Talk:Diary of a Japanese Military Comfort Station Manager

Removal of original research

I removed a lot of text placed in the article by User:Phoenix7777. The text was in violation of the policy WP:No original research. Phoenix7777 was trying to demonstrate to the reader that the book reviews were wrong, that the comfort women program was not forced sexual slavery. The demonstration used primary source material, that is, examples taken from the book. Wikipedia is built primarily upon WP:SECONDARY sources, in this case third-party reviews of the book. There is no loophole through which a Wikipedia editor can compose article text to create an argument against the secondary sources by using primary source material.

As well, Phoenix7777 was cherry-picking quotes to slant the page away from the opinions expressed in the sources. The widely expressed view is that the book confirmed very strongly the extent of the comfort women program of forced sexual service. Phoenix7777 was picking quotes that called into doubt the "forcible recruitment" of comfort women, despite the fact that they were tricked into signing up, and once they were in Burma they were forced into sexual slavery. I have brought in more sources which describe the program more accurately.

Let's refrain from using this article to try and defend the revisionist viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Correct. Cherry-picking from sources - even from reliable, secondary ones - is not allowed per WP:UNDUE. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I think some of these deletions are a little extreme. By and large all Phoenix7777 was doing was summarizing some of the key contents of the published diary. Because this is an article about the diary, there is nothing wrong with summarizing the diary's contents. The diary was of course written long before the comfort women controversy erupted, so it's not surprising that (as the article in the Japan Times pointed out) some of its contents happen to support the general "sexual slavery" viewpoint and other parts of its contents call into question that viewpoint. On the one hand, the diary demonstrated that comfort women were not always free to leave their work, but on the other hand it also demonstrated that some comfort women were permitted to retire, and that comfort women were generally paid good wages and given a high quality of medical care.

When it comes to the issue of "forced recruitment" specifically, I disagree that Phoenix7777's overview of the diary contradicted the views of any scholars. The Wikipedia article was not contradicting any reliable secondary sources. As Korean historian Choi Kilsong pointed out in his book, "韓国の米軍慰安婦はなぜ生まれたのか" (pages 113-156), when the diary was initially released some Korean media outlets caused a small sensation by treating it as evidence of the forcible recruitment of comfort women, but Choi notes that actually there is no passage in the diary that refers in any way to forcible or even deceptive recruitment of comfort women. Whether or not forcible recruitment occurred, the diary at least makes no mention of it. Though historians An Byeong-jik and Choi Kilsong disagree on a number of issues relating to the diary, An Byeong-jik was quoted by one of the newspaper articles cited by Phoenix7777 as stating that the diary did not provide evidence of forced recruitment, so on this issue it seems that they agree. By contrast, I'm not aware of any historians who view the diary as evidence for forcible recruitment of comfort women. Some of the sources that were cited in the article like the New York Times article did not mention the diary specifically, so I'm fine with removing those, but I think that at least the summarization of the diary's contents should be restored to the article in some manner. I doubt any of that can be said to constitute original research.CurtisNaito (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The diary is a primary source in there a private individual recorded some events in his personal diary, if you just present these events in the article as normal everyday happenings in those days then it's original research. STSC (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, I agree with you that my deletions were "a little extreme", which is why I composed some text summarizing secondary sources to replace the primary-sourced text by Phoenix7777. I brought back the idea that the comfort women were fed, paid, kept healthy and offered entertainment; all of which are discussed in secondary sources.

The main point is that the diary confirmed the extent of the comfort women program, contradicting some of the revisionists and denialists. This is the main point we should focus on in the article. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I still think that in the future there will be grounds to expand the article by creating a summary section which cites the diary itself. This is a Wikipedia article about a book so I think it's fair to include a summary of the book's contents by citing the book itself, just like virtually every article on Wikipedia about a book does. When a Wikipedia article itself is about a book, the book is almost always cited in the summary section.

The diary contains no information about how exactly the comfort women were recruited, and therefore Phoenix7777 may have been wrong to include information denying that comfort women were forcibly recruited, but in that case you were equally wrong to include information affirming that the comfort women were recruited through deceptive means. Regardless of what the cited articles may say, it's all incidental to the actual contents of the diary which never mention anything about forced or deceptive recruitment of comfort women.

