Talk:Comfort women/Archive 2

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,

- 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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. &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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". 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 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 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 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 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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.
 * Outlook of the newspaper


 * Detail
 * 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*

 * Two Comfort women of US soldiers commit suicide Donga Ilbo, 21st July 1945.
 * Comfort women killed by US soldiers Donga Ilbo, 10th, May 1957. --Lulusuke 04:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * There is a reliable source for Japanese historians showing military involvement in the coercion: The “Comfort Women” Issue and the Asian Women’s Fund, Chapter 1, page 8 in particular.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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." 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 19:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The number of comfort women
Internationally, the BBC quotes "200,000 to 300,000" and the Internatioal Commission of Jurists quotes "estimates of historians that 100,000 to 200.000 women.." A UN report "quotes drafting of approximately 200,000 Korean women as military sexual slaves" 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.VAWW-Net won the suit this year and NHK was ordered by Tokyo High Court to pay 2 million yen. )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, 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. 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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.
 * 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 20:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I found the first photo in another place. 'e-Museum for the Victims made by Ministry of Gender Equality and Family of South Korea. The specific picture is captioned 'Bakyeongshim Halmeoni with following subnotes (modified):
 * 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.
 * The site also shows the result of survey of Koreans who claimed to have been comfort women. Out of 176 interviewed, only 9 answered that they worked in service industry (prostitution included) prior to becoming comfort women. By history and conventions of Joseon Dynasty, Kisaeng class was allowed to work as prostitutes. The society was less generous of women except slave class about extramarital relationship following Confucius teachings. To one extreme, women usually in high class, yangban were taught to commit a suicide if they lose their virginity before marriage.
 * It is only logical to suspect Comfort Women recruiters purposely deceived girls of the nature of the job they offered otherwise, they would not have gathered that many girls.
 * An interesting fact to note is that Koreans often confuse military comfort women (종군위안부) and labor force unit of women(근로정신대). Testimonies support that the girls were drafted for labor unit and often transfered to comfort women stations. 'Photo of Oksun Jeong'
 * Unlike Japanese or Caucasian comfort women who serviced limited number of higher ranking officials, Koreans were locked in brothels forced to serve lined up soldiers. None of the former comfort women that I know of were able to get married and had normal lives after they returned to Korea. Oksun Jeong (정옥순), a Korean victim testified that she was tortured and tatooed all over her body when she was caught while attempting to escape.
 * Social background and testimonies support my argument that majority of Koreans girls were coaxed into the brothels and some resistence among girls aggravated the ill treatment of Korean comfort women. (Also I was not able to find the evidence that some Korean women were ever paid both for the service and for the initial payment.)
 * So in my view, this picture will best suit the text mentioning Korean comfort women.--Globite 21:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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")  " . 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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'.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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: ) 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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.


 * Notable development: Japan's PM Shinzo Abe apologises over WWII sex slaves, after earlier raising doubts they were forced.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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.61.24.93.5 16:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is well known in Holland that women and girls were forced (in the most narrow sense of the word) to prostitution by the Japanese military:. Some of these ladies are still alive. In Dutch media the reports have been quite accurate on what Mr. Abe said when. The answer he gave to a member of parliament was tantamount to calling these ladies liers. That is not compatible with an apology. A retreat to the position he took earlier is therefore a notable development.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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. 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)
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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. &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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.&hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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. 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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 . 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)
 * Evidence of coercion can be found in The “Comfort Women” Issue and the Asian Women’s Fund.
 * 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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."
 * 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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")  
 * 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 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 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 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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). 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  and there was no system of 'comfort women'.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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" 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. 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 Recreation and Amusement Association girls with large amount of real money. However, Japanese soldiers paid nothing but bounced check, or 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. 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"" 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 bounced check, that is, Japanese military yen(forced military paper which was worth nothing)
There should be no confusion between Japanese yen and Japanese military yen. Japanese yen and 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.[]

"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 yen was in short supply, the value should go up. when there were abundant supply of 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.
 * "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. 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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;-)
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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.
 * "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.
 * "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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 21:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is propaganda on the web page of South Korean Government. 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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 &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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."


 * Complaint, September 18, 2000
 * Judgment, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, October 4, 2001
 * United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 27, 2003
 * US Supreme Court, Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded, June 14, 2004
 * SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON REMAND FOR AMICUS CURIAE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE, November 23, 2004
 * United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT, June 28, 2005
 * SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: US Supreme Court certiorari denied (U.S., Feb. 21, 2006)61.24.93.5 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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.  "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")  


 * 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 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, although it needs reservation. 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. 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 yen which is fully endorsed by Japanese government. However, those who were coerced in military brothels were paid with 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 [] 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 []. 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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: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. 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.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 RAA it says that, where is it? Phonemonkey 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While this is all very interesting I fail to see how it directly relates to the article at hand. This should be discussed at one of the village pumps, Jimbo's Talk page, or perhaps the Talk page for 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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?
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; 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.[] 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)

Comfort women were paid with bounced check, that is, Japanese military yen(forced military paper which was worth nothing)
There should be no confusion between Japanese yen and Japanese military yen. Japanese yen and 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.[]

"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.[]

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.[

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? []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 yen was in short supply, the value should go up. when there were abundant supply of 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 asThe number of Ianfu was between 10,000 and 20,000.The majority was Japanese.Their life was almost the same as the state-regulated prostitutes in Japan.There was no organized abduction.Such kind of brothels are common to the Armies of many countries during WW2.On the other hand, Yoshimi ("Jugun Ianfu" Iwanami Shoten) concludesThe number was between 50,000 and 200,000The majority was Korean.<li>Most of them were prostitutes, but there was coercion inside brothels.<li>There was no evidence of abduction, but indirect coercion was found.<li>Military brothels are common, but it doesn't justify that of Japan.</ol>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 yen which is fully endorsed by Japanese government. However, those who were coerced in military brothels were paid with 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. 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. Phonemonkey 20:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence you quote is the reporter's misinterpretation, because Yoshimi never said such thing. He said in this article "military knew private agents sometimes cheated, kidnapped, traded or forcibly took some women to frontline brothels." This is the accurate summary of his scholarly work. You can read its English translation, 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.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 22:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese yen vs. Japanese military yen or Banana money
This section moved by User:Joie de Vivre.

There should be no confusion between Japanese yen and Japanese military yen. Japanese yen and 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.[]

"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 initial series of the Japanese military yen were replicas of standard Japanese yen with minor modifications. Generally, thick red lines were overprinted to cancel the name "Bank of Japan" (日本銀行) and any text promising to pay the bearer in gold or silver. Large red text instead indicated that the note was military currency ("軍用手票") so as not to be confused with regular Japanese yen.''128.134.207.82 11:59, 23 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 ?".

