Talk:Comfort women/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Summary of debates so far

sorting of sources needed: incl. tribunal

- maybe we should start by drafting a list of sources and discuss their reliability systematically. we can find them by sifting through some of the debates here and in the archive. a.o.s i have pointed to the women's tribunal and suggested we add an efforts at redress section. st_Redress_Section_missing, [1]

- BTW, User:ikedanobuo's agenda is to (a) 'defend japan' by asserting that they were commercial prostitutes and (b) show that wikipedia does not work. i do not see why someone who disrespects the game should be treated as a respected player and included in the editorial process as he is.

StuartLaJolie and phonemonkey, could you respond, please? Crabclaw 12:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Crabclaw,
  1. As I have stated in my replies to User:Ikedanobuo, I agree with you that it would be a good thing to have more sources for historic events than recent media-clippings. I would like to identify the secondary sources by scholars and officials that are directly based on primary sources.
  2. Whether users have an agenda is in itself irrelevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia invites everyone to contribute, under a single set of rules. If I fail to follow the rules, I will be corrected; the same applies to User:Ikedanobuo. I like to participate myself, so to me it is logical that I try to help others to participate. Just abiding by the rules is enough to make Wikipedia work.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph

The number of comfort women and whether or not they are sex slaves is disputed in Japan - I'm happy to include this in the opening paragraph. I think it would be best to keep it brief and to elaborate the details of the dispute later. Phonemonkey 20:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --ElKevbo 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Mackan 20:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. ♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 20:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the dispute about existence of carting off the women as states action was almost denied in Japan. I think that the proposition all comfort women were sexslaves is not true, but the possibility that some of them were sex slaves can't be denied. So, in those days, it is argued about kind of concern between prostitution agent and comfort women, and regulatory accountability of state. For example, latter appearance of comfort women with borrowing in advance (ex. cited above Payment: 300YEN/month( You can draw wages in advance up to 3000Yen.) is now under discussion.

So the problems of this fact are "whether or not they or some of them were sex slaves, and if they or some of them so who were responsible it dirctory or indirectly." Generally speaking, this is appearance of controversy in Japan.

alternate plan

The number of comfort women, whether or not they or some of them were sex slaves, and if they or some of them so, who were responsible it dirctory or indirectly is disuputed. Tropicaljet 22:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that whether or not the Japanese state were responsible is disputed, in Japan, could be included in the introduction. I'm not so sure I agree that whether or not they were sex slaves should be labelled as disputed, though... Mackan 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think whether or not all of them were sex slaves isn't disputed in Japan already, but in the world like here it is under disputed. So I undo "in Japan" and left "whether or not they were sex slaves". Tropicaljet 22:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "whether or not all of them were sex slaves isn't disputed in Japan already"? I'm not sure if you are suggesting that nobody in Japan think comfort women were sex slaves, but if you are, the existence of organisations in Japan such as [VAWW-Net] which campaign for government recognition of comfort women as sex slaves, and Diet motions by opposition parties such as [this one] which state that women were recruited against their will, shows otherwise. Also, This Seattle Post article is one of many media sources which clearly state that the issue is disputed in Japan. Phonemonkey 01:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As there is a source for sex slavery (the Batavia case), the dispute can only be how widespread it was. So both the total number and the scale on which force has been used are disputed. Under international law there can be no doubt that taking appropriate care of the civilian population is the responsibility of an occupying force, in this case Japan. The precise attribution of this responsibility within Japan is not a matter for the introduction of this article. As I understand the original position of the Japanese government it did not deny this responsibility under international law, it just claimed that it had been resolved in the post-war settlements.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 23:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Abe Shinzou has recently gone out to state that there is no proof that the state itself was responsible. This is the source of a lot of controversy and as such, I think it does deserve mentioning in the introduction of the article. Mackan 23:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Abe did not say so. He said there is no proof that the army took comfort women by force. On the other hand, he says Japan is responsible for comfort women. If you want to mention his words, please indicate the sources.61.24.66.192 17:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
>StuartLaJoie: I think that Batavia case was a criminal act. And the criminals were already executed. And What I want to say above is that there are two controversy, all comfort women were or not sex slaves and not all but some were or not sex slaves. About responsibility, I want to say some, but I agree that it is not a matter for the introduction of this article.
alternate plan 2
The number of comfort women, whether or not they or some of them were sex slaves is disuputed.
That sounds clumsy. Why replace "whether or not they were sex slaves" with "whether or not they or some of them were sex slaves"? Also, it should be noted that currently the dispute is only within Japan. Phonemonkey 01:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Batavia case sure was a criminal act. And it proves that there was at least one case where comfort women were coerced in the narrow sense of the word by the military. 'The “Comfort Women” Issue and the Asian Women’s Fund' states clearly that this was not the only case. There is more evidence in sources outside Japan. So there are enough sources to say that some of them were sex slaves. My suggestion would be: There are still some disputes about the total number of comfort women and the scale on which force was used to recruit them. IMHO these disputes are not only in Japan; outside Japan there are different estimates too; it is not surprising that the lowest estimates are found in some Japanese sources and the highest in some Chinese and Korean sources.
  • It would be better to deal with the responsibility issue in a separate part of the article. Wikipedia should give a clear presentation of the different points of view. There have been differences and developments both inside and outside Japan; I see no way of dealing with this matter in the opening paragraph without resorting to weasel words.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 17:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Replace StuartLaJoie's plan (plan3)

There are still some disputes about the total number of comfort women and the scale on which force was used to recruit them.

Agree. I think this is a roughly sketch of disputes. Tropicaljet 21:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed but Tropicaljet, did you propose plan 3 yourself and if so what is the point of agreeing with yourself? Please indent your comments so that it is clearer as to who posted what. Thank you. Phonemonkey 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agreed the plan3, because that plan is at least displayed there is a dispute of "the scale on which force was used to recruit them." I think one more important problem is that who are responsible to it. But as StuartLaJoie says, it will write later parts. It is admissible. And this plan has possibilities that the comfort women were at least not all sex slaves, and coinstantaneously at least on the surface they were prostitutes. Tropicaljet 04:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but what I was pointing out was that proposing a plan and then putting in "agreed" underneath it yourself is confusing for readers. Phonemonkey 00:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Those are only the proposition and its meanings. What I did is only to explain them. Why do you like so doing "personal attack" ?? Tropicaljet 06:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I am only asking you to indent your comments in a way that is clearer who posted what. Is that unreasonable? Phonemonkey 20:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the first sentence should be corrected like this:

  • Comfort women (Japanese: 慰安婦, ianfu) or military comfort women (Japanese: 従軍慰安婦, jugun-ianfu) is an euphemism for 20,000-200,000[8] women who served in the Japanese army's brothels during World War II. The 40% of them were from Japan, and 30% on the spot, 20% from Korea, 10% from China[8]. They were generally reqruited by Zegen (japanese: 女衒), who are dealers of trafficking in human beings. Fuji2630 21:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I oppose including the second sentence above in the first paragraph. Under the current world view it is generally recognised that most of them were from Korea. This is backed up with plenty of sources (please see footnote 7). Please note that the sentence does not say "Most of them are from Korea", but rather, "it is generally recognised that most of them are from Korea". There is no need to go into detail in the opening paragraph. Further details of various estimates as to the origin of comfort women by various sources can be put in a seperate section, entitled "Country of origin". Let's put your data in this section, Fuji2630. Phonemonkey 22:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Understood, then the following sentences should follow the first sentence/paragraph like this:
Comfort women (Japanese: 慰安婦, ianfu) or military comfort women (Japanese: 従軍慰安婦, jugun-ianfu) is generally recognized a euphemism for some 200,000 women who served in the Japanese army's brothels during World War II. The majority of them were from Korea, as well as China and other occupied territories, recruited by force or deception to serve as sex slaves. [1][2]
However it is estimated by a historian that actually the 40% of them were from Japan, and 30% on the spot, 20% from Korea, 10% from China and are generally recruited by Zegen (Japanese: 女衒), who are dealers of trafficking in human beings. The estimated number of comfort women varies by each historian, from 20,000 to 200,000.[8]
It is true that the the first sentence published by newspapers, and it is also true that the followings are published as Journals/books by historians. It is more useful for Wikipedia readers to know the precise things just by reading the first few sentences. Fuji2630 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems there are no opposed opinions. The sentences should be fixed as above. Fuji2630 05:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have already stated that "under the current world view it is generally recognised that most of them were from Korea" and that "further details of various estimates as to the origin of comfort women by various sources can be put in a seperate section, entitled "Country of origin"". So no, it shouldn't.Phonemonkey 07:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
No, there is no such single "worldview". What Hata and Yoshimi both agree is "They came from Japanese-occupied Korea, Taiwan, French Indochina (now Vietnam), the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), Burma (Myanmar) and Japan".[2] Yoshimi insists the majority was from Korea, but Hata claims it was Japanese. The number "200,000" is also inaccurate. It's Yoshimi's maximum estimate. Neutral expression is "from 20,000 to 200,000". And as I explained, there was no such term (and system) "Jugun Ianfu". Even Asahi Shimbun stopped using the word. And "recruited by force or deception to serve as sex slaves" is wrong. Neither Hata nor Yoshimi says that the women were recruited by force. Avoid the word "sex slaves" because it isn't neutral expression. If you use the word, you should refer to the RAA for the U.S. Army that employed "Ianfu". Be very careful because this is too touchy issue for amateurs to write for fun. Ikedanobuo 08:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Like it or not, the fact is that it is generally accepted that most were from Korea, so what's wrong with "it is generally accepted that most were from Korea, although some dispute this". I'm not talking about Hata and Yoshimi, I'm talking about the general international understanding. Also as I have mentioned a billion times by now, the term "jugun ianfu" warrents a mention because the term exists. Whether or not such thing existed or when the term was first coined is beside the point. Moving onto your next point, if you want to contribute to the RAA article then do so on the corresponding page, and no, it's not here. And finally, your last sentence above is nothing more than comedy, coming from someone who encouraged meatpuppetry on your personal blog. Phonemonkey 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say you shouldn't use the term "Jugun Ianfu". Indeed somebody uses it, so it should be noted that such term was not used during WW2 and that there was no embedded comfort women employed by the Army. Also you can use "sex slaves" if you note that the trade of prostitutes were widespread in the world then. We should refrain from judging history from the viewpoint of 21c. Ikedanobuo 14:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a complete repeat of the discussion we had in the "There is no such thing as "Jugun Ianfu" section above. To summarise the previous discussion, I said I am happy to include a claim that the term was not used during WW2, and I asked you for a source. You came back with Hata's book as a reference, so that's good. (You then suddenly went on to accuse me of deleting this source from the article. I asked you to tell me exactly when I did this, to which you refused to reply. but we'll leave it at that.) So I don't object in any way to saying "according to historian Hata, the term jugun ianfu was not used during WW2, but rather, invented by a writer Kakou Senda in 1973". Also in reference to your last sentence, this article is not to judge or analyse history, only to present what sources say. If I see any edits which judges the Japanese people negatively, I'll be the first to delete it. Phonemonkey 15:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Phonemonkey, please obey the Wikipedia rules. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.
See Wikipedia:Verifiability.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
I, Fuji2630, added my sentences according to these rules, and agreed with the originalsentence remained too. There is no rule that "only well-known things sould appear at the first paragraph." or etc. I, Fuji2630, suggest remain various point of views, but you, Phonemonkey, suggest remain just one point of view in the first paragraph.
Again, please obey the Wikipedia rules, and argue based on the Wikipedia rules. Counter arguments obeying the Wikipedia rules are welcome. So far, I judged there are no counter arguments according to the rules. Fuji2630 09:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny you should mention a lop-sided view, the percentage of comfort women by country of origin which you seek to incorporate into the opening paragraph is by a single historian - Hata. There's no justification for putting results of studies by a single historian in the opening first paragraph over the others. I'm suggesting putting his estimations in alongside other estimations, in its own section in the main article and that's where we can go into detail. That's what's meant by "representing fairly and without bias all significant views". Phonemonkey 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to say again. Please obey the Wikipeda rules. You just saied your own idea without according to the rules. Which a sentence comes from a single historian or many newspaper articles is not the criteria for the first paragraph. There is not a such a rule in Wikipedia. If there is, please refer to the rule.
If you obey the rule "representing fairly and without bias all significant views", then put the original paragraph at the first, then put my suggested paragraph second.
So far, I have judged there are no counter arguments according to the rules. Fuji2630 06:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have already explained that an estimate by a single historian (Hata) should be included among other estimates by other historians. Why do you feel that only a study by one particular historian should warrent a mention in the opening section above all others, apart from the fact that he is your personal favourite? Giving one scholar's view priority over all others is a clear breach of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Phonemonkey 13:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Phonemonkey, remaining only one point of view in the opening paragraphs is a clear breach of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. I also agree if someone suggest estimation of other historians should be included in the opening paragraphs. However, so far, no one suggested so, and at least, a most different point of view should be also included in the opening paragraphs satisfying the Wikipedia rules.
By the way, your indications to me are not based on the Wikipedia rules. Do not violate the rules. I only accept suggestion of yours indicating my suggestion violating at least one of the Wikipedia rules. Do not forget I indicated many times your suggestion violating the Wikipedia rules. Fuji2630 13:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You appear to believe that I am advocating putting only one point of view in the opening paragraph. What I am opposed to is going into detail about one particular point of view in the opening paragraph. If you want to put "it is generally accepted that most of them were from Korea, although some studies disputes this", or anything along those lines, I am happy with that. However a detailed breakdown of the women's countries of origin by Hata belongs alongside breakdown estimations by other historians. Phonemonkey 20:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Phonemonkey, if you say "I am opposed to is going into detail" and
"it is generally accepted that most of them were from Korea, although some studies disputes this ", or anything along those lines,
is accepted, then,
is generally recognized that most of them were from Korea as well as China and other occupied territories, although some studies say the majority were Japanese. They were generally considered recruited by force or deception to serve as sex slaves, although some studies say they were recruited by dealers of trafficking in human beings and were payed.
is also accepted. We finally reached the agreement. Fuji2630 23:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Dear Fuji2630, your proposal is not accurate because it suggests that there are only two generalizing views on this subject. In fact I am not aware of any study stating that all comfort women were recruited by force or deception, that none of them were recruited by other than Army personnel or that none of them were paid. This contradistinction does not clarify the issue, the more limited proposal of Phonemonkey does.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 11:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree of these definition. --Lulusuke 03:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Please look this newspaper, Donga Ilbo, which is printed ar 14th Sep. 1961.
Starting Registration of Comfort Women for UN Soldiers on the 13th
I'll translate the above in Englsih.
From the 3rd Sep., as planned, the Seoul City Police transferred the authority to register comfort women for UN soldiers to the front-line offices of the city’s Social Bureau (UN Soldiers’ Comfort Women VD Control Section).

