Talk:Comfort women

Archives
Archive 1: March 2004-March 2007 Archive 2: March 2007-April 2007 Archive 3: April 2007-July 2007

Sexual Slavery perpetrated by Japan during WWII

"Comfort women" did exist, hundreds of thousands of them, despite the official denials of the Japanese government. It is a shame that Japan is actively trying to erase this fact from their history. I'd like anyone who denies the existence of comfort women to talk to an actual comfort woman face-to-face and tell her that she wasn't forced by the Japanese government to be raped by up to dozens of Japanese soldiers a day.Skandalicious 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to our issue here. This is not a debate forum, but an encyclopedia. You are quite right. It is a shame. I wish that it never happened. It gives such a bad image to Japan, which could be easily fixed just simply apologizing. However, this is not a battleground for open hostilities. Please refrain from comments that incite an arguement. Let's aim to solve disputes and hold factual information in Wikipedia. Odst 01:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am adding comments based on the above contents. Japanese government is NOT denying the existence of comfort women. It was an official public policy to control illegal prostitutions especially for japanese soliders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.34.86 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reps. Honda and Lantos will be sued

Nobuyoshi Ozaki[1], a writer living in Louisiana, said he would file a defamation suit against Representatives Mike Honda and Tom Lantos who wrote and passed the House Resolution 121 to blame Japan's "comfort women" during WW2 as the Japanese Army's coercion.

The charge is their libel against the Japanese people by attacking them without historical ground. There is no document that proves the Army ordered to coerce the women into brothels. Ikedanobuo 01:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Japanese government has been repeatedly sued by many people on many occasions...

• It is a free country. A crazy wacko can sue anyone, maybe you. Mr. Ikedanobuo

It seems Mr Ozaki is not really informed at all on what it takes to successfully bring a defmation suit. His claim would probably be striked down even if the courts took everything Ozaki said to be true. Honda said everything in the House and everything said in the House is protected by parliamentary privilege in defamation proceedings. I would have thought he should have done some research on defamation before making such comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.4.172 (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Why Japanese government has double standards.

Why Japanese government blames North Korea for kidnapping some Japanese?

Because Japanese government ignores human rights for non-Japanese people.

Human rights apply only to Japanese people, not for non-Japanese.

Japanese government is sued by many victims right now. Mr. Ikedanobuo

Mr. Iledanobuo. Japanese government is currently sued by many victims.

All of them have lost so far. Why? They are liars. Ikedanobuo 06:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobuyoshi Ozaki will lose the law suit bacause (removed unsourced contentious material per Biographies of living persons policy).

Please take time to read "Rape of Nanking" and you'll be shocked by the pictures and the text. You too will be sorry.

Please take time to read "Rape of Nanking" in Wikipedia. thanks. KanKan6469 (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

All of them have lost so far because the judge sitting in the courtroom is a Japanese judge. As if a Japanese Judge is going to give justice to people who really deserve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.4.172 (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

American Army ordered Japan to offer "comfort women"

Mr. Shoji Takahashi, an ex-official of the headquarter of Japanese Army reported

On August 29 in 1945, an American Army official visited the Police Office of Tokyo and requested to show the brothels. And on September 28, Colonel Sams ordered Dr. Hikaru Yosano of Tokyo Metropolitan Office to let GHQ use five brothel areas and seventeen bar areas. It was the beginning of the Recreation and Amusement Association.

Ikedanobuo 06:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Liar Sankei newspaper article falsely accused US Army through faulty translation

They translated permitted in AP article into 命じた ordered in Japanese version

産経の古森義久記者は、「日本の政府や旧軍当局に売春婦の調達や売春施設の開設を命じた一連の日本語書類」が発見されたと書いていますが、APのリンク先の記事だと「An Associated Press review of historical documents and records - some never before translated into English - shows American authorities permitted the official brothel system to operate despite internal reports that women were being coerced into prostitution.

Liar is you. The report above was the record of Mr. Takahashi's speech in a meeting. He was the man in charge of the procurement of comfort women. This speech in Japanese is the original. AP's report was a second-hand translation by a foreign reporter. If they are contradictory, of course the translation was false or mistranslated intentionally to cover up the GHQ's order. Ikedanobuo 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sankei newspaper is a deliberate and clever liar

On August 29 in 1945, an American Army official visited the Police Office of Tokyo and requested to show the brothels. And on September 28, Colonel Sams ordered Dr. Hikaru Yosano of Tokyo Metropolitan Office to let GHQ use five brothel areas and seventeen bar areas. It was the beginning of the Recreation and Amusement Association

• The American army didnot open the facility. They simply requested to use existing facilities established by Japanese.
• That is the reason why AP's report used permit instead of ordered. Please, read the context.

Mistaken view of history must be corrected

Japan's largest daily, Yomiuri Shimbun said in its editorial[2]

A resolution adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives on Monday urging the Japanese government to formally apologize over the "comfort women system of forced military prostitution" is obviously based on a misunderstanding of facts. [...]there are no documents proving that women were recruited forcibly as comfort women. Despite this, some people even in Japan continue to claim there was "coercion" in recruiting women as comfort women. They develop their arguments without providing undisputable examples of "coercion" and take the U.S. House resolution.

Ikedanobuo 07:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there need, of such a document, when there is an overwhelming amount of evidence? A record of an occurred event is not always necessary to prove that an event happened. There are countless witnesses and quite pitifully, there are such records. How else do you think we Know that the comfort women existed? Odst 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Japan will pay its debt someday.

American, Korean, and German Army's "comfort women"

According to Asahi Shimbun, Korean Army procured many "comfort women" during the Korean War. In an international symposium, Kim Kiok, Visiting Professor of Kyonnam University in Korea, reported that at least eight witness testified that they used war brothels. And 89 brothels in 4 areas were used 204,560 times, according to the official record of the Korean Army edited in 1956. A Korean government official admitted that they employed prostitutes voluntarily during the war.

According to Yomiuri Shimbun[3], U.S. Occupation forces used such comfort facilities in Japan, and it is now known that the South Korean military had similar facilities during the 1950-53 Korean War. During World War II, the German military also had "comfort" facilities with women who had been recruited systematically and forcibly from areas occupied by the German forces.

So why was Japan singled out as the sole target for the U.S. resolution? Why don't you blame the American, Korean, and German Army? Because you are racists? Ikedanobuo 05:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Post-War Germany made the right choice. Japan, on the other hand, has actively promoted historical amnesia.

I do believe that the wartime brothels that you say existed in Korea, is of most likely an unorganized collection of prostitutes that provided service to military and civillian men alike. however, Japan's case was different. The Japanese Imperial government sponsored the trafficking of Women for their so-called brothels. The brothels, In technicality, were not brothels. The "comfort women", in fact, were not prostitutes; they were held there against their will and were raped. Odst 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems completely irrelevant to talk about the Korean government's involvement in the Korean war as this forum is completely about the Japanese involvement in World War Two. The author probably has mistaken the forum as a discussion for Korean brothels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.4.172 (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Unlock the article

Japanese government collected 230 documents of the Army regarding the comfort women, but they found no evidence of Army's coercion. Prof. Yoshimi and his colleagues who blame Japan couldn't, too. They relied on ex-comfort women's testimonies, but they are confused, inconsistent, and can't prove the existence of the Army's order. So no editor in this article could show the hard evidence or reliable testimony of Japanese Army's organized coercion of women. Therefore administrators should unlock this article to rewrite it. At least it should mention the U.S. House Resolution that falsely accused Japanese government. Ikedanobuo 06:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice you choose to omit the written proofs such as those made public in April by Yoshimi and Hirofumi Hayashi : the written testimonies of members of the Tokeitai and of Lt. Seidai Ohara of the Kempeitai, who admitted on 13 January 1946 having established a comfort house and abused himself women in Indonesia. [[4]] Unfortunately for you, there are other historians than Hata who are working on the subject... --Flying tiger 14:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the second passage. It seems amazing that the author of the first article could say that the Japanese government collected "230 documents" to strengthen the credibility of his/her argument without quoting the source, giving a description of what the documents are and the date of the discovery. Further, while it is true that nobody has found any documents that clearly show that the government coerced the women into the brothel, it is also true that the Japanese government undertook extravagent means to destroy any hard evidence. The only evidence left are testimonies. But testimonies are available from both sides of this dispute. Like the author of the second passage suggests, there are testimonies given by past soldiers and military officers that places culpability on the government. The other testimonies are from the victims themselves. Advocates for the Japanese government have only one line of argument for their defence (defence is spelt with a c in England): "to make such a big allegation of such a big crime, you should have solid evidence (i.e. documents). Since you only have testimonies, you have no proof." If such argument was to be true, the amount of successful domestic criminal prosecutions in the whole world would decline. There are still many ways to prove guilt beyond doubt without using "documents". If questions such as "does the testimonies given by separate and independent witnessess or perpertrators match up? with the historical events?" or "are the witnesses establish credibility even when faced with cross-examination" are answered positively for the victims, then there should be guilt imputed to the defence. This is what is commonly done in reality in domestic courts in all civilised courts of law. THerefore, there is ample evidence that the Japanese government was involved in the coercion of the comfort women and the vast majority of the whole world believes that to be so. It is only a small group of bold and naive authors/advocates and the Japanese government who are bold enough to wilfully close their eyes to the truth they cant handle.Hoeassblaster Oct. 30th, 2007

It was an organized brothels by government of Soul. There was a newspaper article that the city of Soul is recruiting "comfort women". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.34.86 (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence documenting sex-slave coercion revealed

Japan had to follow San Francisco treaty. The documents were produced and submitted by the Dutch, French and Chinese governments to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East

• "The Special Naval Police (Tokei Tai) had ordered to keep the brothels supplied with women; to this end they arrested women on the streets and after enforced medical examination placed them in the brothels," one document, titled Prosecution Document No. 5330, says.
• "Women who had had relations with Japanese were forced into there brothels, which were surrounded by barbed wire. They were only allowed on the streets with special permission,"
• "I organized a brothel for the soldiers and used it myself," Lt. Seidai Ohara of the Japanese military was quoted in Prosecution Document No. 5591, dated Jan. 13, 1946.

Japan times[[5]]

Another fake "evidence"

Profs. Yoshimi and Hayashi held a press conference at the Foreign Press Club on April 17. They claimed that they had found a new proof of military coercion. Here[6] is the press release that has little substance. According to them, a document submitted to Tokyo Tribunal includes following passage:

   Q: How many women were there?
   A: 6.
   Q: How many of these women were forced into the brothel?
   A: Five.

In fact this isn't a new proof but an accidental sexual abuse by low-class army officials. The Army's rule explicitly forbid the coercion of women, as the court recognized. So even the prosecutors of the Tokyo Tribunal didn't prosecute this case. So the historical decision has been already made that this is not the war crime.

Do you still believe the rape of only five Indonesian women is the evidence of organized coercion of 200,000 mostly Korean women by the Army? Stop kidding. Ikedanobuo 16:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Mr.Ikedanobuo. Your reference above is linked to an ad with hot japanese gal. Did you link your reference to a japanese girl deliberately or inadvertently?
• Then, we can assume that 83% of these women were forced into sexual slavery.

• The prosecutors did present document 5330 as an official exhibit to the Tokyo Tribunal. So what it described certainly was considered a war crime. The verdict gives no specific ruling on this particular transgression, it states in general (p. 1001):

"After carefully examining and considering all the evidence, we find that it is not practicable in a judgment such as this to state fully the mass of oral and documentary evidence presented; for a complete statement of the scale and character of the atrocities, reference must be had to the record of the trial."

You are invited to show documents supporting your statement. Unlike other possible sources, the proceedings of the Tokyo Tribunal have not been destroyed. They are still accessible in Tokyo, so if you are right, you should be able to produce a court document refuting document 5330: either prosecutors withdrawing it, or judges excluding it. Better stay away from the magical sources on the island of Semarang, they might be poisoned;-) On a more serious note: have you ever read document 5330 yourself? Can you explain to me how the Army rule you mention would apply to this case?

♥ Stuart LaJoie → talk2me 02:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Remarks of Chairman Lantos on H. Res. 121, regarding Comfort Women, at committee markup

• Post-War Germany made the right choice. Japan, on the other hand, has actively promoted historical amnesia.
• The continued efforts by some in Japan to distort history and play a game of blame-the-victim are also highly disturbing.
• This is a ludicrous assertion totally counter to the facts.
• We want a full reckoning of history to help everyone heal, and then move on.
• I strongly support this resolution and I urge all of my colleagues across the aisle to do so likewise.

[7]

U.S. government doesn't endorse Honda resolution

John Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State, replied in a press conference held in the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo on August 3.[8]

we've also taken the position that the trafficking in women that occurred during World War II was deplorable and that it was a grave human rights violation of enormous proportions. So we extend our sincere and deep sympathy to the victims, but we also feel that the Government of Japan has taken steps to address this issue, including apologies by a number of previous government officials. And in October of last year, Prime Minister Abe reaffirmed the statements.

Negroponte deliberately didn't endorse the "coercion" by the Army, which Honda had emphasized a lot. So it would be the U.S. government's position that PM Abe apologized the human trafficking, not the Army's coercion.

After the vote, Honda expressed great thanks to the Chinese lobby, "World Association to Remember the Anti-Japanese War", which has proposed, sponsored, and even wrote the resolution since 2001. Honda is (removed unsourced contentious material per Biographies of living persons policy). Ikedanobuo 10:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• US congressional resolution is the cuurent official view of US congress.
• John Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State, didnot refute US congressional resolution.

Cut it out. That is not the point. IkedaNobuo must be going about his useless attempt, expressing his anger against the foreign powers that he says have done worse than Japan...He's partially right, in some ways, and partially wrong, in some ways...Odst 00:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How much longer will this page protection stay in place?

From the tag: "This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved." And when will that be? This page has been protected for months with little to show for it, unfortunately. In good faith, I'm wondering what the next step is. J Readings 07:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I do no even see much of a dispute. There's just been some petty arguements between IkedaNobuo, Myself, and our other anonymous friend. I do not see any reason for a sysop to keep it protected any longer. Odst 23:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• My suggestion would be that those who want to improve the current page present their amendments on this page. If we reach a consensus, the page can be changed accordingly and the edit protection would not be necessary anymore. Such a process would require at least that pertinent questions considering sources and wording be answered. I am quite willing to participate in such a process. At the moment this Talk page clearly shows why the time to remove edit protection has not come yet. Simple removing page protection can only result in a renewed edit war and a lot of badly written POV statements in the article. My best bet would be not to expect a quick fix in this matter, on WP nor IRL;-) ♥ Stuart LaJoie → talk2me 09:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I did some checks on the references, and it seems that there are few questionable details that are unreferenced and/or conflicts with other references. I think that there are some aspects within some paragraphs that need to be re-written, as many vital facts included in the references have been omitted in the articles. Odst 02:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately (or unfortunately), Wikipedia's protection policy, and I believe the terms of the GDFL license, prevent us from permanently protecting the article. You guys are going to have to work this out in a calm manner, by building consensus, guided by policy and guidelines. When it is in a state that meets consensus, it must be maintained the old fashioned way, by watchlisting it and reverting vandalism. Best, J Readings 04:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

typo

Just reporting there is a typo in a footnote. I'm not familiar with wikipedia system so hopefully someone can attend to this.

wrong ^ a b c 日本占領下インドネツアになける慰安婦 (Japanese). Retrieved on 2007-03-23.

correct ^ a b c 日本占領下インドネシアにおける慰安婦 (Japanese). Retrieved on 2007-03-23.

220.253.24.59 11:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

The link to

http://www.awf.or.jp/woman/pdf/ianhu_ei.pdf

currently in No. 12 in the references list, has apparently rotted away.

Wegesrand 11:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Improved references

Allow me to make three requests.

(1) The section 'Recruitment' still has three 'citation needed' tags. As the topic of this article is the subject of controversy, it is reasonable that sources for statements are clearly indicated. Lack of references is in no no way beneficial for readers of the page or for the discussion on this Talk page. For this reason my kind request to an admin would be to replace the 3 templates with the following references in the same order. Below I have copied the original sentences involved from the article.

Many who answered the advertisements were already prostitutes and offered their services voluntarily. Others were sold by their families to the military due to economic hardship. However, these sources soon dried up, especially from Japan.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs resisted further issuance of travel visas for Japanese prostitutes, feeling it tarnished the image of the Japanese Empire.

Many women were tricked or defrauded into joining the military brothels.

References used

(2) As far as I am aware, correction of the typo mentioned above in the final footnote(s), of the section 'Treatment of comfort women' (presently nr. 22) is a valid request too.

(3) My final request would be to add the following Wikisource template to the section 'U.S. Congressional debate':

{{Wikisource|Japanese Military's "Comfort Women" System}}

None of these additions does change anything in the content of the article in its present state.

♥ Stuart LaJoie → talk2me 00:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Stuart, that wikisource doesn't seem to be complete. I read through it and there seem to be some holes in the text. Someone should probably clean that up before it is added anywhere. Yaki-gaijin 00:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions

At last we seem to have reached conclusions based on historical facts. Many editors admit that there is few disputes about historical evidences about following facts:

• There is no official document that orders Japanese Army to coerce the comfort women. There are many documents to forbid coercion.
• Some ex-comfort women allege that they were coerced by somebody who "wore clothes like army suits". Such stories can't prove the existence of the Army's order to coerce them.
• What they prove is that there was the military prostitution that was operated by private agents and supervised by the Army. The women were recruited with very high wages.
• However, some of them were brought by human trafficking. It was a tragedy, but they were forced into brothels owing to their parents' debts, not the Army's coercion. Such practices were common to most prostitution in the world then.
• Military prostitution was common, too. American, British, German, Russian, and Korean Armies had their prostitution systems in the battle fields. Especially American Army employed many prostitutes in the Vietnam War.

If you have an objection to the conclusion, show the fact that refutes it, not an emotional attack or a bad joke about Holocaust denial. Ikedanobuo 15:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• A general remark: Wikipedia articles are not based on consensus about the content, but on consensus about what reliable sources state. Supposing you would like to see some changes in the article, it might be useful to mention the sources for these changes.

1. Your conclusions presume that the existence of written orders is necessary to prove military involvement. This is not a generally accepted view. By this standard many atrocities in world history could be explained away as individual trangressions, not to be blamed on the army involved. I do not dispute that millions of Japanese at the moment believe this is an acceptable view, so in my view a separate section explaining that view could be part of the article. The first four facts you mention would only be relevant in such a section, after an explanation of this different standard.
2. Could you show explicitly whether your conclusions, by themselves or taken together, contradict any statement in the article as it is?
3. There are also testimonies by victims undisputedly showing direct military involvement, both in running of and recruitment for brothels. I would not dispute that 'some' women were recruited by private agents with high wages. But if that was all that happened, this article would not have been written. To falsify a conclusion based on a lot of evidence it is not enough to dispute some of the evidence: it is also necessary to show that without this evidence, the conclusion no longer stands. Do you have any reliable sources doing the latter?
4. Your final conclusion is simply beyond the scope of the present article. If you have reliable sources, feel free and make encyclopedic contributions to the relevant articles, or in some cases, add new articles. Some of the sources cited in the article do make comparisons and conclude that the Japanese army went beyond what happened elsewhere. We could add such a statement to the article.
5. Would you agree it would be valuable to mention IMTFE document 5330 in the article? After all, this is an official government document.