User 220.76.64.71. If the same thing is written in many parts, many same communications are caused. It is necessary to bring it together in one place that you wrote in the past. Elementy 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The same absurd claim that "comfort women were highly paid" appears in too many parts. It is necessary to bring it together in one place.128.134.207.82 07:40, 23 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 07:53, 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 09:21, 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 yen was in short supply, the value should go up. when there were abundant supply of Japanese military yen, devaluation ensued.128.134.207.82 10:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'''Banana money is an informal term given to a type of currency issued by Imperial Japan during the Japanese Occupation of Singapore. What an appropriate nick name for a type of currency issued by Imperial Japan.'''220.76.64.71 15:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

About Payment
Although I agree to have payment section, but Enola Gay or other Anonymous user's explanation seems narrow viewed. (Below, I abbrebiate Japanese military yen to JM yen)

1. Not all 'comfort women' is paid by unexchangable JM yen. As already referred, evidential case is 文玉珠. She sued for pay back her postal bank account and the record was found that she put money 12 times for 2 and half years, had a deposit of 26,145 real yen and remitted 5,000 yen to her parents. (26,145 yen at that time is roughly equivalent to todays 500,000 dollars.)

2. At least some of 'comfort women' testified that she was actually using JM yen for buying goods. (See AWF reports or something) It is natual, because it was under occupation economics.
 * Another evidence of coercion. 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.[]220.76.64.71 13:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So the Japanese army wanted to use the Military Yen as the only legal currency in Hong Kong. What the problem? And your citing site continue to say "the Japanese government started to exchange one Military Yen for two Hong Kong Dollars." I don't know well but it seems to the Japanese Army didn't have any force. Teates 15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You, 220.76.64.71, missed the point. I just said about occupation economics. Being forced is mentioned at 3. Lssrt 15:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Macao government was not stupid enough to accept that toilet paper Japanese military yen in international trade even when Japanese government claimed that JM yen was valid. 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 Japanese economy.218.153.90.29 02:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

3. Although it was focible and the inflation occured by policy failure of army, final turning JM yen into 'toilet paper' was directed by GHQ. It was highly political decision.

4. Then unpayment problem by JM yen was basically converted into personal war compensation.

5. Status of compensation widely varies by countries. For example for South Korea, according to 'Treaty on Basic Relations Between Japan and the Republic of Korea' concluded 1965, Japanese government gave/loaned 800 milion dallars to Korean government and it was confirmed that compensation by Japanese government to Korean personal became null. (Korea's budget was 350 million at that time)
 * "Comfort women issue" was concealed by Japanese government until recent time.220.76.64.21 16:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Continueing South Korea's case, it is also said that Korean government concealed that final settlement to Korean people and no personal compensation was done by Korean government. This made problems more complicated and it is probably one of reason that Korean 'comfort women' appeals much.

These story for each country can be contiued more, but I think it is beyond scope of 'comfort women'. I suggest to simply write like this:

"According to the type of comfort station, some payment were done by Japamese military yen while some were done by yen. Being directed by GHQ, Japanese military yen became invalid after the war and personal compensation problems occured instead. Although most of personal compensation was governmentally seen to be settled between related countries with corresponding treaties, some people claims not. AWF was thus established 1995 as secondary means for personal compensation and national apology." Lssrt 09:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you omit the fact that Japanese military yen was declared void by Japanese government? This is called distortion of history.220.76.64.21 16:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Japanese prime minister Abe Shinzo denied coercion by Japanese Military in narrow sense. Why should I consider this toilet paper Japanese yen issue in broader sense? Let's have one standard. The same standard should be applied to Japanese prime minister's argument and mine.Enola Gay in Hiroshima 10:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What is 'standard'? I have not said double thing. Anyway, your point seemed to be 'whether payment can be seen valid or not'. I thought this is worth arguing. Other your writings looks almost irrelevant to 'comfort women', including your name :-) Lssrt 11:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I might get your point about 'narrrow sense'. It is clear international misunderstand as repeatedly explained here. What PM is saying is very simple : 'In spite of long research including left-wing histrian, we could not get evidence that Army directly did abduction.' Existence of coercion is of course recognized well, but trial level (=reliable) testimony for direct involvement could not be got and the sclae of 'crime' turned to be far smaller then it was thought before. It was important point whether Japansese government is responsible or not, so he explained.


 * If you believe that large portion of '200000 comfort women' were abducted (that number corresponds to people in a whole city), you had better to think why witness of Army's abuction isn't found. Lssrt 12:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing. 文玉珠.'s money was frozen in Japanese bank for at least 60 years. That means Japanese government extorted 26,145 yen at that time (roughly equivalent to todays 500,000 dollars) from this poor women.Enola Gay in Hiroshima 10:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't frozen. She lost her bankbook. So her record was important. Nothing more. Lssrt 11:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not try to generalize with a rare exceptional case of 文玉珠. Most of poor comfort women in occupied area were paid with 'toilet paper' Japanese military yen. In contrast, those happy Japanese prostitutes in Japanese homeland were paid with yummy Japanese yen.Enola Gay in Hiroshima 10:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of japanese mainland prostitutes were also paid by JM yen. Her misery was just same as that of occupied land. Also, Japanese Army prostsitues was said to begin 1932 at Shanghai, while JM yen under WWII started at late 1941. So the point is how much part was paid by JM yen and whether it was compensated or not. I am not quite sure for this, so expressed using 'some'. How can you say 'Most of'? Lssrt 11:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Rare exceptional case' is right in the sense that number of succussfull prostitutes who came out is probably less than that of misery. Don't misunderstand my point. It is fact that 'comfort women' were in lowest poverty of that era. Rather, I would like to point out that we need consideration for prostitute's diginity, which some hypocritical people seems to lack. Pity isn't ours who live in today's innocent world. Lssrt 14:02, 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 08:14, 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 08:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstnding. 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)
 * According to basic economics 101, when Japanese yen was in short supply, the value should go up. when there were abundant supply of Japanese military yen, devaluation ensued.128.134.207.82 10:28, 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 countries128.134.207.82 10:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What you said is equal that yen was different from dollar, and Japan was different from U.S. Of cause it is true. But what is it?? Japanese military yen was assured to convert to Japanese yen by Japanese government before 1945.9, so shortage was no problem before 1945.9. It had mandatory circulating power in those days in those area. Tropicaljet 11:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In those days, free travel was not possible, do you think that Japanese Army would allow a Hong Kong resident to travel to Tokyo to exchange Japanese military yen for Japanese yen?128.134.207.82 11:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The initial series of the Japanese military yen were replicas of standard Japanese yen with minor modifications. Generally, thick red lines were overprinted to cancel the name "Bank of Japan" (日本銀行) and any text promising to pay the bearer in gold or silver. Large red text instead indicated that the note was military currency ("軍用手票") so as not to be confused with regular Japanese yen.128.134.207.82 11:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Lssrt, I'm not sure that the abolition of the Japanese Military Yen led to claims for personal compensation for comfort women - as far as I know the compensation suits were for things like psychological trauma, not unpaid wages. With regards to compensation, how about something along the lines of " the Japanese government's position is that in signing treaties such as Treaty of San_Francisco, Sino-Japanese Joint Communiqué and Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea, the governments of the victims' countries of origin agreed to absolve the Japanese government of responsibility to directly compensate individuals with regards to war or colonial rule. However, those who demand government compensation today often argue on the basis that these treaties were signed before the existence of comfort women became common knowlegde, as well as that the Japanese government has a moral obligation to compensate as a gesture of goodwill." I also think this mention would be the most appropriate built into the AWP section. Phonemonkey 21:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Phonemonkey, maybe you have forgotten or don't know about the first 'comfort women' 金学順. Someone needs to summarize that story. This is very important for the nature of whole this problem ... Lssrt 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can provide a reliable source (i.e. not blogs) which states that 金学順 (Kim Hak Sun)'s compensation suit was over devaluation of Japanese military yen then I'm happy to summarise it in the article. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm only saying I haven't seen a reliable source which shows that it is not just an internet rumour. Eagerly awaiting your response. Phonemonkey 18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The arguments here are not based on facts. I do not see any point arguing about Japanese military notes in comfort women article.218.216.99.67 01:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Japanese military notes were legal obligation of Japanese Government and were exchangeable to Japanese Currency. Read what is written on the face of Japanese Military Notes in Malay. Source Bank of Japan
 * Legal status of Japanese Military notes were the "receipts" stipulated in article 52 of Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II); July 29, 1899.
 * The holder of Japanese military notes lost their rights to claim Japanese government because such rights were renounced in San Francisco treaty and other peace treaties as Phonemonkey mentioned.(Tokyo district court June 17, 1999)
 * 220.76.64.71 does not show any source whether comfort women are paid by means of military notes.
 * Even if they were, there is no unpaid wage once such wage is paid by military notes.
 * The comfort women received a large amount of advance payments when they were recruited.