Officials said, however, that this registration applies to women living with even one foreigner, regardless of legal marital status, and to women working as comfort women for UN soldiers.

This article shows "COMFORT WEMEN FOR UN Soldier".It's Not only for Japanese soldiers. This is visible and measurable. We must remark COMFORT WEMEN are victims of male-dominated societies. --Lulusuke 03:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

victims of male-dominated societies*

Military involvement?

"Japanese historians [...] have been able to show that the military was directly or indirectly involved in coercing..." This is wrong. NYT article doesn't tell such a thing. No historian, even Yoshimi, is able to show such facts. To be neutral, "there is still a controversy among historians whether there was military coercion or not." Ikedanobuo 14:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 17:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The document of Asian Woman's Fund isn't reliable. When Hata wrote a summary of his book for AWF's journal, the editor rejected it as "politically incorrect."[1] The document overstates the coercion of the Army without historical ground. It's no evidence of coercion. You can quote it, but reservation should be added. Ikedanobuo 23:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand that you don't agree with everything in the document. Neither do I. When a source is considered reliable it only means that it can be the base for statements in the article. This document is a typical secondary source, giving an overview of several primary sources. So it is only 'evidence' of what primary sources say; it is not evidence of what did or did not happen. The final word about the truth is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. This reservation is implicit in the use of any source.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 12:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree, that is very well explained. Phonemonkey 00:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. This document in no way proves "the military was directly or indirectly involved in coercing, deceiving, luring and sometimes kidnapping young women...". The most sensitive point is kidnapping. AWF's document doesn't say the Army kidnapped women. Setting up brothels and kidnapping is completely different, you see? Ikedanobuo 05:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ikedanobuo. If the AWF is the long and short of documentary evidence of for millitary authorities coercion, then said "coercion" is by promises of money that they were later unable to pay, and by misleadingly calling the service as being that of 'comfort women' rather than 'prostitute'. How coercive is it to write "Comfort Woman" about a job with high wages (alas some were not paid), to non-Japanese women, near to the Japanese front? In order to say that the document shows "coercion" or a "trick" I think that one would need to use words which would reasonably be mistaken for something else. Is this the case with "ianfu"? If the Japanese millitary had advertised for "typists" then yes, I definately would say that this demostrates coercion. However, there is one documented case where the Japanese navy sent back women it became apparent they were recruited under the guise of being typists. There are also many claims that women were brutally raped and forced to be sex slaves, but not, AFAIK with the approval of the millitary authorities. The ianfu system was effected, it is documented I believe, to prevent the rape that occured in Nanking. Does the claim to "documentation" of coercion on the part of the authorities rest solely on the use of "*ian*fu" instead of "*shou*fu"?--Timtak 07:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I accept that the AWF document does not unequivocally state that the Japanese military itself kidnapped women and girls. An alternative source for this statement is
    ISBN 90 6718 203 6. {{cite book}}: External link in |publisher= (help
    )
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 19:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The number of comfort women

Internationally, the BBC quotes "200,000 to 300,000"[3] and the Internatioal Commission of Jurists quotes "estimates of historians that 100,000 to 200.000 women.." [4] A UN report "quotes drafting of approximately 200,000 Korean women as military sexual slaves" [5] Do we agree to quote these etc. on the basis that they are reliable sources, and we are not here to judge how accurate these are? Also do we agree to also quote historian Ikuhiko Hata's estimates of 20,000? Phonemonkey 20:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That all sounds good to me. --ElKevbo 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel I should say yes just so we could reach a consensus - but I would very much like to see some proof that prof Ikuhiko isn't just a lonely looney historian. For example, do Japanese newspapers quote these claims (I expect they do, but it would be nice to see actual proof of it)? Mackan 20:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I approve all of them. See this page Ikuhiko Hata. He is a famous historian. Tropicaljet 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page itself is not proof that he is a famous historian. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.Mackan 23:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I have read that Hata is the most prominent scholar in the conservative camp who has been interviewed by NHK. (The interview was broadcast, amongst other things, on 30 January 2001 instead of a planned coverage of Women's International War Crimes Tribunal, a mock tribunal held by a Japanese NGO called VAWW-Net. VAWW-Net sued the NHK, accusing it of buckling to political pressure after visits to the NHK from ultranationalist groups and politicians including Shinzo Abe.[6][7]VAWW-Net won the suit this year and NHK was ordered by Tokyo High Court to pay 2 million yen. [8])Phonemonkey 00:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Your information is partially incorrect >Phonemonkey. The court denied the political pressure of Shinzo Abe and other politicians. The court ordered NHK because of the fare was different from what VAWW-Net expected. This adjudication is criticized as trespass on freedom of press, so NHK appealed to the Supreme Court. Tropicaljet 00:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
In that page, some citations are made, so I think that we can see that he is not a lonely historian but a famous one. If you want to more citations like Japanese newspapers, it is available here [9], etc.Tropicaljet 00:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Prof. Ikuhiko Hata is appointed a committee advisor of Committee of Historical Materials of Asia Women's Fund, which is funded by Japanese Government.[10] His name appears on page 42 and several other pages. He is at least accredited by Japanese Government.61.24.66.192 17:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have some reservation to the above quotations.
  • BBC says "An estimated 200,000 to 300,000 women across Asia, predominantly Korean and Chinese, are believed to have been forced to work as sex slaves in Japanese military brothels." BBC shows double reservations by using "an estimated" and "believed to have been". So, we should respect BBC's reservations and our article in wiki should reflect such attitude.
  • ICJ does not identify the "historians" who estimated the number in its conclusion page, which is linked. Can you find the body of the report?
  • In UN report, the expression appears in paragraph 61, however, using this as a source is inappropriate. Paragraph 61 says;
"In response to questions raised by the Special Rapporteur most former "comfort women informed the Special Rapporteur that the Government of Japan should:
(b) Recognize that the drafting of approximately 200,000 Korean women as military sexual slaves and the establishment of comfort houses for the use of the Japanese Imperial Army were carried Out in a systematic and forcible manner by and/or with the knowledge of the Government and the army command;"
This is merely a former comfort women's allegation, which is not confirmed by UN.218.216.99.67 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Point one - I agree. Point two - the names of historians who estimated it is not relevant to whether or not the ICJ can be quoted as a reliable source, but you're right, it would certainly be of interest. I've been trying to find the report without success, and the ICJ website only states that it is available at the ICJ Secretariat in Geneva. Point three, I agree with your point about the UN report, thank you for spotting it. Phonemonkey 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • On the site of the Asian Women's Fund, there is a report The “Comfort Women” Issue and the Asian Women’s Fund. Chapter 2 (page 10-13) gives estimates and explains some of the differences between them. It is a Japanese source, supported by the Japanese government and explicitly mentions the contributions of Ikuhiko Hata and Yoshiaki Yoshimi, with the former serving on its Committee for Historical Materials. This seems to me a reliable non-western source in English. It explains both the lowest estimate by Ikuhiko Hata (20,000) and the figure of (200,000) as an upper limit.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 14:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Ikeda. The “Comfort Women” Issue and the Asian Women’s Fund seems the most comprehensive report so far written in English on this matter. It is a good reading, and surely helps.61.24.66.192 16:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I should have thanked Stuart LaJoie.61.24.66.192 11:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be described that Japanese women were most in Mr. Hata's investigation if it is described that there are a lot of South Koreans if breakdowns of the number are described. Elementy 18:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So, based on the materials presented so far;
  • There is no statistics of the number of comfort women. The Precise number is quite unknown.[11]
  • There are 3 estimations done by 3 historians. They are Prof Hata, Prof Yoshimi and a Chinese scholar whose name is not cited.
  • The estimations cited by BBC and other media come from above estimations.
  • All of the 3 estimations use the same formula: (Number of soldiers) x (comfort woman to soldier ratio) x (replacement ratio)
  • Latter two ratios are assumptions without substantiating facts. The assumptions of these two ratios differ vastly among historians.
I would propose the number of comfort women be omitted from the first sentence of the first paragraph, and put in the second sentence like "The number of comfort women is quite unknown and estimations by historians differ widely due to the difference in assumptions used, but Prof. Yoshimi's estimate which is most cited by media is between 45,000 and 200,000."61.24.66.192 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that is too detailed for an opening paragraph, and I haven't seen a quote from the BBC (for example) which specifically named which historian(s) they got their numbers from, or that there were only three of them. Any mention of how or where the numbers came from can be put in its own, seperate section, with appropriate sources. Phonemonkey 00:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Ikedanobuo demanded the removal of the photo and ranted and raved about the illiteracy of other editors. Thankfully, another user NobuoSakiyama was able to explain on his behalf that this was because the Japanese translation of "comfort battalion" (慰問部隊, Imon-Butai) referred to hired performers for the troops. NobuoSakiyama mentioned that we don't know for sure whether the Chinese woman in the photo was a comfort woman or a hired performer and expressed doubts that the Imperial Japanese Army hired Chinese performers. However do we agree that there is an ambiguity there? Should the photo be removed? Has anyone seen this photo used elsewhere, in a reliable source? Phonemonkey 20:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The article links to 'A public betrayed', where you can find this photograph with the following information:
This photograph, courtesy of the U.S. National Archives, is accompanied by a caption from the archives that reads, in part, "In the Sittang area, where the Japanese twenty-eighth Army was cut-off and annihilated in its attempts to break out from Burma into Siam. . . . Many prisoners were taken. With them were found a small party of Chinese girls forcibly employed by the [Japanese] in their ‘Comfort Corps.’ Picture shows: ———, one of the Chinese girls, supplies information to a British officer at Rangoon. August, 1945."
To be 100% certain someone could verify with the US National Archives. Being in Holland I might be forgiven for leaving this task to someone else.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 20:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The photo taken of Yeongshim Bak (pregnant comfort woman)as a war prisoner at former Rameong(拉孟-Ramung) Taikeo(騰庶-Tungchung) comfort station in Yunnan Province(雲南省), China. She is still alive in North Korea.