We shouldn't give the impression that the "main point is that the diary confirmed the extent of the comfort women program" because that's not true. The diary was not written to make a point, so I guess it's not surprising that both sides seized on what they could in order to claim that the diary supported their own version of events. An Byeong-jik and Choi Kilsong didn't find anything in the diary about forced or deceptive recruitment, though the two of them do disagree on the extent of military involvement with the comfort stations. An believes that the comfort stations came close to being appendages of the military whereas Choi believes that the comfort stations were owned and operated in an almost exclusively private manner. The diary records all the author's occasional interactions with the army but it never bothers to definitely clarify who was in control of what.

When the article expands in the future my two pieces of advice are that, firstly, it include a separate section entitled "Summary of contents" which can include some information cited directly from the diary, and secondly, that the article make no reference to forced or deceptive recruitment of comfort women except to mention the fact that the diary does not refer to forced or deceptive recruitment of comfort women.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The summary list is not a primary source. The summary list is not used for supporting any claim but is simply a quote of the book. It is ridiculous to insist that an article about a book should not quote the content of the book. Please provide any guideline which supports such stupid claim. Otherwise, the summary list should be restored. Although it is not a primary source, even if it is a primary source, I did not "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source". The person who "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate" the quote is a reader of this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

CurtisNaito, the points made about recruitment by force or deceit are made by people talking about the book and the issues that surround it, described in the newspaper sources we cite in the article. This being a summary of the literature about the book, the summary should include whether people think the book supports a forcible recruitment method (it does not) or whether there was instead recruitment by deceit (one source talking about the book says there was deceitful recruitment.) The book is not presented in a vacuum; the larger issues of comfort women are raised by the sources. I think we need to keep these evaluations of the book in the context of the larger issues. We should not place the book in a vacuum and describe it by itself alone. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Phoenix7777, your wish to restore the excessive and cherry-picked excerpts from the diary is not going to work. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, the article can discuss a little bit about what is in the book, taken directly from the book, but that does not give you carte blanche to ignore the parts you don't like and to include only the things that make your argument. Before I touched the article, there was a section with the header "Excerpts" that described where Park served, at which brothels, during which dates. That section is effectively a synopsis, and I kept it in the article. It could be expanded somewhat, but it should remain focused on Park's experiences. Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

How did you judge the summary is cherry-picking without reading the book by yourself? Please describe what is perceived to be intentionally omitted to include in the article. If you cannot, the allegation "cherry-picking" is your excuse to remove what you don't like because it is inconvenient for your belief. Even if there are descriptions that are not in the article, it should be added to this article instead of removing the content entirely.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article says "Contents/Chapters" section is permitted to include a list of contents unless it is "an exhaustive list of contents". So there is no reason to refuse the inclusion of the summary list.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

There are two issues in this discussion.

Summmary list

There is no answer to my last comment for two days. If there is no answer, I will restore the summary list to a new section called Content per the guideline.

Reaction section

The section initially describes that Korean media reported the book as an evidence of forced mobilization of comfort women but the co-researcher of this book Kan Kimura deplored such stance citing An Byeong-jik's comment. And I added a note (not in the body) that describes a recruitment situation in Korea citing two articles by New York Times and Asahi Shimbun.

New York Times says "There is little evidence that the Japanese military abducted or was directly involved in entrapping women in Korea, which had been a Japanese colony for decades when the war began", because as Asahi Shimbun says "Prostitution agents were prevalent due to the poverty and patriarchal family system. For that reason, even if the military was not directly involved, it is said it was possible to gather many women through such methods as work-related scams and human trafficking."

New York Times and Asahi Shimbun are known as the most critical of Japan on comfort women issue and the articles themselves are accusations of Japan. However STSC removed Kan Kimura's comment on twitter as unreliable, although it is permitted by the guideline WP:SPS as he is a "an established expert on the subject matter" because he is a co-researcher of this book. Then Binksternet removed the Notes and added a description in the body of the article stating that women were recruited by "flattery and trickery" and "forced to provide sex to Japanese troops" citing a Korean source that does not support the claim. In this discussion he insists that the description is an established view of comfort women and the description is in the news article about this book , which is a false statement.

