Talk:Comfort women

BRD discussion re mention of 2021 paper: "Contracting for sex in the Pacific War"

This mention of the paper by @Burtsbeez123 was reverted here by @Binksternet. I note that the characterization of the removed mention of the was sketchy, and only this YouTube video was cited in support. The paper can be seen at Ramseyer, J. Mark (2021). "Contracting for sex in the Pacific War". International Review of Law and Economics. 65 (March). doi:10.1016/j.irle.2020.105971. Considering WP:DUE, it seems to me that the question of whether or not the paper has sufficient weight for mention in this article should be discussed here. Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It has already been discussed, with Ramseyer's paper determined to be a hit piece unrelated to actual scholarship. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary. Ramseyer addressed all of the criticisms in a recent article. As you can see if you read the PDF (and as I noted briefly in a comment a year ago) none of his critics were able to counter any of his actual arguments. Interestingly enough, if you read through each of Ramseyer's articles, as well as those of his critics, you'll notice that the main argument on both sides is exactly the same―namely, that there is "no evidence indicating that the majority of the comfort women had worked voluntarily / involuntarily". This is the strongest point on both sides, and one that both sides implicitly admit.

Ramseyer's articles are not only peer-reviewed, but they are also some of the most neutral and objective sources written on the subject. If you check all the sources cited in the Wikipedia article in its current form, you'll notice that it has been written almost entirely based on a small number of anecdotes. Most of the sources are cases of circular reporting, i.e. they cite one another and cherry-pick evidence to fit a predefined narrative―in this case, the view that comfort women were sex slaves. As has been noted by Sarah Soh and Park Yu-ha, as well as several Korean professors, reality was far more complex. Some comfort women worked voluntarily, others were sold to the brothel owners by parents as a way to settle debts, and still others were tricked into signing the contracts; all of which is very much in line with what we know of historical systems of prostitution. No one claims to know what percentage had been voluntary as opposed to involuntary. All neutral, fact-checked sources agree on this point.

As a reliable peer-reviewed article and as a significant view on the subject, as per WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:NPOV, respectively, Ramseyer's papers should be cited and mentioned in the article. His critics should also be cited, of course, for the sake of neutrality. In this case full censorship violates WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:UNDUE, and is thereby not appropriate. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

here is a link to a petition that condemned Ramseyer's publication: http://chwe.net/irle/letter/ Despite being committed to academic freedom, thousands of professors from different academic fields signed the petition, agreeing "that this article goes well beyond mere academic failure or malpractice in its breach of academic standards, integrity, and ethics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeoplesSleepingParty (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This is even worse than the criticisms I was referring to. The petition starts by asserting that Ramseyer attempted to argue that “young women and girls, many in their teens, voluntarily contracted themselves into sex work at 'comfort stations'”. But as anyone can tell by taking a single glance at Ramseyer's paper, not only does he never mention the women working voluntarily (which you can readily check with CTRL+F) he even explicitly points out, multiple times, that Japanese and Korean prostitutes at the time often entered the profession to pay off debts (either their own or their parents'). In today's world, many would define this as debt bondage or "debt slavery".

Those subjected to debt bondage in modern times generally do so because they have no other choice, and, in the case of historical Japanese prostitutes, Ramseyer admits as much on page 5, section 2.4: "when Japanese reformers complained about how women had become prostitutes, they complained about the parents: that parents had effectively sold their daughters into prostitution. They had not wanted to go, some women reported. But their parents had induced them to agree in order to collect the indenture advance". This was true for prostitutes not only in Japan and Korea, and not only before and after WW2, but throughout history.

The very fact that these 'professors' signed the petition without even reading Ramseyer's paper tells us everything we need to know about their credibility. Coming from a scientific field, I know no expert worth their salt would ever put their name on anything of the sort without double-checking its content. The fact that these 'professors' did so without second thought suggests that they have vested interests.

Which is not surprising―as I mentioned above, many historians who have written on the subject have previously simply parroted the claims of old sources from the 1990s without doing any fact-checking or critical analysis of their own, engaging in blatant circular reporting. Now that neutral researchers such as Sarah Soh, Park Yu-ha and Ramseyer have shown that throughout all those years, these historians had neglected to do their job, I can't blame them for attempting to get people to dismiss this newer research in order to protect their careers and reputations.

That said, glancing at the credentials of the signatories, most of them do not seem to be historians at all. Which begs the question, if they did not read Ramseyer's paper, and they are not even experts of the field, why did they sign the petition, and why should anyone care? I don’t believe Wikipedia puts much weight on a layman’s opinion, especially a demonstrably uninformed opinion, as is the case here.

As editors, we should prioritize sources based on their objective reliability. A peer-reviewed source is more credible than a petition is. As such, Ramseyer's paper should be mentioned as a significant minority view as per WP:RS. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022

The title of this article should be changed to Comfort Women - Sex Slaves or something similar to immediately show that the women involved were forced to have sex WeyBirk (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 09:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem with this is that, if the title was changed as suggested, we would need a different article for those comfort women who worked voluntarily. Which, based on the available evidence, could comprise anywhere between 1%-99% of all comfort women. And since there's no evidence indicating that the majority were forced to work, making the requested change would require removing all content pertaining to comfort women in general (e.g. the number of comfort women). Bavio the Benighted (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

Remove the sentence "One New Guinean activist estimated 16,161 comfort women but is doubted by Japanese historians.[20][21]"

The prior sentence stating the number is unknown is sufficient. Additionally, any doubt on numbers should be noted only when it is shared by historians outside of Japan. Japanese historians may be subconsciously or consciously biased against belief in the severity of the event and presenting doubt held only by historians in that country is poor scholarship. A minimum evidence of support or doubt from historians outside of Japan should also be presented. 2603:900A:1901:C893:DCB:F27D:C963:5945 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

Please change the term "surviving sex slaves" to "surviving women" in the sentence "In 2007, the surviving sex slaves wanted an apology from the Japanese government. Shinzō Abe, the prime minister at the time, stated on March 1, 2007, that there was no evidence that the Japanese government had kept sex slaves, even though the Japanese government had already admitted the use of coercion in 1993. On March 27 the Japanese parliament issued an official apology.[161]"

Using the phrase "sex slaves" in this sentence reduces the women to only that portion of their life and is degrading. 2603:900A:1901:C893:DCB:F27D:C963:5945 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2022

There's a grammar mistake on the outline: "...as a response to wholesale rape of Chinese women by Japanese soliders." Change solider to soldier. Hoofgrit (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done; thanks for pointing that out. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Suggested changes to first paragraph

It is now common knowledge that comfort women have two opinions: prostitutes or sexual slaves. This article clearly violates Wikipedia's policies of 5P1 and 5P2. The description of "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army ..." should be changed as "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls to provide sexual services to Imperial Japanese military personnel and civilian employees at the facilities called a comfort station". And both opinions should be written together. The editors of this article please again check Wickipedia's policies.Eyagi (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)