Talk:Comfort women

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeComfort women was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
June 29, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Other non-Asian women?[edit]

The only non-Asian women said to have been used as "comfort women" are Dutch and Australian. This has always puzzled me, since the Japanese also occupied the French and British colonies in South-East Asia (Vietnam, Malaya and so on). Since they evidently had no objection to non-Asian women as such, did they not also abuse French and British women for this purpose? I frankly can't find any evidence that they did, but it still strikes me as improbable. (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  • The difference is probably that in the Dutch East Indies almost all Europeans were put in internment camps, with separate camps for men and women. -- Stuart LaJoie talk2me 00:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Those who abused Dutch were against Japanese laws and punished. It was not done by the government, but by individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki210 (talkcontribs) 00:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Not Neutral; This article is mostly only based on South Korean activists viewpoint[edit]

They keep reverting my edits that are based on evidence including the American government findings without even not knowing about the issue deeply and without even pointing out which part is & how not neutral.
Apart from the 200-400 Dutch women incidents, South Korean activists use this event to proactively encourage the anti-Japanese sentiment around the world and to receive more compensations from Japan.
What's most not neutral is the "estimate number" of the South Korean AND Dutch victims of 200,000, which South Koreans ENGRAVED in the "Peace Statue" even though there is no evidence, which the American government also concluded that there was not.
It is overestimated being 30% of South Korean females at 20-25 years old; which defies math.
If it is 410,000 as stated by Chinese scholar, it is more than 60% of South Korean females at 20-25 years old.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwiki210 (talkcontribs) 00:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Since clearly there is no consensus in favour of your (frankly repugnant) attempt to whitewash mass rape in WW2, you should propose specific cited edits on the talk page, rather than trying to shoehorn vast tracts into the article. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"Japanese military sexual slavery"[edit]

For discussion about alternative article title "Japanese military sexual slavery" on this article, please see User talk:John B123#Special:diff/881758594. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Information icon4.svg As this discussion may now involve other editors, it's probably more appropriate to have the discussion here rather than on my talk page. I have there copied the discussion over to this page. --John B123 (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The NPOV is not political correctness. And please search in google about word "Japanese military sexual slavery". It is one of common name about "comfort women". Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed "Japanese military sexual slavery" is a common name for "comfort women", but common name is a different thing to which means, i.e definition, as used in the text. The cited works used this term in an attempt to distinguish between Volunteer Corps (Jeongsindae) and Comfort Women (wianbu). It did not give it as an overall meaning of "comfort women".
I have absolutely no objection to the phrase being used in the article, but not as what comes across as a definition in the lead section. --John B123 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Please see WP:OTHERNAMES. And commonly the "Japanese military sexual slavery" means "comfort women" only, not "volunteer labour corps". Thanks. --Garam (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Comfort women are part of (and the victims of) Japanese military sexual slavery. They are not the entirety of it, it also includes the people who ran the brothels, the soldiers who used the women etc. The people who ran the brothels were part of Japanese military sexual slavery but that does not make them comfort women. As far as both factual accuracy and WP:OTHERNAMES are concerned, "Comfort women", which means "Japanese military sexual slavery" is incorrect. --John B123 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Then, you means, is "Comfort women or Japanese military sexual slavery" okay? --Garam (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer: "Comfort women (Japanese military sexual slavery) were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army in occupied territories before and during World War II."
From a readabity point of view, that wording is redundant. Jusenkyoguide (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:AT, the article title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. What is this article about?
  • A system of sexual slavery operated during WW-II by the Japanese military
  • The term Comfort Women
  • The practice of sexual slavery by Japan during WW-II
  • The practice of wartime sexual violence by the Japanese military in WW-II
  • Wianbu
  • Jeongsindae (re that term, see [1], [2], etc.)
  • Some or all of the above in some combination of subtopics
This is just a drive-by comment, but it seems to me that the article content is mainly about the first of these, with some of the other topics also covered to some extent. Perhaps a split is in order, with a short summary style overview article summarizing two or more detail articles separately covering individual subtopics more completely. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)