I think the view of two newspapers is best described the situation in Korea (not in the other area) The note also includes the deceptive nature of recruitment. (work-related scams) In South Korea, the view other than "they are forcibly mobilized by the Japanese military" is punished. See Park Yu-ha. Her book Comfort women of the Empire was banned. If you have a reliable source that claims "comfort women were forcibly mobilized in Korea by the Japanese military", please provide it. However a reliable source which WP:RS defines is not necessarily reliable in a real sense. Most of the books about comfort women are derivative works of other derivative books. It is like a telephone game although I admit they are extensive readers citing dozens of derivative books. See Seijuro Arafune. His ungrounded statement was spread widely by "reliable" books and Wikipedia writes "Approximately three quarters of comfort women died" citing a "reliable" book by Anne-Marie de Brouwer which cites a "reliable" book by Kelly Dawn Askin which cites a "reliable" book by Karen Parker and Jennifer Chew which cites the ungrounded statement by Seijuro Arafune.

I propose to restore the Notes section to this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the summary of contents. My proposal is that we start each section of the summary by citing a secondary source, and then follow each one up with one or maybe two entries from the diary. For instance, we can confirm from newspaper articles that "some were allowed to go home". After providing this information (and citing the relevant secondary source for it), then we can give one or maybe two examples of it from the diary.

Regarding the reception section, I lean towards leaving out the notes section with the New York Times and Asahi Shimbun sources. Though the quotes provided from them do reflect the scholarly consensus on the comfort women, it's not really directly relevant to the diary. As historians An Byeong-jik and Choi Kilsong pointed out, the diary contains no information one way or another on forced recruitment. I can't read the Korean language source which allegedly refers to deceptive recruitment and therefore can't verify it, but even if the Korean language source actually does mention deceptive recruitment I would still lean towards leaving it out because the diary does not actually contain any information about deceptive recruitment.

Regarding Kan Kimura in Twitter, I lean towards including it because it just reaffirms what the historians An and Choi have already been consistent about, that the diary contains no description of forcible recruitment of comfort women.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree about the way reflecting the summary list Curtis proposed. One of the problem is that there is no secondary source supporting the each category of content i.e. Money transactions, Return home, Medical treatment, Recreation, and Freedom. guideline says "an exhaustive list of contents, without any editorial commentary or significance, should not be included." This suggests that if a list of contents is not an exhaustive list, it can be included without any editorial commentary. I added a short summary to each category which is self-evident if a reader read the list of contents, for example "The Korean manager made money transactions on behalf of comfort women", "The diaries shows the comfort women received medical treatment properly." The major reason I proposed to include the summary list is that it convey the life of comfort women vividly than any other commentary, which I think anyone can agree. I don't think any valid reason to shorten the list.