♥ Stuart LaJoie → talk2me 10:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobuo, you need to understand how history is written. There isn't always an official record for everything. In fact, there is evidence that proves that such records did exist, but even without that, there is sufficient proof that at least a certain number of them were trafficked into prostitution, therefore giving it the right to be called sexual slavery, or Forced prostitution. There is a record in the United States Army interrogation reports that a number of the interviewed comfort women had no way of knowing the true nature of the offered job, and they were required to sign a contract that binded the, legally and/or financially to their assigned pleasure house. by financially, I mean that the comfort women was financially reliant and bonded to the pleasure house.

• by the way, there was no organized system of prostitution in the nineteenth century onward, if there was any throughout history, for any of the nations you have named except for the Wermacht and the Waffen SS during world war two.
• sure, there were actually prostitutes that provided services to the soldiers, but there was no organized system or coercion. For example, in Vietnam, some American G.I.s that were on leave went to Saigon, where there are many loose whores and brothels in the red-light districts. Do you understand what I am trying to say? Odst 00:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Summing up

All of you seem to agree with my conclusion. There was the military prostitution operated by private agents and supervised by the Japanese Army during WW2, as I wrote above. Most comfort women were generously paid, but some of them were "bought" by agents from their parents by human trafficking.

Some of the women were coerced by the agents and had no freedom to escape. It was a tragedy, and the Army was responsible for the violent treatment of the women by the agents, although the Army prohibited such abuse by documents. On the other hand, there is no document that the Army ordered coercion of the women.

This conclusion agrees with that of Japanese government's and most historian's research. It is also consistent with official documents of the Army and the testimonies of ex-comfort women who said they were sometimes coerced by somebody who looked like a soldier. They are in no position to prove the Army's order.

So I'd like to ask administrator to unlock this article. Ikedanobuo 11:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Dear IkedaNobuo, I do not agree with your summing up and earlier discussions on this page suggest that I might not be the only one feeling that way. According to the sources we have, the things you mention are part of what happened. But there are many sources showing that in many cases the type of prostitution you mention did develop into the type of prostitution described in the present article. Testimony of victims in this respect is only part of the evidence. I would strongly disagree with any attempt to remove the statements on military involvement in forcefully recruiting women for comfort stations. For your information: the Japanese government has been informed by the Dutch government in 1994 on several cases involving in all about 65 women who the Japanese military forced into prostitution. What happened in Semarang was the worst but definitely not the only case of the Japanese military forcing women into prostitution. The Japanese government has seen no reason to dispute these findings; the AWF, probably using present day criteria, recognized even a substantial larger number of Dutch women as victims, although in the same order of magnitude. For Indonesia there are no sources indicating that women were 'generously' paid.

♥ Stuart LaJoie → talk2me 19:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobuo, stop slyly evading the key points of our discussion. I apologize for having to refute your arguements, but the Imperial war ministry administered no uniform code banning the mistreatment of civilians, and quite contrary, endorsed a policy that encouraged the mistreatment and destruction of human lives and property, also known as the "three alls". It was not considered military prostitution, but an act of sexual slavery. But I never said that the military was directly responsible for the obtainng of Comfort women. The Governor Generals of Japanese territory, who were not under the Imperial military chain of command were primarily responsible for that work. What appeared to be soldiers, as you say, may have been provisional military police. There is no Military document, but there are documents from other ministries in the empire. Odst 22:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Japanese military carried out orders not only from the war ministry, but also from the prime minister. Which means that orders may have come down from outside of the military chain of command. Odst 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Source for decision to destroy evidence

There seems to be a dispute on the first sentence of the section "Number of comfort women".

1. On 1 September 2007 Flying_tiger added to "Lack of official documentation" the phrase: perhaps related to the 14 August 1945 decision of the Suzuki cabinet to destroy vast amounts of material pertaining to matters related to war crimes and the war responsibility of the nation's highest leaders <ref>''Burning of Confidential Documents by Japanese Government'', case no.43, serial 2, International Prosecution Section vol. 8; Herbert Bix, ''Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan'', 2001, p.528</ref>
2. On 4 September 2007 Azukimonaka reverted this addition and suggested in the edit summary: Please present this law number. I can confirm the statute book that Japanese Government keeps.
3. Flying_tiger reverted the removal of this addition and stated in the edit summary: Bix does not provide the law. Can you imagine if any source should refer to a specific law name ? You do not understand what a source is !!
4. Azukimonaka reacted by again removing the additon, stating in the edit summary: To prove this content, you should present the law number of Suzuki Cabinet or the minutes. Your proof is waited for.
5. On 5 September 2007 StuartLaJoie has restored the version of Flying_tiger.

I like to explain my reasons for doing so.

1. Wikipedia is not presenting the final truth on any subject. It is, like any encyclopedia, only presenting what reliable sources are saying on a subject. In general it is not necessary to prove any content is "true" beyond the point where you can show that it is based on reliable sources.
2. Like most encyclopedias Wikipedia prefers using secondary sources to using primary sources. Of course, to increase its reliability, a secondary source should take into account all available primary sources. Typically, failure to do so would result in criticism in more reliable secondary sources, which then of course should be reflected in Wikipedia.
3. Statute books and minutes look to me like primary sources. If accessible, it would be valuable for the reader if references to it were supplied. In this respect I do appreciate the offer of Azukimonaka to check such references.
4. It seems quite possible to me that a decision like this was not reflected in statute books or minutes, for this would go against the purpose of the decision. In fact, this is a nice example of the reasons why encyclopedias are reluctant in relying on primary sources. In this respect I feel Azukimonaka is mistaken to expect more than a reference to a secondary source like Bix.
5. As I have not read the book of Bix, I cannot give a judgment on its reliability. It has been documented though, that in the final days of the war, orders from Tokyo were given to destroy documents and that these orders were followed; reliable sources are referenced in the lead section. If Bix is wrong in mentioning a cabinet decision, there probably exist other secondary sources disputing this claim. Anyone is invited to present such sources, which might lead us to a different statement in the article.

As such sources have yet to be presented, I see at this time no valid reason to remove the addition by Flying_tiger.

♥ Stuart LaJoie → talk2me 11:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems in his description.

"perhaps related to the 14 August 1945 decision of the Suzuki cabinet to destroy vast amounts of material pertaining to matters related to war crimes and the war responsibility of the nation's highest leaders"

1. This instruction doesn't exist in the decree in Japan.

2. It has not been proven that this instruction is an instruction that conceals the evidence of Comfort Women.

This two cannot be proven to the source of Flying_tiger. Therefore, I deleted it. If you can prove two conditions, I will support this article.--Azukimonaka 17:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion regarding whether or not this item should be in the article. If it is inserted, however, perhaps it might be better to say something like, "Bix suggests...," or something similar. If there is some doubt if the event actually even occurred, it might be nice to add additional qualifiers as well. --Cheers, Komdori 17:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. As I explained before, to have the statement in the article it is not necessary that the decision is found in official decrees, as long as it is mentioned in a reliable source. The first point of Azukimonaka does not justify removing the statement. I do not know whether your second point is covered by Bix. For this reason it would be wise to add reliable sources explicitly making this connection. The suggestion of Komdori to rephrase the statement to reflect the sources more accurately seems valuable too. I have adapted the article accordingly. By making the statement more precise there are even more reliable sources to support it than the four mentioned.

♥ Stuart LaJoie → talk2me 00:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the mistake "Kantaro Suzuki concealed evidence" that Mr. Fly had written was corrected, I also agree. Thank You --Azukimonaka 21:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• You are welcome. I do not know whether there was a mistake in the previous statement, as I have not read the book of Bix. I just tried to improve it in light of the sources I have read myself.

♥ Stuart LaJoie → talk2me 22:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that user Azukimonaka does not adequatly understand english does not give him the right to accuse other users of lying. Bix can not be clearer : «In the weeks and months that followed, vast amounts of secret materials pertaining to Japanese war crimes and the war responsibilities of the nation's highest leaders went up in smoke, in accordance with the August 14 decision of the Suzuki cabinet.» (p.528) I only refrain from adding this reference to prevent a silly war edit as on Manchukuo and Eugenics in Showa Japan. --Flying tiger 12:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Comfort women Advertisement

• Recruitment advertising for Comfort women in newspapers in Korea.
• This is the only exist AD for Comfort women Recruit. However, it is unclear that what is Comfort women work.
• This recruitment advertisement did not inform that Comfort women were sex slave workers. They knew that they worked in military industry, military nurse.

I Prove it what is this AD. This is Korean Language book. published by NGO for comfort women(한국정신대문제대책협의회) [9]

(a liberal translation) This is the comfort women recruitment advertisement which is only exist. (...) It doubtful, who read this advertisement? and they really know what is the comfort women wok? (...) Rockgoals3 14:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with you adding the information. We just have to work on your translation so that it's understandable. Let me suggest some grammatically correct sentences, and you can use them if they fit the Korean correctly (as I can't read Korean).

• Advertisement for the recruitment of comfort women in a Korean newspaper.
• This is the only such advertisement in existence (is this true???). However, a comfort woman's duties are not specified in the ad.

Please rewrite or re-translate before you post it again. Sorry for being insistent.Yaki-gaijin 23:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't think there has to be a consensus about the fact that your English is grammatically incorrect. Yaki-gaijin 10:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Move

This line "Some others found documents giving instructions not to treat comfort women violently." in the very top section of the article should be moved to the "Treatment of Comfort Women" section. All in favor say aye? It's an awkward conclusion to the intro paragraph, and it just seems to fit more naturally under the Treatment section. I figured I'd suggest it here before I do it, so that everyone doesn't blow up at me... ("everyone" meaning Rockgoals3) Yaki-gaijin 10:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Ok, I'm gonna go ahead and move it now... Yaki-gaijin 23:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Separation of conclusions

I have a suggestion calling for a major revision to this article.

Since there seems to be an endless struggle between 2 opposing viewpoints; one represented by Ikedanobuo reporting the findings of a historian named Hata, and the other viewpoint represented by the rest of the world,

I suggest that we dedicate an entire section of the article to the "Counter Theory" brought up by Hata and anyone else who agrees with him. There are 3 main reasons why this should be done:

• The majority of the world does not agree with Hata's conclusions regarding the evidence related to comfort women. Thus, he shouldn't be the only viewpoint represented in the article.

• Counter theories should be represented, no matter how unsupported they are, as long as legitimate historians are using legitimate evidence to create them. If we make a section filled with all of Hata's conclusions that run counter to the mainstream ones, there will be a healthy "debate" so to speak. In other words, people will be able to read about both sides of the argument and decide for themselves which is more legitimate.

• Finally, if we don't give the "Hata Counter Theory" (or whatever you want to call it) its own section in the article, Ikedanobuo and others like him will continue the ridiculous edit war that has plagued this article without end.

If the historians of the world can't agree on which theory is correct, how can we Wikipedians be expected to make a decisive article without representing both sides of the debate on the subject? Something needs to be done, or this article will continue to be locked and ultimately be rendered useless from barrages of vandalism, etc.

Please help make a decision about this or please suggest some other solution to this problem. SOMETHING needs to be done soon! Yaki-gaijin 11:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I havent been participating in this so called debate to the extent participated by Mr Ikedanobuo, I have thoroughly read the discussion and think that User Yaki-gaijin's proposition should be adopted. I dont think Mr Ikedanobuo was actually seriously trying to contribute to a meaningful discussion to clear contesting views - rather just trying to call people liars and make embarrasing arguments. But still, it is a viewpoint of some people (albeit unreasonable or unjustitified) and we should let them disclose their viewpoints as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil1984 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone seconded the idea. What shall I call the section? I was thinking "Counter Theories" or even more specifically, "Revisionist conclusions", or even MORE specific, "Hata and the revisionists". Please give me any ideas, as I will probably add the section tonight and start re-arranging info. Yaki-gaijin 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "counter theories" is good. Other options are "opposing views", "the alternative views" or "the minority view". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.169.220.113 (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here goes nothing. Please help me smooth out the rough edges. Should I start to move all references to Hata and his conclusions to this new section? Yaki-gaijin 12:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt sound like a bad idea. At least with myself, I agrew with most of what you say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil1984 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning: sock puppets

I am quite noobish so, I don't know how to "flag" people like this, but I will say that User:Ikedanobuo, User:Tropicaljet, and User:Necmate may all be one group of puppets being dangled by one Japanese person who vandalizes and tends to have edit wars. If anyone knows how to flag these accounts, please do so asap. Thanks. Yaki-gaijin 04:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

you need proof, though. honestly, who the fuck cares if he has sockpuppets or not? I don't give a shit about the predator as long as the prey can be defended. Odst (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro wording

Another tidbit in the article has become subject of a ridiculous edit war, but I think we can solve it by changing the wording. Here is the current intro:

• Comfort women, or military comfort women, is a euphemism for between 10,000 and 200,000 women, who were forced into sexual slavery for Japanese military brothels during World War II.

Would changing it to the following belittle comfort women?

• Comfort women, or military comfort women, is a euphemism for the thousands upon thousands of women who were forced into sexual slavery for Japanese military brothels during World War II.

I mean, the actual estimates are already mentioned later in the article. I don't think we need to be so specific right off the bat. (It seems Gil1984 and I are the only ones really watching the article at the moment, but I figured I'd go through the motions of asking the empty auditorium what they think before I start ripping apart the article. Yaki-gaijin 10:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think "the countless thousands"(which is the version I'm looking at) and "the thousands upon thousands" are both subtle POV violations. This is a little outside my field, but I feel "the several thousand women" might work better, even if it is vague. Lindentree 06:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with "several thousand women" is it makes the number seem small, even though the general consensus around the world is somewhere between 50,000-200,000. But until we can find a better wording, I guess it should be made "several..."Yaki-gaijin 09:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

this is an encyclopedia, not an essay for your history class. belittling the comfort women is not a good idea, as it still affects foreign relations in asia. Credible analysis should be relied upon to determine the amount of comfort women during that time. Odst (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Recruitment vs. unorganized rape

In the recruitment section, there are several paragraphs describing acts of rape, violence and murder that were unplanned by IJA authorities but carried out by its soldiers anyway. Isn't the section just supposed to to be about organized recruitment of comfort women? Binksternet 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent large scale deletion and reversion edits include the few paragraphs about rape and murder in the Nanking Massacre. Honestly, I think this material should be removed from the Comfort women page and added to the Nanking Massacre page, unless like Minnie Vautrin's diary entry, it's already there. If a woman is raped and then killed or abandoned, it has little to do with the official comfort women program. Comfort women were recruited and kept for months of sex work, not immediately killed or thrown away. Binksternet 16:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Random rape has little to do with the systemized sex-slavery that went on, except maybe to show that there were a lot of sexual crimes being committed by the Japanese military, which may reveal their view of women/women's rights, etc. If this is not an important part of this article, then I agree the information should be deleted (because I think it is just copied from the Rape of Nanking article).Yaki-gaijin 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If he doesn't come into this forum to discuss the changes this time, it seems the "Nanking Rape Adding Guy" is just a vandal. Yaki-gaijin 22:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ban ikedanobuo

Ikedanobuo is a biased vandal and a persistent nuisance. Does anyone know how to get him banned? He doesn't discuss major changes before he makes them, and when he does make them they are biased and many times grammatically incorrect. He cannot see past his blinders and he is more of a detriment to Wikipedia than a benefit. I really don't want to continue this ridiculous edit war with him, so please ban him soon!!! Yaki-gaijin 11:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The article was protected weeks ago because of him. The process for an investigation on an user is described here :[[10]]. You need at least another user to join you. Some user and me thought using it against another similar obnoxious nuisance (user:Azukimonaka), but we made the error to go on mediation. So, we should not make the same error here. --Flying tiger 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We've begun to draft a request to ban Ikedanobuo. If anyone else has dealt with Ikedanobuo's misconduct before or has anything else to add to the request, please contact me on my talk page. Yaki-gaijin 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Yaki-gaijin for the proposal of banning Ikedanobuo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil1984 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest contacting the arbitration comittee. A temporary ban should suffice, if he does not agree to cease his incursions. Odst (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you know how to contact the arbitration committee, please do so, or point me to where I should try to figure how to... Yaki-gaijin (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Not just yet. Ikedanobuo's edits are not entirely false, but he fails to appropriately present his analysis, and in the process, conflicts with the other information in the article. Furthermore, Ikedanobuo fails to appreciate the fact that the evidence is credible to the point where it can be safe to say that the Japanese government was reponsible. We should give it more time for a resolution, and see after for what is appropriate.Odst (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have experience with these issues. I'll leave it up to you, for now. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Show the evidence

Yaki-gaijin, before making such stupid proposal, read the above discussion and the archives. Many many discussions were made, and as I wrote in the section 14 "Conclusions" above, nobody could show hard evidence of organized coercion by the Japanese Army. And when I correct the groudless messages, you want to ban me without evidence? Ridiculous. Show the evidence before you delete the "inconvenient truth."

Can you read Japanese? Maybe you can't. If you can, you'll easily understand the (removed unsourced contentious material per Biographies of living persons policy). They held press conference about their alleged "new proof" only in English, because (removed unsourced contentious material per Biographies of living persons policy). Even the Asahi, famous for its leftist stance, stopped attacking the "abduction" and says "such problem doesn't matter." Yomiuri, Sankei, and other newspapers blame the Honda resolution as a false accusation.

There are many fools spreading lies. Norimitsu Onishi, the Tokyo correspondent of NY times and the (removed unsourced contentious material per Biographies of living persons policy) And Yasuji Kaneko you love is (removed unsourced contentious material per Biographies of living persons policy). Even Yoshimi doesn't adopt his "testimony." When I wrote an article about the scandal of Wikipedia in Shokun, Japanese monthly magazine, many Japanese were surprised at the biased article.

I discussed this article with Jimmy Wales and Japanese staff of Wikipedia. Jimmy watched this article and (removed unsourced contentious material per Biographies of living persons policy)." Japanese staff were also sorry for the rude editors that degrade Wikipedia's reputation. I reported your racism to admin. Ikedanobuo (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ikedanubuo, I don't think there would be a problem if you simply add the counter point of view of guys like Hata or anybody of the Tsukurukai but the problem is when you, as a user, minimize the value of Yoshimi's or other respected historians arguments, calling them "leftists" under the pretext that "everybody in Japan know this is not true".

With all respect, given the attitude of the LDP, and the poor value of their history programs, I do not think this is a good criteria. The opinion of Jimmy Wales, japanese websites or anybody not related to academic history is no more relevant. So, just add referenced sources, without unsourced like "The prosecutors of the Tokyo tribunal dismissed that because they did not thought it was relevant". THIS is POV. --Flying tiger (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Long time no see

Ikedanobuo, I have read almost all of the discussions you have ever had on this page, including the one named "Conclusions". I don't know how good your English comprehension is, but from what I read, most if not all, of your ideas were refuted. I think it is a little irresponsible to just ignore people who are making valid arguments against your ideas and then just suddenly jump to "conclusions".

I do not want to ban you without evidence. In fact, I will completely remove my proposal for banning you if you agree to discuss radical or controversial changes with an open mind here on the discussion page BEFORE you put them into the article. I think you know that your ideas are controversial, and I for one appreciate your presence. It's always good to have different points of view, and if you are honest and thoroughly researched about what you put in this article (not just repeating what right-wing media and such spew at you) then I think this article will become a great place for the world to see what some Japanese people are thinking. By the way, many times you have implicitly or explicitly stated that "most Japanese agree" with Hata's point of view, but I have lived worked and studied in Japan for years now, and I haven't met one single Japanese person who denies that the government abused comfort women.