Yet from another point of view, I also disagree to place that photograph near the top. That picture is too impressive toward the view of 'comfort women is sex slave'. As you have already seen, whether it is sex slave or not is disputed in this place and at least some reliable primary sources says 'comfort women were basically common prostitutes'.
I believe that the top photograph should be representative one and it is hard to select symbolic picture for so widly disputed topic. If some editor wishes to include picutures, these should be placed as reference materials somewhere not at the top. No top photo is quite neutral. lssrt 8:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fig.1 shows that the Ianfu were commercial prostitutes who were recruited by private agents. Their wage was 300yen per month, 20 times higher than average soldiers! Ikedanobuo 14:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Do you have a source showing comfort women actually receiving a 20 times higher payment than the average soldier? Is there reliable information on the number of women getting this kind of pay? Otherwise fig. 1 would prove that women were lured away with false promises. But if I hypothetically accept your point of view, the presently featured picture would present no problem at all.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 15:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is one of the source on the number of women getting this kind of pay. "UNITED STATES OFFICE OF WAR INFORMATION Psychological Warfare Team Attached to U.S. Army Forces India-Burma Theater APO 689 (Date of Report: October 1, 1944") "[12] . It was written that " an average month a girl would gross about fifteen hundred yen." This is about 100 times higher than average soldiers. Tropicaljet 21:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This army report is valuable as an interesting primary source for the specific situation it describes. It was very clearly not intended as wider research and according to The “Comfort Women” Issue and the Asian Women’s Fund page 8-9 the reliability of the interrogations on which it was based is questionable. We could also use our common sense. The report I just quoted gives 1 for every 100 soldiers as a conservative estimate of the number of comfort women. If Tropicaljet is correct, it would imply that Japan during WWII spent as much on sex as on soldiers... That is a slur I am not prepared to make. I would be interested to know your other sources.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 13:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You can't understand this about an average month a girl would gross 100 times higher than average soldiers, because you think those were wage form Japanese goverment. But their earnings were from business with soldiers. The high earnings were a product of market mechanism. If it hadn't been so, who would go to the dangerous front?? The Japanese Army publicly emploied this market mechanism, though some criminal acts were made by soldiers against it.
  • You mean the number of comfort women in this, "The report you just quoted gives 1 for every 100 soldiers as a conservative" is 200000? or 20000? In either case, it would be total number of man-days, they wouldn't be in front all days of wars.
  • Some source of comfort women's high earnings is availabel in past article of
    Mainichi Shinbun,on May,22,1992. In the artcle, they reported that a woman (文玉珠) who used to be a comfort woman reclaimed to the post-office of her lapsed savings by her missing of passbook. The amount of it was 26145 yen, and it was earned in about 2 years as a comfort woman. It is about a million dlrs in present value. Tropicaljet
    02:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Just because some Japanese soldiers committed war crimes you can't make a sweeping statement like "Japanese soldiers were war criminals". Agreed, Ikeda? Good. Well in the same way, just because there is evidence that some comfort women were paid, sweeping generalisations like "comfort women were commercial prostitutes" are not valid. Phonemonkey 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Of cause OK. I said that the Japanese Army publicly emploied this market mechanism, and NOT to say all "comfort women were commercial prostitutes in essence". Tropicaljet 01:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I was responding to Ikeda's comment further up this thread, not to yours, Tropicaljet. Phonemonkey 23:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
So far, is it Ok to remove that picture? Lssrt 02:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, there is no conclusive argument to remove it. The picture documents that the Japanese army was accompanied by young women. That fact is not in dispute. There is debate on their numbers and how they were recruited en treated. But the picture is quite neutral in that respect. It would be rather peculiar to have an article on women and not have any picture of women on account of it being 'too impressive'.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Japanese government statement

I think we all agree that this statement should be included. The NY Times is a good enough source but I'm sure there are plenty more. Phonemonkey 20:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course they should be both included - they're well-sourced and directly on-topic. I welcome additional well-sourced information in this and any other article. --ElKevbo 20:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Should we also include the recent statements (which were sort of a comment on all this) by Schieffer, the US ambassador to Japan? It was in the headlines of most Japanese newspapers, so I guess we might as well? (English language link: [13]) Mackan 20:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • When official declarations of the Japanese Government are added, I suggest to start with this relevant declaration on the website of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It refers to official research in Japan and reduces the room for claims about POV considerably.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry to say, but NY Times's account is not accurate about the statement. So as you say, I welcome additional well-sourced information in this. In a simple term, they denied only carting off as state action. Tropicaljet 22:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Former Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary, Nobuo Ishihara, who collected the documents for the apology, admitted that there was no official document of Army that ordered to kidnap women.[14]

♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 22:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
What new development? There is nothing new. Just 6 months ago, Prime Minister Abe said as follows. minute of Budget Committee, House of Representatives, Parliament of Japan, Oct 6, 2006 (Japanese) Prime Minister Abe: "As I have been stating so far, my Cabinet has and continue to have the same view and policy as what is stated in Secretary Kono's Statement (in 1993) which expresses apologies and regrets to the comfort women who were in agony."
He has been apologizing to the comfort women ever since he became the Prime Minister on Sept 26, 2006. What is this unfair media attention? The BBC report StuartLaJoie mentioned quotes 'Mr. Abe told parliament: "I apologise here and now as prime minister."' At least, BBC should not have cut prime ministers statement in the middle of the sentence. I hope people here would not misunderstand him.61.24.66.192 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This article may be of interest to those who want to know the political back ground of this issue.[15]61.24.93.5 16:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so you are talking about Dutch (Semarang) case, which is a very exceptional case in that Japanese army demanded the owners of comfort stations to release the 35 comfort women when Col. Odajima at POW management division of Ministry of Army of Japan found some of those 35 comfort women were working against their will. [16] Those women worked at comfort stations about 3 months. The period is very short compared to Korean or Chinese comfort women. You can hardly generalize this very unusual case.61.24.93.119 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. I am not just referring to the Semarang case. The source I quoted mentions several cases where the army itself recruited women of (partial) European descent by force and attempts to do so. It refers also to a case involving only women of Indonesian and Chinese descent in Kalimantan were forced to prostitition by the army.
  2. The generalization is implied by statements that there is no evidence for forced abduction by the army. I have made no claim that all, or even a majority of the women were abducted by the military. All Dutch sources I have read up to now agree that there were, especially in the beginning, some women who were prostitutes by choice, but for the larger part they were by variable degrees coerced 'in the wider sense'. This is not substantially different from what serious sources say on comfort women elsewhere.
  3. During the Japanes occupation the Dutch East Indies were split in three different parts, roughly along the following lines: a) Sumatra was occupied by the 25th Army; b) Java was occupied by the 16th Army; c) Borneo and most of the other islands were occupied by the Navy. Cases of (attempted) forced abduction by the military have been recorded in each of these three parts. The Semarang case is unique in many aspects, but not in that the military was directly involved in coercing women to prostitution.
  4. The Japanese Army itself did not punish the perpetrators in the Semarang case. So altough it was policy not to use coercion in recruitment, it was apparently condoned in reality.
  5. The Dutch East Indies are exceptional in that historians have kept records on what happened to the people of (partial) Dutch descent. These records widen the possibilities to corroborate the picture arising from witness testimonies and other sources.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 21:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of references

Well sourced information must not be deleted. Also if a claim is unreferenced, it will be deleted (It doesn't have to be refuted if it is unreferenced).Phonemonkey 20:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think allowing non-referenced material is a good idea in this article or any other discussing a controversial topic. --ElKevbo 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Mackan 20:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. ♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 21:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Confirmation: The Japanese document is recognized as a source if it has a different information, and is reliable.Tropicaljet 23:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. Is it required to provide a reliable translation in English before a foreign language document can be a source? On the one hand: this is the English Wikipedia. On the other hand, I will have a much easier time providing you with Dutch sources.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 01:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:ATT suggests "Published translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves."Phonemonkey
02:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Repair or remove dead links

At present there are several external links in the article that do not result in relevant information, e.g. 9, 10, 11 and the Comfort Women Project. They ought to be repaired or removed.♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 21:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Definitely.Phonemonkey 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean footnotes 9,10,11 rather than external links? I think they should be included for reader's reference, unless the article becomes too heavy. Let's try to add rather than to delete.218.216.99.67 01:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Document about the comfort station

In 1992, a document of Japanese Army was discovered that ordered "the comfort stations should not be misunderstood as Army's sites" by Yoshimi.[17] Yoshimi interprets this as the evidence of coercion, but Hata says it is the evidence that the comfort women was not coerced by the Army. This is one of the most important document about the Ianfu. Ikedanobuo 13:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't speak Japanese. Is there an English translation of this document? The document might be more relevant for the discussion in Japan on who exactly is to blame. I fail to see how any document of the Japanese Army could prove that no women were coerced. There is too much evidence from other sources indicating that many were.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 15:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ikeda, where in the document did you get your "comfort stations should not be misunderstood as Army's sites" interpretation? The Army document is basically a 1938 instruction to top officers of the Japanese expeditionary force in China. Here's a rough attempt at translation: Recruitment of women within the Japanese home islands for the purpose of setting up comfort stations in China has led to more than a few issues which require caution, such as: the possibility of damage to the respect of the military and misunderstanding among the general public because of recruiters using the issue of consent by the military; possibility of causing social problems through unregulated recruitment through embedded reporters, condolence-payers and the like; and inappropriately selected recruitment personnel being arrested and charged by the police for recruitment methods verging on kidnapping. Therefore, when recruiting (in China) in the future, please take care in avoiding oversight in terms of maintaining the respect of the military and social order, through regulation of the recruitment process by the expeditionary force, appropriate selection of those who engage in recruitment, and close liaison with the Kempeitai and police authorities in the relevant area. The dispute is between those who interpret this as evidence of official military involvement in the recruitment process (like Yoshimi suggests), and those who do not. I don't know where the dear professor Ikeda pulled "comfort stations should not be misunderstood as Army's sites" from. Phonemonkey 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if we all started to post our own interpretations of the above document there would be no end, and it is not our job as wikipedia editors to interpret sources. If the above is to be mentioned in the article, as dear professor Ikeda seems to be suggesting, let's just concentrate on interpretation by historians, backed up by reliable sources.Phonemonkey 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Phonemonkey, I have been convinced most by the interpretation made by a Japanese historian Kazu Nagai, which can be seen from here [18]. This was linked from Japan's Wikipedia page on this military order. (It's long, but trust me, it is worth reading.) This is a speech made at Seoul University, a fact which may contribute to lessen your reservations in terms of historian's neutorality. He says the true meaning of this military order can not be revealed without putting into the same perspective other 'police' orders which have been found recently. At least Nagai thinks that it is impossible to draw from this piece of military order that Japan's Army is officially involved in the coercion of comfort women. I simply do not have time to translate all of his speech. If you could read it by yourself and let us know what you think, that would be great. Strongaxe 05:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Please show us just a few of "too much evidence".61.24.66.192 16:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
page 6:

When recruiters commissioned by the military were assisted by the police in Korea, it is not known whether they followed the Police Bureau’s rules, as set out in the above-mentioned memorandum of February 1938. It is natural to assume that, in the beginning, the women sent from Korea were already involved in prostitution, but that, over time, women from poor families mainly came to be taken. They were enticed or coerced in a variety of ways. There is clear evidence that, even in the early days, some were told lies about what their work would be. Some women were coerced into going against their will, either through deceit or force. It is also known that many women taken from Korea were under the age of 21, something not allowed in the Japanese homeland. Some were no more than 16 or 17, and had been in no previous contact with the world of prostitution. They were chosen because, being young and innocent, they would be free of venereal disease. It was also assumed that, because they were Korean, they would have no contact with Chinese people, meaning there was little chance they would divulge military secrets. It would seem that, right from the beginning, rules followed in the Japanese homeland were ignored in Korea, and that perhaps no attempt was made to enforce the rule.

on page 7

We can assume that the Southern Army General Command also requested that the Headquarters of the Korea Army send Korean women. According to documents compiled by the U.S. military, the Japanese military headquarters in Seoul contacted agents in May 1942, asking the possibility of recruiting women for “comfort services” in Burma. The agents agreed to do so. The military designated certain agents and apparently had them recruit women. Then, 703 Korean women left Korea. In one documented case, a Korean couple, operating a restaurant in Seoul, were contacted by the military police headquarters. They agreed to take on the job of gathering women and girls and recruited 20 Koreans. With the payment of 300-1000 yen in the currency of that time to their parents, the couple believed that they bought these girls and that they became the couple’s own property. This could be considered as the advance payment by which these girls were bound. It seems that the advance payments indicated, as far as the couple was concerned, that they had control over the women and girls. According to information given by the women and girls, at the time of recruitment, twelve of the twenty recruits were under 21 years of age — one was 17, three were 18, seven were 19, one was 20, and eight were 23 or older. If this information is correct, it would seem to be clear that the conditions stipulated by the Police Bureau in 1938 for recruitment in Japan were ignored. It appears that the women and girls were not clearly told they would be required to serve as comfort women.

Is this it　it? Below? The "documentary evidence"? The advertisesments in Korean newspapers were for "comfort" (ian) women. Then, as the document goes on the explain, "it was assumed to be work connected with visiting the wounded in hospitals..." Does this mean, then, that the documentary evidence for "tricks", "coercion", and the existance "sex slaves" lies in the fact that the Japanese described "sexual services" as "comfort services?"
The use of "comfort" for "sex" may well have been deception, a trick, and thus have constituted sex slavery, but it seems to me it may also have been a euphamism, as it is described in this article.
If this trick is the nub of the "documentation" then it becomes very important to consider how deceptive this use of "comfort" was. Is there any sources mention how "comfort" (ian) was used and understood at the time?
When recruiting women many of whom are young and perhaps illiterate - at least in Japanese - as prostitues, one has a responsibility to make the nature of employment very plain.
I believe victim and witness testimony that many women were raped, and that some were coerced into being sex slaves and sometimes by solidiers, and this is heinous. But it is different from documentary evidence of Japanese government/millitary compliance in this act, as suggested in the first paragraph of this article--Timtak 05:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

“The nature of this ‘service’ was not specified, but it was assumed to be work connected with visiting the wounded in hospitals, rolling bandages, and generally making the soldiers happy. The inducement used by those agents was plenty of money, an opportunity to pay off the family debts, easy work, and the prospect of a new life in a new land — Singapore. On the basis of those false representations many girls enlisted for overseas duty and were rewarded with an advance of a few hundred yen.” (Page 203, Volume 5 of Seifu Chousa “Juugun Ianfu” Kankei Shiryou Shuusei (Compilation of Government-collected Documentary Materials Relating to Wartime “Comfort Women” by the Asian Women’s Fund)) In such cases the agents tricked them, basically recruiting them against their will.

on page 8:

Women in the Philippines, the East Indies (Indonesia) and elsewhere were also forced to become comfort women. It is well known that at Semarang, Indonesia, some Dutch women internees were coerced into becoming comfort women. In the Philippines, violence against women was frequent. In many cases, a woman would first be raped, then taken away, confined in a military facility, and raped continuously for a certain period. The facilities were not officially recognized by the military as comfort stations, but they served the same purpose for the local military. Research by Aiko Kurasawa shows that the recruitment of comfort women in Indonesia was often done through the heads of residential districts or neighborhood groups. The general pattern seems to have been that village officials would receive a request from the occupying forces, and would act on the request. We can assume it was not uncommon for women to be taken against their will.