I restored the summary list which is compliant with the guideline. As for the commentary in Reaction section, I followed the advice of Curtis. I removed both side of claims. I also removed descriptions which are not in the book.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the current Contents list is excessive, consists of trivial material, and would be better in prose (WP:USEPROSE). Please not that per the WP:USEPROSE guideline, articles are either primarily lists (list-class articles) or regular prose articles. Since this is a regular article, it should primarily consists of prose. With the introduction of the excessive Contents section, it now consist of listed material instead. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That guideline does not apply to this article. The guideline suggests a list of unmeaning items which are not self-explanatory are not preferred showing an example "Presenting too much statistical data in list format may contravene policy." and a list of buildings. However this article's items in Contents section are self-explanatory because it is not a simple list of such items but it is a list of entries of a diary. If we represent contents of a diary, it is inherently necessary. The guideline says "sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs" into which this articles fit. We should interpret the purpose of descriptions of guidelines not blindly apply to any articles.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the guideline does apply to this article. It explains what is the purpose and extent of embedded lists in non-list-class articles, such as this one. I agree that we should not blindly apply any guidelines, and moreover, guidelines are not as binding as policies. However, here the guideline is helpful. The Conents section should explain, in encyclopedic writing, what the contents of this books are. It should not reproduce those contents by excessive quotations. Even if the original contents in the book are a list form, an encyclopedic article should present its information in prose form: "Prose is preferred in articles" (WP:USEPROSE). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You did not respond to my point. If your argument is correct, numerous articles should be re-written. You expressed your real intention to remove the list above. "Correct. Cherry-picking from sources - even from reliable, secondary ones - is not allowed per WP:UNDUE." You simply don’t like the list because it shows too vividly the life of comfort women.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that numerous articles should be re-written because they excessively use embedded lists where prose would be more suitable for encyclopedic tone. It's based on Wikipedia consensus that articles are primarily written in prose and there are templates to enforce this guideline. It's a matter of form and not content. As for the content, I have no preference on what it should say about comfort women - other than that it should tell what reliable secondary sources report that this book says about them. If you are going to call me on trying to get rid of the content on the pretext of it being badly formatted, I want to say the following: I only have interest in articles being well-written and compliant with guidelines. My argument on "cherry-picking" is based on a different policy (WP:UNDUE). I'm presenting the prose argument as a way to move forward in building consensus: if the added material is by nature trivial, excessive, out of context entries, then there might not be any policy compliant way of including it in this or any other article. If we are unable to present it in encyclopedic prose, chances are it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Not only is it excessive, it also violates WP:NPOV by putting too much emphasis on the argument that the comfort women were treated well, when this point is not the primary one that is discussed in the reviews of the book. The primary point is that the book proves the large extent of the comfort women program. As such, I have reverted Phoenix7777's recent change. There's no consensus for this material. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, your arguments were already refuted above. You insisted the list is a primary source, and once refuted, you claimed it as cherry-picking. Then the allegation was refuted, you ceased to discuss here. Once the list was restored, you reverted without valid reason. It is easy to revert than to persuade others in discussions like a warrior like you.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT here. You have not "refuted" anybody's arguments. The list is indeed a primary source, your selections were cherry-picked to push a point of view in violation of WP:NPOV, and I never "ceased to discuss" the matter here. There is clearly no consensus expressed on this talk page for inclusion of your preferred list of contents. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Pre-2013 source

One of the problems here is that the book was published in August 2013, but Phoenix777 added a source from 2008, to make a certain point.

• Soh, C. Sarah (2008). The Comfort Women: Sexual Violence and Postcolonial Memory in Korea and Japan. University of Chicago Press. p. 184. ISBN 0226767779.

The source was used to put forward the argument that comfort women were paid well. I think we cannot use any sources that were published before this book. Such sources indicate a violation of WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure? What's wrong with presenting the "money value" of the time citing a book published in 2008? The book says "the monthly salary of a myonjang (the head for a township, a low-level civil servant) then was between 40 and 50 yen. The diary says "remitted 600yen" and "remitted the permitted 11,000yen". There Is no problem to explain the value of money citing the book. "―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

See WP:SYNTH. The problem is that you are putting two references together to create an unpublished synthesis as a conclusion. Any pre-2013 will signal that this might be happening. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Cherry picking?

I found a Mainichi Shimbun article including a list of entries of the diary. (in Japanese) p.1, p.2, p.3, p.4, p.5, p.6 My list includes a total of 42 entries. The news article lists 75 entries among which 38 entries are included in my list. Four entries not listed in the Mainichi are Mar. 8, 14, 19 and Apr. 19, 1944 among which 3 are about the holiday of women. After my review of two lists, 4 entries (Jun.12, Jul. 19, 20, 26, 1943) related to the involvement of the Japanese Military on the management of brothels may be added to my list. Others are about the purchase of condoms, Park's private life, brothel's business and so on. So you can verify whether my list is cherry-picking or not by checking the both lists.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Your first link has nothing about the diary. I looked at the second link and it included a diary entry about a comfort woman who got married but she was ordered back into service rather than being allowed to go live with her husband. Your preferred version says nothing about this, because it goes against the argument you were making, that comfort women were able to go home. That's one of the reasons why I said you were cherry-picking your excerpts. Other reviews mentioned this incident, but you did not include it. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you defaming with a false accusation? Please see Involvement of the Japanese military. There is an entry "Jul. 29, 1943 Two women who were comfort women at Murayama's brothel and left the brothel to have a conjugal life after getting married were ordered by the Logistics Department to return to Kinsenkan brothel as comfort women." You are desperate to remove the list with even a false accusation.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

