Jump to content

Talk:Comfort women: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 146: Line 146:


:::A '''[[WP:MERGEPROP|merge]]''' process may or may not start with a proposal but a bold edit does not need any proposal. User Bliksternet has already given his reasons for his edit. You're just being [[WP:disruptive|disruptive]] on here if you just revert and do not give your reason regarding the disputed content, as you're well-known for being disruptive elsewhere on Wikipedia. [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 05:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
:::A '''[[WP:MERGEPROP|merge]]''' process may or may not start with a proposal but a bold edit does not need any proposal. User Bliksternet has already given his reasons for his edit. You're just being [[WP:disruptive|disruptive]] on here if you just revert and do not give your reason regarding the disputed content, as you're well-known for being disruptive elsewhere on Wikipedia. [[User:STSC|STSC]] ([[User talk:STSC|talk]]) 05:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

== Origin of the myth ==

Here is a interesting arguments about the origin of the myth of the “200,000 Korean women who were drafted to sexual labors”. http://www.rjkoehler.com/2007/10/18/japanese-plastic-kit-maker-causes-stir/--[[Special:Contributions/210.143.16.39|210.143.16.39]] ([[User talk:210.143.16.39|talk]]) 06:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:17, 6 July 2015

Former good article nomineeComfort women was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 29, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed


New York Times articles about systematic harrassment and history revisionism

I thought that somebody might want to incorporate references to this information into the article: http://nytimes.com/2014/11/15/opinion/comfort-women-and-japans-war-on-truth.html http://nytimes.com/2014/12/03/world/asia/japanese-right-attacks-newspaper-on-the-left-emboldening-war-revisionists.html David A (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

China/S Korea started newly intensified campaign of Japan bashing with lies, hate, and distortion after Aoyama disclosed there are huge metanhydrate and potential for normal gas/oil around oceans of japan. There are 500,000 chinese working for 50 cent army who do cyber espionage and oppression. Korean VANK cyber japan bashing group are financed by korea and china. They try hard to push lies in effort to steal island from japan and asia. As for NYT, chinse pour lots of money in to the company so it is too biased to use as a source.Real7777 (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times tends to criticise China far more than it does Japan, and has received very angry reactions from China in the past due to its articles about corruption within the country. David A (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times have a partnership with the Asahi Shimbun which had reported false information, such as comfort women were taken away by force, for a long long time. In 2014, the Asahi Shimbun have admitted their misses and apologize it in Japan. However, they do not admit that they have made it scatter to the international community. In Japan, the left-wing group or communist are tends to insist that comfort women were taken away and forced to be prostitute. And The Asahi Shimbun is a typical left-leaning newspaper in Japan.--IP58xv (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times has completely different editorial biases than the Asahi Shimbun, which did not deny that thousands of women were essentially tricked into becoming sexual slaves for the Imperial Japanese Army. The only thing that Asahi Shimbun apologized for was the posting of one man's false account. The many true accounts of kidnapping, prostitution, and sexual slavery remain untouched. Both right- and left-leaning American historians agree on this point. It's not a political dispute. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, please show the many true account which talking kidnapping or sexual slavery except for O'Herne's case. (O'Herne's case was a crime of the certain soldiers, that was not a crime of the Imperial Japanese Army.) Essentially, fabricated testimony of Seiji Yoshida has become the basis of kidnapping and sexual slavery story.--IP58xv (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the fabricated testimony of Seiji Yoshida has been used by right-wing Japanese nationalists to try and deny the entire comfort women system. Their tactic is that one bad source puts a bad taint on every other source, which is not a logical argument. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's your delusion that right-wing Japanese is trying for something. If Japanese army did kidnapping or something, then, why are there no clear evidence except for testify, in spite of a left-wing great effort for years?--IP58xv (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Prisoner of War Interrogation Report No. 49

It should be talken in this article.[1][2]--219.167.4.77 (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, we regard primary sources as less trustworthy than the analysis of those sources by historians. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not promary source, the report is one of the most valuable source that was reported by U.S.Army.--218.47.20.188 (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a primary source, a field report that was made by one officer in one location. It is not representative of the whole. We need to feature WP:SECONDARY sources in this article to remain neutral. It is certainly true that this report is discussed by some secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a proimary source. According to the WP:SECONDARY, primary sources are written by people who are directly involved and offer an insider's view of an event. USArmy was not a insider.--IP58xv (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a primary source because it was written during the war – a war report with a limited scope of evidence. Wider evidence is what we use for references, analyzed by historians. Binksternet (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you tring to hide something?--IP58xv (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to change history? Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what is true history, however I'm trying to be neurtral. How about you?--IP58xv (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please put this picture

”Comfort women crossing a rever following Japanese solders.”