As far as reporting me to the administrators, I can't stop you. However, I will say that it's going to be difficult proving that I'm a racist since I don't even know what race you are (I'm assuming Japanese) and you have no idea what "race" I am. If you think I am racist against Japanese people, I suggest you talk to my countless Japanese friends, many of whom are very dear to me. (Did you really talk to Jimmy Wales? That seems a little far-fetched to me...)

In conclusion, I want to tell you 3 things

• I think that you have some valid and truthful information that you can add to this article. (I think that your additions about Yasuji Kaneko's dishonesty are valid) Just make sure that you discuss any controversial or large-scale changes with me and everyone else here. Don't just 勝手に add them without even trying to reach a consensus.
• As Flying tiger has mentioned above, please keep a neutral point of view when editing this article especially.
• Please refrain from making personal attacks against your fellow Wikipedians and other people in the media. Even in the above comment you called my ideas "stupid" and you slandered historians and others across the world with the statement "There are many fools spreading lies." Please be more civil when discussing things, as it can be degrading and insulting to be told such things. Thank you, and I look forward to having many interesting and revealing discussions with you! Yaki-gaijin (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I told you to show the evidence

I'm not interested in your excuse. The problem is simple. I repeatedly wanted you to show the undisputed hard evidence that proves the coercion of comfort women by the official order of the Japanese Army. As nobody could show it, I concluded as above and wrote so in the article. Before deleting it, read Hata's brief article.[11] Ikedanobuo (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way Ikedanobuo, please read this WP:BRD. Let's follow these guidelines. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe because wartime brothels were procured by another government branch...but there needs not to be a document for such things t be proven. Witnesses claim that they were taken by men that looked like soldiers. Legally, it is more than enough evidence to indict a charge. Odst (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Odst, even if some negationnists dismiss the testimonies of the women, they have to do a lot of intellectual work to discard the written proof, such as documents found in 2007 by Yoshiaki Yoshimi and Hirofumi Hayashi :Evidence documenting sex-slave coercion revealed. Also, we must always remember that, after its defeat the Japanese military destroyed many documents for fear of war crimes prosecution. (Yoshimi Yoshiaki, Comfort Women. Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military During World War II, Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan) as there is hard evidence proving official orders from the Japanese Ministry of War to destroy evidence.[[12]] (Judgment International Military Tribunal for the Far East). --Flying tiger (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

what's your point? the fact of the matter is that what Ikedanobuo said is correct. As far as we are concerned, there is no surviving imperial army document that orders the coercion of women into sexual slavery. If there is, that's good. If there isn't, it would not make much of a difference. SCAPIN iterrogation documents do exist however, and its content regarding eyewitness prove the ARMY was directly involved with the practice. We are already sure that comfort women were procured by some type of Japanese administration, but Ikeda's argument is, where? In other words, it's a play of words that he is using in order to try and render that the entire practice was not a responsibility of the Japanese imperial government. However, it was. Overwhelming evidence proves that it was the work of imperial Japan, and furthermore, SCAPIN suggests and proves that the army was directly involved in the procurement of comfort women, Again, what's your point? Odst (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you put up a link to that SCAPIN evidence? Or atleast a link to an article about it? I would like to take a look at it. Thanks Yaki-gaijin (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow !! Odst, thank you for explaining me that Ikedanobuo is playing with words... No, you are wrong to argue Ikedanobuo is right because he is wrong to write there is no proof...--Flying tiger (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Read it again. I said that there is evidence, only I said that there is no surviving document issued by the Japanese military chain of command, not necessarily the cells in the Japanese government.Odst (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I culd not find a report by SCAP, as many still remain classified. I managed to find this, though: [[13]], but I pasted it on here for everyone to see:

Title: “Matters regarding recruitment at military comfort station”

<Notification> From: Assistant To: Army Chief Generals of the troops in northern China and of the expeditionary force in central China

When brokers recruited comfort women for establishment of the brothels during Sino-Japanese war, there were not a few infamous cases to which we need to pay attention: the case that some brokers used the authority of Japanese military for their recruitment, as the result, they ruined Japanese military’s credibility and led to a misunderstanding of ordinary people, the case that some brokers took unruly method of recruiting through embedded journalists and visitors causing social problem, the case that some brokers were arrested and placed under investigation because the way of their recruiting was like kidnapping. From now, as regards the recruitment of comfort women, the expeditionary force properly chooses and controls brokers which recruit comfort women. Also, it is necessary to cooperate with military polices and law enforcement authorities. To keep the prestige of Japanese military and to consider social problems, take careful note of no omission. March 4, 1938

That's a fairly biased source you found there. Have you checked out the other pages that are basically ad-hominem attacks on Korea and other countries? I wish that someone could present the Japanese revisionist position with just cold hard logic. Why does racism and emotion always have to come into it? It makes it very hard to believe, much less agree, with anything Japanese revisionists like Ikuhiko Hata say... Yaki-gaijin (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for giving you the link to some biased articles, but forget that shit. The only reason I linked the source was because it was the only reference I could find of an actual translation of the letter pasted above. Numerous other sources mention and identify that and other documents Yoshiaki found, but the link above was the only page I could find with an actual dated translation. Again, disregard other sections in the link. To avoid that confusion, I pasted it here, on this page. Odst (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to have a civil discussion

I didn't make any excuses.

I have read that article before. In fact, I've cited it as a source for some of my edits to the article (in case you didn't notice). The article is very revealing as to how biased Hata is. He says it's "nauseating" when people present a view opposite to his own. He makes unprovable statements like "None of (the comfort women) were forcibly recruited". It's impossible to prove that without investigating every single comfort woman's case. Hata complains about the media. He also (removed unsourced contentious material per Biographies of living persons policy) saying she has "an abysmally poor grasp of the facts" simply because she has come to conclusions that differ (greatly) from his.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia content is not:

• Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.

If you have decided on your own "truth" regarding comfort women, then please feel free to write all about it on your personal blog or in some other medium, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't let me say the same thing. I wanted you to show the evidence of the Army's coercion. Can you show it? Answer yes or no. Ikedanobuo (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence for it in the article itself. Have you read it? Ikedanobuo, I know exactly what you're thinking, and I know your POV regarding comfort women. If you continue to make huge edits and try to come to some sort of all-encompassing conclusion, then you're not going to make any progress towards your goal, and you will end up making this article useless. I am assuming that you are editing in good faith and that you want this article to become a great and useful article.

So, here's what I suggest; let's start off with small changes. You suggest a change, (a small change that you think we can get a consensus on) and then everyone here will discuss it. Hopefully we will come to some agreement, and you will have the honor of adding the agreed-upon content to the article. How does that sound? Yaki-gaijin (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't you understand English? I told you to show the hard evidence. There are lots of rumors, guesses, and hearsay articles in the article, but there is even no link to hard evidence. If you believe there is, point out exactly where it is. Ikedanobuo (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I won't assume to be an expert on comfort women. You seem to know a lot about comfort women and the evidence regarding the events that happened so, I will let you lead this discussion. Why don't you take every piece of evidence and source cited in this article, and refute them one by one? It would at least start us down a path of understanding each other, and maybe we can find some of this hearsay and other false evidence. This is the only way you're going to reach your goal of denying that comfort women were sex slaves here on Wikipedia! So, go ahead, pick the first piece of "false evidence" and we will discuss it. ALSO, if you're going to cite sources, try to make sure you use a variety of reliable sources, not just a bunch of Ikuhiko Hata's works. Thank you, and I look forward to discussing the evidence in this article with you. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Modify, don't destroy

OK, you admit you can't show any hard evidence. So I corrected errors one by one in the article. If you think it's incorrect, you can add counter-arguments. Don't revert. Especially the section "Liabilities" is nonsense because nobody should owe liability without evidence. As in the court, the accuser should have the burden of proof.

Is this a court? Even if it was so, the burden of proof does not necessarily need hard evidence to prove guilt. If a reasonably minded person thinks a certain factual event has happened based on other evidentiary indications, then even without documentation (hard evidence as you may call it), they can still say something has happened. This is a question of fact asked to the jury (reasonably minded people). If the jury was the world, would the Japanese government be found guilty? This is a rhetorical question so please dont answer it.

Ikedanobuo (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're going about this all wrong. Did you even read WP:BRD? I told you to start with one at a time. You must have misunderstood my English. Please be more careful when reading what I and others type so that there are no misunderstandings.

You have been Bold by making so many changes. That's the B in BRD. The next step in BRD is to Revert. If someone Reverts what you have added, the next step in BRD is to Discuss. BRD. Get it? If your changes have been reverted, you should Discuss them with the Most Interested People (namely Flyingtiger and I) until you can reach some kind of consensus on something. Please be more cooperative or people might mistake your edits as soap box editing or even tendentious editing. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No such rule exists in Wikipedia. Anybody can freely edit it, and if there is any problem they can discuss it in this page. I repeatedly asked to show the evidence of the sexual slavery was ordered by the Army, but nobody could. So, as I concluded in section 14 above, it doesn't make sense to mention the comfort women as the Army's crime. It's my crucial argument, and you couldn't refute it. So I modified the article along with the conclusion. Ikedanobuo (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

BRD isn't a rule, it's a way to follow the official Wikipedia policy of being civil and a way to resolve conflicts. If you have no intention of resolving the conflict regarding the content of this article, I will have no choice but to report you to the Arbitration Committee and request to have you blocked. I really hope that you cooperate and can have a calm discussion with me and everyone else here about this issue. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The true story

As you are ignorant of history and illiterate in Japanese, we set up a translation site of the (dis)information about Japan.[14] In fact, this phantom scandal of comfort women was fabricated by the Asahi's wrong article in 1992. In 1991, I covered the same problem as a producer of NHK, a public TV Station visiting many victims (men and women) of "abduction" in South Korea. They blamed the fraud of brokers and complained the hard labor environment, but nobody told me that they were coerced by the Army. No other journalists and historians, including Yoshimi, have not heard of abduction or coercion by the Army. It's the truth, like it or not. Ikedanobuo (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you really are the Author Nobuo Ikeda. Then what the hell are you doing on Wikipedia?Odst (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if he is a professor at that (little known) university, that doesn't make him any kind of expert on Comfort Women. In fact, the graduate school where Nobuo Ikeda works only has Management and Accounting courses so, regardless of his real name, Ikedanobuo is most likely just a ultra-nationalist right-wing history buff who feels the need to convince the world about the "true" history of the atrocities Japan committed in WWII. Guess I wasn't as illiterate in Japanese as you thought, eh Ikedanobuo? Yaki-gaijin (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In this discussion, when someone can't persuade others by facts nor logic, he call them "ultra-nationalist", "right wing" and so on. Only you can do is reverting without any evidence? There were many such racists in this article. If you can read Japanese, I'll present this phrase for you, Yaki-gaijin. 馬鹿は死ななきゃ直らない。Ikedanobuo (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"馬鹿は死ななきゃ直らない" translated roughly means "Idiots will only be fixed through death." Thanks for calling me a racist, and thanks for the bonus DEATH THREAT. I think your true character is really starting to show through now. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That's an old Japanese saying that is used to describe the extent of someone's stupidity. ("He is so stupid that there is no cure for it but death."). Pejorative, yes. Death threat, no. Hermeneus (user/talk) 18:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Something about horses and power? I can't read Japanese. Odst (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Horses and deers. Look up "baka" in google for etymology if interested. Hermeneus (user/talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hermeneus, you are taking your tolerance of this guy to a ludicrous level. The Japanese language is all about reading between the lines. If out of the thousands of Japanese sayings about stupidity, this guy picks one with the words "idiot" and "must die" what exactly do you think he is implying? Also, why do you think he wrote it in Japanese? He obviously knew he was writing something he didn't want others to read because he knew it was wrong. He has called me stupid, ridiculous and other things like that, so it obviously wasn't the "idiot" part that he was afraid of people reading either. Please come back to reality. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. "馬鹿は死ななきゃ直らない" is a common Japanese expression of profanity, and there is nothing to read between the lines. Besides, you called him "ultra-nationalist" and such also. I don't intend to defend Ikebukuro because he obviously has serious problems with his speech and editing. But I don't like this issue getting turned into a mere case of a single pov-pushing editor acting badly because it does involve a legitimate content dispute. His frustration is understandable to some extent considering the current text of this article as well as his inability to express himself well in English. Hermeneus (user/talk) 23:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Hermeneus. Please calm down. 馬鹿は死ななきゃ直らない (baka wa shinanakya naoranai) is a standard kotowaza, or Japanese proverb/saying, that is commonly heard in Japan. Yaki-gaijin incorrectly translated it as "Idiots will only be fixed through death" when in fact a more faithful translation reads: "A fool is a fool until he dies." Kenskyusha's Japanese-English Proverb Dictionary (1999) translates the saying for an English-speaking audience: "The folly of others' thoughts sometimes surprises us" (pg. 468). There is nothing to read between the lines and Ikedanubuo is certainly not physically threatening anyone by repeating the kotowaza. Regards, J Readings (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't mean to beat a dead horse (wow what a bad pun!), but I found this on this website

• "馬鹿は死ななきゃ直らない...the only cure for a fool is death"

So my rough translation wasn't that far off. Though I will settle for your "good faith" translation, for now. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

-Can someone explain to me how a reference to "ultra nationalism" made by Yaki-gaijin is linked with racism ? This is certainly not a way related to "facts" or "logic" to dismiss an argument...

Here is a list of some additions by Ikedanobuo which are POV and why :

• 1)

"For example, Kaneko alleges that he joined the Nanking massacre in 1937 and murdered many Chinese, but he joined the Army in 1940. His division was located in Qingdao, middle of China, so he could not be a member of Unit 731 in Manchuria, far North of China."

Where is the source ?

• 2)

"It decided that the case was not crime organized by the Army and that the ones who raped violated the Army’s order to hire only voluntary women. Some researchers have found documents giving instructions not to treat comfort women violently."

Reference not related

• 3)

"In 1991, the Asahi Shimbun reported that the historian Yoshiaki Yoshimi discovered incriminating documents in the archives of Japan's Defense Agency on 11 January 1992. According to Yoshimi they indicated that the military was directly involved in running the brothels, for example by selecting the agents who recruited. The Asahi published these findings as a front-page article and reported that the comfort women were abducted as part of "Joshi Teishintai" (women volunteer corps). But it was obviously wrong because Teishintai was the labor team in the factories of military equipment.[15] This article misled the Japanese government because it was scheduled for Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa to visit South Korea five days after the reporting. He apologized to Korean government about the comfort women without confirming the facts."

Personnal interpretation of facts. Dismissing of an historian's finding by association with unrelated error by a journalist. Interpretation of governement raction. Clearly POV

• 4) In reference to Yoshimi's and Hayashi's findings of 2007 : "the prosecutors adopted it as a proof but did not prosecuted the soldiers because it was not the official order of the Army"

Clearly POV without source

• 5)

"But many historians and lawmakers in Japan think that the statement is not based on historical facts and should be corrected.[16]"

Again, those "many historians" is a source by Hata....

• 6)

"Objections from Japan Most of Japanese people don't believe these stories told by foreign politicians and journalists. Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs refutes the Honda resolution as erroneous.[17] Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe presented this observation in March in response to a question by an opposition lawmaker and the Cabinet has formally confirmed that there was no coercion by the Army. The Yomiuri Shimbun, the largest daily in Japan, wrote in its editorial that no evidence had been found showing coercive recruitment of comfort women by military personnel or government officials.[18] Many scholars and historians such as Ikuhiko Hata question the credibility of certain evidence used to prove the existence and scope of various war crimes committed by Japan including the abuse of comfort women. There is no hard evidence to prove the Japanese military's direct involvement in coercion of the women. There was violent treatment of comfort women by private agents, which would make the Japanese Military only responsible for insufficient supervision.[19] One important argument is to question the credibility of testimony given by former comfort women. Hata and other historians points out that the former comfort womens' testimony is inconsistent and unreliable; making it invalid.[20] For example, some self-identified victims state that they were kidnapped by somebody like a soldier, but they didn't know who they were. This problem was perhaps epitomized in the NHK controversy in early 2001. What was supposed to be coverage of the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery was extremely edited and an interview with Hata was inserted at the last minutes. He told that the court was a Kangaroo court that prosecutes dead Emperor Hirohito without attorney.[21] A group of Japanese lawmakers and historians in a full-page ad in the Washington Post on June 14, 2007, denied the Japanese government and military had a hand in conscripting women from Asian countries as sex slaves for the Imperial Army during World War II.[22] They also said that no historical document has ever been found that positively demonstrates that women were forced against their will into prostitution by the official order from Japanese Army." _________________

All this is written in a biased way. "Most Japanese people" is not verified. "Stories by foreign politicians" is a cheap way to diminish the value of proofs and testimonies and wrong. "Cabinet confirm there was no coercion by the Army" is irrelevant. "Many scolars" is again Hata...."They didn't know who they were"... is an extrapolation of some cases to all the cases..."A group of Japanese lawmakers" and "they also said that no historical documents has ever been found" is a reference to right-wing politicians as it they defended the "Truth"...

• 7) Deletion of all the section on censorship of broadcasting testimony. Clearly POV

--Flying tiger (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I am so sick of politicians that lie... reading this article and these comments makes me think that politicians need to undergo specific tests before they are allowed in the free world... I think if politicians are found to have lied more than 5 times in ways that can be shown to have hurt a specific number of people, they need to be held liable in the courts like a doctor... we need better attorneys in political malpractice. As unrealistic as it sounds (as feasible as a cure for cancer or AIDS in already infected), I think society won't be safe without it.