The above arguments are not based on facts.
 * Japanese military yen was useless in international trade. Japanese Army forcibly exchanged foreign currencies with Japanese military yen. Then, they bought precious metal, goods, raw materials from Macao with forcibly seized foreign currencies.218.153.90.29 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Japanese military yen was declared void in September 1945. San Francisco treaty and other peace treaties were made at least five or more years later. On what authority, Japanese government refused to be responsible for Japanese military yen for that period?218.153.90.29 02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * During cold war, officail exchange rate between ruble and dollar was one to one. But, real exchange rate was one hundred to one in black market. Even though Japanese government propaganda said that Japanese military yen was eqivalent to Japanese yen, people prefered Japanese yen to Japanese military yen in real life. Their concerns proved to be true when Japanese government declared that Japanese military yen became void.218.153.90.29 02:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If there were dollar and military dollar today, what would be your choice,dollar or military dollar? It is just a propaganda and nonsense that Japanese military yen was euivalent to Japanese yen.218.153.90.29 02:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear 218.153.90.29: Please do not put your sentences in between my lines. It is too confusing. I have put your sentences together under my paragraph.218.216.99.67 03:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Between September 1945 and San Francisco treaty, Japanese Government was in default. Does that clear your questions? One more thing. The "true" Japanese yen issued by Bank of Japan also became void on March 2, 1946 except for small allowances for daily use.218.216.99.67 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As you said, there were many ways to liquidize Japanese yen, for example your friends coudl liquidize some for you.
 * However, there were no way to liquidize Japanese military yen. Do not try to take down superior Japanese yen to the inferior rank of Japansese military yen.128.134.207.82 06:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Japanese military yen was convertible to Japanese yen before, 1945.9. So 文玉珠's case, she had such money as deposit with post office. You are misunderstanding it. Tropicaljet 08:33, 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 08:47, 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 yen was in short supply, the value should go up. when there were abundant supply of Japanese military yen, devaluation ensued.128.134.207.82 10:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What you said is equal that yen was different from dollar, and Japan was different from U.S. Of cause it is true. But what is it?? Japanese military yen was assured to convert to Japanese yen by Japanese government before 1945.9, so shortage was no problem before 1945.9. It had mandatory circulating power in those days in those area. Tropicaljet 11:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In those days, free travel was not possible, do you think that Japanese Army would allow a Hong Kong residents to travel to Tokyo to exchange Japanese military yen for Japanese yen?
 * Those people in occupied area had to travel to Japan to exchange thier Japanese military yen for Japanese yen which is out of stock in ouucpied area. However, Japanese Army strictly regulated civilian travel.
 * 128.134.207.82 11:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if comfort women are paid by Japanese yen, that does not make any difference. Japanese Yen became void on March 2, 1946 except for small allowances. Today's Japanese yen are called "New Yen", to which the yen circulated until March 1, 1946 are unexchangeable. Both military Japanese yen and old Japanese yen became void eventually.
 * So, why don't we stop talking about Military Yen and start talking about editing the article? 218.216.99.67 12:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "except for small allowances" makes a huge difference. For example, your friends can visit Bank for you. Manay friends meant much money. There were many ways to liquidize Japanese yen. However, there were no way to liquidize Japanese military yen. Moreover, read this. Can't you see the thick red lines? "thick red lines were overprinted to cancel the name "Bank of Japan" (日本銀行) and any text promising to pay the bearer in gold or silver."
 * To get the allowance, a person has to make an account first. Any allowance withdrawal is recorded. So, your friend may help you, but that means he loses his allowance.218.216.99.67 13:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There were millions of Japanese beggars in the street who would be willing to do that for you in Japan, 1945.

'''In short, Japanese yen notes were backed by Bank of Japan. Incontrast, Bank of Japan was erased in Japanese military yen notes.'''220.76.64.71 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The initial series of the Japanese military yen were replicas of standard Japanese yen with minor modifications. Generally, thick red lines were overprinted to cancel the name "Bank of Japan" (日本銀行) and any text promising to pay the bearer in gold or silver. Large red text instead indicated that the note was military currency ("軍用手票") so as not to be confused with regular Japanese yen. from Wikipedia.128.134.207.82 12:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Japanese government abandoned gold standard in January 1932. Read the last sentence of this essay by Bank of Japan. Stop writing based on your imagination, and start writing based on reliable source.218.216.99.67 13:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I erased gold or silver from the above text.128.134.207.82 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous users, Please:

- Read English carefully and Don't miss the point.

- Try to write as correct English as possible.

- Don't copy&paste needless message.

The point is whehter 'comfort women' were rewarded or not. Whether JM yen was good or bad economics isn't essential problem. Of course I think that 'comfort women' were lavishly paid in average.
 * Very lavishly with toilet paper Japanese military yen.220.76.64.71 15:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Mr ElKevbo, are you still thinking this is content dispute? I would like to hear others opinions too if page protection is good. I think login editors had better to make consensus first. Lssrt 13:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User 220.76.64.111, please make consensus before edit. We haven't yet agreed on how to express it. And don't use biased terminology.

I again repeat that how currency issue matters to 'comfort women' should be described from the point of view of reward. At least it isn't addendum of recruitment. Agreed?