[...]

In Indonesia, like in the Philippines, some squads brought women forcibly to facilities they had constructed on their own, and used the facilities like a comfort station. Women at comfort stations were forced to render sexual services to many officers and men, their human dignity trampled upon.

It seemed appropriate to start with a Japanese source. There are several Dutch academic sources, but in spirit with my own remarks I will present them as soon as I have found reliable translations in English. In the article presently there is a reference to the book by George Hicks.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Stuart LaJoie. But read carefully. In Korean case, the report by AWF does not say Japanese Army took the comfort women by force. It was the Korean agents or procurers in Korea who took the women by deception or by force in some cases. Please read the first paragraph in page 7. This does not mean Japan is free from responsibility. Japanese army should have more closely supervised the procurers and brothel owners, so that comfort women do not work against their will.
The mentioned Philippines case is a rape case, which should be distinguished from recruitment of comfort women. "The facilities were not officially recognized by the　military as comfort stations". Rape is worse than prostitution and I, by no means, think Japanese army is free from responsibility. But the document we are talking which was found by Prof. Yoshimi is about recruitment of comfort women, isn't it.
Same in Indonesia. The report you mentioned says it was head of neighborhood group that recruited comfort women. Again I am not saying Japanese army is free from responsibility.61.24.66.192 12:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear 61.24.66.192, the report states explicitly that it is dealing with comfort women. There was no clearcut separation between official military comfort stations with voluntary prostitutes on the one hand, and cases of rape on the other. As the report itself states, it may have started out with normal prostitutes, but during the war the coercion got worse. For the comfort-stations in Indonesia this mingling is documented. The 'neighbourhood group', I would say: the village leaders, had no choice but to do as the army told. These were no commercial transactions. There is solid evidence in primary sources of military personnel being involved in rounding up women. In the case of women of European descent it is documented that this happened against orders from higher command which undertook corrective action. It is also documented that the large majority of the women involved was not of European descent. These documents are official publications of the Dutch National Institute for War Documentation. I will provide citations, but I first want them translated. I am less familiar with the Philippines. The AWF report by itself justifies the statement that many women have been coerced and sometimes the army has been involved in this coercion, in some cases even coercion in the narrowest sense of the word. One can argue that this army involvement was against army regulations and government policy, but not that nothing of the kind did ever happen.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree strongly with the last sentence of StuartLaJoie's I have taken the liberty of emphasising. I also agree, that given this concencus that, "one can argue that this army involvement was against army regulations and government policy," I also agree strongly with 61.24.66.192 below that to say "documents....showed millitary authorities had a direct role in working with contractors to forcibly procure women for the brothels," is an exaggeration and misleading. It suggests the converse of what StuartLajoie has just agreed. If documents show something then it becomes moot to argue against them. One the other hand if someone purchases a stolen product it would be misleading to say that they necessarily "had a direct role in working with contractors to steal things from people," unless there were evidence of complicity, malicious aforethought, deliberate intent. Is there this evidence? If the only documentary evidence is the AWF document, and the false description of "sex" as "comfort," then it seems to me that the the documentation can not be said to "show" this complicity.--Timtak 06:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Stuart LaJoie. But let me point out one thing. For example, when you look at the sentence in page 6 "They were enticed or coerced in a variety of ways." you might assume it was the army that coerced them. But the meaning of the report is that it was the agents who coerced them. See the first paragraph of page 7. Another point. If some soldiers kidnapped women against army order, is it appropriate to say "army kidnapped women"? Yes, in a sense. But I do not think that way. When you look at the current wiki article paragraph 1, it says "the military was directly or indirectly involved in coercing, deceiving, luring and sometimes kidnapping young women throughout Japan’s Asian colonies and occupied territories." and "Japanese documents in 1992 showed that military authorities had a direct role in working with contractors to forcibly procure women for the brothels." I think these sentences are exaggerated in light of what is stated in AWF report.61.24.66.192 14:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't copy the original document so long. This is summary. As I said, AWF isn't neutral, and this document doesn't prove the coercion by the Army. Stop writing your wishful interpretation. But it can be quoted as an unreliable source with reservation because it is one of the few sources in English. Ikedanobuo 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry for disturbing you. I would certainly agree with you that AWF is not neutral, although possibly from a different perspective. For Wikipedia the important point is wether it is a reliable source; I have argued why it is. An encyclopedia is not the place to prove anything has or has not happened; it can only reflect what sources say on the matter. The quotes show clearly that women have been coerced. That is all I stated. I am aware that it depends on the standards of proof, whether you consider this 'coercion by the army' or not. It would be useful to clarify this dispute on the standards of proof somewhere in the article, in connection with the matter of responsibility. That is however beyond the point I was making here.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 12:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Phonemonkey, thank you for your translation. You put "(China)" in your translation, but I think it is about recruitment in homeland Japan. Anyway, let's not talk about translation any further as you mentioned. The problem is the second paragraph of the present wiki article, which says "evidence discovered in Japanese documents in 1992 show that Japanese military authorities had a direct role in working with contractors to forcibly procure women for the brothels". I believe no one would think this document is the evidence of "forcibly procuring women". Does everybody agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.24.66.192 (talk) 16:00, March 27, 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.61.24.66.192 16:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The document is divided into two parts - it is an instruction to the Japanese forces in China about recruitment in China, based on experiences suffered during recruitment in homeland Japan. The dispute between historians is whether this document is evidence of the Army's direct involvement in recruitment. Phonemonkey 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Army report on the Ianfu after WW2

It says "A 'comfort girl' is nothing more than a prostitute or "professional camp follower" attached to the Japanese Army for the benefit of the soldiers."[19]

  • This army report is valuable as an interesting primary source for the specific situation it describes. It was very clearly not intended as wider research and according to The “Comfort Women” Issue and the Asian Women’s Fund page 8-9 the reliability of the interrogations on which it was based is questionable.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 16:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Why these girls are worrying about the lives of other girls in the interrogation?220.76.64.71 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
"REQUESTS...They asked that leaflets telling of the capture of the "comfort girls" should not be used for it would endanger the lives of other girls if the Army knew of their capture. ..." in the UNITED STATES OFFICE OF WAR INFORMATION Psychological Warfare Team Attached to U.S. Army Forces India-Burma Theater APO 689 (Date of Report: October 1, 1944") [20]
Same sentences appear in two places. Please erase one or the other, or I will erase one.61.24.66.192 17:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I raised a issue that nobody has ever mentioned before. So I think this issue deserves a heading. Whenever this source[21] appears in this discussion, they only underscore the point that they were highly-paid. I just want some balance when quoting this source. They were paid with worthless
Japanese military yen. Moreover, their lives were threatened by minor offenses even by others. I'll add this important view whereever this source appears to keep the balance. My additional remark is important for balance.220.76.64.71
17:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, this is summary section. everything in it is mentioned elsewhere. User:61.24.66.192, Are you going to erase this summary section because same stuff appear in two places?220.76.64.71 17:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read the talk page guideline. "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page."61.24.66.192 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
No, user 220.76.64.71, you would merely be adding your own interpretation of a primary source and that would go against Wikipedia:No original research. Just imagine if every user added their own interpretation of a primary source. Phonemonkey 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Kaneko is a liar

Yasuji Kaneko's testimony is not reliable, because he has told many lies, e.g., he was a member of the Unit 731. He is a member of Chukiren, a group of supporters of the China Communist Party. It's laughable that the file linked from this [22] says "Kaneko is a liar." Remove his testimony or Wikipedia will be laughed at. Ikedanobuo 15:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Being a professor, you ought to be aware that these objections do not meet academic standards. Please reinforce my respect for Japanese universities by the quality of your contributions to Wikipedia.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 16:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The lasciviousness expression should not be put on the article except whether it is a liar. It might be good only in the name as those who testify. If a Japanese Chinese character is put, do the question of him from the person who understands Japanese. Elementy 17:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ikeda, if you have valid arguments, please present them in a cool-headed and neutral manner. Do not try and bring changes about by blackmail because 1) it's rude, 2) it will only turn people against you, 3) you appear childish, 4) it's simply not gonna work. Also, your two statements "having told lies" and "he's a member of Chukiren and was one of Unit 731" are not logically connected. I think this is more than a semantical problem. Maybe you should read up on
WP:TRUTH? Mackan
18:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Ikeda, for an academic you seem to have zero ability to learn how wikipedia works. You can't demand its removal because you have reasons to believe he is a liar. This has been stated many times but it is not up to Wikipedia editors to introduce their own analysis. Please see Wikipedia:No original research - "if it introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" then it counts as orignal research.
On the other hand, having read Kaneko's quote I think its inclusion is unencyclopedic. I'm happy to have it removed, but it's got nothing to do with whether or not Kaneko is a liar. Phonemonkey 22:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Rude? Aren't you aware how rude this article is for Japanese people yet? You'll see that Japanese are very angry about it if you can read the comments on my blog.[23] It's a conventional wisdom that Kaneko is a laughable liar who talks his delusion that he spread gas at the Unit 731, raped many women at Nanking massacre, and committed other major war crimes all over the world. The linked document laughs at him. It's a shame for an encyclopedia. You should be afraid that this rude article is seriously hurting the credibility of Wikipedia, if any. Ikedanobuo 23:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for Ikedanobuo, but he is right in suggesting that the 'Comfort Women' artcile treats Kaneko in a self-defeating way. On the article you treat him an a credible sournce, but at the same time you have placed a link [24] that casts a strong doubt on Kaneko's remark. To be fair, the link does not attack his remark on comfort women; it does attack his remark on a joint confession he took part in about Japanese Military's 'Cholera-spreading operation' (first, you poison a river with Cholera. Second, you destroy the bank of the river to spread the disease. Lastly, goad the infected villagers to spread Cholera to more people). But in spirit the link asserts Kaneko is not trustworthy. The link used the word 'lied' (Uso-wo-tsuita). I do not bother to read into Wiki's guideline, but how should you handle contradictive reference in an article of 'encyclopedia'? Strongaxe 02:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Banging on about insults to the Japanese people or the credibility of Wikipedia isn't going to help you make anyone listen to your point, Ikeda. Just stick to rational debate if you want to be taken seriously. Also, as I have already explained to you, simply asserting that Kaneko is a liar without source is, while it may be true, not a valid argument here.Phonemonkey 01:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Prof Ikeda mentioned insults in response to the accusation that he was being rude (by calling Kaneko a liar).
Can you understand the argument by Strongaxe? The linked source says Kaneko is a liar, so it is needless to show the source. And I'm not interested in the local rule of Wikipedia that has no legal force, as I explained in my blog.[25] I stick to the rational rule of common sense and the hard facts. Ikedanobuo 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ikeda, had you from the start said what Strongaxe said, without all the contention, there wouldn't have been any problems! Advice for you: 1) English is not your native language, so please make more efforts to make your comments understandable. Your first comment here was definately not. 2) Stop being so frickin' obnoxious all the time. Yes, per Strongaxe, there seems to be some problem with those sources. But suggesting it's a "conventional wisdom" that Kaneko is a liar must be among the stupidest suggestions I've ever heard. DO read through
WP:ATT. Wikipeda rules apply to Wikipedia, if you can't accept that, you have nothing to do here. Stop trying to fight the system, learn the rules and work with it instead.Mackan
09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ikeda, my comment above was posted at 01:18 UTC, Strongaxe's was posted at 02:26 - go figure. Anyway more importantly, you have just publically declared that you have no interest in sticking to Wikipedia policy because it is not legally enforceable. I am astonished that anyone is foolish enough to say such a thing and expect to have even an ounce of credibility left. I've tried to work with you but if you are going to refuse to accept the way Wikipedia works, be off. Phonemonkey 12:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The title of conclusion part (section 3) of that article is, 'Obvious Fiction / 作り話なのは明らか'. Editors, think why Kaneko is not counted by major historians but favored by foreign media. Not because it is Japan's taboo, but because he has typical air of wartime liar. His 'confession' should be seen as unique version of soldier's heroic story and is far from reliable. lssrt 3:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
And AP quotes this liar's testimony, which is published by many newspapers around the world.[26] This is a very pathological event in which western newspapers are quoting a liar while all Japanese newspaper, even the Asahi, ignore him. Ikedanobuo 03:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The linked source, while it does say that "it is clearly a lie", is nothing more than a personal blog. Please find a more reliable source. Phonemonkey 22:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You are looking at the problem upside down. There is no reliable evidence to support Kaneko's "testimony". It is contradicting itself and many people say he is a liar. So don't include such dubious material in Wikipedia, unless you love his lie. Ikedanobuo 14:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You said yourself that Kaneko's testimony is published by the media around the world, so there is nothing wrong in mentioning that "Kaneko's testimony is published by the media round the world". It's not asserting that Kaneko's testimony is true, it's just to say that it has been published around the world. Yes, many people do say that he is a liar, so that can be included in the article too. It's just that that has to be properly sourced too, and the linked blog isn't a proper source. It's simple as that, Ikeda.Phonemonkey 14:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ikedanobuo, your opinion on the validity of Kaneko's testimony is as irrelevant as ours can be. The fact is he testified about rapes done by the shôwa army and neither you or I were there. In a trial, you can prove a fact by either a written or an oral proof but Wikipedia is not a trial. Kaneko's testimony is not valid on Wikipedia because it is beyond any doubt but because he said so. If you have other proof that Kaneko is a liar, just put the links but that doesn't mean your proof is better that his testimony. --Flying tiger 18:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yoshida's fake confession