Mariab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.246.46 (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete authoritative secondary sources

Don't delete authoritative secondary sources, if you don't want to read them. >Flying tiger Blue011011 (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What are you refering to?....--Flying tiger (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Overview of the currently contested edits

	Old	New (Ikedanobuo)
1	Based on these estimates, most international media sources quote about 200,000 young women were recruited to serve in Japanese military brothels. The BBC quotes "200,000 to 300,000" and the International Commission of Jurists quotes "estimates of historians of 100,000 to 200,000 women."	Based on these estimates, most international media sources quote about 200,000 young women were recruited to serve in Japanese military brothels. The BBC quotes "200,000 to 300,000" and the International Commission of Jurists quotes "estimates of historians of 100,000 to 200,000 women." However, historian Ikuhiko Hata estimates the number between 10,000 and 20,000, because the number of soldiers in the pacific front was 2.5 million compared to the mainland Japan where there were 200,000 prostitutes for 30 million customers.
2	According to Unit 731 soldier Yasuji Kaneko "The women cried out, but it didn't matter to us whether the women lived or died. We were the emperor's soldiers. Whether in military brothels or in the villages, we raped without reluctance." Beatings and physical torture were said to be not uncommon.	According to an ex-soldier Yasuji Kaneko, "Whether in military brothels or in the villages, we raped without reluctance." But his testimony contradicts historical facts and not cited by historians, even by Yoshimi.[23] For example, Kaneko alleges that he joined the Nanking massacre in 1937 and murdered many Chinese, but he joined the Army in 1940. His division was located in Qingdao, middle of China, so he could not be a member of Unit 731 in Manchuria, far North of China.
3	Ten Dutch women were taken by force from prison camps in Java by officers of the Japanese Imperial Army to become forced sex slaves in February 1944. They were systematically beaten and raped day and night in a so called "Comfort Station". Although they were returned to the prison camps within three months upon protest of the Dutch prisoners against the Imperial Army, the Japanese officers were not punished by Japanese authorities until the end of the war. After the end of the war 11 Japanese officers were declared guilty with one sentenced to death by the Batavia War Criminal Court. It decided that the case was not crime organized by the Army and that the ones who raped violated the Army’s order to hire only voluntary women. Some researchers have found documents giving instructions not to treat comfort women violently.	Ten Dutch women were taken by force from prison camps in Semarang in Indonesia by officers of the Japanese Imperial Army to become forced sex slaves in February 1944. They were systematically beaten and raped day and night in a so called "Comfort Station". Although they were returned to the prison camps within three months upon protest of the Dutch prisoners against the Imperial Army, the Japanese officers were not punished by Japanese authorities until the end of the war. After the end of the war 11 Japanese officers were declared guilty with one sentenced to death by the Batavia War Criminal Court. It decided that the case was not crime organized by the Army and that the ones who raped violated the Army’s order to hire only voluntary women. Some researchers have found documents giving instructions not to treat comfort women violently.
4	The system of comfort women used by the Japanese government during WWII falls under the international definition of slavery at the time, and slavery (sexual or otherwise) was illegal at the time. The 1926 Slavery Convention embodies one such definition. International prohibition of slavery was included in the Tokyo Charter which was used to make the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.	The system of comfort women during WWII falls under the international definition of slavery at the time, and slavery (sexual or otherwise) was illegal at the time. The 1926 Slavery Convention embodies one such definition. International prohibition of slavery was included in the Tokyo Charter which was used to make the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.
5	Rape (including forced or coerced prostitution) was a war crime at the time; regardless of whether prostitution was widespread during WWII.	Rape (including forced or coerced prostitution) was a crime at the time; regardless of whether prostitution was widespread during WWII.
6	Enslavement and other inhumane acts committed by the Japanese government can be considered “crimes against humanity.” In crimes against humanity, the nationality of the victim is irrelevant thus, (it doesn’t matter if the Japanese government was committing crimes against its enemies’ citizens or its own) it is liable for these offenses. The Japanese government is liable for crimes against humanity because of the considerable scale on which these crimes were committed. Arguments that the enslaving and raping of comfort women was perfectly legal at the time is similar to an argument that was used and refuted at the Nuremberg Trials.	A United Nations report called "McDougal Report" alleged that Japanese Army was guilty for enslavement and other inhumane acts can be considered “crimes against humanity.” But Japanese government rejected the accusation as groundless because it presented no hard evidence of the involvement of the Army.
7	n/a	In 1991, the Asahi Shimbun reported that the historian Yoshiaki Yoshimi discovered incriminating documents in the archives of Japan's Defense Agency on 11 January 1992. According to Yoshimi they indicated that the military was directly involved in running the brothels, for example by selecting the agents who recruited. The Asahi published these findings as a front-page article and reported that the comfort women were abducted as part of "Joshi Teishintai" (women volunteer corps). But it was obviously wrong because Teishintai was the labor team in the factories of military equipment.[24] This article misled the Japanese government because it was scheduled for Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa to visit South Korea five days after the reporting. He apologized to Korean government about the comfort women without confirming the facts.
8	n/a	But many historians and lawmakers in Japan think that the statement is not based on historical facts and should be corrected.[25]
9	==Counter theories== The main opposition to the mainstream ideas about comfort women is perhaps the view held by Ikuhiko Hata and other revisionist historians. They question the credibility of certain evidence used to prove the existence and scope of various warcrimes committed by Japan including the abuse of comfort women. These Japanese historians argue that there is no evidence to prove the Japanese military's direct involvement in coercion of the women. In their view, there was violent treatment of comfort women by private agents, which would make the Japanese Military only responsible for insufficient supervision. Hata estimates the number of comfort women to be more likely between 10,000 and 20,000 (in contrast to 60,000 to 300,000 estimated by other historians). Hata claims that NONE of the comfort women were forcibly recruited. He alleges that in the 1930s, there were 200,000 prostitutes in mainland Japan where there were more than 30 million customers, while the number of soldiers was only 3 million in the entire Pacific front.	==Objections from Japan== Most of Japanese people don't believe these stories told by foreign politicians and journalists. Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs refutes the Honda resolution as erroneous.[26] Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe presented this observation in March in response to a question by an opposition lawmaker and the Cabinet has formally confirmed that there was no coercion by the Army. The Yomiuri Shimbun, the largest daily in Japan, wrote in its editorial that no evidence had been found showing coercive recruitment of comfort women by military personnel or government officials.[27] Many scholars and historians such as Ikuhiko Hata question the credibility of certain evidence used to prove the existence and scope of various war crimes committed by Japan including the abuse of comfort women. There is no hard evidence to prove the Japanese military's direct involvement in coercion of the women. There was violent treatment of comfort women by private agents, which would make the Japanese Military only responsible for insufficient supervision.[28]
10	The proportion of countries of origin of the women is also in dispute. Though the precise number of comfort women is still under debate, Hata's study concludes that 40% of them were from Japan, 20% from Korea, 10% from China, and others making up the remaining 30%.	One important argument is to question the credibility of testimony given by former comfort women. Hata and other historians points out that the former comfort womens' testimony is inconsistent and unreliable; making it invalid.[29] For example, some self-identified victims state that they were kidnapped by somebody like a soldier, but they didn't know who they were.
11	One important argument revisionists use to oppose the mainstream conclusions about the abuse of comfort women is to question the credibility of testimony given by former comfort women. Hata and other historians claim that the former comfort womens' testimony is inconsistent and unreliable; making it invalid. For example, some self-identified victims state that they were kidnapped by somebody like a soldier, but they didn't know who they were.	This problem was perhaps epitomized in the NHK controversy in early 2001. What was supposed to be coverage of the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery was extremely edited and an interview with Hata was inserted at the last minutes. He told that the court was a Kangaroo court that prosecutes dead Emperor Hirohito without attorney.[30]
12	One of Hata's long term goals is to revise or completely retract the Kono statement. Right-wing groups in Japan have even gone as far as attempting to censor the broadcast of testimony regarding comfort women. This was perhaps epitomized in the NHK controversy in early 2001. What was supposed to be coverage of the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery was extremely edited and an interview with Hata was inserted at the last minute to appease the right-wing groups that complained to NHK.	A group of Japanese lawmakers and historians in a full-page ad in the Washington Post on June 14, 2007, denied the Japanese government and military had a hand in conscripting women from Asian countries as sex slaves for the Imperial Army during World War II.[31] They also said that no historical document has ever been found that positively demonstrates that women were forced against their will into prostitution by the official order from Japanese Army.

Comments

While it's true that some of Ikedanobuo's recent inputs are unsourced and possibly biased, the old version isn't much better, either. It's obviously heavily biased toward those who support the cause of comfort women, and all the Japanese arguments that are critical of the issue are segregated in a little section called "Counter theories," which is filled with hideous Ad hominem attack on Japanese critics. This article is in serious need of full-fledged revision. Hermeneus (user/talk) 19:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't help but agree with Hermeneus' statement, but nevertheless, that does not mean we can condone Ikedanobuo's incursions. Like Hermenius said, we need a re-write of this article. but before that, let's settle some disputes, most notably our quarrel with Ikedanobuo. Odst (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Ikedanobuo needs to provide sources to back up every controvercial edit that he is making first and foremost . Hermeneus (user/talk) 04:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we need to both re-write the article and settle the Ikedanobuo dispute, but I think we can do both at the same time. Ikedanobuo isn't always online, and, as you can see here he is quite a disagreeable and disruptive character. So, waiting around for him will be a waste of time.

I read through the Counter theories section, but I could not find the "hideous ad-hominem attacks" you mentioned. Could you please clarify what you were talking about? Yaki-gaijin (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

For a starter, the term "revisionist" is a label that is both pov and pejorative in nature. The issue of comfort women is rather new one that has come to the attention of the public only around the 1980. There is no long-established, mainstream theory to revise to begin with, at least not in Japan which is one of the major countries where the subject is most extensively studied.

It is at 1991 that Kim Hak-Sun of the first Comfort women was excavated in South Korea. The Comfort women has not appeared in the report of North and South Korea in 1980. --211.3.121.109 (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That "[o]ne of Hata's long term goals is to revise or completely retract the Kono statement" has got nothing to do with the merit of the argument that Hata advances on the subject if not as an ad hominem attempt to discredit it.

"Right-wing groups in Japan have even gone as far as attempting to censor...." isn't even a theory. That's a political activity. Putting it in the same section as Hata's theory has an obvious implication to reject Hata's (and other "revisionist" scholars') argument as a product of right-wing politics that's not worth a serious consideration of scholarship.

Also, calling another editor "ultra-nationalist," "right-wing," etc. constitutes a personal attack. Hermeneus (user/talk) 09:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked up "revisionist" in the dictionary and the definition is quite neutral. A revisionist is someone "attempting to reevaluate and restate the past based on newly acquired standards" I think this is a good description of what is going on with this issue. Most of the world (including various renowned historians, academics, and experts) have concluded that Japan did in fact enslave and abuse women; thousands of them. Ikedanobuo is representing a voice protesting that "mainstream view," as you might call it, thus he and others promoting that "counter view" easily fit the definition of "revisionist." The fact that Ikedanobuo's "counter view" is such a minority is also the reason why it is being segregated into the Counter theories section. Otherwise he can put "but this is disputed" after every single sentence in the article, as if a majority of historians and experts are wavering over the evidence. The simple truth is that they aren't, and this "counter view" is a extreme minority. An article needs to represent both sides of a debate, but it also needs to have balance.

About the inclusion of Hata's goal of retracting the Kono statement and the actions of the right-wing groups who strongly complained (to put it lightly) to NHK over the broadcast in early 2001. I think these are important to the article to show what and where the revisionists are protesting. It adds to the description of their theories, their way of thinking, etc.

Saying that Ikedanobuo is most likely an "ultra-nationalist right wing" person may be borderline ad-hominem, and I apologize for saying it unnecessarily. But I do believe that it accurately describes the "truths" he insists on, the sources he cites, and other websites he links to when he posts here on Wikipedia. I don't think there's anything wrong with calling someone "right-wing" if their beliefs represent a "right-wing" perspective.

This is my reasoning, but I am, of course, willing to compromise. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The act of labeling someone "revisionist" could be pejorative. It doesn't matter if it's a fact or not. Even if someone is mentally retarded for a medical fact, that doesn't mean that calling him/her a "retard" is merely a neutral description of him/her. "Historical revisionism has both a legitimate academic use and a pejorative meaning.... The pejorative use refers to illegitimate manipulation of history for political purposes, for example Holocaust denial" (cf. Historical revisionism). The latter part exactly fits the treatment of Hata and his fellow critics in this Wikipedia article.

"Most of the world...." is your pov that is very much contested here, not a fact. Labeling those who don't agree with you "revisionists" is definitely not a neutral description. The amount of scholarship on the subject is naturally most in Japan and Korea; in the rest of the world it's not a very studied subject. Conservative critics in Japan alone constitutes a very good proportion. Unless you are suggesting a biased view that the entire industry of history in Japan is prejudiced, censored by the rightist government, and what not, and so doesn't count as a legitimate place of scholarship, it doesn't hold true.

The treatment of theories by mere Wikipedia editors like Ikedanobuo alone doesn't constitute any "fact" about those theories. The way Ikedanobuo has been conducting the defense of his cause on Wikipedia is apparently not smart anyway. Ofcourse he should have "put 'but this is disputed' after every single sentence in the article" if that's what he believes right.

Hata's political activity has got nothing to do with the credibility of his scholastic works. Putting together his politics and scholarship in the same section is definitely not a fair and neutral treatment. That's as wrong as mentioning that a certain scholar is an avid supporter of the Republican party who has contributed a big amount of money to the party, received grants from some conservative organization, etc. at great length in an article about the various analyses of policies under the Bush administration. The same can be easily done to scholars like Yoshimi and others who support the cause of comfort women and are often accused of being "traitors," "radical leftists," "communists," etc. as well as former comfort women themselves. Create a separate section if you want to write about politics, or write about it in his own article, "Ikuhiko Hata," if it's not directly related to the subject. Don't mix them up arbitrarily. Hermeneus (user/talk) 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize that people don't call others "retards" anymore, so what's the PC term for a revisionist?

Where can one learn about exactly how many historians are weighing in on the revisionist side and which are not?

I think I agree that Hata's political actions would be more appropriate in his bio.

You told me to calm down, and I think that makes a lot of sense. Unless you feel that you need me here to talk things out with Ikedanobuo, I am going to take a 24hr break from this article. Good luck! Yaki-gaijin (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki conventions reccommend assumption of good faith. Besides, He'll be back to disrupt it if we don't settle it. I say we settle the dispute, first. It's never too late to go back and fix the article. Odst (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how I can assume good faith in the comment "Idiots will only be fixed through death." Yaki-gaijin (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yaki-gaijin, user Ikedanobuo has already been warned once over his consistent breach of Wikipedia:Civility as seen here - not to mention the myriads of other times an editor has pointed this out on this talk page. I've left another warning on his user page. Phonemonkey (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How long can someone be consistently disruptive here on Wikipedia before they're banned or at least punished in some way? Yaki-gaijin (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It has to be done in steps, because admins won't take action until other steps to try to change his behaviour have been exhausted. If he continues, the next step would probably be to request community-wide comments via WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users. Hopefully he'll eventualy wise up. Phonemonkey (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A new source

Here's a good article that's fairly recent as well. It also has a very useful map on the last page. JWRC Homepage, and it quotes from those elusive trial documents Odst was talking about. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 11:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I CANT READ JAPANESE!!! nor Simplified Kanji.Odst (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the link above to go the JWRC homepage where the article is. Scroll down to the link that says Reference Materials of the Press Conference on Japanese military sexual slavery ("comfort women"), 17 April 2007 at The Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan Sorry about that. Didn't know they disallowed direct links. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

o I saw this before. I considered linking tis, but I figured it was way too long. Odst (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It's long, but it's broken up into lots o' little chewable bits. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hermeneus' Sensible Comments

I have deliberately avoided editing this article because it requires a great deal of re-adjustment in order to maintain NPOV, NOR, and verifiability. I agree with most/all of Hermeneus' sensible comments regarding the POV-pushing in this article (that needs to change) and I also think it is understandable why other editors such as Ikedanubou are frustrated. By replacing weasel words, non-attributed statements, and ad-hominem adjectives with non-descriptive and publicly verifiable authors, journalists, and historians, the reader is allowed to assess the information independently from whatever POV-pushing others wish to convey. Granted, there are reliable source issues to consider when adding material, but having said that, I also agree that Ikedanubou needs to source all of his edits as much as everyone else does. The problem is, and I tend to agree with Ikedanubou here, it is considered a foregone conclusion that the so-called comfort women were all "sex slaves" and other POV/partisan descriptions demanding to be taken as fact. This is a terrible mistake when editing an encyclopedia article, especially when not all historians agree. For example, George Hicks is selectively cited in this article. Yet, Hicks also states in his book that the Burmese comfort women were not necessarily "sex slaves" --- they participated willingly. Whether one agrees with Hicks is irrelevant; that was one of many subtle nuances found in his book and should be included to maintain NPOV. I'm confident that if we start to re-edit the article to show all of the relevant points of view in this controversy, those who some regard as "disruptive" will be happy to listen and work with other editors on this project. Regards, J Readings (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I was only recently brought to light of the fact that not all comfort women were sex slaves. J readings is correct. Odst (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

this calls for a drastic cleanup of the entire article... Odst (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So let's clean it up. You said Ikedanobuo has to cite all of his additions, however, are articles like this considered reliable source material for talking about comfort women? Just wondering because Ikedanobuo likes to quote from it. I admit, it does reveal a lot about what Hata thinks on the subject, but is it academic? Yaki-gaijin (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Having read the comments added here in the last few three days, I see a dangerous tendency to relativism. So, "poor Ikedanobuo"'s frustration would be justified and why not, Yaki-gaijin's additions, would be one-sided POV.

As I wrote above, we must not forget that Ikedanobuo's behavior has been characterized for many months by savage deletions followed by agressive additions of non-sourced personal interpretation and extrapolation of facts such as his dubious explanation of why the Tokeitai members were not prosecuted for coercion of women.

Mostly, all his references come from Ikuhiko Hata, an historian yes, but a political activist linked to many negationist organisms such as the Tsukuru kai. I support the fact that Hata's publications should not be discarded from the article and that it he should not be identified as an activist but I completly disagree with this dangerous relativism which is arguing that all historians have ultimately neutral point of view and as such, "Hata's opinion has got nothing to do with the credibility of his scholastic work". We can be neutral without being naive and thus not make Wikipedia the voice of shōwa nationalism. --Flying tiger (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What Flying tiger calls "a dangerous tendency towards 'relativism'," I would simply call a faithful implementation of one of Wikipedia's most endearing policies: NPOV. Respecting that and other policies, I think, would make editing this article less problematic. As it is, all editors here seem to agree with Hermeneus' suggestions, so I am left wondering where the naiveté enters the picture. If we assume good faith, obviously we are not here to debate the history and politics of the comfort women controversy (that violates WP:NOT and WP:BATTLE). Nor are we here to promote any one agenda or turn Wikipedia into a partisan propaganda vehicle for or against the comfort women lobby (that violates WP:SOAP). On these, we all hopefully agree. So what is preventing us from documenting (that is the correct word to use) a balanced, non-judgmental overview of the controversy?

Regarding Hata, his scholarship may not be a few editors' cup of tea (and his historical findings may irritate some), but his work remains highly respected among academics and even journalists. Writing a review for the Journal of International Affairs, Malcolm Kennedy considers Hata's The Hidden Crisis between Japan and the USSR: 1932-1934 to be an "absorbing study" and "enlightening to the general reader interested in Far Eastern history." Professor Shinobu Seizaburo (Nagoya University) praises Hata's A History of the Japanese-Chinese War (Nitchu-Senso-shi, macrons unavailable) stating that "from now on no study of the political history of the Showa era will be possible until [Hata's] book has first been read." David McNeill, writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education (April 27, 2007), not only considers Hata to be a historian but also the author of "seminal works" such as Nankin Jiken (The Nanjing Incident, Tokyo: Chuo Koron, 1986).

I can cite many other journalists and academics who consider Hata to be an expert in modern history, but I think I made my point: Hata is a notable academic whose views deserve to be documented and treated with respect, regardless of whether some may disagree with his conclusions on the comfort women controversy. But, again, the only real policy issue here is with undue weight being afforded to any one historian, not with whether he should be included. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than the undue weight policy, I see another conflict. Here on Wikipedia, there isn't a clear definition of what is or is not a "reliable" source. Yes, there is a policiy write up on it, but almost anything could fit into that category by the loose definition given. I am wondering if the papers that Ikuhiko Hata writes on his own (not published in what I would consider reputable publications) should be considered reliable sources. Does anyone have a list of reliable sources regarding comfort women that we might persue?

Will an article about comfort women be at all useful if it is constantly contradicting or arguing with itself? Take estimations of the number of total comfort women. we would have to write

"Some historians have concluded there were 200,000 comfort women. Some historians have concluded there were 10,000 comfort women. Some historians have concluded that there were ZERO comfort women (using the term to mean sex slave)."