In addition, it isn't true that payment currency is not known at all. As I said, at least it is historically apparent that before late 1941 when JM yen started, all payment was done by yen and at least one of them (文玉珠 's case) accepted lavishly by yen after that. Lssrt 08:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you remember what you said? You mentioned above that we don't know how many comfort women were paid with tiolet paper Japasese military yen
 * So the point is how much part was paid by JM yen and whether it was compensated or not. I am not quite sure for this, so expressed using 'some'. How can you say 'Most of'? Lssrt 11:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hum, you love toilet paper so much. But it is just that you don't understand elemental English. 'I am not quite sure' don't' mean 'not known at all' nor contradict 'partially known'. I recommend you to refrain from editing/discussing this sensitive article for a while. Wait until consensus is made. Lssrt 16:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be also noted that most of 文玉珠's momey is still in Japanese goverment's hands.


 * Showing us its source is welcome. Lssrt 16:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You should source your allegation first. Too many unsourced allegations with hasty generalization.128.134.207.82 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Any mention of 'yen' should be substituted with Japanese yen or Japanese military yen unless there is evidence that payment was made in Japanese yen.

Vandalism
Folks, how do you think of this vandalism by the anonymous IP? He doesn't know that every commercial transaction with the Army was done with military yen. Ianfu could not be its exception. Anyway normal discussion is impossible as long as he is here. Isn't it possible to exclude anonymous IP from discussion page? Ikedanobuo 17:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, US Army also used US military note in occupied Japan. However, US Army kept their promise. US Army didnot declare US Army note void unlike Japanese Army who broke their promise and declared Japanese military yen void.220.76.64.71 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All the commercial contractor's military yen became void when the war was over. It has nothing to do with the coercion of Ianfu. Delete the stupid pictures and comments. Ikedanobuo 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is important because there are stupid claims that comfort women were highly paid. Prostitues in Japan were highly paid with yummy Japanese yen, but those coerced in occupied areas were paid nothing but worthless Japanese military yen.220.76.64.71 17:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ikedanobuo. I think you started again erasing others edits with your own judgement. This is discussion page. Vandalism is not allowed here.Enola Gay in Hiroshima 23:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ikeda, normal discussion is impossible with you. Your obnoxious, uncooperative attitude so far, leads to worms like Enola Gay in reaction. Phonemonkey 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently large amount of anonymous IP user forgets neutral point of view. I wish admin to close anonymous writing until loggin editors make consensus. Lssrt 03:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to make such a request but I seriously doubt it would even be considered. Anonymous editors are welcome to edit Wikipedia articles and they are definitely welcome to discuss them.  This isn't vandalism - it's a content dispute.  --ElKevbo 05:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Destruction of Evidence?
It is not unknown that the Japanese destroyed much evidence of their "dishonorable" activites during WWII in bonfires at the end of the war. Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere in the article to explain why there is no "evidence" of comfort women? Several news articles I have read regarding Prime Minister Abe's recent statement that there is no "evidence" of comfort women mention this fact.AkrobaticMonkey 08:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are able to show us a source, then maybe we can mention it. Phonemonkey 13:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070320/cm_csm/ejapan                                                                      This news article on Abe's statement about the lack of evidence for comfort women mentions the destruction of official records in paragraph 5.                                                                              http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/rc20070321a2.html                                                                   This article from the Japan Times clearly states that Japanese records of comfort women, if they existed (very likely since the comfort women system was organized by the military), they were destroyed in bonfires following Japan's defeat.   http://www.archives.gov/iwg/japanese-war-crimes/introductory-essays.pdf                                                       This is the pdf file for what appears to be an entire book about what remains of Japanese war records. On page 9, there is a section that states that approxiamately 70% of Japanese war records regarding war crimes were destroyed following Japanese defeat. Perhaps Japan has committed more war crimes than noted since so many records have been destroyed, but we shall never know. It seems that an entire article on Japanese war records can be written based upon this source. AkrobaticMonkey 00:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Another source for the order to destroy possible evidence is
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 22:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Coercion in the broad and narrow sense
Japanese government's artificial definition of "coercion" is making this issue even more confusing. PM Abe didn't deny coercion in the broad sense, i.e., the coercion or deception by contractors of the Army. He denied the coercion in the narrow sense, i.e., kidnapping of women by the Army officials. NYT and other media confused this definition.

I don't think it is a good definition, but it should be noted in this article because it is a source of confused reporting of western media. Ikedanobuo 23:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside your use of a personal blog as a source of your claim about "confused reporting by the western media", I'm sure everyone agrees that this is a crucial issue which should be included. Phonemonkey 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree on giving attention to this aspect in the article. However, it is important to point out that there is a reliable source for 'coercion in the narrow sense' (abduction by the military, acting in formal capacity):. So the what is missing is an explicit written order to abduct; the abductions themselves heve been documented, even if you would discount oral testimony. There was an explicit order to destroy army documents at the end of the war Japanese War Crimes: Introductory Essays, page 9. Therefore lack of documents can hardly be considered proof they did not exist.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 23:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Misleading reports by the Asahi Shimbun
On 11 January in 1992, five days before the PM Miyazawa's visit to Korea, the Asahi Shimbun reported that a document was "found" that proved Japanese government's involvement in the coercion of Ianfu. And the Asahi reported Yoshida's "testimony" on 23 January. These reports aroused much reaction in Korea and pushed Korean government to demand Japanese government's apology.

However, the document had been well known to historians as an evidence of administration by the Army. It in no way proves that the Ianfu were forced into brothels, as the Asahi claimed. And Yoshida's testimony turned out as a lie. However, since the Asahi never corrected its errors, western media are still misled by the wrong articles. NYT's Tokyo office is in the Asahi's building.

Now the Asahi implicitly admits it. Its editorial on Mar 10 argues "It is a trivial problem whether the Army coerced women or not". It is deplorable that the most respected newspaper in Japan, which usually demands accountability for politicians, is not accountable for their erroneous reports that led the world into such great confusion.

This issue has nothing to do with ideology or nationalism. It is about simple facts. In Japan, no historian (and very few journalists) argue there was military coercion of Ianfu. Ikedanobuo 01:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't speak Japanese, so please correct me if I'm wrong. The way it is reported to me, the discussion in Japan is highly semantical. You are only allowed to speak of military coercion if you show written army orders or court verdicts attesting the round-up of women. Furthermore the one court verdict that exists does not count, because the Army men involved had not followed orders. The resulting burden of proof seems unreasonable in the light of the explicit order of the Japanese Army at the end of the war to destroy all documents and the repeated refusal of the Japanese government to be held liable in court. A lot of research has been done since the articles were published, using historical, not legal criteria to find out what happened. But already in 1985, years before the article in Asahi Shimbun, the official History of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Second World War contained clear statements on coerced prostitution by the Japanese army. It also indicates that not all Army prostitution was coerced, and that in Army brothels professional prostitutes were mixed in with those coerced. The reason why the case tried in Batavia was exceptional was not the use of force, but the fact that women of European descent were involved. By the way, the History also mentions cases of Japanese officers protecting women; it is by no means trying to make anyone look worse or better then they really were. There are simple facts to be found outside Japan.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 21:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

According to a comment to my blog, the PR bureau of the Asahi replied to his question on the phone as follows:<ul><li>Yoshida's testimony was not a true story. The Asahi corrected the articles in 1997.<li>It was not true that the Ianfu was forced into brothels as "Joshi Teishintai". The Asahi never reported it was true.<li>The article on 11 Jan. 1992 did not say that the Army had abducted women.</ul>Although these excuses are questionable, it is obvious that even the Asahi doesn't say that the Army coerced women into brothels. Of course this reply can't be quoted in the entry, but you can see that the "Ianfu" is a phantom issue that was created by the Asahi's wrong report.