The title "Yoshida and Hata" is inappropriate because there was no controversy between them. The fact is that Yoshida made a fake confession and many people doubted it. The first person that found the lie was not Hata but a reporter of the Juje Times. As a result, Yoshida admitted it was a "novel" (the publisher also said so).[2] So the title should be changed as "Yoshida's confession and its disproof." Ikedanobuo 06:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems difficult to find accurate information about Yoshida Seiji and his confessions. I understand he acknowledges that his book is a fictionary contribution, but that it could not have been written had he not had real experiences of the type he describes. It cannot be used as an accurate historical document, obviously, but it may still tell us something about real history in terms of personal experience. Calling it a "lie" and a "fake confession" seems tendentious - fiction is not the same as fake/lying. For it to be called a lie, Yoshida´s main motivation would have to be to hide the truth in order to lead people astray. Do we know that was his main goal? I have looked for interviews with Yoshida, but I cannot find any, possibly because there are none. (Yoshimi Yoshiaki (1995) does not mention Yoshida at all as far as I can see.) Grape 17. april 2007

What is disputed and what is not

Let me sort out the points: as you seem to have agreed, there is no evidence that proves the official order of Japanese Army to abduct comfort women. This is the coercion in the narrow sense according to Abe. There is no dispute among historians about this.

However, there is a controversy about the coercion in the broad sense, that is, violent treatment by commercial contractors and Army officials. An Ianfu was often sold by her parents and owed heavy debt, so she couldn't escape the business. It might look like coercion for her. And the brothels were sometimes set up by the Army. Historian's opinion is not so divided about this point. Hata admits that there were many abuses of human rights, so he joined the AWF. Ianfu were state-regulated prostitutes which can be called as "sex slaves".

The real problem is whether Japanese government should apologize and compensate them or not. Yoshimi insists that Japanese government should compensate the Ianfu for the coercion in the broad sense, but Hata objects against the compensation because the legal penalty is not fined for such indirect responsibility in usual state compensation suits. I second Hata, but various opinion can be argued in this respect. This is much disputed issue.

So you can accuse the Ianfu as sex slaves. But if you do so, you should note that such sex slaves were common practices to almost all the wars until Vietnam. This is not disputed among historians, too. Ikedanobuo 09:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above. As with your claim that sex slaves were common practices to almost all wars until Vietnam, if we are to put this in the article you will need to quote a reliable source which says this.Phonemonkey 13:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the English source, but Hata's book is the most extensive study of such systems as far as I know. Yoshimi's book (translated into English) partly treats with this topic. Ikedanobuo 09:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If it is unanimously agreed among historians worldwide that almost all wars before Vietnam featured sex slaves, as you claim, then surely there must be hundreds of online English sources you can quote instead of going back to your Hata's Holy Scripture. Good luck finding them. Phonemonkey 13:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
There are many books on the "sexual violence under the war".[http://www.amazon.com/Against-Our-Will-Women-Rape/dp/0449908208][http://www.amazon.com/WOMEN-Creating-World-Beyond-Violence/dp/9657204003][http://www.amazon.com/Women-Civil-Battlefront-Modern-Studies/dp/0700614370]. Indeed sex slaves are ubiquitous. Blaming Japanese Army without reflecting western Army's crimes is hypocrisy. Ikedanobuo 15:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is about Japan's comfort women, so it's going to be about Japan. Sexual slavery elsewhere doesn't come under the scope of this article. Suffice to post a link in the "see also" section to articles such as Łapanka. The first two books you cited above seems to be about sexual violence (ubiquitous during war, of course), not sexual slavery. The third one isn't even about sexual violence, it's about women's miliary contribution to the American Civil War, so it's only relevant as far as having the words "woman" and "war" in the title. Phonemonkey 20:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The Netherlands were occupied in Europe by Germany and in the Pacific by Japan. During the German occupation of Western Europe, nothing comparable to the Japanese comfort women has been documented. As far as I know there has been forced prostitution in army brothels during the German occupation of Eastern Europe. The sweeping statement that sexual slavery is inherent in all military conflicts is not even correct for the single case of Nazi Germany. It might also do injustice to the Japanese army before 1930. Up to then, the Japanese army's treatment of POW's was
    ISBN 90 6718 203 6. exemplary {{cite book}}: External link in |publisher= (help
    ) and there was no system of 'comfort women'.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sex slaves employed by the U.S. Army

Japanese government set up "Iansho" (comfort station) with the request of the U.S. Army after WW2 by Recreation and Amusement Association, and Korean Army set up "Koteishiki Iansho"[27] for their Army and U.S. Army during Korean War. (Yes, it's different from RAA but the same "Iansho" in Japanese). And, as I said, U.S. Army employed sex slaves during Vietnam War. In particular, the "comfort girls" employed by RAA was called "Ianfu" in Japanese, so this article should include RAA.

Prof. Hata suggests that, if the U.S. Congress blames Japan for sex slaves, Japanese government had better remind them that the U.S. Army also employed sex slaves.[28] So if you call the Ianfu "sex slaves", it's fair to cite the same systems by the U.S and Korea. But I recommend you not to use such sensational expression that makes readers to doubt Wikipedia's neutrality. Ikedanobuo 07:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It is similar to Holocaust revisionist's claim that U.S. should apologize for bombing Berlin and Dresden in Germany.220.76.64.71 10:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There was not a single Japanese victim who testimonied that she was forced to work in RAA in occupied Japan(1945-1952). Moreover, RAA was established by Japanese government, so Japanese government should apologize to many Japanese women who worked there.220.76.64.71 10:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Stop saying nonsense about "revisionist", anonymous coward. Holocaust and bombing are completely different, but RAA employed the "Ianfu", the title of this article. And pick up a testimony of the Ianfu who says she was forced into brothels by the Army. In fact, there is no credible testimony of such claim. If Japanese government should be accused of setting up brothels with the request of the U.S. Army aftre the war, you should accuse the private contractors who set up brothels with the request of Japanese Army during the war. You show how low Wikipedia's standard can degrade if anonymous IP is allowed. Ikedanobuo 11:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Will you do anything if I request you to commit a crime? Responsibility resides on you. RAA was not created by US Army, but created by Japanese government. Moreover, there was no coercion. Period. Don't you understand plain English?220.76.64.71 11:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Laughable. By the same logic, Japanese Army is immune even if its contractors committed crimes by its request. And show me the proof of coercion by Japanese Army during WW2. Ikedanobuo 14:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
At least, US soldiers paid Japanese
Japanese military yen which was worth nothing by declaration by Japanese government.Enola Gay in Hiroshima
08:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Congressional debate

The section about U.S. congress resolution is defective.It lacks the link.[29] Its sponsor was not HONDA but Michael M. Honda. And the latter sentence is not grammatical. I added "However, Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs

Taro Aso dismissed it "definitely not based on facts"[30]" but it was deleted . Why? Is it inconvenient to make the article neutral? Ikedanobuo
11:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That section is poorly written and uninformative. It needs to be re-written and expanded, and Aso's reaction should certainly be included. I also suggest merging it with the Abe section underneath because those two recent developments are linked. Please list any suggestions below. Also, please learn to control your gob - even when you actually make a valid point, by cloaking it behind childishly obnoxious language you're only embarrassing and undermining yourself. Phonemonkey 13:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yen vs. Military yen :Comfort women were paid with
Japanese military yen
(forced military paper which was worth nothing)

There should be no confusion between

Japanese military yen
.
Japanese military yen
 are not exchangeable. When Japanese army confisticated goods or services in occupied area, they just handed out military yen note which was worth toilet paper. Imperial Japanese government circulated vast amount of military yen notes which was not accetable inside Japan proper to extort labors and services for free in occupied areas and also to protect Japanese economy.

Those in occupied area didnot have freedom to refuse military yen note from Japanese soldiers. If they refused, what could you expect except bayonet or bullet?

I think that this very clever and convenient system prevented economic collapse of Japan after WWII since Japanese government refused to pay for vast amount of Japanese military yen.

In short, Japanese Army enjoyed everything for free in occupied areas220.76.64.71 13:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The followings are from an article about

Japanese military yen in Wikipedia.[[31]
]

"Since the military yen was not backed by gold, and did not have a specific place of issuance, the military yen could not be exchanged for Japanese yen. Forcing local populations to use the military yen officially was one of the ways the Japanese government could dominate the local economies. ... On 6 September 1945, the Japanese Ministry of Finance announced that all military yen became void. Overnight the military yen literally became useless pieces of paper."220.76.64.71 14:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • You are misunderstanding about Japanese military yen. They had availableness and had purchase before 1945.9. And they were able to convert to "Japanese Yen", before the 1945.9, although many problems were there in this issue after Japnese defeat in the war. It was a material of the same nature as Allied Military Currency which U.S. issued in World War II.Tropicaljet 08:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You are misunderstnading basic economics 101. Value of certain currency depends on the credibility of the issuing entity. I don't think that Japanese Army had the same level of credibility of Allied forces. Would you exchange your US dollar with North Korean curreny according to official exchange rate set by North Korean government? They had availableness and had purchase. And they were able to convert to "US dollar". If you do, you become a beggar128.134.207.82 08:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You are misunderstandeing what I said. I said only that it was a material of the same nature as Allied Military Currency which U.S. issued in World War II, not that it had same value. The Japanese military yen could be exchanged to Japanese yen, that,s all. Tropicaljet 08:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Japanese yen was in short supply in occupied area. It is similar to this kind of ad "I'll sell my Ipod for 10 cents, but currently out of stock"
  • Of cause, Japanese yen was in short supply in occupied area, so they issued Japanese military yen in the area. Complexion of the war was unpredictable, so Japanese Army issued it in a flexible and impromptu manner. It was same to Allied Military Currency which U.S. issued in World War II. Tropicaljet 09:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said there was huge difference between Japanese Imperial Army's credibility and US Army's credibility. Do you think that North Korean government and US government have the same credibility? Check Moodys, there are huge differences among dirfferent countries
  • According to basic economics 101, when
    Japanese military yen, devaluation ensued.128.134.207.82
    10:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Credibility of recent testimonies made by former comfort women

There are several cases where the recent testimonies made by former comfort women are untrue or contradicting themselves. "The Horrible History of the "Comfort Women" and the Fight to Suppress Their Story", George Mason Univ. History News Network, Aug 1, 2005, by Yoshiko Nozaki