I think giving every POV equal weight in this article would render it useless (not to mention the disgrace and injustice it would do to any comfort women who were coerced into sexual slavery, but I guess that doesn't matter on Wikipedia). I hope that a fair balance can be found, but I have a feeling this article is going to be overrun with revisionists. Give them an inch... Yaki-gaijin (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The reliable sources page presents guidelines to help WP editors deal with the more important policy issue: verifiability. Some sources are reliable and others are not. For example, in my experience, any editor wishing to add content directly from the internet risks having it removed unless it can be shown that it was published somewhere that offers editorial review and/or has a good reputation for fact checking. Blogs and personal websites are usually the first suspects to be carefully scanned and removed vigorously from WP pages unless they were written by the subject himself/herself (blogs are usually only allowed on the living person's own article page). Now, before you jump to say "Hurray! Now we can get rid of the Hata PdF", Wikipedia has caveats for well-regarded experts on any given subject. I have to go back and review the policies because Prof. Hata is well-regarded as a historian according to virtually every newspaper and academic journal that featured his views in English or Japanese, so the PdF might be allowed. Also, a quick and useful way to assess if someone's opinion is notable for this WP article is to make use of Lexis-Nexis, Factiva, Worldcat, and sometimes Google News. I entered "Hata" and "Comfort women" in those English search engines (especially Lexis-Nexis and Factiva -- the most powerful of the search engines), and I received countless hits from reputable sources. We can use these in place of more dubious materials, if need be. J Readings (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried out Lexis-Nexis and Factiva, but I couldn't find any of the "countless, reputable hits" you were talking. I'll take your word for it, though I still don't have access to any new sources.

The reason I think Hata's pdf isn't a source is because it's written more like an editorial/propaganda; not like an academic paper.

By the way, if we were to give equal weight to each side of the argument it would look a lot like this article in the Japan Times. Basically just saying "we don't know anything, sorry!" Yaki-gaijin (talk) 12:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, reputable sources are generally determined by their editorial review process and/or reputations. National newspapers are just as acceptable as academic books (though obviously the latter would be preferable.) Directly citing Hata's books would be the better choice, though one can easily cite the Japan Times article you mentioned in this article for certain details if need be. And yes, I apologize, I should have simply put a number on the talk page rather than said "countless" (In my defense, I was in a rush), but I think that you take my point: Prof. Hata is not generally regarded as a crank by journalists and academics. Apparently, Hata published that English-translated article in Shokun -- a Japanese monthly. I have not read the original Japanese (yet), so I can't comment about its accuracy. But what we can say is that the benchmark for inclusion in Wikipedia is not "truth," but verifiability (see WP:V). Original Japanese language materials from third-party sources are acceptable provided that we footnote the original Japanese for those wishing to check the accuracy of the translation for themselves (see WP:RSUE). I'll be visiting a Japanese library soon, so perhaps I can look up the original Japanese for cross-referencing purposes if I get the chance. Thanks for the note, J Readings (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting unverified info

Perhaps we should start by finding sources for or deleting info that isn't cited. I went through and highlighted a bunch of statements that just pop out of the blue. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's the Thanksgiving weekend, so I'll be taking some time off... Godspeed my fellow anti-revisionists. (Odst ) 71.130.127.229 (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

wp:blp

I have again removed several unsourced contentious statements about living people from this talk page per wp:blp: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space." Mdbrownmsw (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dutch parliament demands Japanese compensation for "comfort women"

The motion requests the Dutch government ask Japan to "refrain from any declaration that will devalue the 1993 declaration of remorse" made by then Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono.

Tokyo should "take full responsibility for the involvement of the Japanese army in the system of forced prostitution," the motion says.

The Japanese government is urged to "make an additional gesture by offering the comfort women still alive a form of direct, moral and financial compensation for the inflicted suffering," according to the motion.

Japan should also revise its history text books and give a more accurate picture of World War II, including moves by the Japanese military to force Asian and Western women into prostitution, the motion says.

[32]116.33.12.9 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Xinhua News has been labeled as the "world's biggest propaganda agency". I also can't seem to find this article in any other reputable sources. Is this article telling the truth, or what? Found this, but where are all the major news organizations? Most of the articles I found were Chinese media. Maybe we should delete it until it hits some more reliable sources. I should also edit it for POV stuff. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Similar motions have already been accepted by the American and Dutch governments, which condemned Japanese action and urged redress [33]116.33.12.9 (talk)

Greedy comfort women

Here's a jab at the argument "Former comfort women are just gold diggers," which I hear online from anonymous Japanese extremists.

• The Japanese always say all we want is money, but I don't want it. I want an official apology. They have to come out and say 'it was cruel and it was our fault.' -Dutchwoman Ellen van der Ploeg, who was captured by the Japanese in Indonesia during World War II and forced to be a sex slave.

got it here. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What does this "jab" have to do with Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia project? If you have some political agenda to educate Japanese "ultranationalists" with the moral "truth," Wikipedia isn't the right place. There are plenty of online forums that are more appropriate for such a political discussion.

It's only making you look bad on Wikipedia that aims to be a neutral and objective encyclopedia. Not a wise thing to do. --Hermeneus (user/talk) 00:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. I'm not the person you should be barking at.

I posted it here because I thought it might be useful to discuss it and how it fits into the article. There's plenty of sources that talk about how comfort women are simply prostitutes who are embarassed to admit that they weren't forced, or that they are just bitter women out to get money. I'm just cutting that off at the pass. Or at least, drawing a source to the attention of Wikipedians that they may be able to use now or in the future. The fact that I didn't just add it to the article and start a humongous Revert War shows that I'm not pushing some agenda with this quote. You could have just told me politely that it's not useful at the moment, or not said anything at all, and it would have ended there. Yaki-gaijin (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Counter-Theory Section Embarassing

I have read the arguments here, and realize determining what exactly should be included has already been under debate for some time. I think there are numerous unanswered questions and legitimate controversies that support these disputes. I also realize I'm coming quite late. However, I still can't help but point out the obvious here. I feel it needs to be said. How is wikipedia ever going to be taken seriously with articles like this? There's nothing wrong with including a mention of Hata's extremist view. But devoting a whole section to it is insane. Especially insane is including the idea that "NONE"(The article has it in caps) of the women were forced into slavery. The evidence is overwhelming to the contrary and even most Japanese revisionists would not make such an all encompassing claim. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It would be like opening up Brittanica and seeing a whole section about how the Holocaust was a myth. It's an embrassing contrast to the great strides wikipedia has been making in constructing reliable articles.

Hata should be mentioned, and if necessary, the whole section can remain. But at the least the idea that no women were forced should be removed. Or at least find some more sources for it. The views of one person, when they are completely in opposition to what even those who downplay comfort women claim, is unjustifiable in an encyclopedia. It's unreal to me that with all the sensible contributers wikipedia has, articles like this still exist.--208.103.143.6 22:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's only embarassing because you haven't re-written the entire article yet ^_^

The Counter theories section was made as an alternative to having the phrase "but this is disputed (by Hata, etc)" after every single bit of information presented in the article. Giving Hata (and others' ideas) a separate section makes it easier for people to read one side of the debate and then read the other. If you can come up with a better idea, I'm sure everyone here would love to hear it. Yaki-gaijin 08:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to create a firestorm by messing with it, but by the same token, I was probably going overboard with that rant. My main problem is the overreliance on Hata. It is a large section to devote to the theories of a single individual. If more sources could be found for those views, it would improve the article in my estimation.--205.146.54.14 19:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys: I added this to the counter section:

This argument, of course, can be categorized as a type of victim blaming, a characteristic human response to the discovery and accusation of rape. Because the argument is not novel and has central characteristics appropriate to denial, such an argument does not negate coercion from Japanese military facility, but rather simply calls for more indicative evidence.

I hope everyone will find these comments objective. I wrote them with the implicit assumption that people want to determine the responsible culprits for these crimes as well as tie the obviously non-novel argument (though definitely counter to egalitarian views of humans and who s to be blamed in crimes of rape) to victim blaming, which is also on wikipedia. Please keep my work!

Mariab

"The evidence is overwhelming"? But this wiki article is not providing ANY SINGLE EVIDENCE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.34.86 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Legal liabilities of the Japanese Government"

The list of "liabilities" at the top of this section looks like a list of arguments presented in a specific paper. Am I right? In which case, in accordance with WP:NPOV if these arguments are to remain in the article, they should be presented in a way so that it is clear that we are discussing the fact that this paper presented these opinions, not merely asserting these opinions as if they are facts. To quote WP:NPOV, "where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion". Until then I am removing the list. Phonemonkey (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

these facts were, in fact, presented as an argument in the prosecution of about 25 Japanese war criminals. The information is true, therefore it has no choice but to violate jpov. However, it in no way violates npov. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Phonemonkey that the section needs to be reworded so that the reader is aware that it was simply an argument made by the Allied prosecution. In order to maintain NPOV, it would also be a good idea to present the defense argument presented AT THE TIME by the legal defense during the trials so the reader has a full picture of the subject matter. Do that, and we maintain NPOV. Wouldn't you agree, Odst? J Readings (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead with that; I admit there were some statements that had to be restated in a less infuriating way. As far as I'm aware, the information Phonemonkey has been trying to delete was factually accurate. What Phonemokey was doing could not be condoned in my eyes...( improve it; don't delete it ) o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Also, I'm glad we agree that there's some common middle ground to be found here. I'll be stopping by the library this afternoon to research a separate subject for Wikipedia. I'll start looking through the literature for mentions of the Japanese defense team's point-by-point arguments to the Allied Prosecution. I can't guarantee that I'll find it right away (though I'm sure it will be recorded somewhere), but once I do find it I'll be sure to report back anything worth mentioning. Best, J Readings (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There should be lots of books about nuremberg at the library... I'll see If I can find something, too. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Odst, don't get me wrong - if that is indeed a list of arguments presented by the Allied prosecution it's undoubtedly an important piece of imformation which I'd be glad to include in the article. However 1) it needs to be presented as a list of arguments presented by the Allied prosecution and 2) backed up by a suitable source which shows that this was indeed a list of arguments made by the Allied prosecution. Now if I had sources to hand which shows the list of arguments made by the prosecution I'd stick them up myself - but I don't. I can't really make edits to that section to say "these are the arguments made by so-and-so" because I haven't got a source I can go into (the linked reference doesn't seem to work for me - perhaps if it works on your browser you can make the relevant edits?). Right now, it's just a list of arguments presented without an attribution as to who actually made those arguments - I haven't got sources to improve it, so I am only removing it until someone else can present it in a way which complies with wikipedia guidelines. Please don't get offended or assume any bad faith on my part. Thanks, Phonemonkey (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's unfair to the article here that you delete the material even though you are in a minority group of people who can't open the reference URL. The reference is a UN analysis work from 1998. I returned the list of arguments preceded by a description of the UN paper and its authors and purpose. There's more copyediting to do in the immediately following sections but I ran out of time today. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand, Phonemonkey; I've seen your previous edits and you don't seem to hold malicious intentions at all. you see, to be a devoted wikipedian... Nevertheless, I do think there could have been an alternative action you could have taken. I understand your motives, but the res' were not untrue>Just some weasel words, that's all. o.d.s.t. : feet first into hell (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Counter Theory

Hi, this is what I added:

This argument, of course, can be categorized as a type of victim blaming, a characteristic human response to the discovery and accusation of rape. Because the argument is not novel and has central characteristics appropriate to denial, such an argument does not negate coercion from Japanese military facility, but rather simply calls for more unrefutable evidence. For example, sufficient evidence may be found that the military culture and not official Japanese memorandum, faciltitatied coercion of Comfort women. In such a case the Japanese military would be guilty of professional negligence and corruption which facilitated crimes.

I hope that we can keep this content for a long time, with few revisions.

Mariabrenna (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mariabrenna. One question: can your added sentences be attributed to an author responding specifically to Prof. Hata's work on this subject? Right now, it reads a little bit like original research. J Readings (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi: I don't know about original research; Prof. Hata isn't the only researcher in existence though, so whether it is his statement or not isn't necessary to include and maintain in the article. Linking one concept to another in wikipedia seems common practice. It doesn't need to be research to link to predefined definitions in other articles. Original research would be like me stating that the under diagnostic means we know that the psychology of victim blaming and can definitely attribute it to those using a type of argument. But no one has done that research so it's not really a concern.Mariabrenna (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What we're really talking about here is original synthesis. Specifically, "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." If you read your above argument in specific relation to the comfort women issue, and you can cite (i.e., attribute) it within the article to a reliable source, then it would be appropriate for the comfort women article. That was my point. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Claims that Political Right-wingers lie

I am so sick of politicians that lie... reading this article and these comments makes me think that politicians need to undergo specific tests before they are allowed in the free world... I think if politicians are found to have lied more than 5 times in ways that can be shown to have hurt a specific number of people, they need to be held liable in the courts like a doctor... we need better attorneys in political malpractice. As unrealistic as it sounds (as feasible as a cure for cancer or AIDS in already infected), I think society won't be safe without it.

It's about as sick and corrupt as swindling old people out of their social security.

Mariabrenna (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Mariab —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.246.46 (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I, too, the find the denial of well-documented crimes against humanity repugnant. However, I think anything that tends towards criminalizing political differences sets a frightnening precedent.128.165.87.144 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Article snippet moved here

This snippet was added by 202.40.139.170 in Revision as of 17:26, May 27, 2008. I've moved it here for discussion.

some of whom were eventually forced to prostitute for the U.S. occupational force.

1. The cited supporting source is a personal web page. As such, it does not meet WP:RS criteria. The same information, however, is available from an arguably more reliable source here.
2. The assertion added to the article ("some of whom were eventually forced to prostitute for the U.S. occupational force") is not supported by either source. A parenthetical remark in both sources under "The Truk Massacre" reads, "After the war the US occupational authorities allowed continued use of a number of these Comfort Women still alive, as prostitutes for their own GIs stationed on the island" -- there is nothing there suggesting that the continued prostitution was forced.

I question whether this information belongs in this article at all, but concede that it might. If it does belong in this article, it does not belong in the lede section. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Addressing major tags on article

i am made an attempt to start addressing the major tags at the top of the article.

I fully intent to stand firm against what has to date been fairly obvious use of threats and intimidation.

My edits include improve copy editing for which there is no excuse to remove to the tag POV version previously.

I am not disputing any facts, I am attempting only to put the article into shape from its previously overladen and NPOV position.

If I was to make give examples, e.g. "a euphemism for women forced into prostitution" to "a euphemism for women forced involved in prostitution ... a proportion of whom were forced or coerced." this is because not only is it a fact, but it is supported in the rest of the article. Some women were professional, some were not. I am not disputing that but the previous edit failed to include the evident, i.e. there was an establish prostitution industry in Korea, it was involved in servicing the Japanese. Some comfort women were voluntary.

No academic to date has attempt to qualify and quantity voluntary or indigenous prostitution as being labelled different from involuntary prostitution. Both are labelled "comfort women" and the topic should be inclusive of that. And so on.

The rest of the edits are mainly copy. I removed duplicate references and a duplicate reference in Dutch along the lines of policy. Where there are indisputable citations which are not challenged, it is not necessary to overladen the article. --60.42.252.205 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Further developments

I note no discussion or dispute from other active parties above and so continue to work on the topic.I summarise the general development as follows;

Issues to address

• The problem with a contentious subject such as that of the comfort women is that it brings out the worst in the Wikipedia. Debate generally becomes deeply polemic, progress made impossible by radical from both sides.
• Articles such as these are generally hijacked by parties motivated by whatever reason and becoming highly politicised slanging matches
• Being an emotive topic, they also attract immature or more imbalanced contributors, the more mature or even academic contributors giving up or avoiding due to endless jockeying and pointless debates.
• One symptom of this, seen widely in the previous article, is that they seem to consider the number of time one can scream some obscenities or atrocity somehow makes it more real or more valid where, in fact, generally works to the opposite effect turning people off.
• This article in particular is a magnet for parties that seek to use it (the article and not the issue) as a political rod to beat Japan's back - however justified or not - from their own nationalistic point of view, e.g latterly with Korean interests, Caspian blue, and Taiwanese Chinese interests Blueshirts. I suspect the history of this article is littered with many more.
• The repeated use of pejorative and exaggerate language, e.g. "girls" (yes, I know cases but USA Office of War Psychological Warfare Team APO 689 October 1, 1944 also states the average age was twenty-five years old) and "masters" for brother owners or agents.
• The article also seem to suffer from a case of "yesterday's news" over the Abe statement.

I make it clear that I have no political or nationalistic interests on either side.

Action taken

There are many problems with this topic that I have tried to address or which I give examples;

• The copy is very, and typically, messy. It includes multiple duplications of assertions and references, slack nomenclature, cumbersome constructions such as 'consequentlies' and 'howevers' etc, I have attempted to slim it down without losing any of the specific data or references.
• "Historians" said ... it really is not necessary when the author's reference is given.
• There are numerous slack claims, such as "Japan set up Asia Women's Fund" ... what is "Japan"? "Japan" did NOT set up the AWF.
• The ibiblio.com reference given, the evidence destroyed related to prisoner of web camps and NOT comfort women,
• There were a few deadlinks www.apublicbetrayed.com/case_studies/case_study5.htm
• messy constructions such as "Japan's Japan Defense Agency" ... well, who else's would it be?
• removed red links
• fixed or completed references —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.252.111 (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved one reference to Abe's statement as there was another dedicated section for it already. I desection one section "evidence" as the entire article is "evidence" and due to the weakness of the claim above.

Recommendations

The article needs more work not blind, kneejerk reversion. The wikipedia is not a battle ground nor a device for nationalism

• Avoid hyperbole. It does not make the crime any worse and tend only to discredit the good work of those taking the hysteric position.
• Use academic sources. As far as possible, we have to move away from jingoist newspapers and websites to the original academic work. In generally, Chinese news websites are not good "reliable sources", in a case such as this, I would say that even Asahi Shimbun and the New York Times - especially where an editorial is quoted - are not free enough from political and national interests.

• Avoid jockeying the Wikipedia system. As we have already witness with the initial wave of fairly and exaggerated and admin complaints, jockeying designed only to prompt one extreme POV or the other. This including respecting other people's time and input and wasting other people's time by having them address admin complaints etc.

Omissions

I must flag up some contentious omissions, contentious in that the topic is emotive and unpleasant.

• It is not clear what proportion of the comfort women voluntary and who many were involuntary. I do not actually know of any sources defining this at present.
• The numbers popularly quoted, and quoted here, do not make clear how many were directly involved in sexual work and how many were involved in the supporting industry around it. A good source for detials of this is ref name=Tanaka2002 given in the article
• There seems to be little or nothing included on the collusion of the Korean, referred to as Zegen, and Chinese collaborators and the extent and nature of their involvement and networks which, from the references given in the article, clearly reach into local political and official levels in many countries involved with, e.g., police and local government officers benefiting.
• There is also the issue of the Korean government's distribution (or lack therefor) of damages and its part in the affair and the fate of the women and the "hand over" of the business in Korea and Japan to the Americans Post-War and its increase during the the Korean war and even up until at least the 80s, e.g. "the blanket brigade".

Context

• it should be remembered, and perhaps, included that the comfort women events happened within the social and historical context of South East Asian prostitution. A context which still exists to this day. Although prostitution whether coerced or not and the "male entertainment industry" is distasteful and unfortunate, it was and still is the reality of life in patriarchal nations without social welfare systems. We have to bear this in mind when viewing it from a 21st century liberal POV. This is up for discussion.