Some of you regard PM Abe as a "revisionist", but the truth is the contrary: the Asahi revised (or forged) the history and it admits the reports were wrong. Ikedanobuo 02:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I seem to be repeating myself like a parrot....you are welcome to include any point in the article but please provide a reliable source. You must know full well by now that a comment which somebody posted on your blog is not acceptable as a source. If you have an analysis by a reliable source (not you) which says that Asahi misled people then I'm happy to have that quoted.Phonemonkey 11:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Table of Chinese and Korean names for comfort women
Why is there a table in the article that lists all those different ways to write "comfort women" in Chinese and Korean? What does all that have to do with an article in the English Wikipedia? I think most of the visitors to the English Wikipedia don't need to know how to write "Comfort Women" in Hangul. If they want to know how they can look at the link at the bottom of the article to the Korean Wikipedia. Cla68 09:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Japanese names for this topic is mentioned as well, in the opening sentence... I think, the Japanese Wikipedia Project decided to display the kanji and romanization in that manner and the Korean and Chinese WP use the table method because there's more than one way to romanize their language. Some people may not be able to read the Chinese, Korean, or Japanese in their corresponding Wikipedia articles to find the name if they were looking for it there.  on  camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  16:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful
Notice:User:Etimesoy was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry on 22 March 2007. See also: User:CronusXT (puppet master), User:OpieNn, Requests for mediation/Goguryeo and Requests for checkuser/Case/Etimesoy. So please be careful to join the discussions in this talk page. Thanks. Nightshadow28 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Herrich was also sockpuppet of CronusXT. Thanks. Nightshadow28 00:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about ElKevbo? He is a habitual reverter without explanation. He resembles OpieNn, who started the editing war by reverting my post repeatedly. Ikedanobuo 02:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to his other contributions, I cannot explain clearly to clerk for request checkuser yet, now. Thanks. Nightshadow28 03:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Without explanation? I've participated quite a bit on this Talk page and I almost always use edit summaries.  That you don't agree with my edits or Wikipedia policies is no grounds for lying about my edits or accusing me of sockpuppetry.  If it makes you feel better to request a check user, go for it - it'll be a waste of time but I've got nothing to hide.  --ElKevbo 04:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr.ElKevbo, Please keep composure. And please understand that there are those who are sensitive just after a large sockpuppet incident. Thanks. Nightshadow28 05:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is your "explanation", ElKevbo? You reverted my edit with a short note (It's already been discussed - BBC, NYT, and other sources are reliable sources). This makes no sense, because I retained the source from NYT and BBC. But you reverted the whole section. Your action is very similar to that of OpieNn. If you want to prove innocence, undo the reversion. Ikedanobuo 09:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You did retain the BBC article - I missed that. However, you also removed sources from NYT, The Age, CNN, and Japan Times.  Unacceptable.  --ElKevbo 17:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Habitual reverters like OpieNn are still here: Andycjp and Flying tiger. They write nothing in the entry or discussion but only revert. Probably they want to make this entry protected again. Ikedanobuo 13:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening section
I corrected the opening section. If there are multiple viewpoint, you should note both views. It isn't a good idea to cite newspapers for historical facts, because the reporters rely on second-hand (often misleading) sources. And there is first-rated reliable sources by historians.

The testimony of ex-Ianfu in fact disproves the military kidnapping. Many of them said that they were recruited with wages. Some of them said they were "forced" by somebody, which might be a trade of human body by their parents. Few of them said testified they were kidnapped by the Army, but none of them was credible because their testimony changed frequently and contradicted the historical facts.

The reference was confused. If there is an external link, it is bothering to refer to footnotes and link from there. Simply put the URL in the sentence. Ikedanobuo 00:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I corrected the previous post word by word, but ElKevbo reverted it without explanation, as OpieNn did. If this continues, this entry would be protected again. He refused discussion because he can't show the ground of objection. Do you think this fair? Is it Wikipedia's way? Ikedanobuo 02:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Ikedanobuo,
 * Any major change in an articel on a controversial subject needs to be well-balanced. I was not involved in making changes in the article or reverting them. As stated before I do intend to make some contributions, but I am doing my research first. After reading the history, I think I can provide you with some answers.


 * 1) After the discussions on this Talk page you should be aware that your dislike of newspapers as sources is not commonly shared. I personally do agree with your preference for using secondary sources compiled by authoritative historians. Unlike you, I don't feel that improving the references will lead to another presentation. So I suggest you better not meddle with the sources for the statements you don't agree with. Just present the conflicting statements with their sources. If those are more reliable sources, than in time that should do the trick by itself.
 * 2) There are many historic subjects discussed in terms not used at the time. I cannot imagine anyone demanding that we will no longer talk about the Holocaust, but use Endlösing instead. If it is important in a way I overlooked, my guess is few will object if you put some explanation somewhere in a note, but you might end up with a remark like I just made added to it.
 * 3) Have you ever considered that when there are multiple viewpoints, multiple views are to be noted. Maybe within Japan both views will do. In en.Wikipedia, there are many more viewpoints to take into account. Some illustrations of the implications are in my next points.
 * 4) The number of 200.000 was discussed on this page. If you ignore this discussion and simply erase the number, you should not be surprised that it is reverted.
 * 5) It is very unfortunate that the only(?) sources for some of your strongest statements are just available in Japanese. It might be that Mr. Hata has not made a thorough study of sources in Dutch. Beside the case tried in the Batavia Court, there are several credible testimonies of the Japanese Army being involved in (attempted) kidnappings (Jong, L. de; Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, deel 11b, Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, Amsterdam, 1985, p. 796-799). Furthermore it has been recorded that a Dutch police officer refused to cooperate with setting up a brothel. He was arrested by the Japanese Army and shot after trying to escape. The Japanese commander gave the order that his body was to be displayed with a warning in Indonesian that this was what would happen to persons not complying with Japan (Jong, L. de; Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, deel 11a, Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, Amsterdam, 1985, p. 304). These findings do not suggest a system based on a free market. The sweeping statement that there are no credible accounts of coercion in the narrow sense, is not tenable if you look beyond Japanese sources. If you want to present an alternative view, why not take the time to find out about possible objections? When these objections are well founded, you could account for them in your statement.
 * 6) Several of your contributions show that you are not a native English speaker. So am I. One of my reasons for contributing to Talk:pages is that native English speakers will correct me before I change anything in the article itself.
 * It is regrettable that the article is now protected again. But let's take the time to improve it. Erasing and reverting are not the way forward.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 19:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the above facts should be included.220.76.64.21 16:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just checked the opening statement for some grammar errors:


 * Comfort women (Japanese: 慰安婦, ianfu?) or military comfort women (Japanese: 従軍慰安婦, jūgun-ianfu?) is a euphemism for the women who served in the Japanese army brothels during World War II. Historians and researchers of the subject state that the majority were from Korea, China, and other occupied territories. These women, numbering up to 200,000, were recruited by force or deception to serve as "sex slaves."[1][2][3]


 * Some Japanese historians, using the diaries and testimonies of military officers as well as official documents from the United States and other countries, have argued that the Imperial Japanese military was either directly or indirectly involved in the coercion, deception, luring, and sometimes kidnapping of young women throughout Japan’s Asian colonies and occupied territories.[4] Evidence to support accounts of abuse by the Japanese military — including the kidnapping of women for enslavement in military brothels — include testimonies from witnesses, victims, and former Japanese soldiers.[5] Many of the testimonies from self-identified victims state that they were kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery by Japanese troops. In 1992, historians discovered evidence in Japanese documents that showed that Japanese military authorities had a direct role in working with contractors to procure women for the brothels through the use of force.[6]


 * I hope my English is satisfactory enough to edit Ikedanobuo's opening statement. I merely fixed some grammatical errors though I did change "including the kidnapping of women and girls for use in the brothels" into "including the kidnapping of women for enslavement in military brothels", because "use" is much too general a word (They could have been "used" as cooks, maids, foot stools, coat hangers, etc.). I felt that enslavement might have been a more suitable replacement. If anyone finds fault, feel free to comment (not that I doubted anyone would do otherwise).
 * I agree.220.76.64.21 16:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Ikedanobuo: "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." - Napoleon
 * History is a subjective thing by nature. There is no such thing as unbiased records and testimonies, and even statistics can be manipulated. One can only attempt to put together the whole picture through multiple sources. AkrobaticMonkey 21:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Shinzo Abe's Double Talk (WashingtonPost article Mar 24, 2007)
He's passionate about Japanese victims of North Korea -- and blind to Japan's own war crimes.

In fact the historical record on this issue is no less convincing than the evidence that North Korea kidnapped Japanese citizens, some of whom were used as teachers or translators. ...

Mr. Abe may imagine that denying direct participation by the Japanese government in abductions may strengthen its moral authority in demanding answers from North Korea. It does the opposite. If Mr. Abe seeks international support in learning the fate of Japan's kidnapped citizens, he should straightforwardly accept responsibility for Japan's own crimes -- and apologize to the victims he has slandered. 128.134.207.82 03:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that Japanese were kidnapped by North Korean government? Maybe these Japanese voluntarily went to North Korea. Or just individual North Korean soldiers kidnapped these poor Japanese victims without written order.
 * Japanese PM should shut up until they have concrete evidence before saying anything about "Japanese victims kidnapped by North Korea" according to the standard Mr. Hata or Mr. Shinzo Abe had set.128.134.207.82 04:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is one more false accusation by ignorant western media. No historian says "Japanese soldiers participated in abductions". Even Prof. Yoshimi, who blames "sex slaves", admits there is no evidence that the Army abducted the women. And no witness credibly testified that they were kidnapped by the Army. In fact, there is little controversy among historians about these facts.
 * What a guy, I like his guts. Astonishingly, this user Ikedanobuo now cites his own blog as a reliable source.220.76.64.21 09:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's striking that western media are herding to attack Abe as a "revisionist" without factual ground. No, Washington Post, it's you that is revising history. The "comfort women" were commercial prostitutes supervised by the Army, which were common to many countries, including the U.S. Army. It's a double talk to blame Japan's military prostitution while keeping silence about RAA. Ikedanobuo 08:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC) User Ikedanobuo.
 * Stop lying about RAA. Don't forget that RAA was created by Japanese government to please US soldiers. Japanese government was a shop owner and manager. American soldiers were only shoppers.220.76.64.21 10:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * User Ikedanobuo. Try to prove that Japanese are kidnapped by North Koreans. There is no evidence if we apply your standard.
 * How about starting your own newspaper company, for example, Ikedanobuo Times. And try to gain reputation. Reputation is not built in a day.
 * It is not a serious writing. Abduction of the Japanese by North Korea is that Pyongyang regime admitted.
 * You might hope he is buried in English documents. It is a free annoying. Or, you might try to cheat ignorant readers.
 * Elementy and Ikedanobuo, you are cheaters.220.76.64.21 10:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Prime Minister Koizumi visited North Korea and it conferred with Kim Jong Il on September 17, 2002(Japan-North Korea Summit). The North Korea side was admitted to have abducted 13 Japanese by the seat, and it apologized. The date was offered. An English document is searchable for yourself. Elementy 10:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason why we cannot trust all Japanese media
You can be shot to death by rightist for this kind of discussion in Japan.220.76.64.21 09:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The liberal-left Asahi Shimbun has been a target of attack for, among other things, its failure to use proper honorific terms for the emperor.


 * Tomohiro Kojiro, an Asahi reporter, was killed by a shotgun-wielding rightist in 1987.


 * In October 1993 a man named Nomura Shusuke killed himself in the Asahi offices because he felt the paper had been making fun of rightists.


 * The mayor of Nagasaki, Motojima Hitoshi, a mild-mannered Christian, was threatened for months by right-wingers, egged on by academics and a handful of senior politicians, for suggesting that emperor Hirohito bore some responsibility for the war.
 * He was eventually shot in the back, but survived, in January 1990, but not before 3.8 million people had signed a petition supporting what he said.