  • "For example, a woman testified that she had been forced to work in a military comfort facility in the late 1930s in Japan, but since no military comfort facilities are known to have existed inside Japan at that time, Yoshimi holds that it is difficult to take this particular testimony at face value."
  • "In another example, a former comfort woman gave contradictory accounts—on one occasion, she stated that she had been taken by force, but on another occasion, she stated she had accepted the job to earn money."61.24.66.192 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This may not be of great credibility but worth some attention. Minute of Cabinet Committee, House of Representatives, Parliament of Japan, Feb 21, 2007 (Japanese) Committee Member Mr. Matsubara: "In July of 2003, Japanese government interviewed with 16 of former (Korean) comfort women. It was a closed interview. There are 4 collections of testimonies made by 26 former comfort women including the 16 above. Of these 26 women, 8 women testified they were captured by force of government. Of these 8 women, 2 women were found incredible since their testimonies contradict their former testimonies. 4 women were found unworthy of further research, even by Korean researches, since their stories did not make sense. The remaining 2 were supposed to have been prostitutes before they became comfort women."61.24.66.192 14:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On February 15, 2007, two Korean and one Dutch former comfort women testified at the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment, Committee on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives.
Ms. Lee Yong-soo testified as follows. [32]
"In the autumn of 1944, when I was 16 years old, my friend, Kim Punsun, and I were collecting shellfish at the riverside when we noticed an elderly man and a Japanese man looking down at us form the hillside. The older man pointed at us with his finger, and the Japanese man started to walk towards us. The older man disappeared, and the Japanese beckoned to us to follow him. I was scared and ran away, not caring about what happened to my friend. A few days later, Punsun knocked on my window early in the morning, and whispered to me to follow her quietly. I tip-toed out of the house after her. I lift without telling my mother. I was wearing a dark skirt, a long cotton blouse buttoned up at the front and slippers on my feet. I followed my friend until we met the same man who had tried to approach us on the riverbank. He looked as if he was in his late thirties and he wore a sort of People’s Army uniform with a combat cap. Altogether, there were five girls with him, including myself."
However, she used to say as follows. [33]cache
"Lee Yong-soo, 78, a South Korean who was interviewed during a recent trip to Tokyo, said she was 14 when Japanese soldiers took her from her home in 1944 to work as a sex slave in Taiwan."
Did she sneak out of her house, or did Japanese soldiers take her from her home?
  • The first testimony seems OK. The second is not a testimony, but the writing of a reporter. If you do the math, you can see for yourself that this reporter is doing a bad job. That being established, it can hardly serve as an indication that something is wrong with the testimony.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 22:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
So, you say CNN is not reliable. That is fine, but think of the damage the CNN report caused to Japan. There are only two possibilities. The CNN reporter concocted a story or Ms. Lee Yong-soo told lies to the reporter. It is most likely that the latter is the case. If so, how can anyone say that a person told lies to CNN reporter would not tell lies to the US Congress?61.24.93.119 14:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not say that CNN is not reliable (that would be a sweeping statement). I would say that CNN is not infallible. There are in fact at least two other possibilities: there was a problem with translation or there was a misunderstanding. We have seen some of those writing on this article, haven't we? I have stated elsewhere on this page that in my opinion news media can be reliable sources for news and current debates, but that I would prefer other sources for historic events. Testimonies before courts and parliamentary commission usually have very professional translation and verbatim reporting. Reporters have to work under time pressure and have a tendency to write with their audience in mind. It is quite possible that for readers outside Japan the testimony before Congress could be summarized "Japanese soldiers took her from her home" (there is no mention of the use of force in either rendition). The journalist formulated his sentence in the third person, without quotes, which in serious media is a clear indication that this is his rendering. By now I am aware that there are readers in Japan for whom the difference between these versions carries great significance. I hope that by now you are aware that on many readers outside Japan these subtle differences are lost, because they adhere to a somewhat more robust standard for attributing responsibility to the Japanese army. That someone contradicts himself or makes a false statement by itself does not justify calling him a lier. Assuming good faith is one of the Wikimedia policies that can be useful in real life as well;-)
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 11:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
One sees what one wants to see. It seems your position in the debate is beginning to blind you. And please remember this is not the place to discuss what responsibility should be attributed to the Japanese army. The credibility issue is worth mentioning.61.24.66.101 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Ms. Kim Koon Ja testified as follows. [34]
"I became an orphan when I was 14 and I was placed in the home of Choi Chul Ji, a colonial police officer. As his “foster child,” I cooked and cleaned for Mr. Choi. I had a boyfriend and we wanted to be married. However, his family objected because I was an orphan. I remember the day that changed my life forever. I was wearing a black skirt, a green shirt, and black shoes. It was March of 1942, and I was 16 years old. I had been sent out of the house by police officer Choi and told that I needed to go and make some money. I found a Korean man wearing a military uniform and he told me that he would send me on an errand and I would be paid for this errand. I followed him and he told me to board a train – a freight car. I did not know where I was going but I saw seven other young girls and another man in a military uniform on this freight train."
However, she used to say as follows. [35]
"When war broke out, many Koreans were marrying quickly so not be drafted by Japanese forces. At 17, she also planned to marry her boyfriend, but his parents objected because they could not overcome her background. Not being married, she was unwillingly drafted by Japan as a sex slave and was forced to China. "
Was she drafted by Japan or did her foster father sell her?61.24.93.5 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The first testimony seems OK. The second is not a testimony, but the writing of a reporter in which nothing is stated that clearly contradicts the testimony. Neither text suggests that her foster father sold her.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 22:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The point here is whether she was drafted by Japan or not. The government of Korea loudly accused government of Japan, based on these testimonies, that Japan drafted young Korean girls as comfort women. Behold. She did not mention "draft" at the US Congressional hearing. If so, what was the basis of the accusation by the Korean Government? Her Congressional testimony does not mention any coercion by Japanese military in recruitment process, which is in line with what Prime Minister Abe said.61.24.93.119 14:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If we want to discredit the statements of politicians, let's do so. The header of this section suggested that there was something wrong with the statements of the survivors. That appears not to be the case.
After presenting what has happened, the article should of course also mention legal en political consequences. What is the source for the exact accusation by the Korean government? And on the legal aspect, is the following a correct illustration of the different perspectives involved? In Holland, if you are bitten by my dog, I am liable for damages, just because it's my dog. In Japan, for me to be liable you would have to prove that I specifically ordered the dog to bite you.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 21:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This is propaganda on the web page of South Korean Government.[36] You can see a big headline The Korean Council for the Women drafted for Sexual Slavery by Japan. Whereas, there was no Korean women drafted for sexual slavery by Japan.
I do not understand your dog example. As to legal responsibility, see San Francisco peace treaty.61.24.65.203 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the links. My impression is that the second link refers to a non-governmental organization. The first one states under the heading Comfort women abduction:
Based on testimonies by victims registered with the Korean Government and related documents of the Japanese government, comfort women were mobilized through various means including cheating as job opportunities, violence, threats, recruitment into Jeongshindae and Bogukdae. Other measures such as kidnapping, abduction and human trade were used also. Regardless of mobilization methods, the female victims did not know they were headed to military comfort stations. Since they were all mobilized under strict surveillance, we can safely say that they were all forcibly taken.
This text seems to be carefully formulated, but it is also subtly vague, as political documents often are. In fact it says nowhere explicitly that women were drafted; its final conclusion relies heavily on what would be called coercion in the wider sense in Japan. The text gives no clear reference to any case of a Korean woman forcefully being abducted by the Japanese army. I dont't speak Korean and I have not made a comprehensive study of Korean sources so I can not say what evidence exists for such cases. But if the opposite statement is generalized ('there are no sources for the Japanese army forcefully abducting women to comfort stations'), I can present reliable Dutch sources to refute it.
As for the question of liability, I already understood the argument that the peace treaties concluded have exhausted the rights of citizens of the nations involved to claim reparations. But I am puzzled by the significance that some give to (absence of) coercion in the narrow sense. If this is not a legal, but a moral question, I still would appreciate some clarification on the reasoning involved.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 10:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


There is a former comfort woman in Holland who was interviewed by a leading Dutch newspaper on how she was abducted by the Japanese Army and how this memory haunts her: Always that knock on the door again (in Dutch). Although she explicitly states there are things she simply cannot remember, several facts she mentions are documented in

ISBN 90 6718 203 6. {{cite book}}: External link in |publisher= (help
) ♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 22:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Working conditions of Comfort Women

To know the reality of the comfort women's working conditions, I hope everyone here would read the report "Amenities in the Japanese Armed Forces" written by Allied Forces in 1945, which is collected in the "Compilation of Government-collected Documentary Materials Relating to Wartime Comfort Women, Volume 5" published by Asia Women's Fund. First half of the compilation is in Japanese, but don't panic. The latter half is in English, though the pages go backward. The report starts with page 192, goes backward and ends on page 164. The report describes what military brothels were like and how women were treated. It also contains the list of comfort stations (or "house of relaxation") in Manila, which shows the number of comfort women and the owner of each "house of relaxation" as well as ratings and comments by Medical Inspector of Japanese Military Police in Manila. 61.24.66.192 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hwang Geum Joo et al. v. Japan

HWANG GEUM JOO and 14 former comfort women filed a class action law suit to a Federal Court of the United States against the Government of Japan seeking compensation for the suffer they endured as comfort women. The case was eventually dismissed because the court found it nonjusticiable based on "Political Question Doctrine", saying;

Article 14 of the 1951 Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Allied Powers, 3 U.S.T. 3169, “expressly waives ... ‘all claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war.’” 332 F.3d at 685.

Article 26 of the Treaty obligated Japan to enter “bilateral” peace treaties with non-Allied states “on the same or substantially the same terms as are provided for in the present treaty,” which indicates the Allied Powers expected Japan to resolve other states’ claims, like their own, through government-to-government agreement.

Japan has long since signed a peace treaty with each of the countries from which the appellants come. The appellants maintain those treaties preserved, and Japan maintains they extinguished, war claims made by citizens of those countries against Japan.

The question whether the war-related claims of foreign nationals were extinguished when the governments of their countries entered into peace treaties with Japan is one that concerns the United States only with respect to her foreign relations, the authority for which is demonstrably committed by our Constitution not to the courts but to the political branches, with “the President [having] the ‘lead role.’” Garamendi, 539 U.S. at 423 n.12.



Confusion with labor corps (挺身隊 teishintai(Japanese), Jeongshindae(Korean))

There has been a deep rooted and wide spread rumor in Korea that women joined labor corps (teishintai(Japanese), Jeongshindae(Korean)) were made comfort women. AWF report page 14

When a campaign for girls to join a girls volunteer labor corps (during the war, girls were mobilized to work at factories mostly munition industries) was launched in Korea in 1943, toward the end of the war period, the rumor spread that corps members would be forced to become comfort women. The Governor-General’s office denied the rumors, saying they were being spread maliciously and intentionally without foundation, but this only caused people to believe the rumors even more.

In 1999, five Korean former labor corps members filed a law suit to Nagoya district court in Japan against Government of Japan and former employer Mitsubishi Heavy Industry, demanding compensation, among other things, for hardship caused by misunderstanding of South Korean people that labor corps members were made comfort women due to lack of advertisement by the defendants that labor corps members were not comfort women. Nagoya District Court Case No.:H11(wa)764, Judgment; Feb. 24, 2005

The law suit was later joined by 3 more Korean former labor corps members. The plaintiffs worked at Mitsubishi Heavy Industry’s Nagoya air plane factory. One of the plaintiffs testified as follows. (Identities of plaintiffs were not disclosed in published judgment.)

Plaintiff A: (After the war ended, she went back to her home in Korea.)

At that time, labor corps was misunderstood as comfort women. Once people knew that I worked in Japan as labor corps member, I would not be able to get married. I did not tell my husband that I was a labor corps member before marriage and kept it secret to both my husband and my children during the marriage. After my children became adults, I confessed that I had worked as a labor corps member. Although my children understood my confession, my husband would not believe the fact that labor corps members were not comfort women. He left our home. In October of 1994, we were divorced.

The South Korean Government still advertises that labor corps were comfort women in its web pages as follows. [37]

In Korea the term 'Jeongshindae' was used mostly in place of the Japanese Military comfort women prior to 1990s.

Some girls were mobilized as labor Jeongshindae members through schools and public offices then later turned over as comfort women.,

61.24.93.5 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaflets telling of the capture of the "comfort girls" endanger the lives of other girls if the [Japanese] Army knew of their capture?

Captured "comfort girls" were definitely afraid that Japanese soldiers might kill other "comfort girls" still staying in Japanese Army if the news of their capture were known to them. They were highly paid. However, their lives were threatened by minor offenses even by others.220.76.64.71 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not desirable. In the report, a low evaluation to their intellect and character exists. She was Korean people though they were Japanese. Because they were cheated and gathered, it is doubtful that their Japanese had developed enough. Therefore, their imagination is not limited based on correct understanding to a Japanese army. Elementy 18:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"REQUESTS ... They asked that leaflets telling of the capture of the "comfort girls" should not be used for it would endanger the lives of other girls if the Army knew of their capture. ..." in the UNITED STATES OFFICE OF WAR INFORMATION Psychological Warfare Team Attached to U.S. Army Forces India-Burma Theater APO 689 (Date of Report: October 1, 1944") [38]

As stated already, with regards to "why these 20 captured "comfort girls" were worrying about the lives of other girls" this is just a question you persoally raised from your interpretation of a primary source, and is against Wikipedia:No_original_research. User Elementy's response is the same. If you want to continue bickering with one another about this topic please go and find an appropriate web forum.Phonemonkey 22:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

End of Asian Women's Fund

According to the final newsletter from Asian Women's Fund (written in Japanese), that organization will dissolve on March 31th, 2007, because its "Atonement Project" will end. AWF is preparing a new memorial web site in the site of Web Archive Project by National Diet Library of Japan. The domain name AWF.OR.JP may be gone away. --NobuoSakiyama 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Japanese government insisted the Ianfu was not business in American court

You can quote this WSJ article[39], although it needs reservation.[40] Ikedanobuo 00:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Philippine wartime sex slaves call Japanese prime minister 'liar' for denying evidence

Philippine wartime sex slaves call Japanese prime minister 'liar' for denying evidence--Yeahsoo 00:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's no evidence of government coercion even if they were "raped". What is at issue is whether such activities were official order of the Army or personal sexual abuses. Abe said there was no official order of coercion, to which all historians agree. And it seems you don't know how to post comments in Wikipedia. Preview before posting and correct your comment. Ikedanobuo 01:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
To be more precise, there is no evidence of an official order. Oh and just for the record for other readers, what Ikedanobuo is referring to when he arrogantly accuses Yeahsoo of not knowing how to post comments in Wikipedia, is the fact that Yeahsoo accidentally mis-typed a few "=" and "[" in his comment (which I just deleted, something which took 0.2 seconds). Phonemonkey 01:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Similarities between Holocaust revisionists and Japanese revisionists

"However despite many years of investigating the documentation the third reich were so thorough in producing, there has never been any written proof that any order was given by Hitler at this or any other meeting or conference.