Atrocity pornography

As critical as I am of the Show war machine, I am equally critical of the "atrocity pornographers", who appear to enjoy elaborating on the depravity crimes and those attendent holocaust industries without any rights to claim damage who are using the suffering of others to promote their own current political aims and ambitions. I think we should avoid allowing them to dominate these articles. The Wikipedia is an educational encyclopedia, education is done best within the limits of academia and not a pornographic interest in others suffering.

I am not deny any of these crimes. --60.42.252.111 (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

you need to stop vandalizing this article and covering up your track. You have been removing huge chunks of sourced material, and also deleted references from the other sources section. Blueshirts (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Its hardly vandalism Blueshirts. Address the points above and I might take you seriously.

All the facts and cited sources are in there. I have even added more on the anti-Japanese side. The topic is starting to read more encyclopedia --60.42.252.111 (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, I am going to revert your vandalism. You can add new information to it, but you don't change already sourced statements. You have been changing existing sentences that have citations already to mislead the readers. This is vandalism. Blueshirts (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look study the edits, you will see that a lot of cruft has been removed, e.g. blogspots, deadlinks, Youtube etc

The edits are not vandalism. Yes, there has been a lot of copyediting removing duplication and poor construction. You need to be more specifics ... or else remain transparent at what you are up to. --60.42.252.111 (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't hide your tracks with other legit edits. As I have said, you have been changing sourced statements, twisting the citations, and that's vandalism. Removing dead links and tidying things up, fine, but don't change statements. That's why in the edit summary I wrote "re-add the changes as you wish but DO NOT CHANGE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE CITATIONS ALREADY", can you read? Blueshirts (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not be offensive and stop shouting at me. Perhaps you ought to actually read some of the citations and study the changes made?

--60.42.252.111 (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, nobody has the time to sort out your legit edits and your "sneaky" vandalism. As I have said, nobody has a problem with removing dead links and blog sites, but you do not change statements that already have citations, especially book citations, and you do not remove book sources, do you get it? Blueshirts (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Section stub

I fully recognise the conditions section requires developing both pro and con but have to time out on the topic right for now.--60.42.252.111 (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note of WP:3RR filed on User:Blueshirts

WP:3RR filed on User:Blueshirts, here; [34] Noted Caspian blue's identical reversion.

Please stop insulting me. --60.42.252.111 (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This situation is out of hand. Your edits have been removing referenced material and twisting the meaning of the remaining referenced material so much so that it is no longer supported by the references. Blueshirt's reversions have been trying to restore the article to its carefully vetted compromise condition. Stop reverting. Binksternet (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not actually true, the previous edition to which you are all reverting is full of broken links, blogspots and cruft. Please comments above and address the issue. --60.42.252.111 (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note of update to WP:3RR

Noting that no one is actually address the extensive notes above nor the removal of personally reasonable edits, please see; [35]

Thank you. --60.42.252.111 (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Flying tiger Youtube contribution

User Flying tiger wishes that I discuss each and every individual edit.

I suggest that we start with his contribution of a Youtube video of a "mourning song".

I humbly suggest that this does not meet with WP:CITE, are there any objections to it being removed. --222.150.193.35 (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:CITE is one of the important rule in Wikipedia, along with WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLOCK which you keep ignoring. Your current block evasion is very bad for your claim and reputation.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue, by academic standards you have utterly discredited yourself by your activities attempting to raise prejudices against me on a nationalist level. I am not Japanese, I have never denied any of the events this topic relates to.

I am sorry but there is no point continuing discussion at this level. Thank you for your input. --222.150.190.12 (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-Asian women

It was not only Asian women forced into this, non-Asian women, primarily civilians caught behind the enemy lines when the war started were forced or coerced into also. Examples include British and Dutch colonial women. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rlevese, you have not looked at the edits. No one is denying nor removing any suggestions nor substantive evidence.

There are a number of very difficult aspects that the previous undeveloped revision is glossing over;

• not all comfort women were involuntary, this is as true of some Korean and Chinese females as it was for Japanese
• not all rape/war crime victims were comfort women
• not all women involved in comfort women system were prostitution, there was an entire supporting, and profiting, industry behind it.
• local agents in at least Korean and China took a profitable part in the creation and sustenance of the jugun ianfu and the abuse of vulnerable women, many we would now call children.
• and as we are seeing, thanks to South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun's brave stance on the Korean collaborators issue, the Korean Kempeitai were given and took part in the regular abuse of the girls/women.

Of course, one of the problems any academic has in discussion these matters is the lack of available documentation but significantly good work has been done to be able to come to sound conclusions. One of the most important issues that the other editors are is the feminist critique of a male sex crime, and not simple nationalism, as underlined by the last of the points above.

The previous revision reads exactly as it is, atrocity pornography for voyeuristic public consumption to promote nationalist, or even racist sentiments. Again, issues that have been documented in the academia written around the topic.

On the basis of this argument, and the lack of any substantive discussion, I am continuing to develop the new revision.

This will, I suspect require handling cluebot's involvement. --222.150.190.12 (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, we now have time to discuss matters rationally avoiding personal attacks, contrivances or nationalistic slur.

* Does any other contributor wish to put forward their objections in an educated and detailed manner? --222.150.190.12 (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

its true. not all women were "forced" as the first paragraph says. its misleading. no one has separated those women who were forced and called them comfort women. then said that those who were not forced were not comfort women. the article also mixes them up all the other general sex crimes. its just a messy attempt at a stitch up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.67.147 (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes & Refs

Without fully realizing what I was getting into, I started regularizing the Notes and References. I've decided to stop and checkpoint the work I've done. Please comment. I'm open comments, and to the idea of full or partial reversion of what I've done thus far.

Actually, hoping to make it easier to describe what I've done and to see what I'm shooting for, I re-edited the article so as to make changes in the order of the <References> items.

• In the References section, I removed the Footnotes subhead from above the {{reflist}}.
• Item 1 referenced this page from a self-published source. (George Duncan's HISTORICAL FACTS OF WORLD WAR II). I've used {{Harvnb}} to reference it and put the cite into a new "Online sources subsection.
• Item 2 was named ref to a dead link. I located it in the internet archive, and found it to be a link to the FAQs of an advocacy organization. It had been cited with {{Cite news}}. I constructed a {{Harvnb}} based reference to a cite of that archived page, which I placed in the new "Online sources subsection.
• Item 3 was a Reuters news article. I constructed a {{Harvnb}} based reference for it and placed it in a new News articles subsection.
• Item 4 had several long subitems, which I combined into semicolon-delimited {{Harvnb}} based references.
  • Subitem 1 was a ref named "Yoshiaki1995" for a book by Yoshimi, Yoshiaki. I moved the citation into a new subsection headed Books"", changing it from {{Cite book}} to {{Citation}}.
  • Subitem 2 was a NY Times news article. I constructed a {{Harvnb}} based reference for it and placed it into the News articles subsection.
• Item 5 was a BBC news articlewhich supported the same assertion as the two semicolon-delimited subitems of item 4, so I combined it with them.
• Item 6 was similar to item 4, and I handled it similarly.
• Item 7 cited a journal article. I constructed a {{Harvnb}} based reference for it and placed it in a new Journal articles subsection.
• Item 8 was a NY Times news article. I constructed a {{Harvnb}} based reference for it and placed it into the News articles subsection
• Item 9 cited The Comfort Women by George Hicks. The citation didn'tgivea publication year, but the isbn was for a 1995 publication. I constructed a {{Harvnb}} based reference for it and placed it in a new Books subsection.
• Item 10 was a dead link. There had been an attempt to tag it as a dead link, but that was broken. There was also a reference in the wikitext to a Google Scholar search. A copy of the item was available in the internet archive, and the item turned out to be an undated 79 page white paper. I fixed the unbroken portions of the citation and referenced the Archived copy of the item.
• Item 11 was a citation of a paper titled Comfort Women which was apparently published in the January 1997 issue of Endeavors Magazine, linking to an apparent online copy of that paper. I constructed a {{Harvnb}} based reference for it and placed it in a new Online sources subsection, and tagged it {{copyvio link}}. The publisher is marked "Copyright 1997 Endeavors Magazine All rights reserved.", this is published by research.unc.edu which, like Endeavors magazine, is part of the University of North Carolina.

I've also recast the Other references subsection as a section, and renamed it Further reading== and placed an External Links header above the Web subheader.

Comments? Barring objections, I'll probably continue plugging away at this as I have time. --Boracay Bill (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks for tidying up the citations. Blueshirts (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've finished a pass through the article regularizing refs and cites. I've left some cites in the Notes section (and in the wikitext for the body of the article) where I had problems (uncorrected dead links, cites linking to Japanese web pages which I could not read, etc. I abused the {{Harvnb}} template pretty badly in a couple of places but, overall, I think my changes improved the maintainability of the wikitext and the readability article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

where are the actual quote to all these references???? i mean they could say ANYTHING. i am not a denier, so don't start that crap but what is the point of book name if there is no quote!!!!!!!

i think we should cut them out if there are no quote and go make people put the quotes in. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.67.147 (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A quote is not required for each and every citation of a supporting source-- see WP:QUOTE, WP:CITE, WP:V and various other policies, guidelines, and essays touching on this which you might find linked from those three. In practice, quotations are more the exception than the rule. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

quality of references

i was looking at some of the references and they are joke ... i mean, one i chopped out was ... "Dozens of people rallied outside the Japanese Embassy in Seoul to mark the anniversary, lining up dead dogs' heads on the ground with pieces of paper in their mouths listing names of Koreans who allegedly collaborated with the Japanese during its 1910-45 colonial rule."

that is not a proper references. its a joke. its tabloid trash, mate. if who ever stuck it up wants to be taken seriously, they have to do better!!!!!!!

come one seriously....its just a bunch of koreans or whatever trying to stitch up the japanese 60 years too late!!!!!!!!!! what is this????? an encyclopedia???????

get real.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.67.147 (talk • contribs) 16:07, July 12, 2008 (UTC)

1939 medical note

I took this section out of the article as it appears as if it were intended as a Talk page entry: "Here, it is worth mentioning this written record: "Brought in a group of comfort women — 1 woman for 100 soldiers." This record from an April 1939 report of the head of the medical squad of the 21st Army in Shanghai, appears in a memo in the Operations Journal of Setsuzo Kinbara, Chief of the Medical Affairs Section in the Medical Affairs Department of the War Ministry." Binksternet (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the original citation refers to two estimates, one of 1 woman to 40 soldiers (given by a Japanese general) and then the second which you gave (given by a Japanese medical officer). src: Koran Research Institute for Jungshindae.

Accurate figures due to lack of documentation remain as problematic as ever because they do not reflect changes over various years, differences in application to different theatres, access to services and not all brothels or agents were registered and official. The mechanics of supply and demand came into play.

One justification of the 80,000 to 200,000 figure depends on an approximate figure of 8,000,000 soldiers, paramilitary workers and governmental officials between 1937 and 1945. The problem with this is that not all were active at all times, sexual services were not universally and equally available and the numbers changed. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Context of Comfort Women in Korea

I was alerted by Caspian blue predictable response to an article I have presented on the broad topic of Korean war crimes. I draw attention to the section on Korea's own military prostitution and recommend that we include reference to it in this article to provide a greater context for the current topic. [36]. The sources are mainly Korean academics or relief agencies.

Serious Pan-national Workgroup

I have also proposed a workproject on Sino-Japanese-Korean relations for those who are able to put aside personal interests and seek to establish a serious, pan-national approach to these contentious topics as others groups are already doing in academia. Perhaps others of you would be interested in joining? Sino-Japanese-Korean relations --Ex-oneatf (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

--Ex-oneatf (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to verify the sources that ex-oneatf put up for this section? Seriously this kid doesnt know when to stop. Good friend100 (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC

To any editors passing by, thank you for stopping.

One example of the citations is ththe citation number 72, "Chunghee, Sarah Soh. 'Women's Sexual Labor and State in Korean History' Journal of Women's History 15.4, 2004."

On googling the entire citation, there is a site that restricts access to the article cited. We cant verify this at all. Also, the summary for the article makes no mention of "Korea`s own comfort women". It seems to me the data was just interpreted in a twisted way.

Here is the website for this example. [37] Good friend100 (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears from the link which you provided that this cited supporting source might be accessed by visiting a subscribing library or by obtaining a copy of the cited article in the Journal of Women's History - Volume 15, Number 4, Winter 2004, pp. 170-177. I personally, living as I do on a small island in the Philippines, would not be able to do the first of those without traveling some distance—perhaps halfway around the planet. I could probably do the second, but with some difficulty. Wikipedia's verifiability policy, however, does not require that every individual WP user be able to verify every individual supporting source citation, nor that they be able to do such verification without paying a fee or otherwise bearing some monetary costs, nor that they be able to do such verification online. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right. But the claims that the editor is making are extremely controversial, we need to verify that the claims are true. I have studied Korean history and not once have I ever come across a written text about Korea having their own comfort women during the Japanese occupation. It doesnt make sense because Korea is protesting Japan`s use of comfort women. If Korea truly had their own comfort women they wouldnt be talking. Good friend100 (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, citing an academic print journal is always an acceptable source, one of the best types of sources in fact. I don't know anything special about that particular journal, but it's a peer-reviewed academic journal published by a reputed US university, so it's prima facie reliable. Such journals very rarely have free web access, that's life. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Published journals are generally regarded reliable sources, however due to all jumbles on now deleted Korean war crimes caused by Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs), several people could not rely on WP:AGF.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

For citation number 70, an article by Timothy Brooks, here is the site.

[38]

There is absolutely no mention whatsoever about Korean comfort women. Its simply an account of the Asia-pacific theater between Japan and China. Im going to remove this sentence from the article. I fear all the citations are illigitamitely used. Good friend100 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The essay you've linked to doesn't seem to be the same as the article cited, although the author is the same, and the subjects are related. Are you sure you've got the right one? (I've removed the whole section, but for other reasons). --Amble (talk) 03:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism in recently added section

I am removing the section added recently by User:Ex-oneatf because it is tainted by plagiarism. Some of the examples are obvious, but there are also instances where the text has been rearranged in an apparent effort to evade detection. Examples:

• From Comfort women, edit on July 17, 2008 [39]:

1. [40] - "Destitute women in the war-torn country was used along with abducted women from North Korea" (rearranged from original)
2. [41] - "The Korean military operated their comfort system using tickets rewards. Women were accessed by soldiers as rewards for bravery in battlefield" (attempts to obscure copying, but the words and many phrases are the same)
3. [42] - "upward of one million South Korean women worked as sex providers"

It's only prudent to regard the section as a whole as highly suspect. --Amble (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If facts are in a new arranged they are not "copies". It is as simple as that.

Please see WP:Copyvio as to how to deal with. Given that we accept the facts are accurate, please feel free to rearrange as you wish. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Factuality has no relevance to plagiarism. Rearranging the words in a sentence and passing them off as your own is plagiarism. You must understand that if you're to contribute here in any way. --Amble (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The first line under "Dealing with copyright violations" at WP:Copyvio is "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems." So yes, please stop doing that. --Amble (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Amble is right. Given our experience with Korean war crimes, it's safe to say that Ex-oneatf has a serious problem with plagiarism. All his contributions should be double-checked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It would not be possible to copyright a sentance like "The Korean military operated their comfort system using tickets rewards." Looking at the deleted paragraph, I can see the point being made. I have no idea how much or if it is plagiarised. It seems to be factual and the authors are well known academics writing about this issue.

It think it would be a good thing if individuals were to check the facts and improve the content rather than use accusation of plagiarism as an excuse to censor anything they did not like.

It does seem to be relevant to to the topic. If the accusation made of the Japanese that they used 80,000 to 200,000 women but the immediate post-war figures for the Americans in Korea rise to 250,000 and upwards, and then we discovered that the South Koreans and their government themselves were using, abducting and organizing comfort women, then it does change the context for the WWII atrocities. Who were these women, who were their pimps? Surely, we have to presume the same people. What was their government doing for them?

This asks a question of the topic. Who are the comfort women? Are they only those abducted by the Japanese, does it include those who were volunteers and those who were forced by post-war economic pressures, is it a bigger problem? What these authors show is that it is a bigger and longer lasting problem. The paragraph is good because it underlines the question of gender into the issue military sex crimes not just limiting it to racism. For me personally, whether a women was abducted and raped by a Japanese, American or Korean, it makes no difference. They were all male crimes against women committed during the excuse of war. It is all the same.

Denying those Korean women that were raped, abducted and even murdered by Koreans and American - which we absolutely know happened - is as much of a crime as Japanese denial. They should be recorded and honored here just the same. --58.108.161.195 (talk) 22:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)\

The 70s sex tourism is as much of a shame on the Japanese as the Korean government that allowed it.

As long as the text is tainted by plagiarism, the only improvement to be made is to cut it out. If you want to help, please stop inserting something that we absolutely can't use, go back to the sources, and start writing a viable, legal replacement. Thanks. --Amble (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

<--I've been looking for a Wiki guide to exactly what constitutes plagiarism and I haven't found one. You know, a helpful page that says specific things like if every tenth word is different than the copied text then it's plagiarism but if every third word is different then it is not. Or, if sentences are rearranged with swapped clauses then it is or is not plagiarism. Has anybody seen a guide like this? If not, we are left with one person saying it is plagiarism because it appears that way to them, whereas rearranging clauses and substituting synonyms may feel like it is not plagiarism to the writer. What is WP's stance in this instance? If we aren't able to define plagiarism precisely then we'll need to return to arguing content; the normal situation.

Note that I'm in no way commenting on any kind of content matter under discussion here, only on rules of order.

Amble wrote "As long as the text is tainted by plagiarism, the only improvement to be made is to cut it out" and also "Rearranging the words in a sentence and passing them off as your own is plagiarism" but I feel that there are improvements that can be made while retaining the meat of the source material, improvements that involve the same thoughts and ideas as the source but reorganized just enough to step past plagiarism without changing the meaning of the source. Hell, this is the way I always write for WP... take a likely section of text in a source, throw it up in the air, rearrange it and condense it as it falls back down. Binksternet (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There's guidelines about how to avoid plagiarism in academic writing, published by universities for their students, I'm sure you can find some on the web. The criteria are essentially the same here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The best we have at the moment is WP:Plagiarism, but it's not a finished guideline yet. In fact, it's still being written, so there are parts that are incomplete and parts that are likely to change. The difficulty is that plagiarism, like copyright, can only be judged by taking into account common sense, intent, special circumstances, the likelihood of coincidental similarities,... a quantitative rule like one word out of three or ten just isn't possible. But I would suggest that it's a very dangerous practice to start with a direct copy of the source text, and try to change it just enough to *not* be a violation.

In this case, I think we should keep the sources added by Ex-oneatf, and use them to support an entirely new text. --Amble (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have seen these sort of excuses used on other topics I have edited on to remove content the critic does not want or even out of personal spite. If the references are good then the critics should just re-word the piece rather than remove it entirely.

In the first instance, Wikipedia policy says the opposite of Amble claims.

"Copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia." From Copyright violations

"Material that is plagiarised but which does not violate copyright does not need to be removed from Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced. Add appropriate source information to the article wherever possible, or move unsourced material to an article's talk page until sources can be found." From Plagiarism that does not infringe copyright."

How much more clear could that be? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 17:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The point about "reformulate in your own words" is just that that's not what this editor did. He was continually using substantial strings of characteristic turns of phrases and identical or near-identical clause structures, and mostly the exact same paragraph structure. If a student of mine did that, they'd get a fail mark. And the thing about "Plagiarism that is not copyright infringement" talks about an entirely different situation, i.e. plagiarising things that aren't copyrighted in the first place (like old out-of-copyright works). Not what we see here. Plagiarising a copyrighted work is always, by definition, copyright infringement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To me it all reads like simple character assassination being used to block out a voice you do not want to hear.