More sources

Here are more sources that may be used for references. Binksternet (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Ohmynews, Kim Hyuk. The diary clearly demonstrates that the comfort women program was directly controlled by the Japanese military, down to the organization of brothels.
• Human Rights News, Bakyuha (Sejong University). "The book clearly and obviously shows that the brothels were under the strict control of the military..."
• Inside Chosun.
• Kukey. The diary proves that the Japanese military controlled the comfort women program in Burma and Singapore.
• Women Farmer's Newspaper. The diary proves Japanese military controlled the comfort women program, and it disproves a Japanese right-wing argument that there is no physical evidence of such control.
• Naksungdae Institute of Economic Research. The diary's discussion of the fourth batch of comfort women proves the extent of the comfort women program as controlled by the Japanese military.
• Newsis, AP. The diary proves that the Japanese military systematically mobilized the comfort women and organized the brothel system. This provides the physical evidence which was denied by Japanese right-wing nationalists.

Korean media are unreliable both major and these third-rated media. As I said above, they risk a law suit if they publish that comfort women were not forcibly mobilized by the Japanese military. The articles refer to nothing about the life of comfort women written in the diary. Isn't it a cherry-picking?―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

"Korean media are unreliable"? That's ridiculous. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is a list of contents in an article about a book unnecessary?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should a list of contents be restored or removed? An editor removed the list of contents as original research. He insists the list of contents is a primary source because it is a collection of cites from the book itself. this mean a ridiculous claim An article about a book should not quote contents of the book. However Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article says "Contents/Chapters" section is permitted to include a list of contents unless it is "an exhaustive list of contents".

Although the list of contents is not a primary source as defined in WP:OR, for those who concern, I will add an article of Mainichi Shimbun as a secondary source. The Mainichi article lists most of the entries in my list of contents. This solves primary source concern. See #Cherry picking? above.-Added at 7:03am, 15 July 2015‎ (UTC)

The next claim is the list is cherry-picking. I explained the list is not cherry-picking by comparing the entries with The Mainichi Shimbun. See #Cherry picking? above. The real reason the editor removed the list is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. He is a regular editor of Comfort women. His belief is an article about Comfort women should describe a terrible situation, anything which describes the opposite should not be included.[1][2]

Other editors here suggested a prose style is preferred to the list. I agree with the suggestion and it is an issue for future improvement. I am also ready to shorten the list especially the Money transactions and Return home section which have over ten entries.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Remove. To prevent abuse of WP:NPOV, with revisionist editors trying to use the book to portray a skewed view of the comfort women program, I think the only book excerpts that we include should be drawn from WP:SECONDARY sources. Otherwise this article will be slanted away from the published reviews, as was the case here, before the removal of the cherry-picked excerpts. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I will add an article of Mainichi Shimbun as a secondary source. So your concern is solved.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy remove - Content copied from primary source has no encyclopedic value. STSC (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I will add an article of Mainichi Shimbun as a secondary source. So your concern is solved.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