This picture is stating another view of comfort women.--218.47.20.188 (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this photograph is not typical, so it would not be neutral. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Typical? Who decide it? This is one of the typical piccture and necessary to keep the article in the neutral--218.47.20.188 (talk) 08:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, this picture shows a happy woman while the article describes a terrible situation. The photo does not match the text. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why should this article describes only women in a terrible situation? Who did dicide it?--IP58xv (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the dichotomy of describing horrible circumstances juxtaposed with happy pictures would be highly disrespectful towards the victims of crimes against humanity, in much the same way that we do not let European neo-Nazi genocide deniers turn Wikipedia into a marketing tool? David A (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not written in Wikipedia's rule. In Wikipedia, everyone must argue in conformity with a rule of Wikipedia.--IP58xv (talk) 11:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This photo is not neutral because it conflicts with the text describing a terrible situation. Binksternet (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does the situation have to be terrible?--IP58xv (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The literature describes a terrible situation. Anybody who wants to show otherwise is working on the fringe belief that the comfort women were happy, or at best, the Japanese nationalist revisionist viewpoint that the comfort women were not forced. However, the literature says they were forced and unhappy. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, there're multiple evidences that they are not so tribble, like this. However you revisionists are tryiing to hide it.--03:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP58xv (talk • contribs)
(To Mr/Ms Binksternet) It is a reversed insistence that the evidence is not neutral to the sentences. The collision of the evidence and the sentences show that sentences aren't neutral. (To Mr/Ms David A) Forbiding to discussion on Nazi genocide is not a scientific decision but a political decision of some nations including Germany. There is no such policy about the Japanese Empire. NiceDay (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These assertions that the image depicts happiness seem to boil down to original research interpretations made by WP editors here. That's how it looks to me too — the women don't look overcome with unhappiness, at least not at the moment the picture was snapped — but that's my subjective interpretation and it is not based on much knowledge about these particular women and their emotional states long term, short term, or momentary.
I see that the image page describes the image as 日本語: 兵士の後から川を渡る慰安婦 (English: Comfort women crossing a river following soldiers) and cites a page in a book as the source: 映像が語る「日韓併合」史: 1875年--1945年. 労働経済社. 1987. p. 297. ISBN 978-4-947585-29-5. That page numbered book source could be cited in support of the photo and its caption. If we assume good faith, we would assume that the book describes the photo as it has been captioned here. Whether the image might be inappropriate or WP:UNDUE for the article for other reasons would be another matter. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comfort women recruit ad.

”Newspaper advertisements for recruitement of comfort women for the Japanese Imperial Army.”

Please put this ad. The left one was published in Oct 27th 1944, Qualification requirements:18~30 years of age. Healthy women. The right one was published in July 26th 1944, Qualification:17~23 years of age. More than 300 yen monthly income, getting an advance of 3000 yen is possible. 300 yen was approximately 1.05 million yen in the current monetary value. --218.47.20.188 (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SECONDARY analysis published by historians is more important than individual examples which may be selected without regard for balance. Binksternet (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, please explain why this ad break the balance?--218.47.20.188 (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a primary source which allows a misrepresentation of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a picture. We cannot use except for secondary-picture?--IP58xv (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot use it because it misrepresents the topic. Binksternet (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is the topic? Is it significant than real evidences?--IP58xv (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this ad is authentic, its mere inclusion without context could lend itself to a false perception that most or all comfort women were voluntary hires, a pretense which almost nobody really accepts outside of extreme conservative circles in the Japanese establishment. See WP:UNDUE. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Comfort gays"

I've moved the following content from the article (the lead sentence) heree for discussion:

(plus a small number of men)[1]

As I see it, there are two issues here:

  1. The question of whether the subtopic of males forced into homosexual sex slavery belongs in this article.
  2. The term Comfort gay as a descriptor for males forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army.