I have seen it done many a time on the Wikipedia. You could have just worked to fix it as I am doing this topic. Instead it sounds like you acted like a state censor and now you want to punish the student in public.

If you are suggesting to me that you are a professional teacher or lecturer, then I think you are making a error that many individuals in your position make and I agree with Binksternet above. Creating a Wikipedia topic is not the same as writing a thesis and should not be judged as such. It is more akin to copyediting. Show us what he did and let us judge, decide or improve it.

BTW, I just pulled a copy of Katharine Moon's paper and if there is any doubt about the added content, then I think people ought to read it. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice that I actually suggested the way to really "fix it," which is to cut the text, go back to the sources cited, and start over. Making minor changes to the parts that match a Google search doesn't "fix" plagiarism, it only aggravates it by obfuscating the problem. That would be more or less like re-painting a stolen car. --Amble (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you notice by the references given, I retrieved a copy of the two articles and inserted relevant sections. I suggest you read the rest too. I followed policy. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The version you're reposting still contains blatant copyvios. I am staggered and very disappointed by the rejection of what I consider to be a fundamental principle of scholarship on the part of several editors. If we have to have an argument over whether plagiarism is or is not OK, then there's no possible basis here for collaborative work. I can only withdraw. --Amble (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rearranging the words and changing some for synonyms would make it fine according to copywrite law. It is the specific arrangment of words that is copywrited. Completely re-writing is not necessary.Yobmod (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Still plagiarising

The first sentence of the recently re-inserted passage is revealing about the plagiarism technique employed:

During WWII, Korean agents Korean Kempentai (military police) and auxilaries were involved in the procuring, organization and made use of the war time sex slaves known euphemistically as "comfort women".

Do you even notice how ridiculous that sentence sounds, in this article? The whole article is about comfort women, you insert a sentence that ostensibly introduces the topic of comfort women as something new and in need of definition. This makes it patently obvious that the whole sentence is blindly copy-pasted from its source with no regard to context and logic. Obvious plagiarism; no sane author actually writing for this article in their own words would ever produce something like this. We can safely assume that the whole rest of the passage is written according to the same "technique". Fail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Show us the original then. I think the pair of you do understand the limit of copyright. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources from "Korean comfort women" section

Here are the sources extracted from the "Korean comfort women" section, which can't be used because of issues of plagiarism and copyright violation. I encourage everyone who sincerely wishes to see the article improved by covering this topic to stop re-inserting the same tainted text, and start writing a valid replacement based on these sources. The right way to make use of the valuable work that Ex-oneatf has done in finding source material is to use it in writing proper, original article text, with no shortcuts. --Amble (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added the citation from Ex-oneatf's addition to "History of the controversy" as well. --Amble (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is about the biggest BS I have ever read in my time on the wikipedia. You are stating that these sources are "not allowed to be used" just because someone might have misused them once? Looking at the first two ... Harvard and Columbia University and a whole load of academic journals !!!

Its unbelievable. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's what Amble was saying. The meaning I picked up was: here are the sources, now rewrite the whole thing from scratch.

I appreciate the thought, Amble, but my style of rewriting sources isn't quite as extreme as you espouse. I'm long past my school days, and I'm past worrying about what my grade would be if somebody compared the source to my version. I just try to make my writing match what I imagine a good Wikipedia article would be like. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Brook, Tim . Collaboration: Japanese Agents and Local Elites in Wartime China (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005), pp. 1-13, 240-48
• Kim, Kwi-ok "Han'guk chonjaeng kwa yosong" [The Korean War and Women], The International Symposium on Peace and Human Rights in East Asia, February 2002.
• Chunghee, Sarah Soh. 'Women's Sexual Labor and State in Korean History' Journal of Women's History 15.4, 2004.
• Moon, Katharine H. S. 'Sex among Allies: Military Prostitution in U.S.-Korea Relations'. Columbia University Press. New York. 1997.
• Chong-song, Pak. 'Kwollok kwa maech'un [Power and prostitution]' Seoul: In'gansarang, 1996.
• Moon, Katharine H.S. (April 15, 1997). Sex Among Allies. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231106424.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
• Hyon-son Kim, Kijich'on, Kijich'on Yosong, 'Honhyoradong: Silt'ae wa sarye [Camptown, Camptown Women, Mixed-Blood Children: Reality and Cases]' Tongduch'on, Kyonggi Province, South Korea: Saeumt'o, 1997
• Moon, Katharine H.S. (1999). "South Korean Movements against Militarized Sexual Labor". The Journal of Asian Studies. 39 (2): 473–500. Those with Amerasian offspring also suffer the indignities of racism and ethnocentricism directed at their children from the general Korean population. The children are stigmatized and harassed in schools, particularly those of African-American-Korean parentage. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• "Confucius' Outcasts". Time. Retrieved 1965-10-12. Some U.S. welfare groups have actually come to grips with the half-caste problem. In the past ten years, 5,670 mixed-blood children have been adopted by families in the U.S. through such groups as the Holt Adoption Program, the National Catholic Welfare Conference and the Child Placement Service. But the vast majority of these children are the offspring of white G.I.s. Finding foster parents for Negro-fathered children is much harder. With that in mind, the Pearl S. Buck Foundation began operating in Korea just last month. Its initial hopes are modest: to provide funds directly to mothers of Negro-Korean children so that the little lost half-castes will have at least some chance of growing up with enough food to eat in homes of their own. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• Yayori, Matsui (1977). "Sexual Slavery in Korea". Frontiers: A Journal of Women's Studies. 2 (1): 22–30. Everyday thousands of Japanese mean, toursies on charted sex tours, travel to Korea with large amounts of money which they use to purchase the bodies of women ... I first became aware of Japanese guided tours for the purpose of visting Korean prostitutes, called kisaeng ... during the summer of 1973 ... Prostitution licenses are sold on the black market and are reputed to be a source of Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) funds ... The South Korean government promotes kisaeng tours as a matter of national policy. {{cite journal}}: More than one of |first1= and |first= specified (help); More than one of |last1= and |last= specified (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Moon, Katharine H.S. (1999). "South Korean Movements against Militarized Sexual Labor". The Journal of Asian Studies. 39 (2): 473–500. The chongsindae movement, however, is not the first women's movement in South Korea to protest and redress sexual exploitation and abuse of Korean women by foreign men. In the 1970s, Korean women activists,some of whom are now fighting for the chongsindae survivors, protested vehemently against Japanese government's and Japanese society's participation in kisaeng tourism in Korea. Also, since the mid-1980s, a group of Korean women and men have sought to recognize and publicize the plight of U.S. military camptown (kijich'on) prostitutes as victims of debt bondage and objects of foreign domination. Moreover, the chongsindae movement and the kijich'on movement originally began together as part of a larger Asian women's humn rights movement against the sexual exploitation of women [...] Camptown women were kidnapped by common criminals and other forms of coercive procurements such as fraudulent promises by traffickers for well-paying jobs and skills-training. And in both the chongsindae and kijich'on systems, rape was often used as a way to "initiate" women into sexual labor ... They are beholden to their clubowner/manager/pimp through what human rights activists call the debt bondage system ... it is imperative to understand that the kijich'on system is highly regulated and sustained by the official policies and practises of the US Government and Korean government. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Show your reason,

Supposed that the revert by Binksternet based on his claim that it is a rewritten version by his own. However, I don't know why you even include the wrong Romanization. Aside from the matter, I contest to the contents. You and Flying tiger should present your reason for revert. So what the 70's sex tourism has anything to do with comfort women? Since the liberation in 1945, prostitution around military is nothing new in South Korea. Yongsan area is a famous red zone for American army. I see that Ex-oneaf trying to spread "kisaeng diplomacy" which took its model from "Geisha diplomacy" in Japan during Occupied Japan. I've seen the same pathetic trying in Prostitution in South Korea by Jjok (talk · contribs), Azukimonaka (talk · contribs), Boldlyman (talk · contribs). I've never heard that such the prostitution is categorized "comfort women" or war crimes. I don't think prostitutes who takes their job in the field are extended version of comfort women. Many of comfort women were forcefully or not deceived. I think Binksternet and Flying tiger want to keep the "new information" regardless of the contents being incoherent to the main subject.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know very much about this subject but I am interested in hearing more about the history of how the comfort women system was hidden away and not talked about, and then the history of how the subject came back into the public eye. I am seeing editors here delete delete delete whereas I think that a more engaging article can be written with this more modern historiography included. I aim to keep these sections so that editors who know more about the recent history of the WWII comfort women controversy will be able to add their knowledge. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not even a rationale. So to solve your curiousity, you have to keep any information even though that is not relevant to the subject. When editing an article, you have to at least search information by yourself, and compare which information would be included or not. This is not an experimental place to please your ego. I would predict that you would even insist Gippeumjo of North Korea is a war crime and comfort women. --Caspian blue (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You say I have to search information before editing. In many cases, I do this. In some cases such as this one, I simply edit as an outside observer interested in the progress of the article. I know better than to try and split hairs on facts that I'm not familiar with. In this case, I am indeed monitoring the progress of the article, and trying to do a little refereeing.

The way I see the 1970s sex tourism cite is that it has something to do with the realization that the comfort women system in World War II was being hidden and not talked about. It appears to me that activists in the 70s brought the subject of comfort women to light after working within the sex business. Your most recent edit summary at the article page said "70's tourism is no relation to here" but in my opinion you are not allowing the supposed connection to be explained further.

In that same edit summary you mentioned WP:COI. I don't have any idea why you think I have a conflict of interest in this article and I'm confused about what action of mine would have triggered such an accusation. I have absolutely no connection to the subject matter in this article. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That is WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR by you and Ex-oneatf. Unless most of academics acknowledge the added info you support to keep at the article linked to comfort women, your attempt still nothing but original research you, with no credential --Caspian blue (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet (talk · contribs), stop being sarcastic. That is not even a smart joke. I could not rely on WP:AGF since you're so eager to add the info without even checking the info. The Romanization is an evidence that your claim is hardly believable due to the blindness. So I'm waiting for your reasonable rationale. You have not shown any.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendentiousness

Now that we are somehow on the way of handling the plagiarism, we need to tackle the tendentiousness. The problem with the Korean section is that the text currently meanders between different topics in a rather sneaky way. There are two sentences at the beginning dealing with the Korean participation in the Japanese comfort women system during WW2. Okay so far. Then, however, the text, in mid-paragraph, jumps to something entirely different, Korean military prostitution during the Korean War. Now, it may seem obvious to some here that this is somehow a related topic, but is it the same topic? The text continues to talk about the women involved as "comfort women". I see no evidence that any of the sources does that. Where is the source that justifies discussing those situations in the same article with the comfort women proper? I'd expect at least a sentence like this:

"During the Korean War, the Korean military ran a system of military prostitution that has been compared to the Japanese one by many historians<ref>[Your reliable sources go here.]</ref> and is often regarded as a continuation of the same phenomenon<ref>[More reliable sources please.]</ref>. The women involved in this system, called [insert name here] at the time, are today also called comfort women by historians.<ref>[Insert reliable source]</ref>"

Unless somebody brings sources that could explicitly justify a sentence like this, the whole paragraph has no place here. (see WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, etc.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Future, have you actually made the effort to read the references given? I found them easily via the usual academic networks one can access any other academic paper.

If you can confirm that you have read the entire papers (and I will test you on that) then I will give some credibility to your deletions and accept them. If not ... you are just acting out of order. I can also recommend John Lie's, “The State As Pimp: Prostitution and the Patriarchal State in Japan in the 1940's”, i think he is another Korean American scholar.

Does anyone else have Hyun Sook Kim's, “History and Memory: The Comfort Women Controversy,” and Hiromi Yamazaki's, “Military Sexual Slavery and the Women’s Movement”?

As far as see, the article does not claim that the Korean military was involved in sex tourism, as per your summary, so it is not grounds enough to cut everything out. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not read them, I'm currently in a place where I don't have access to them, and I have no intention to read them either. It's your task to document these things. So please, would you fill in the gaps in my sample sentence above please? Also, you claim I argued that the "Korean military was involved in sex tourism" or something like that? Nonsense, I of course said no such thing. What I pointed to was the fact that the section, besides military prostitution, was also talking about sex tourism (and the involvement of the Korean government in it, not of the military), and I was questioning whether anybody in the literature ever discussed this under the title of "comfort women". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not claim that. I was referred to your editing summary. Attention to detail please. Why not just use {fact} tags and allow others to contribute instead of blank censorship?

Going on from what you say, when did anyone call Unit 731 or Nanking victims comfort women?

OK. So would you agree that it is entirely within the limits of wikipedia policy to remove those specific sentences until quotes are provided but replace the rest which is adequately referenced?

Personally, I have seen this all before else where ... if someone uses an exact quote - they say it is copyvio. If someone changes the language - they say it is original research. The censors, because IMHO that is what it is, refuse to look at the evidence and then say "there is no evidence". The hope of an intelligent article gets lost as anyone with half a brain gives up fighting. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You aren't addressing my point. This is not about individual statements being in doubt (which could be handled with {fact} tags). It's about the legitimacy of the whole section. The whole section needs a sourced, non-OR, non-WP:SYNTH, legitimizing rationale for being there. The rationale can only be that there is a wide consensus in the literature that the various Korean situations are instances of the same phenomenon as that of the Japanese comfort women. The question is not whether what the section says is true; the question is whether its topic is legitimately part of the topic of this article.

Since that is the case, the only viable way of dealing with it until this is clarified is indeed to remove the whole section. Individual tagging or removal of sentences makes no sense here.

I have no idea what you want to say with your reference to Unit 731 or Nanking victims. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, try reading over the topic as a whole then and you will see. The anti-Japanese editors have managed to layer it will references to all the usual atrocities and I am asking why your attention is not so focused on them, or some of the other spurious references on the topic?

No one has referred to military sex crime victims as comfort women either but the topic lavishes on that detail too. Again, I am asking I am asking why your attention is not so equally focused on those? From memory, they did.

Why use a partial excuse to remove the other perfectly good references? Why not just work to correct it rather than censor it? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are other things in this article about atrocities that are not part of the topic, then remove them. Not a good idea to use their presence as an excuse to include yet more. I came to this article because I saw people edit-warring over this particular section, so that's what I paid attention to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, basically I am with Binksternet to the point that the comfort women system had a history, a context and a repercussion within. A before, during and after and rather than depend on emotionalizing the atrocities, the topic should examine them. It was not difficult to find the exact quote.

The article says that "During the Park regime (1963-1972), the subject of comfort women was little talked about in Korea". Do you think we should say why? The Park regime was bloodthirsty as hell. It killed and imprisoned thousands of Koreans. I am no expert on these matters but even I know of them. (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But I presume that quote still means the fate of the Korean women who had been comfort women to the Japanese, not any other Korea-internal situation of the Korean War or anything. That still doesn't justify the large section about Korean prostitution. In that section, we still have only one passing mention where an author apparently calls the Korean system a "comfort system", implying some kind of comparison with the Japanese one. How explicitly is that link made in that article? Is there any indication whether that is a majority, mainstream position in scholarship, or are we giving undue weight to it?

By the way, your section still bears tell-tale signs of plagiarism. If you're clever, you'll find them yourself. Free writing lessons for you today. This will also help you condense the writing to about half its size. If you can't correct that, the whole passage goes out again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep the patronizing tone down. Binksternet (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And let's develop this important issue into an interesting, well informed topic. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Korea's own comfort women system

Why keep up the pretense Future Perfect? Why not just join the honest revisionists like Caspian blue and Good friend100? I doubt you have read the academic papers detailing Korea's own comfort women. Good academia, especially from Korean feminists and CW activitists, outweighs 1,000 propagandistic blogs or race hate websites (which, let's face it, is the motivating principle for some editors here).

What is the connection? Context. The topic presents forced military prostitution (which is comfort women) in Korea as something that magically arose in 1939, disappeared in 1945, then equally magically re-appeared as Korean foreign policy in the 1990s (approximately). Is no one willing to allow; HOW it arose, WHAT happened to the women and their children, WHEN it came back into national consciousness and through what process, WHY it disappeared as an issue for 30-40s years, WHO brought it back etc. "Who, what, where, when, why" ... is the 101 class of good journalism and a good article. I have seen too many identical false edit summaries, tag-wrestling revision wars and wiki-lawyering on other equally fanatical topics.

The Japanese are accused of having 80,000 to 200,000 forced military prostitutes. Then we discover that immediately post-1945 the Korean Army/Government/US forces were engaged in exactly the same practices (which is what the paper says). The number of women involved rose to 250,000 and ultimately totaled 1,000,000. The scale of atrocity is therefore even greater. It cannot be ignored. Korean officials have been shown to be involved pre-1945. They continued post-1945 into the 70s. That is also part of the women's suffering.

Who exactly do you think these women post-war were?

The bottomline is, are the Anti-Japanese race hate jockeys willing to give up their propaganda in order to turn this into a well informed article? Its pretty juvenile to go on fighting an enemy that stop existing 60 odd years ago and criminal to exclude the continued suffering of these women or those that abused them after that.

Is it the topic about the women or Japanese race hate? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So you're accusing me of being a history revisionist and basically racist along with several mentioned editors according to your theory because I object to your blind fondness to include every information even though they're not related to the main subject. Given controversies around you[43][44] per your long good some amusing contribution, I would not wonder why you do this. the Anti-Japanese race hate jockeys willing to give up their propaganda in order to turn this into a well informed article? - What the clear racist attack and personal attack compaign you're showing, so we can easily find that what your agenda and next step would be. I still could not see what is your rationale for keeping the unrelated information in the article except your racist attacks. It is a misfortune that this page is holding the disgraceful rambling.--Caspian blue (talk)

Did I accuse you?

What I see is someone making a big scene, provoking an edit war, revising more than they say whilst not actually discussing the issues or the quality of the citations.

And if I am not incorrect, personally insulting me. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, You're the one responsible for provoking an edit war since you started blindly reverting the article and supported to plagiarized version. Didn't you remember what you wrote? --Caspian blue (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no copy violation going on. You are just repeating what Future perfect wrote in respect to another article in support your habitual revisions and edit warring. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The copy violation campaign was unnecessarily extended and going on because you kept blindly reverting to include it. That is what I said about your responsibility of your provocative way to start edit warring. Thankfully, the copyvio was spot by several people but still the content issue remains. And you even did not attempt to discuss the matter except falsely accuse people of being "history revisionist" and "racist". You know the terms are regarded insulting and defamatory. So please don't deny your wrongdoings. Since you disregard the policies of discussion, consensus and civility, I worry about your tendency of resorting to personal attacks. Please don't.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Country of Origin

There appears to be a rather odd sentence in this section:

"Internationally, it is generally thought that most of the women were from Korea and China. However, according to University of New York professor Yoshiko Nozaki and other sources, the majority of the women were from Korea, and China."

This looks an awful lot like vandalism to me, or at least a sentence that needs to be fixed somewhat. Could somebody take a look at this and back me up? The Last Melon (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You are exactly right. The article is full of duplications and really poorly written text caused by edit wars and vandalism. It needs re-worked and I will back you up. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Message from Lucyintheskywithdada

I prefer open discussion and any related statement would be addressed on the article, so I paste Lucy's message at my talk which I consider still disturbing. I think that is how he communicates with people.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal questions and mediation suggestion

I do not wish to litter topic talk pages and so can I ask you some questions here?