If you suggest something new in addition of the original question, discuss it only after this RfC is closed. STSC (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not edit other editor's comment per WP:TPO.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't just modify the RfC as you wish; put your new comments under discussion section. STSC (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Restore - I would prefer that this part ultimately be in prose form rather than a list, but it seems unusual to insist that secondary sources be used exclusively to summarize the contents of a book which is the subject of the very article. If necessary, a large portion of the contents could be rewritten using secondary sources, but just on principle I don't think we should say that a different set of rules apply to this article than every other article about a book. In every other article about a book, there is no problem with citing the book itself in the summary section. It also does not appear to be true that the summary of contents is at variance with what reliable, secondary sources stated about the diary. Actually, almost everything discussed in the summary section is also at least briefly mentioned in the secondary sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Remove - I agree with the first two posts. Upon reading the version that contained the list of contents, there did seem to be a lot of cherry-picked information. Additionally, I don't think that such an extensive list of contents that were copied straight from the book fit the style of an encyclopedia. BlackRanger88 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment @User:Phoenix7777: The language you used when writing the Rfc is not appropriate as it is not neutral and too detailed. Please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement should be neutral and brief and Wikipedia:Writing_requests_for_comment. I would advise that you rewrite the Rfc to fit these guidelines. BlackRanger88 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should the table of contents an chapter summaries be included?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The table of contents and chapter summaries should not be included in the form of a list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Should the table of contents and chapter summaries be included? The material under discussion was that which was removed in this diff. Diannaa (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I have restored my original question, which another editor altered here. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment

An editor removed the list of contents as original research. He insists the list of contents is a primary source because it is a collection of cites from the book itself. this means An article about a book should not quote contents of the book. However Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article says "Contents/Chapters" section is permitted to include a list of contents unless it is "an exhaustive list of contents".

Although the list of contents is not a primary source as defined in WP:OR, for those who concern, I will add an article of Mainichi Shimbun as a secondary source. The Mainichi article lists most of the entries in my list of contents. This solves primary source concern. See #Cherry picking? above.

The next claim is the list is cherry-picking. I explained the list is not cherry-picking by comparing the entries with The Mainichi Shimbun. See #Cherry picking? above.

The real reason the editor removed the list is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. He is a regular editor of Comfort women. His belief is an article about Comfort women should describe a terrible situation, anything which describes the opposite should not be included.[3][4]

Other editors here suggested a prose style is preferred to the list. I agree with the suggestion and it is an issue for future improvement. I am also ready to shorten the list especially the Money transactions and Return home section which have over ten entries.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

To Phoenix7777, why did you modify the RfC set by Diannaa? - "Should the table of contents and chapter summaries be included?" STSC (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• No - The table of contents and chapter summaries from primary source would not have any encyclopaedic value. If there's anyone whose motive is to spread the Japanese revisionist view in Wikipedia, I think they should be thrown into the "18 levels of hell". - STSC (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comments The table of contents included in this RfC opened by User: Diannaa on behalf of me is not in dispute. Please focus this discussion on the summaries of contents.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment It's not appropriate to tell people they should not talk about the table of contents, as it's part of the RFC question, and they are free to discuss it if they so desire. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Restore - I'm just going to reiterate what I indicated earlier. Essentially, I would like the article to be eventually rewritten to include a summary of contents in prose form, but my comment for the time being is that it seems unusual to insist that secondary sources be used exclusively to summarize the contents of a book which is the subject of the very article. A large portion of the contents can ultimately be rewritten using secondary sources, but just on principle I don't think we should say that a different set of rules apply to this article than every other article about a book. In every other article about a book, there is no problem with citing the book itself in the summary section. It also does not appear to be true that the summary of contents is at variance with what reliable, secondary sources stated about the diary. Actually, almost everything discussed in the summary section is also at least briefly mentioned in the secondary sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Not in the previous form. The arrangement of book contents by the page creator was not neutral, as it put forward the argument that comfort women were treated well. The contents of the book should be described without selecting those aspects which appeal to right-wing Japanese nationalist revisionism, which believe me is a constant drain on articles about comfort women and other Japanese wartime atrocities. (The publication of this book was a huge blow to denialists, which is why it is the focus of attention now.) Instead, the contents ought be a bare bones account of where Park was serving and when, which we is currently in the article. So there's nothing additional needed here. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• No - To reiterate my opinion in the last Rfc, I don't think that the list of contents that was used previously should be included. Upon reading the version that contained the list of contents, there did seem to be a lot of cherry-picked information. Additionally, I don't think that such an extensive list of contents that were copied straight from the book fit the style of an encyclopedia. BlackRanger88 (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• No - as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Please explain why the summary list of contents are WP:NOR. I will add an article of Mainichi Shimbun as a secondary source. The Mainichi article lists most of the entries in my list of contents. This solves primary source concern. As for cherry-picking, see #Cherry picking? above. We should have an evidence-based discussion. Speculating the list as cherry-picking without a valid evidence is unacceptable.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Because you have not added, but you "will add" a secondary source. :) I think the secondary source should list all entries in order to avoid OR. Borsoka (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