 * It is not right that the reason why the right wing is not believed is equal to the reason to believe only the left. And, there is a right wing that protests by the suicide in the examples. If you think the suicide to be only a threat, the testimony of people who did a painful experience will be naturally thought that it is a threat.
 * In addition, the public opinion of Japan doesn't move because of such a violence right wing. And, the half of the person who learns this problem comes not to believe Asahi Shimbun. In addition, the public opinion of Japan doesn't move because of such a violence right wing. And, the half of the person who learns this problem comes not to believe Asahi Shimbun. The half of the remainder doesn't worry the fake the report to sympathize with the comfort woman.  Elementy 10:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ＞[citation needed]
 * It is a rhetoric expression. Of course, there is a person who is not the two extremes either. You seem also to be looking at the problem by eyes of the fight by two extremes. I want you not to note the part. Elementy 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection
I can see why this article has been protected, and since I am in no way involved in the various disputes I am not suggesting that it be unprotected ( I will leave that up to the concerned parties). However since this article contains some sections that are regarding current events, is there a way to keep those sections up to date? I am referring specifically to the section on Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's statements regarding comfort women. If you go to the link you will see that on the page specific to him there is additional information regarding this issue that has yet to be added here. I am not sure if it is even possible but it seems to me that those new facts should be included. Thanks, Colincbn 08:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Beginnings
This article from the Mainichi Daily News site seems to imply that this practice may have started before the start of the second world war. Japan were fighting China long before they attacked America, and had occupied the Korean peninsula 30 odd years before. The article doesn't state who the historians are, and I don't know where to look for reference material. Does anyone have any ideas? It just seems strange to me that when Japan was at war for such a long time, they decided to start this practice during WWII. If this question has already been addressed elsewhere, sorry, could someone please point me to the discussion?Bennie13 09:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the best reference to start with is AWF report. The report also has a nice bibliography.218.216.99.67 10:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * According to one of the famous English language books on the subject, ("Comfort Women", I think) it is claimed that comfort women were formed in response to the rapes at Nanking. No, I have it here, the rapes took place at Shanghai. "One of the commanders in the Shanghai Campaign, Liuetentant-General Okamura Yasuji, cofessed, "though with embarassment," in memoirs published in 1970 (Suzuki Yuko, 1992), that he was the original proponent of comfort stations for the army. After 223 reported rape cases by Japanese troops, he sought a solution by "following local naval practice," and requested the governor of Nagasaki Prefecture to send a contingent of comfort women to Shanghai. Rape reports then fell off markedly, providing a rationale for the subsequent expansion of military prostitution." George Hicks (1995) "The Comfort Women. Japan's Brutal Regime of enforced prostitution in the second world war," Norton:NY. p.45. Hicks goes onto relate that the practice increased after the Rape of Nanking, due in part to the hostile international reaction. --Timtak 11:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The AWF report that 218.216.99.67 suggested says that the first 'comfort station' was established by the Navy in Shanghai, 1932. It does not, however, say if the women working in this naval 'comfort station' were coerced or willing, or where they came from. It then goes on to talk about what Timtak states above, with girls being requested from Japan by the army. However it (the AFP report) also says that arrangements were made to transport 300 women from Taiwan as early as 14 November 1938. So, I am wondering about two things-
 * 1. When were 'comfort stations' first using coerced non-Japanese women; and
 * 2. If this was before 1939, I believe the introduction to the article should be changed to state the period in years it was practiced (for example; from 1932 until 1945, or; from 1938 until 1945,) rather than saying during the World War II.
 * Also I read the 'Treatment of comfort women' section of the article and it repeats in the third paragraph what is quoted in the first. Either the quote or the third paragraph should probably be removed.Bennie13 11:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hicks says that the women sent to Shanghai first in 1932 to "recreation centres" were Korean women living in North Kyushu, where there is a Korean community. He suggests that this fact suggests both cooercion and the complicity of the authorities but he does not give his reasons (but see below). After the rape of Nanking, in late 1937, again more women were brought to Shanghai. This time the Korean brothels there came up with few women, so they tried Japanese prostitutes, and then the general Korean mining community in Northern Kyushu. He says that these latter women were tricked with "substantial advances of pay, to accept what were made out to be cooking or laundry jobs for the army." ibid p.46.
 * By the way, my general impression is that Hicks successfully demonstrates government involvement in setting up 'comfort stations', and combines this documentation with extensive testimony by women that they were tricked or forced. On page p4 Hicks writes "Whereas Japanese officials no longer deny the existence of comfort stations, forced recruitment, and official complicity with the recruitment process remains to a large extent anecdotal." --Timtak 02:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't misinterpret comfort women issue
The Yomiuri Shimbun, the largest national daily in Japan, wrote an editorial to object against the U.S. House Resolution 121. It says:"The resolution says the Japanese military commissioned the acquisition of comfort women. However, no documents have been found to support this assertion. Historians also accept that no such orchestrated action was undertaken by the Japanese military.[...]The U.S. House resolution criticizes such moves in Japan, saying they represent their 'desire to dilute or rescind the 1993 statement.' But it could be a natural course of action to revise the inaccurate Kono statement. What was behind the issuance of the Kono statement was the government's misjudgment--made under pressure from South Korea--that its acknowledgement that the comfort women were forcibly recruited would lead to the settlement of the issue."This is obviously a reliable source you love. If some of you can read Japanese, similar opinions are very easy to find on the Web. Stop talking about rubbish such as Holocaust or Revisionism. This is a historical fact with which most Japanese historians agree. Ikedanobuo 17:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally, Ikeda quotes a reliable source! Ikeda, I am glad you seem as happy as I am. Only one thing though, I am looking through all your comments made above, trying to find which edit suggestion of yours the above editorial is a source to. Would you care to enlighten me? Phonemonkey 18:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem is, there are historical revisionism issues. Anyone who's been to the Yasukuni War Museum can see that, in English or Japanese.  Saburo Ienaga wouldn't have had a court case in for 30 years if he hadn't felt that was an issue.  So, if there's an attributable source for this, its accuracy will depend on who it is that's saying it. MSJapan 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, I've always regarded Yomiuri as a pretty much revisionist, even anti-Korean newspaper, and I've actually read Yomiuri's book series "Yomiuri vs Asahi: Shasetsu taiketsu". I particularly remember how a Yomiuri editorial suggested that Shintaro Ishihara's "sangokujin-hatsugen" was not a problem, as he only called the thieving Koreans/Taiwanese/etc "sangokujin". Yeah, right, just as it's not the least bit racist/controversial saying "I hate thieving niggers". Mackan 21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Mackan, can you really read Japanese? If you are still sticking to such nonsense after reading many articles on the Web in Japan, you can't understand Japanese. Overwhelming majority of them agree that there was no such thing as abduction of ianfu, and nobody can show such evidence. If you want to contest it, show the fact. It's no use to say you don't like the Yomiuri. Ikedanobuo 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ikeda, I'm tired of your personal attacks on my Japanese proficiency, when the problem seems to be your lack of proficiency in English. While my comment was sort of off track (which I realised as soon as I posted it), I'm not specifically referring to the comfort women issue, but merely the paper itself (which I agree might have been an unnecessary comment - if only you could come to the same realisation of your own comments once in a while!). I have not mentioned what I think in the comfort women issue for a long time - I'm almost exclusively on this talk page to try and make sure WP rules are followed, something you seemingly have little interest in. I have no interest in spreading "THE TRUTH", but I would love to see everybody reaching a consensus and through that consensus be able to present a fair, balanced, and neutral description of the issue at hand. Mackan 08:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't attack your lack of proficiency in Japanese, Mackan. I pointed out that you didn't understand the facts. When you can't counter the argument by the Yomiuri with the facts, you say you don't like it. It's absurd to believe you can make "fair, balanced, and neutral description" about an issue without understanding it. Don't play with the issue you know nothing about. Ikedanobuo 16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop being so combative. Read what I write instead of trying to find angles from where you can attack me. Ikeda, whether you want it or not, a consensus is necessary to get rid of the lock. Why can't you understand that? If you go on this way, this page won't ever get locked up. Mackan 07:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of pointing out the same thing, but I repeat it once more: show the fact if you don't agree with an article. The entry can't be unlocked as long as you are discussing whether a newspaper is right-wing or revisionist instead of reading historical sources. According to Wikipedia's standard, the Yomiuri is a reliable source, like it or not. Ikedanobuo 05:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ikeda, it's interesting that you say you're tired of repeating yourself, yet when you're cordially invited to say something new (i.e. answer questions), you seem to be as responsive as a cabbage. But here it is again, in case you get it the second time: "which edit suggestion of yours on this page is this quote from Yomiuri a source to"? And by the way, you seem to be totally incapable of responding to what Mackan is repeatedly saying - that his aim is to get the article to a consensus - and instead you can only continue drivelling on about Mackan's prior comment which he himself has said was slightly off-track. Why? Phonemonkey 10:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Comfort Women for dummies
This is a copy of the Yomiuri's one-page article "Kisokara wakaru ianfu mondai". Although this can't be quoted in the entry, this is a convenient summary of the problem if you can read Japanese. The editorial above is its summary. If someone translates this article into English, it would be a basis for the entry in Wikipedia. Ikedanobuo 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comfort station originated in govt-regulated 'civilian prostitution'
The Yomiuri Shimbun published an article about ianfu: Modern historian Ikuhiko Hata, a former professor at Nihon University, says the comfort women system should be defined as the "battleground version of civilian prostitution."