Re issue #1, see e.g. the comment at [3] saying "... Young boys no older than 10 were raped by homosexual Japanese military, ...", which is attributed there to "http://www.coconutconnections.blogspot.com Thea Bisenberger-van der Wal". I don't know whether reliable sources about this exist; my guess is that some probably do. If RSs do exist, info about this supported by such sources may merit inclusion in WP.

Re issue #2, "No!". The Ref[1] in the removed material requoted above is completely off the rails. It apparently relies on info from this WP article about a Filipino biographical-drama from the year 2000. During WW-II, the word "gay" was not generally associated with homosexuality. One source ([4]) says that the slang meaning "homosexual" (adj.) begins to appear in psychological writing late 1940s, evidently picked up from gay slang and not always easily distinguished from the older sense. Another source ([5] says that the word gay had acquired the new added definition of meaning homosexual males by 1955.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b These were usually referred to as "comfort gays". See Walterina Markova.
Dutch boys were also used as sex slaves by the Japanese. There should be a section on here about the male victims.Rajmaan (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find it entirely plausible that there were male sex slaves of the Japanese Army. However, I would bet dollars to beans that "comfort gay" is an anachronism. --Yaush (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On adding further template to Legacy in South Korea section

  • I added a further template to Legacy in South Korea section, and Mr/Ms STSC undid my editing with a message We had discussion before, no consensus was reached to add the link. Surely we discussed on adding some disambiguation templates or links. But we had never discussed on adding further template. You can see that almost the same contents are( is ?) described in Legacy in South Korea section and in Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military article. So the further template is useful for the readers. Please post your opinions.NiceDay (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In this discussion: About the necessity for the linkages, there's no consensus to add the link in the article. The link should be rejected due to coatracking. STSC (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion Is disambiguation between the article comfort women and other articles useful or useless ? next to About the necessity for the linkages, there were obtained the next result Result: Disambiguation would be useful. There is consensus that disambiguation would be useful, but no consensus and no clear proposal as to what form such disambiguation might take. Given that previous proposals have not gained consensus, further discussion is needed before disambiguation can be implemented. These sentences indicate that those discussions were on disambiguation and there were no discussion on template:further in Legacy in South Korea section. So please discuss on this proposal. NiceDay (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have already pointed out adding the link is coatracking, therefore is unacceptable. STSC (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The link is coatracking and also POV-pushing by NiceDay who has been blocked on Chinese Wikipedia for this kind of disruption. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Coatrack is an essay not refering to the links but refering to the contents. So, if you feel that it is coatracking to describe about western princess in this article, you should propose to remove Legacy in South Korea section or merge the section to Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. NiceDay (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC) & 10:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC) & 10:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would just delete the entire 'Legacy in South Korea' section because it does not really belong to this article; you're of course free to incorporate its content into any other related article. STSC (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have undid the removal of the section by Mr/Ms Binksternet, because it was done with no proposal. Please propose the removal in new section. NiceDay (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A "proposal" is not needed when the material is in violation of the WP:UNDUE guideline. The literature about comfort women (the Japanese comfort women program which operated from the late 1930s to 1945) never talks about the U.S. military presence in Korea as part of the topic. So your section is off topic – undue emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Insistence of WP:UNDUE is a chicanery. It has been only taken out because Mr/Ms Binksternet do not want to discuss.There was no discussion on WP:UNDUE. There was only some dicussion on Wikipedia:Coatrack. The section can be coatracking. But removal or partial merging based on Wikipedia:Coatrack should be proposed BEFORE editing, because Wikipedia:Coatrack is only a essay. I will oppose to the removal but I will not oppose to the partial merging. NiceDay (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand. The section is off topic and should not be there. We don't need some kind of official discussion for people to decide whether it's off topic or not, since it certainly off topic.
Text that is challenged should remain out of the article until a consensus is formed to bring it back in. If you want to try and convince others that it is part of the topic then you are welcome to open such a discussion. The section will stay out unless consensus determines it will go in. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A merge process may or may not start with a proposal but a bold edit does not need any proposal. User Bliksternet has already given his reasons for his edit. You're just being disruptive on here if you just revert and do not give your reason regarding the disputed content, as you're well-known for being disruptive elsewhere on Wikipedia. STSC (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the myth

Here is a interesting arguments about the origin of the myth of the “200,000 Korean women who were drafted to sexual labors”. http://www.rjkoehler.com/2007/10/18/japanese-plastic-kit-maker-causes-stir/--210.143.16.39 (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comfort_women&oldid=670157588"