@Borsoka: So you don't disagree the summary of contents, as long as I add the Mainichi Shimbun article as a secondary source.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is really simple: all statements should be verified with a reference to a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is quite simple. I will add the Mainichi Shimbun article as a reliable source and remove four entries which are not in the source. So all the entries in the summary list of contents are supported by the reliable source. Thus your concern is solved completely.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe - when I first read this discussion (hadn't looked at the article or diffs yet) I thought this was about including the table of contents of the book, which shouldn't be a problem. I read the content that was removed, and I would say that it has a certain tone to it. It makes the examples in the book sound like the norm, matter-of-factly. I think why it seems to be cherrypicked is that all but one of the entries seem "positive". If the section was worded more neutrally, and maybe less positive examples also used, this section could be restored. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
• N - I don't see why it would be featured like this. It should just be a summary of the plot, not an actual timeline of what took place. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:USEPROSE does not say the list should be removed entirely, instead the guideline says "If you find an inappropriate or badly written list, insert a cleanup tag at the top of the article. For example, use the {{Prose}} tag for an embedded list that would be better written as prose paragraphs." Please discuss based on the guideline not on your personal opinion. Also the summary list is not a simple timeline list. It is categorized by various aspects of the life of comfort women.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Aspects that mislead the reader into thinking the lives of the comfort women were enjoyable and profitable, when they were actually sexual slaves. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20130807p2a00m0na020000c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Too much reliance on Choi Kilsong

Almost all the secondary source citations here are to Choi Kilsong. This seems inappropriate, since he is closely affiliated with the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact, which is a rightwing, revisionist group in Japan. His book received a prize from the National Institute for Historical Fundamentals, which is privately funded by an extreme righwing journalist, Yoshiko Sakurai, and has ties to the rightwing party Nippon Kaigi. This is not to say that the book can't be cited, but it should not be the ONLY secondary source, since it is highly ideological. It is also a problem that the other sources link to Nadeshiko Action, another far rightwing group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.211.240.165 (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have added an unbalanced template to the article and linked here. I am not well versed in this field but the objection raised by the IP editor at face seems potentially valid. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 14:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with the tag at the top of the article. It appears to have been put there due to the belief that Choi Kilsong was the "ONLY secondary source" used in the article, but that isn't true. The article also cites two other historians, An Byeong-jik and Lee Young-hoon, plus a variety of newspaper articles. Choi Kilsong appears to be just one of six secondary sources. Like the IP address says, Choi Kilsong can be cited (he is, after all, a leading scholar in his field), as long as he isn't the only source, which he isn't. I would also add that the fact that one right-wing group happened to praise Choi's book after it was already published doesn't refute the extensive research that he put into writing it. Incidentally, the links to Nadeshiko Action can also be deleted, since An Byeong-jik doesn't actually have any connection to them. It would appear that Nadeshiko Action merely uploaded a translation of An's book to their website, so someone decided to link it. YUEdits (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Title of entry

This is not the standard title used in English-language academic work. We call this "Diary of a Japanese Military Comfort Station Manager," which is the original wording (ianjo). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.211.240.165 (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Who exactly is meant by "we"? And why not call a spade a spade, or in this case, call a brothel a brothel? Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. Sumanuil. 20:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I meant academics who write about the diary. Sorry. I don't know what that has to do with censorship. 73.211.240.165 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And I don't know what it has to do with the file names. Or removing the word "brothel" altogether, which sure seems like censorship to me. Oh, and could you refrain from reverting while this is being discussed? Sumanuil. 01:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If you want to put a definition of "comfort station" in the article, that's fine. I'm just telling you what the accepted translation is. Also, there is no reason to revert all my other edits, which are accurate and which you have no issues with, so that's why I've reverted them back. I am happy to discuss this further -- I'm not trying to censor, just a historian who works on this topic. 73.211.240.165 (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And for reference on the translation of the title, see here: https://apjjf.org/2021/5/ConcernedScholars.html#CWstationmanager