Do you find it personally challenging for some reason to accept Korean involvement in the Japanese comfort women system or that so many Korean women were forced to be victims of military prostitution for such a long time? Is it an issue to do with women's sexuality or your own national identity that you find difficult?

Is it something that you would like to discuss privately, perhaps offline because it seems to be bordering on obsessive and interfering with your own and others contributions to the Wikipedia?

At present, I cannot work out if it is a problem with the Korean involvement or the American involvement. Would you feel comfortable discussion this through admin mediation?

Humbly, and in all concern. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I offered you the chance to discuss this privately and requested that we did not mess up any topic page with personal discussion.

My interpretation would be that copying and pasting a private and conciliatory message onto a topic talk page is an act of bad faith, designed to discredit the other, lobby your own level of supporters and a deliberate distraction for others.

I request that you agree to moving it back to a personal talk page. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

an act of bad faith, designed to discredit the other, lobby your own level of supporters and a deliberate distraction for others. --> Your topic is a part of this ongoing discussion and I do not have to keep your "insulting message" in my talk page. You denounce my intelligence and nationality per "Is it an issue to do with women's sexuality or your own national identity that you find difficult?". You also attack me as insinuating that I have a problem to look into Korean history and some trauma regarding prostitution. Why wouldn't I need to have a PRIVATE or offline discussion with YOU? You also posted the same one to Fut. What is your intention for that? Your activities on that are viewed not only bad faith, but also lobbying people who oppose to your agenda, deliberate distraction from the topic (I quote your wonderful accusation), so I find hilarious as you contradict yourself. I don't really want to be bothered to see your continued attacks here and there. If necessary, administrative meditation is needed however, you should not resort to personal attack.--Caspian blue (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Northwest1202, what is your rationale for reverting Comfort women?

• Note: It is copy-and-pasted from Northwest1202 (talk · contribs)'s talk page by Northwest1202--Caspian blue (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Northwest1202, unless you give me a good reason, your revert constitutes to "blind reverting". You must take a participation in the open discussion at the talk page. I would not expect to hear again your repeated insistence that you showed me on "long-grain rice" at Japanese cuisine. I look forward to hearing your reasoning which is one of your responsibilities for your edit. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't you read my edit summary of Comfort women? That's all. The edits you made are not NPOV for confirct of testimoniy, and you deleteded well sourced edit of Korean Comfort women. Those are vandalization of Wiki. Don't insistent me, any more. Write them in the talk page.Northwest1202 (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You did not give your reason why Yasuji Kaneko's testimony for his conflict of evidence and the "well-sourced information" should be deleted according to your theory. That is your vandalism if you're logic is consistent. Not only that, your blind revert is going far from NPOV. So do not insist at this time without any reason. Besides, if I vandalised the page, I already would've get a waring from editors, or admin, Future, which case has never occurred to me unlike you. Your edit is a conflict of interest for yourself or content dispute, all of which you do not realize what they are. Your false accusation me of doing vandalism is nothing but a personal attack and unwarranted. Besides, you have not given any single reason for your addition without discussion. You should not do this disruption again. Your edit summary is nothing but the notice that "I revert this". You must take the responsibility for your action. FYI, I already wrote my reason at the talk page, you did not. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I copy your edit to the talk page, go on in it for more discuss. In this page is not seen by all. Northwest1202 (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have no interest in you.>Caspian blue. Don't insistent me, any more. Yasuji Kaneko's testimony for his conflict of evidences were written in the page. Everyone can read it. Northwest1202 (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have not said I am interested in you, but your edit. Your first sentence is just absurd with no logic. What does the "insistent me" mean? You just fail to give your reason for your revert. If you can't participate in the discussion, you should not blindly revert the page. That causes more disputes.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Caspian ... don't insult others just because English is not their first language.

it is you that has been persistently reverting the page for sometime now. Others continue to attempt to develop it, you are stopping them. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not insulted him for English. English is not my native language as well. You are the one who has been insulting me so far, so this false accusation is also your continued personal attack. You've been warned more than one especially today's one. So your unfit lecturing is unwarranted. You have not presented any rationale except racist comments. I don't see you and NorthWest having tried to develop it except blind reverting with no rationlae. --Caspian blue (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarizing the article is not "developing the article". And Caspian Blue, if someone is engaging in a revert war, just ask a moderator or administrator to warn him. Warning him yourself isnt going to do anything. And plus, you've already crossed the line with revert warring yourself. Perhaps you should stop before getting a banhammer from the admins. Good friend100 (talk) 05:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is so irony that I'm hearing such advice from you. You're the one initiating the dispute here, and disappeared and let things happen between editors here. It is not a responsible behavior of you. You're saying like you have not involved in anything of the article and dispute. I have not crossed the line unlike your allegation. They don't give any reason for revert. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

stop trying to control the talk page. And I dont need to stay here because I "initiated it". Just because they blindly revert doesnt mean you can too. You'll end up getting blocked (and in the case of me, nearly banned). If someone is causing a problem, just tell an admin. Just leave it to the admins. Good friend100 (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What a curse. You're really hurting my feel the most among the people here. Don't worry. I don't revert massively like you. Wikimachine and you're the example of that cases. I don't try to control the talk page but rather suggest to participate in the discussion. I'm asking your responsibility for your conduct. --Caspian blue (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am not sitting here throwing insults at you. Just because I reverted a plagiarized edit doesnt mean I should continue to do so. If logitech is reverting back to what he wants, then just refer him to an administrator, which I already did. Good friend100 (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If plagiarism is the source of the problem, can somebody just re-write the article??--Logitech95 (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Meditation

I don't know whether an official meditation is necessary since the page is full-protected and suggester, Lucy is indef. blocked. We have one week to discuss the dispute here. We have seen that editors engaged in a dispute tend to be very clam during the protection period. However after it is expired, people start an edit war over the same subject. To prevent this tendentiousness, we really need to talk the newest addition here. Blinkstern, Flyingtiger, Northwest1201 appear to want the addition. On the other hand, I or maybe others out there think the new addition by Ex-oneatf is irrelevant to the main subject. Amble seems to be neutral, or to have no interest in the subject. I don't know what Good friend100 thinks of the subject. Anyway, I will take a look into all sources attached to the addition, but have not heard a rationale from Flyingtiger and Northwest1201. So please participate in this "meditation" and express your thought and persuade me if you are confident enough with valid logics. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

For my part, I'm not in favor of keeping stuff not related to WWII but I, indeed, see no reason to delete the excerpts related to comfort women in occupied Korea as the same system of comfort houses was established there by the Shōwa regime. The way the text is presently structured is however very tricky as many stuff from the Korean war is included in the WW II sub-section...Also, the reference to Kaneko's declaration, which is sourced must be put back despite user:Northwest1202's personnal claim on the validity oh his testimony which is POV...--Flying tiger (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Kaneko's testimony should be explained in the page as it is thought not to have evidential capacity by almost all academian and mass media today, and then, it can be wrtten in the page. And Korean commitment in Comfort women system with its many sources are beyond doubt, so it should be written in the page. Or do you have any contrary evidences of it? >Flying tiger --Northwest1202 (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Northwest1202, I have questions for you. Why do you change your claim from Kaneko's testimony being untrustworthy and worthless to be included into the article to agreement of the inclusion? So what is your explanation that Koreans' involvement in comfort women has something to do with 70's sex tourism? --Caspian blue (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote that Kaneko's testimony should be explained in the page as it is thought not to have evidential capacity almost all academian and mass media today, and then it can be wrtten in the page. And Korean commitment in Comfort women system in "World War II" with its many sources are beyond doubt, so it should be written in the page. About after WWII, I think the Korean system could be said to be identify with it around 1950. But in 1970, I think it would be negative, as my impression.--Northwest1202 (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why 'korean comfort women'?[45] in Korean war, Korea did not say "Comfort women". and it was not a forced sex slave.(unlike japan) Comfort women is a Japanese sexual slavery. so, this edit is nothing realtion with this article. article must delete from here.Manacpowers (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Before WWII, Korean are also Japanese people, so we have a right to write about them, and after WWII, we can right to them as long as it have effect on.--Northwest1202 (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... that does not sound like a good reason. You did not mention about your change on Kaneko and how 70's sex tourism is related.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why Korean comfort women?

Why Korean comfort women during Korean War and why Korean collaborators? Because it is true. It all happened and it was all discuss probably before you were born. So we look to the academics and newspapers for reference.

From, The Construction of US Camptown Prostitution in South Korea: Transformation and Resistance by Lee, Na Young, 2006

'The term “comfort women” (wianbu) to refer to military prostitutes serving American soldiers signals the widespread acceptance of camptown prostitution as an inevitable means to entertain foreign soldiers. This term was commonly used in newspaper articles throughout the 1950s along with such phrases as “prostitutes catering to UN soldiers” and terms like yanggongju (Western princesses), or “UN madams” (woman getting a livelihood by serving UN soldiers).129 This usage continued during the 1960s and 1970s when camptown prostitution became more differentiated from non-U.S. military prostitution. The Korean government’s policy on prostitution reflected its public’s perspectives on prostitution, which was, in the decades after the war, regarded as a necessary means to feed Korea’s impoverished population.'

The Chosun Ilbo or Daily News is major newspapers in South Korea 2,200,000 readers. Examples given are in Chosun Ilbo 23 August, 1960, it mentions, "In Pup’yLng, some 150 'comfort women dealing with American troops'. Similar reports using the words "comfort women" are: KyLnghyang Ilbo, 11/25/1955; Chosun ilbo, 11/08/1957; Chosun ilbo, 8/23/1960; Chosun ilbo, 12/03/1963. A “Comfort Women’s demonstration” is also reported in 1966.

In the mid- to late-1960s, there were numerous articles in Chosun ilbo reporting crimes committed against camptown prostitutes by American soldiers that continued to used the term 'comfort women'. Korea college girls recruited for the Nangnang Club were also viewed as "yanggongju" or comfort women (Seoul Sinmun 26 July, 1952; 10 October, 1953). Post-war military brothels were still known as comfort stations and the system based on the Japanese one.

In 1958, the Chosun ilbo also accounts for the number of women involved as 300,000. The women who served “one American husband” were called “yangbuin” (Western madam) instead of the usual "yanggalbo" (western whore) who were generally treated by Korean society as “non-human beings”. Generally, the Yanggongju have been ignored in official Korean histories as a national shame until recent.

Song-gun Chong in 1967 wrote, 3,000 so-called “comfort women” registered with the Health Section of the Military and the Military Police Corps of the U.S. Army (“Current Situations of Korean Prostitutes and Countermeasures.” Pophak-nonchong 8:65-87.)

You can download the main reference at http://www.lib.umd.edu/drum/bitstream/1903/4162/1/umi-umd-3959.pdf

References also arise in Yi, Imha. 2004a. The Korean War and Gende (Hankuk Chonjaengkwa Jaendo). Seoul: Sohaemunjip.

You must educate your self.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Priorend (talk • contribs)

Per your writing; Because it is true. It all happened and it was all discuss probably before you were born. You must educate your self., you've obviously watched the page and seem like you're one of editors who already appeared before. I think you're confusing the transition of the meaning of the term. The abstract of the thesis (292 pages) does not say that the prostitution after liberation of Korea is extended "forced sex slaves" serving for U.S military just like comfort women. Spurious lists of references are always a good disguise to cover the core point and relevant subject. Besides, would you provide the links or excerpts of The Chosun Ilbo? So we can confirm whether your allegation is right or not. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The question is did Korean call continue to call these Korean women "comfort women"?

The paper is perfectly clear about about. Yes. Try reading it all. It documents many sources for decades after WWII. National newspapers.

Have you seen The Women Outside: Korean Women and the U.S. Military. Directors J.T. Takagi and Hye Jung Park. 1995. 60 minutes. VHS?

Many of Korean women were also forced, tricked, financial compromised or even kidnapped into sexual slavery for American troops in South Korea. As example, the documentary features Yang Hyang Kim, who "applied for a job in what she thought was a coffee house, only to be sold to a brothel outside Camp Stanley".

Same as Japanese Imperialists before them. They both documents how the Korean and American governments were involved, how Korean officials portrayed the women as “personal ambassadors” fulling their patriotic duty to nation by sexually servicing soldiers. The rape and murder of women by the pimps and the soldiers.

It says. "Drawing upon interviews and testimonies, emphasize that many of the women who "serve" the US military as so-called voluntary sex workers were in fact recruited in the same brutal ways as were their earlier counterparts in Japan's 'comfort system', that is, through coercion, trickery, and even force - because both Korean and American governmental interests have viewed men's access to female bodies for R & R as so crucial to military morale."

-- Priorend —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priorend (talk • contribs) 16:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be true. Why isn't something in the topic about it? Its true Koreans were involved. --Hye-Hyun (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Image in 'Recruitment' section

A recent editing dispute between myself and an editor who is new to Wikipedia and whose English is understandable but not fluent- she has a point that it would be reasonable for the image's caption to make it more clear that the advertisement for 'comfort women' is not an advertisement for prostitutes. I may have squabbled with her about what she added, but I'm going to tweak the wording on that caption to try to get her point across. There is some discussion on the subject between us on my talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out — it's appreciated. I can't read any Asian languages so my options did not include working to bring that editors work into the article. Binksternet (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The link supplied to advertisement is for a blog titled "Dokdo belongs to Korea". This is not Wikipedia policy to accept blogs. The issue of women misled is already made better in the topic content. --Hye-Hyun (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

tat is not blog. this is not original research. don't delete it. i add some offline book source, too. don't distoring Wikipedia policy. i will prove more academic source.Masonfamily (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This page is a mess

This page is a bit of mess. The facts are good but its full of duplications. It still lacks so many detail.--Hye-Hyun (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

but, no one give authority that you have right to mass deletion. i recover it.[46] Masonfamily (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

use English language reference and not Dokdo blog

Masonfamily, please use English language reference. It is rule on English wikipedia. ISBN 8934001712 is 소나무(한국의 마음이야기): 정 동주 의 한국 의 마음 이야기 Pine (the story of Korea) by Tong-ju Chŏng, 정동주. Published by 거름, 2000. No quote given.

Please also read reference. 410,000 is not accepted by scholars. Caspian blue is editor who makes edit war. Reference says "unnamed Chinese scholar" based only on "hypotheses" and "mistaken conjecture". That is bad references.

We win by example. We not win by exaggerating and attacking. Your English is not as good, be careful.

Picture title is not for paragraph. No need. It is already said in test. Also, your quote does not go with that image.

죄송합니다.

I apologize to others for Masonfamily's behavior. We do not all think or act like this. --Hye-Hyun (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hye-Hyun is a Japanese who pretending like a korean. his unreadable and short korean language show that he is a cleary he non-native korean. prostitution was a legal in japan. However, many women did not know what is the comfort women job.(this is a sourced material) at that time, Korean, japanese did not called prostitute as a comfort women. comfort women is not a prostitution. don't pushing your original research. Masonfamily (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

ISBN : 8934001712 is a 해방 전후사 사료 연구 1. not 정 동주 의 한국 의 마음 이야기.

See this evidence. ISBN : 8934001712, 해방 전후사 사료 연구 1, 정혜경[47]

I apologize to others for Masonfamily's behavior. We do not all think or act like this.

this sclod sentence can consider as a "personal attack". you have no right to scold other user.Masonfamily (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Your English is not as good, be careful" Well, well, well, your English seem to be neither perfect. You're a newbie (yeah, we have seen many fake newbies and then they're blocked indefinitely) but knows me too well. In the article, you're the very edit warrior who does not seek any discussion but resort to personal attacks as removing massively contents.--11:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

p.s Your false Korean usages also tell us that we see deja vu again. (you claim to be a native Korean speaker, how amusing) --Caspian blue (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Caption about recruitment advertisement for comfort women

This picture was unrelated with the reference. The references was betrayed case. Comfort Women was the women who worked for prostitution, everyone knew so at that time. This advertising case was legal. So I propose that delete or remove the references from this caption.--122.135.163.183 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"one source multi explanation" case. My reference is "direct" relation with "that" advertisement. This is not a advertising case was legal or not. advertisement decived many womens. but you try to delete this fact by unreasonable reason. i point out this. you have no right to deleted sourced material. Masonfamily (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Masonfamily, this advertising wrote clearly the word "Recruitment of Comfort Women". So I think there was no illegality. The reference is betrayed case, there is nothing to do with legal case. If you want to leave the reference and your word "Misleading recruitment advertisement for comfort women", you should write other sentence. And I dont think there was no women betrayed by recruiter, some women was certainly betrayed by recruiter. But this advertising was legal.--Que Sera Sera Sera (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

reliable sources

http://dokdo.naezip.net - that does not seem like a neutral reliable source to me. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your removal of a cite-supported assertion with the edit summary "reliable unbiased source please". Supporting sources are not required to be unbiased. WP policy allows POV sources, but does require balance. If you feel that the cited source is unbalanced, feel free to introduce another reputable source with a different POV in order to balance what you see as an unbalanced presentation. Do not feel free, however, to remove a cited source because you don't agree with its POV. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No Bill, wikipedia does require reliable sources. That source is obviously biased, I am not making any comments regarding the POV of the source, however it is not reliable. I could not introduce my blog as a source, and demand that someone find another source with an opposite POV in order to remove comments based on the citation of my blog - this is the same. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reliability and bias are separate issues. I am speaking of the reliability issue. I am not speaking of the bias issue. It is outside of WP:V policy to censor a cited source because you do not agree with its POV. Having re-emphasized that point, I'll go on to say that I've now looked a bit more closely at this particular source—initially having objected to your stated reasoning for censorship without having done this. The particular cited web page (which now appears to be a dead link) is in Hangul. I can transliterate Hangul and Roman alphabets, but reading the Kanji in the advertisement is beyond me. I do see, however, from an english-language page on the cited webiste that this appears to be a privately-maintained advocacy website focused on an issue unrelated to the point of this WP article. It may be reasonable to argue for exclusion of this supporting citation on WP:SPS grounds. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

i recover it. I confirmed it (ISBN : 8934001712). and it is a reliable source. and if dokdo.naezip.com is not a reliable or not, "The advertisements omitted the nature of the comfort woman job" is true. there is no evidence that advertisement recruit porstitute. Manacpowers (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that is OR. Your sources are crap and biased. Sennen goroshi (talk) 15:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

that is not a OR. "Your sources are crap and biased." is a personal attack.Manacpowers (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

dokdo.naezip.com What is this site? Who is Administrator? Read WP:RS.and this source is dead link.--Bentecbye (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

i did not says,dokdo.naezip.com. i just said (ISBN : 8934001712). According to WP:RS, 2 offline books are acceptable. Manacpowers (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

forced into prostitution and sexual slavery All comfort women are this? --Bentecbye (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"involved into prostitution" is a Japanese POV. All comfort women are this? Korea, China, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, the Dutch East Indies, Indonesia, netherlands women says samething. According to your logic, all world teall a lie to Japanese? i don't think so. Japanese side POV is isolated from world. Manacpowers (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Alternate Korean name"

The article currently suggests 일본군 성노예, or "Japanese army sex slave", as an "Alternate Korean name". I'm not qualified to comment on whether or not this term is actually in common use, but it's certainly misleading to equate it to all the other names, which are just straightforward translations of the official Japanese term ianfu. Jpatokal (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It is commonly used in South Korea, so it is not misleading anything. I don't understand that why you feel that way.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)