Talk:Comfort women

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Comfort women was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
June 29, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed


Proposal to change this article's definition of "comfort women"[edit]

The section above (Number of comfort women who were forced into sexual slavery) discusses at length the issues concerning the implications of the definition of "comfort women" used by this article upon estimates of their numbers. I have suggested widening the definition to match that used by mainstream media (and indeed other Wikipedia articles such as the sexual slavery one). This is to ensure that we can then use the estimates of numbers that are given in those media. RonSlusky suggested that I create this new section to make the proposal. I have chosen a form of words which minimises the change to the sentence by replacing the problematic "forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army" with the BBC's words "forced to work as sex slaves in Japanese military brothels" (taken from this article). Please provide your comments below:

I propose changing the opening sentence of this article as follows: "Comfort women were women and girls who were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army to work as sex slaves in Japanese military brothels in occupied territories before and during World War II."

Polly Tunnel (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Now it is apparent that the Japanese government has objection to calling comfort women "sex slaves". Moreover Asahi Newspaper admitted and apologised their fabrication about comfort women. The fact is so-called "comfort women" were just only prostitutes for soldiers. They charged Japanese (some of them were Korean and Taiwanese) a large amount of money. [1][2] [3] I don't think it is NPOV to include the term "sex slaves" in the definition; the controversy over "sex slaves" should be described in a neutral manner later in the article. As for the definition, I would like to make an alternative proposal as follows:

I propose changing the opening sentence of this article as follows: "Comfort women were women and girls who were forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army to provide sexual services in Japanese military brothels in occupied territories before and during World War II."

--Dwy (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is like calling an apple "the fruit of a Malus tree" instead of calling it an apple. There are plenty of trustworthy sources attesting that these women were sex slaves, whether the Japanese government refuses to use the term or not. That can be included in the article, that the japanese govt does not accept the sex slave term. We are an encylopedia, not a political forum, to "tone down" expressions because some party or another doesn't like it. Neutrality does not mean we need to change definitions accepted by majority of the scholars dealing with the topic, bubt it means we include all points of views, including that of the scholars and the Japanese government, too. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 13:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Since it has come out recently that the Korean government also used sex slaves/comfort women during the Korean and Vietnam wars, it is especially important that we get the naming convention right in this article. Cla68 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A problem with including "sex slaves" in the definitions is that the interpretation of the term veries from one person to another. You may argue that all prostitutes are sex slaves; or that prostitutes are not sex slaves because they are paid; and there are any number of variations in between. "Sex slaves" therefore will not help define "comfort woman." It will rather increase the ambiguity.--Dwy (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
They were held there against their will. Taken by force from villages and towns and forced to provide sexual servies. Sorry, but that is not the definition of prostitution. Teemeah 편지 (letter) 07:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done – No consensus. Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Comfort women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2017[edit]

Under "Treatment of comfort women" there is a grammatical error. Please change "The women who not were prostitutes prior to joining the..." to "The women who were not prostitutes prior to joining the..." 173.244.44.43 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

YesY Done, thank you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2017[edit]

In the fourth sentence of the section "Treatment of Comfort Women", the sentence begins with "One Korean women, Kim Hak-sun...". This needs to change to "One Korean woman, Kim Hak-sun" as the word "women" is the plural form where this is referring to one singular 'woman". Quoick (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Done--Dwy (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2017[edit]

In the fourth sentence of the section "Treatment of Comfort Women", the sentence begins with "One Korean women, Kim Hak-sun...". This needs to change to "One Korean woman, Kim Hak-sun" as the word "women" is the plural form where this is referring to one singular 'woman".

Already done. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Further down in the same paragraph (first paragraph of the section "Treatment of Comfort Women"), the sentence "...some "comfort women" be forced to donate blood..." the sentence should read "...some "comfort women" being forced to donate blood...". Quoick (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Done, with a comma also added to the sentence, for good measure. RivertorchFIREWATER 14:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)