and here: http://chwe.net/ramseyer/ramseyer.pdf

and here: https://theasanforum.org/new-south-korean-academic-writings-on-contemporary-japan-and-japanese-korean-relations/ 73.211.240.165 (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Just don't remove the definition or "fix" the file names, OK? And creating an account would probably help your credibility. The vast majority of vandals edit while logged out, so even slightly debatable edits made without logging in tend to fall under suspicion. Sumanuil. 01:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That's fine -- I'm a beginning wikipedia user, but I do know what I'm talking about, if I don't always know what I'm doing. Also, can you please help me change the title of the entry to accord with common usage? Thanks! 73.211.240.165 (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If you create an account, you can do that yourself. Though I'd suggest asking first just to be safe. Sumanuil. 02:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 20 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 09:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

---

Diary of a Japanese Military Brothel Manager → Diary of a Japanese Military Comfort Station Manager – Professor Amy Stanley has indicated that the title here is inaccurate and does not reflect the scholarly approach, "comfort station" being the terminology, in part because it was not a commercial transaction but a service provided to Japanese soldiers. She expresses concern about the author on whom much of this article now depends. Stanley, Amy [@astanley711] (June 14, 2022). "Adventures in revising Wikipedia!" (Tweet). Retrieved June 20, 2022 – via Twitter. Czrisher (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

As I indicated in the edit summary to my most recent edit, even the title of the book itself (일본군 위안소 관리인의 일기) uses the word 위안소 [wianso] which is the Korean pronunciation of the hanja characters 慰安所 which literally means ‘comfort station’. So to render this as ‘brothel’ would be an act of interpretation or an over-translation if you will, beyond what the title actually says. It would require at least an argument justifying it, which is not provided on the page as it currently stands. Nullibiquite (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Which is all to say that I support this move request, as the current title is unjustified. Nullibiquite (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. I get GScholar hits for the proposed title, but none for the current one. Srnec (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support based on a GScholar search. The current title has no hits, while the proposed title is used by at least one peer reviewed article published in Asian Journal of Women's Studies. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support based on the fact that 위안소 [wianso] literally means "comfort station" (it's the standard translation). Korean has words that mean "brothel," but they aren't in the title of this book. Also, Stanley is a respected expert on the subjects of comfort women and Japanese right-wing nationalism. She wrote a book on prostitution in Japan and co-authored a peer-reviewed article about comfort women (“‘Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War’: The Case for Retraction on the Grounds of Academic Misconduct,” with Hannah Shepherd, Sayaka Chatani, David Ambaras, and Chelsea Szendi Scheider. The Asia-Pacific Journal (March 2021))Soraciel (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening sentence

The opening sentence is currently:

Diary of a Japanese Comfort Station Manager is a book of diaries written by a clerk who worked in Japanese "comfort stations," where women sexually serviced Japanese soldiers, in Burma and Singapore during World War II.

The bolded part seems off to me. For instance, the comfort women article describes them as "women and girls forced into sexual slavery". Wouldn't something like this be better? Maybe something like "brothels established by the Imperial Japanese Army, which forced women into sexual slavery"? Does anyone have a better suggestion? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. From this layperson's view, the above RM (that I closed) establishes that Korean for "comfort station" and "brothel" are different words or phrases. In the interests of precision, the Wikipedia voice should minimize use of the word "brothel".

Note to self: "trafficked" comes from Comfort women and its sources (permalink). Based on other discussions on this talk (such as #‎Too much reliance on Choi Kilsong (permalink), this article cites and discusses predominantly sources that seem to downplay or erase the women's experiences. I removed a sentence where the source asserts, contrary to the women's own testimonies, that they were free to come and go. Yikes. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 08:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm a layperson myself here, but that sentence needed improvement. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)