Arguments that no documentation links Hitler to "the Holocaust" ignore the records of his speeches kept by Nazi leaders such as Joseph Goebbels and rely on artificially limiting the Holocaust to exclude what we do have documentation on, such as the T-4 Euthanasia Program and the Kristallnacht pogrom." quoted from Holocaust article in Wikipedia.

Japanese revisionists keep saying that there is no official hard document to prove the accusation. 128.134.207.82 03:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop saying obsolete nonsense. Such kind of argument was made by left-wing commentators ten years ago, but historians like Hata rejected it.[3] There are many testimonies of Holocaust by Nazi officers, but there is no testimony of abduction by Japanese Army except that by Yoshida and Kaneko, liars. Even Kaneko didn't say there was Army's abduction. Ikedanobuo 04:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that testimonies by Nazi officers are reliable? Holocaust revisionists will not be happy with your comment. They need hard written evidence to prove that Holocaust was officially ordered by German government.128.134.207.82 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't let me repeat. There is no testimony by Japanese Army officials except for liars. Do you understand? Ikedanobuo 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't let me repeat. Holocaust revisionists would also claim that those who testimonied are liars. There seems no diffrence between Holocaust revisionists and Japanese revisionists. Can't you understand?220.76.64.71 08:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
As discussed above, Yoshida admitted he lied. Kaneko in fact didn't say he abducted Ianfu. In sum, there is no testimony, period. Can't you understand such plain English? Ikedanobuo 08:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Prof. Hata borrows a lot of rationale from Holocaust revisionists.

Prof. Hata suggests that, if the U.S. Congress blames Japan for sex slaves, Japanese government had better remind them that the U.S. Army also employed sex slaves.
However, there was not a single Japanese victim who testimonied that she was forced to work in RAA in occupied Japan(1945-1952). Moreover, RAA was established by Japanese government, so Japanese government should apologize to many Japanese women who worked there.
It is similar to Holocaust revisionist's claim that U.S. should apologize for bombing Berlin and Dresden in Germany.220.76.64.71 10:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't insult respected historian. Did you read his article? Ikedanobuo 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with Hata's claim that comfort women's life was almost the same as the state-regulated prostitutes in Japan. The state-regulated prostitutes in Japan was paid
Japanese military yen which Japanese government declared void.220.76.64.71
16:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries: Austria (article 3h Verbotsgesetz 1947), Belgium (Belgian Negationism Law), the Czech Republic under section 261, France (Loi Gayssot), Germany (§ 130 (3) of the penal code) also the Auschwitzlüge law section 185, Lithuania, The Netherlands under articles 137c and 137e, Poland, Romania, Slovakia,and Switzerland (article 261bis of the Penal Code). In addition, under Law 5710-1950 it is also illegal in Israel.

However, sadly, Japanese war crime denial is not illegal in Japan.220.76.64.71 10:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a big yellow box at the top of this page which says that the purpose of this page is to discuss how to make edits to the comfort woman article. If you want to publicise your personal opinion on free speech then please do so elsewhere. Phonemonkey 12:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I intend to stay here as long as User Ikedanobuo "the Wiki rule ignorer" stays.220.76.64.71 14:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Why? Does that do you any good? Please do not disturb editing efforts here.61.24.66.192 14:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Stay here by all means but keep to the topic and stick to the guidelines yourself, otherwise you're no better than Ikeda. Phonemonkey 20:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


User Ikedanobuo

Unbelievably, this user has stated above that: " I am not interested in the local rule of Wikipedia that has no legal force, as I explained in my blog. I stick to the rational rule of common sense and the hard facts.". I question the usefulness of discussing edits about a Wikipedia article with an individual who has publically declared that he has no interest in keeping to Wikipedia policy. I also invite Ikeda to explain the reason why he believes he is above Wikipedia policy. Phonemonkey 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't make the same section again. You have already section 52. Delete this section (icluding this comment) Ikedanobuo 13:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Why should he delete it? Please answer Phonemonkey's question instead. Mackan 13:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Ikeda, Can you also explain how RAA(1945-1946) and Korean war(1950-1953) end up in the same period? You stated that: "In addition to the RAA in Korean war, American Army set up sites for prostitution and committed "state rape" in the Vietnam War."220.76.64.71 14:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The followings are from Wikepedia article for Recreation and Amusement Association, "The Recreation and Amusement Association (RAA, 特殊慰安施設協会), the official euphemism for the prostitution centers arranged for occupying U.S. armed forces by the Japanese Government after World War II was created on August 28, 1945 by the Japanese Home Ministry ... In January 1946, the RAA was terminated by an order to cease all "public" prostitution."220.76.64.71 14:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Astonishingly, he never listens to other's request for explanation for his behavior. He just ignores that kind of requests as if ...

I think Mr Ikeda Nobuo should start his own enterprise, www.ikedanobuopedia.com, in which he can apply whatever rules he likes.218.153.90.29 04:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

About 60 years ago Japanese government claimed stubbornly that all Asians should be governed under the gracious umbrella of great "Tenno" Japanese emperor. Finally that grandeurism ended up in millions of innocent civilian deaths including Hiroshima and Nagasaki.218.153.90.29 04:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


I bet User Ikedanobuo is a double agent working for countries hostile to Japan, perhaps North Korea. He is really trying to make Japan look ugly. P.S Don't take my words too seriously. 220.76.64.71 12:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

220.76.64.71, You are really trying to make South Korean look ugly. Why?Teates 16:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This user:Ikedanobuo started vandalizing again.Enola Gay in Hiroshima 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


I kept thinking that User Ikedanobou was a smalltime rightwing troll, but he seems to be Prof. at Jobu U [[41]] 上武大学大学院客員教授 and 株式会社ITNY 代表取締役. I am rather surprised that he is not concerned about his reputation, but i guess he thinks 'patriotism' justifies any kind of behavior. Still there are comments on his blog that question what he's doing... There are reputable professors who make the scientifically most outrageous assertions in their publications (eg. the ban on whaling is a conspiracy to destroy japanese traditional culture) but it gets published because it is seen as protecting the common japanese interest (which it isnt because empty oceans hurt everyone). It also seems that Mr. ikeda knows wikipedia founder jimmy wales personally, as he recently organized a symposium with him at NHK [[42]]. Several parts of his blog are dedicated to fighting 'anti-japanese bias' (there is plenty of it in the US media, to be sure but he seems to go over the top a lot), though most of it deals with issues of new media, IT policy, things like that.http://blog.goo.ne.jp/ikedanobuo The wikipedia comfort women wars entry on 'Ikeda sensei's' blog http://blog.goo.ne.jp/ikedanobuo/e/21c5fbe4e840d266d682e16ed2815d6a 'on wikipedia governance': http://blog.goo.ne.jp/ikedanobuo/e/767af1e9429731aea46b3c1fa50925a3 other related: http://blog.goo.ne.jp/ikedanobuo/e/f9935362b328c8971c0ca365a8eaf285

none of this means what he is doing here on this page and the article is OK. but i do think the problem is that this keeps being cast as an issue of national pride, when it could and should better be framed as an issue of violence against women. most importantly, we need to establish what are reliable sources and what are not. it is possible to figure out what is going on by properly citing. Crabclaw 12:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Crabclaw, before assuming that the professor at Jobu University really is the same person as User:Ikedanobuo, the former should confirm this. As I don't speak Japanese, it is not possible for me to ask for this confirmation. It is not difficult to assume someone elses name on Wikipedia; this is however forbidden.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Stuart LaJoie, I think we can be fairly sure that Ikeda Nobuo is the actual professor Ikeda, as he mentioned the symposium with Wales on this page as well as on his private blog (from where he also canvassed this article) before the event. Not that it is entirely relevant though, as he isn't a professor in history. Mackan 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's flawed governance

This is a summary of an article to be published in a magazine next month in Japan: Wikipedia's governance mechanism is seriously flawed in following respects:

  1. Too lax membership: especially it is problematic to allow anonymous IP address, because anybody can "free ride" and "hit and run". If they are prevented from writing, they can write as another IP.
  2. No enforcement: it defines its local rules, but editors don't have to follow them because there is no enforcement. Banning an ID can't be effective for the reason as above.
  3. Formalism without substance: Wikipedia bases its reliability on the procedure of reference and the validity of "reliable sources". But such formalism doesn't work if it is proved that the "reliable" sources are in fact wrong, as in this article's case.

You seem to believe in the local rule of Wikipedia, but many others (including me) don't. If Wikipedia wants to enforce the rule, it should make the authentication process stricter. The lax membership might have been effective when Wikipedia needs more editors, but now it has too many editors. It should focus on quality than quantity.

Wikipedia's "legal positivism" that depends on the formal procedure doesn't work for such pathological case as this article. Western media are unanimously wrong because they depend on the report by the Asahi Shimbun and the statement by Japanese government more than ten years ago, but now the Asahi and the Japanese government implicitly admit they were wrong. Here we should rely on the common law based on common sense and the facts, not the formalism. Ikedanobuo 17:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ikeda, you seem to hate answering questions, so here are some more, just for you. Please enjoy. Hugs and kisses.
  • "such formalism doesn't work if it is proved that the reliable sources are in fact wrong, as in this article's case". Proved by who? And more importantly, who decides that it has been proved? You? The Pope? The Jedi Council?
  • What lead you to believe that this a discussion forum for posting your thoughts on the way Wikipedia works? Was the big yellow box at the top of the page which states "this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comfort women article - this is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject" not big enough for you? Do you really think that posting the above on this page would actually lead to changes?
  • You asserted to me, very obnoxiously, that "The article in Wikipedia says that RAA employed prostitutes for American soldiers in the Korean War". Sorry to bring this up again, but I still can't find where in the
    WP:ATT. --ElKevbo
    21:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Guys, have you seen the movie 'Red Corner'? Richard Gere is a TV exective whose business trip to China turned out to be a nightmare. he finds himself framed for a murder, convicted and now faces a death sentence in a China's court. Once trapped in a legal system of a foreign country, his innocence will be next to impossible to prove. That is the way Japanese readers of this article and talk page should feel. 1) Even if you know a truth, 2) that truth has to be 'proven' in terms of a set of foreign rules posed upon you. 3) The closer you look at these foreign rules, the more you are convinved that they are not going to let your truth out. 4) Results of your not proving the truth is devastating (in the movie, a beatiful Chinese lawyer help Gere find a way out of capital punishment, but that is a fiction anyway)...
With regard to the issue at hand here, 1) We are exposed to all the documents and discussion on comfort woment written in Japanese and convinced that fuss about '200,000 figure' and 'direct coertion by military force' are far-fetched from the reality, 2) None of them have been translated into Western main-stream media like BBC or NYT, 3) But the 'law' of Wikipedia demands that any piece of evidence be taken from only 'reliable source' written in 'English' and communicated throuh 'Western Media', 4) All English-speaking people, including Americans, who are about to pass a House Resolution to comdemn Japan for coercing 200,000 sex slaves, will believe in this article and start using this against us. And I do not see a beautiful laywer, Chinese or not, but a bunch of editors clamouring for 'Reliable source! Reliable source! Without it you are guilty. That's the way the system works!'
This is what Ikeda calls a 'pathological' case. When the rules get this rough, you better be tough on the rules, not compliant with them. That's why he started his attack on 'local' Wiki rules. Now it is *your* turn to pick the role for you -- Chinese judge who is all about the rules and does not care about the 'unproven' truth, or lawyer who first advises Gere to plead guilty but gradually grows convinced of foul play. Strongaxe 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongaxe, could you imagine that for example a woman in Korea might have a comparable feeling of knowing the truth and experiencing that her truth has to be proven in terms of a set of foreign rules put upon her, etc. in order for you to believe her? To arrive at the truth that concerns many people it is vital to exchange information between everyone involved. When I know something to be true, I see it as my obligation to behave myself in such a way that I might convince other people. Excluding them by telling them that they are whores, western media, communists, revisionists, laughable, liars, not Japanese speaking, left-wing, right-wing, Japan bashers might leave me without an audience. I would have to blame myself for not convincing them and doing a disservice to truth. Wiki works the other way around: everyone is invited, but no one is forced to read this article or to contribute to it. For that reason an article in Wikipedia is not comparable to a legal verdict. It is quite common to show that there are disputes on some issues. This offers a possibility to find out what others are thinking. Which might be useful if I wanted to convince them in the future.
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 03:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Strongaxe. If they can't understand our argument, it's useless to discuss further. But if there should be someone who can, I would add one more point. Last week, in a lecture delivered in Tokyo, Jimmy Wales related Wikipedia's principle with deconstruction, the concept coined by Jacques Derrida. It's very interesting because Derrida argued the problem exemplified by this article: there is no god-like existence who decides what is right or wrong.

