, the primary souces is authoritative from WP:A.Tropicaljet 19:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source": exordia is not a reliable source
• "For the purposes of attribution": you can only say "One report on an interview with 20 comfort women in Burma in 1944 states that ..."; you cannot make a claim about comfort women in general.
• "But only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources": As WP:A says, the Bible says a lot of strange things, but you won't find them in the Wikipedia article, unless you find a reliable secondary source citing to the particular sentence. You want to find a secondary source to evaluate the validity, context and meaning, you cannot do it yourself.
• "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." Here, it's possible to find reliable, published secondary sources, so Wikipedia articles should rely on them, not primary sources.
• "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims": If there are no reliable published secondary sources, then you may rely on primary sources, but even then, you can only say "One report on an interview with 20 comfort women in Burma in 1944 states that ... "; you cannot make a claim about comfort women based on that primary source.
• "Primary sources are documents or people close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources." The report you are citing is a primary source, close to the situation itself. The newspapers are secondary sources that "analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material." OpieNn 22:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)