In fact, legal positivism was born by such nihilistic philosophy of Hans Kelsen early last century. He said that, since there was no transcendental criterion to prove justice, the justice would be judged by the formal procedure of law. However, he was criticized later (unfairly) because the legal positivism was supported by Nazi: German legal scholars insisted that Nazi's power was legitimate because it had seized power by legitimate procedure.

Here is a similar case: in 1992, the Asahi reported the fake testimony of Yoshida, and Japanese government, pushed by the testimony, apologized in 1993. And when the testimony proved as a lie in 1996, there was no other evidence of military coercion. So the government changed the definition of coercion to the "broad sense". But western media, ignorant of such subtle change, are still repeating the fake truth based on the wrong statement. It's an Orwellian situation: truth is based on a lie, apology is seeking its reason.

It's striking that most of you know nothing about Ianfu. Your argument has no substance except for the misled reports of NYT and BBC. OK, it's Wikipedia's way. Even if you know nothing about something, you can write the encyclopedia about it. That's wonderful for the usual articles about science and technology.

However, this article is different. Wikipedia's legal positivism doesn't work for it, because the truth is outside of the western media's scope. If you read the original sources by Hata and Yoshimi in Japanese, you'll find that the consensus among historians is in fact reached, which is different from that of western media. That's the reason why I told you not to write nonsense without reading the original research, even if it isn't the rule of Wikipedia. We should deconstruct Wikipedia, in Derrida's term. Stick to the substance, not the form. Ikedanobuo 03:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Dear Ikedanobuo. Wikipedia is not about final binding statements. Legal positivism is. I understand that you are looking for such a statement, but it is impossible to get it here. If you like soccer, it is no use to go to a judo match and complain that the ball is missing;-)
  • Yoshida is not the only source showing involvement of the Japanese army in forced prostitution. Beside the case tried in Batavia, other instances during the occupation of what is now Indonesia have been documented by Dutch historians. This is reflected in the report of the Asian Women's Fund, which has been written by Japanese historians.
  • On a final note: as several nations have been involved, it seems probable that some parts of the truth can be found in other countries than Japan, by historians and media that are not Japanese. Would you agree on that?
♥ Stuart LaJoie → overleg 00:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing to add: I don't answer irrelevant questions in the section to attack me. Who should? Especially, I don't answer the questions from anonymous IP because I despise cowards. Ikedanobuo 05:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Then, why don't you answer questions asked by Phonemonkey? Is he anonymous to your eyes?218.153.90.29 06:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
User Ikeda. Wikipedia owes a lot to anonymous users' contributions. Show some respect for them since you benefit in this system. Otherwise, build your own encyclopedia, www.ikedanobuopedia.com.218.153.90.29 06:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Political topic requires editors to show his consistent standpoint, because what are argued isn't absolute truth. And of course WPs don't say editor must welcom every anoymous user. Whether anonymousness can work or not depends on type of topic. lssrt 13:01 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that user Ikedanobuo may be a very clever Japan bahser to spread bad impressions of Japanese around the world. Those Japanese I met in real life were all reasonable and polite.218.153.90.29 07:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Another testimony that Japanese doctors participated in rapes in comfort station

I found this testimony by Ms. Hwang Keun Joo in amnesty international website.[[43]] The pattern of crime is very similar to those described by Ms. Jan Ruff-O'Hearn .218.153.90.29 07:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"I was raped by doctors and high ranking officers, 4-15 times every day. ... I couldn't tell anyone what happened as I was so ashamed, but when I saw Kim Hak-Soon's (the first "comfort woman" who came out) interview, I decided to come out too.
Her correct name seems to be "Hwang Keum-joo" according to this amnesty page.
Is she the same person as Hwang Geum Joo in law suit "Hwang Geum Joo et al v. Japan"?
Also is she the same person as Hwang Kum Ju in UN report?61.24.93.5 18:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

References

The following reference is a useful article from the Japan Times which interviews two Japanese professors on both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, the Japan Times has yet to place the article on their website. But, once this article is unlocked, I'll use it as a source since it neutrally presents both sides of the issue.

  • Nakamura, Akemi (March 20, 2007). "p. 3". Were they teen-rape slaves or paid pros?. Tokyo, Japan: The Japan Times. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cla68 (talk • contribs) 03:36, March 21, 2007

Sources do not have to available online. Print sources are perfectly acceptable. --
Japanese military yen
.
Japanese military yen
 are not exchangeable. When Japanese army confisticated goods or services in occupied area, they just handed out military yen note which was worth toilet paper. Imperial Japanese government circulated vast amount of military yen notes which was not accetable inside Japan proper to extort labors and services for free in occupied areas and also to protect Japanese economy.


Those in occupied area didnot have freedom to refuse military yen note from Japanese soldiers. If they refused, what could you expect except bayonet or bullet?

I think that this very clever and convenient system prevented economic collapse of Japan after WWII since Japanese government refused to pay for vast amount of Japanese military yen.

In short, Japanese Army enjoyed everything for free in occupied areas220.76.64.71 13:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The followings are from an article about

Japanese military yen in Wikipedia.[[44]
]

"Since the military yen was not backed by gold, and did not have a specific place of issuance, the military yen could not be exchanged for Japanese yen. Forcing local populations to use the military yen officially was one of the ways the Japanese government could dominate the local economies. ... On 6 September 1945, the Japanese Ministry of Finance announced that all military yen became void. Overnight the military yen literally became useless pieces of paper."220.76.64.71 14:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese government forcibly made Hong Kong residents trade in their Hong Kong Dollars, gold, foreign currencies and various other stocks and shares certificates for Japanese currency and vouchers used by the Japanese army (hereafter referred to as Military Yen) as the only legal curency in Hong Kong. People who were found to be using Hong Kong Dollars or other foreign currencies were severely punished by the Japanese Army some were even executed.[[45]]

The Japanese army evacuated from Hong Kong in the autumn of 1945 and the Military Yen became worthless paper overnight. Many residents were bankrupted and some became beggars while others starved to death. The legacy left many families destroyed, resulting in widows and orphans relying on community assistance to the present day.

During the Hong Kong occupation the Japanese government transported the forcibly exchanged Hong Kong Dollars to Macau to buy material, gold, foreign currencies, precious metals, and other coins to ship back to Japan to develop the country.

Hong Kong residents have petitioned the Japanese government for decades for compensation, seeking to exchange the Military Yen for Hong Kong Dollars. The Japanese government however used the San Francisco Peace Treaty as a way to shrug off all their responsibilities.[[46]

Comfort women/Archive 2
日本軍用手票 (in Chinese) (in Japanese)
Unit
Ministry of War of Japan

Enola Gay in Hiroshima

23:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you actually want to be taken seriously, you may do your own credibility a great deal of good if you'd 1) actually suggested how we should edit the article instead of just posting a little personal essay, and ) thought of choosing a less offensive username. Phonemonkey 00:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Phonemonky. I don't understand why you think that my username is offensive. My username was blessed as a golden opportunity by the chief Cabinet secretary of Japan in 1945. Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." How dare you disgrace Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945? [[47]]Enola Gay in Hiroshima 02:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Only fragments are collected and it has not been approved neatly as an whole image. I want you to refer because it wrote the basis at "16:01, 22 March 2007" in contents finding 67 "How much worth is "1 yen military note" in a wartime economy system in occupied areas controlled by Japanese military totalitarian government ?". Elementy 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • >Enola Gay in Hiroshima. You are misunderstanding about Japanese military yen. They had availableness and had purchase before 1945.9. And they were able to convert to "Japanese Yen", before the 1945.9, although many problems were there in this issue after Japnese defeat in the war. It was a material of the same nature as Allied Military Currency which U.S. issued in World War II. Tropicaljet 08:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Value of certain currency depends on the credibility if the issuing entity. I don't think that Japanese Army had the same level of credibility of Allied forces. Would you exchange your dollar with North Korean curreny according to official exchange rate set by North Korean government? If you do, you will become a beggar128.134.207.82 08:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You are misunderstandeing what I said. I said only that it was a material of the same nature as Allied Military Currency which U.S. issued in World War II, not that it had same value. The Japanese military yen could be exchanged to Japanese yen, that's all.Tropicaljet 09:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Japanese yen was in short supply in occupied area. It is similar to this kind of ad "I'll sell my Ipod for 10 cents, but currently out of stock"
  • Of cause, Japanese yen was in short supply in occupied area, so they issued Japanese military yen in the area. Complexion of the war was unpredictable, so Japanese Army issued it in a flexible and impromptu manner. It was same to Allied Military Currency which U.S. issued in World War II. Tropicaljet 09:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said there was huge difference between Japanese Imperial Army's credibility and US Army's credibility. Do you think that North Korean government and US government have the same credibility? Check Moodys, there are huge differences among dirfferent countries
  • According to basic economics 101, when
    Japanese military yen, devaluation ensued.128.134.207.82
    10:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Conclusions of Prof. Hata and Yoshimi

Their opinions aren't so different. From Hata's book "Gendaishi no taiketsu" (Bungei Shunju), Hata summarizes his research as

  1. The number of Ianfu was between 10,000 and 20,000.
  2. The majority was Japanese.
  3. Their life was almost the same as the state-regulated prostitutes in Japan.
  4. There was no organized abduction.
  5. Such kind of brothels are common to the Armies of many countries during WW2.

On the other hand, Yoshimi ("Jugun Ianfu" Iwanami Shoten) concludes

  1. The number was between 50,000 and 200,000
  2. The majority was Korean.
  3. Most of them were prostitutes, but there was coercion inside brothels.
  4. There was no evidence of abduction, but indirect coercion was found.
  5. Military brothels are common, but it doesn't justify that of Japan.

They agree that Ianfu were commercial prostitutes and that there was no military abduction. So the consensus of western media is much different from that of Japanese historians. Ikedanobuo 15:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I do't agree with Hata's claim. The state-regulated prostitutes in Japan was paid
Japanese military yen which Japanese government declared void.Enola Gay in Hiroshima 02:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The Japan Times interviewed Hata and Yoshimi.[48] You can see that their points of view are not so different. This consensus would be the basis for the article. Ikedanobuo

04:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The JT article says Yoshimi "explicitly refers to them as sex slaves....the military forced them into sexual slavery, imprisoning them in brothels....they did not have freedom to leave or refuse sex with soldiers". This isn't the definition of "commercial prostitution" as you put it. However, I agree that the article could form a very useful basis upon which we put together a picture of the controversy in this article, so thank you for the link.
ISBN 0-231-12032-X. Ikedanobuo 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If someone forcibly taken to a brothel isn't a sex slave, then I don't know who is. Would you care to elaborate? Phonemonkey 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It was not the Army officials but contractors that kidnapped women. There is an evidence that a contractor kidnapped women in Wakayama, Japan. He was punished by the Army. You can call the women sex slaves if you like, but by such definition, many prostitutes in the world history were sex slaves. What is at issue is not such semantic problem but whether Japanese Army kidnapped them (coercion in the narrow sense). I explained the definition of the "coercion" in section 78. Ikedanobuo 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Ikedanobuo 00:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This section is about your summary of Yoshimi and Hata's works, and I was disagreeing with your summary "they both agreed that they were commercial prostitutes". Glad to see we now agree that they can be called sex slaves. Moving on, yes, you're right that one of the crucial issues is the definition of "coersion", and whether the Japanese Army was systematically involved, but we'll continue the discussion about this issue in the relevant section further down. Phonemonkey 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ikeda's summary of Yoshimi's position is rather deceptive and certainly incomplete. One particularly clear articulation of his position can be found on page 23 of the English Translation (2000) of his book on the Comfort Women, ""the military comfort women system was a system of military sexual slavery. This is not because the women were rounded up by such violent means as forcible abduction. There were considerable numbers of those sorts of abductions in China, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific region, but not many instances in the Japanese colonies of Korea and Taiwan. It is not clear whether Japanese policemen or military personnel (as opposed to civilians) did, in fact, round up women by violent means in Korea and Taiwan. If too much emphasis is placed on extreme cases in which officials used violence to gather women, the much larger number of cases of deception and viciousness will be overlooked. The essence of the issue lies in the facts that there was coercion in comfort stations, that minors were pressed into 'service,' and that many women were rounded up by deception or under conditions of debt slavery, whereby they were required to pay back sums advanced against their 'service.' And in colonized areas, the fact that there was a system whereby officials did not do the dirty work but had procurers do it for them is the real issue." Kmlawson

03:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • There are no major contradictions between the findings of Yoshimi, the Kono report and most of the serious sources outside Japan. Then there is Hata who has apparently reached rather different conclusions. His numbers do suggest that he has been looking only at a very limited part of the subject of our article. On this assumption his points could make sense. It is not contrary to other findings that it started out more or less as he describes. The point of our article is that the whole system got way out of hand and there are ample sources showing this. In as far as Hata chooses to ignore such sources, his conclusions become irrelevant for our article because he is dealing with a different subject.
Banana money

This section moved by User:Joie de Vivre