Comfort women were not treated as "paramilitary personnel," unlike jugun kangofu (military nurses) and jugun kisha (military correspondents). During the war, comfort women were not called "jugun ianfu" (prostitutes for troops). Use of such generic terminology spread after the war. The latter description is said to have been used by writer Kako Senda (1924-2000) in his book titled "Jugun Ianfu" published in 1973. Thereafter, the usage of jugun ianfu prevailed.


 * Sorry, that link above is broken. Please also sign your posts. Phonemonkey 10:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yomiuri published extensive surveys of this issue. "BACKGROUND OF 'COMFORT WOMEN' ISSUE / (1) Comfort station originated in govt-regulated 'civilian prostitution'" (2)No hard evidence of coercion in recruitment of comfort women (3) Kono's statement on 'comfort women' created misunderstanding
 * (Inserted. April 3, i corrected the address of above-mentioned "created misunderstanding (73)" of yomiuri article. Elementy 11:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

(2) says: The issue of the so-called comfort women has been brought up repeatedly because misunderstandings that the Japanese government and the Imperial Japanese Army forced women into sexual servitude have not been completely dispelled.

The government has admitted the Imperial Japanese Army's involvement in brothels, saying that "the then Japanese military was, directly or indirectly, involved in the establishment and management of the comfort stations and the transfer of comfort women." The "involvement" refers to giving the green light to opening a brothel, building facilities, setting regulations regarding brothels, such as fees and opening hours, and conducting inspections by army doctors.

However, the government has denied that the Japanese military forcibly recruited women. On March 18, 1997, a Cabinet Secretariat official said in the Diet, "There is no evidence in public documents that clearly shows there were any forcible actions [in recruiting comfort women]." No further evidence that could disprove this statement has been found.

(3) says:

What made the issue of "comfort women" a political and diplomatic one was an article in the Jan. 11, 1992, morning edition of The Asahi Shimbun. The newspaper reported that official documents and soldiers' diaries that proved the wartime Japanese military's involvement in the management of brothels and the recruitment of comfort women had been found at the library of the Defense Ministry's National Institute for Defense Studies.

This is the latest and accurate summary of historian's consensus that would be the basis for the entry. Even Asahi admitted there was no evidence of the Army's abduction. Ikedanobuo 17:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems clear that some comfort women were prostitutes, and that some were sex slaves. Is there any way of giving an idea of the proportions? Which was the rule and which was the exception? Did the this change over the course of the war?
 * How many comfort women have testified that they were tricked or physically enslaved from each country Holland, Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan and China?
 * The Japanese millitary memo that orders caution in the recruitment of comfort women, implies that some were recruited unfairly. Similarly the documented incident of some comfort women having been found to be recruited as typists being sent home as documented by Hicks (only to have their ship sunk alas), demonstrates the existance of non-millitary coercion.
 * This photo provides photographic circumstantial evidence for existance of prostitutes from Japan in amongst the comfort women. What other evidence is there?
 * What would have recieving between 'one and three thousand yen' as an advance have meant to contemporary families?
 * How what was the Korean and Chinese feeling towards the Japanese, and how proposterous is it that Korean or Chinese women might have become prostitutes for Japanese soldiers, voluntarily? Where there many willing "collaborators" in other fields or where all labourers, in mines or as typists, forced labourers?
 * What was the attitude towards prostitution in East Asia at the time? How immoral or shameful was it considered to be?
 * What were typical averages ages of prostitutes elsewhere, and of comfort women? One impassioned comfort woman said that no woman of her age would have chosen such a "profession."
 * To what extent does even allowing women below the age of X (insert appropriate age of majority) to become prositutes, constitute child prostitution and thus 'statutory rape'/enslavement?
 * Are there any Japanese comfort women that have come forward to admit that they were prostitutes, to clear the name of Japan?
 * Does the nature of the Japanese 'cover up,' in having comfort women re-registered as nurses, tell us anything? Prostitutes might take up the role of nurse. Would sex slaves? --Timtak 09:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As to 1, a Japanese Congressman says, out of 26 Korean former comfort women who testified, 8 women said they were taken by force of the Japanese Government. However, those testimonies were contradicting and untrustworthy. Please see.
 * It seems the South Korean Government also collected the testimonies of former comfort women. The study seems to be conducted by Seoul University professor An Pyongjik. Since I cannot read Korean, I hope Korean editors here will give some information on that collection of testimonies.
 * In China, Indonesia and Philippines, many rapes were committed by Japanese soldiers. However, we should distinguish rape victims from comfort women. Comfort women worked in comfort stations. Rapes could have taken place anywhere and victims were not paid. Except for the Dutch case, I do not know cases in which women were taken by force to be comfort women.61.24.93.5 15:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a video taken by a Japanese amateur video group from Okinawa of an interview of Indonesian women (about 70 years old) who describes her abudction to a comfort station when she was a minor at the hands of Japanese soldiers. Testimony can be faked but this lady was, wow, painfully convincing. It was her dry, matter-of-fact voice, those details and her tears. I can't help thinking, however, that there is a danger that this sort of horror may be presumed to be more widespread than it was. As 61.24.93.5 says, there definately was rape, but officially condoned, or even officially carried-out rape is yet even more horrifying - way off the scale. If the latter did not occur, then it is important that the Japanese do not admit to it. --Timtak 02:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of the dispute
I'd like someone to clarify on what's going on here. Seems as if the side opposing the JPOV (KPOV?) is inadequately voiced. All I see right now are concessions & counter arguments to those concessions, all directing towards JPOV. I don't think that discussing on the issues for this article right now would bring arguments representative of the KPOV, since they're occupied mostly with the mediation in Goguryeo.

(Wikimachine 20:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Please realise that Wikipedia is not about "KPOV" or "JPOV", it's about NPOV. That said, mature Korean editors with insight into this subject would be MORE than welcome (I say "mature" because we have enough of an edit war as it is). Mackan 20:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm really tired of people who go "please please please" on these JPOV KPOV disputes - all of them sound the same to me (i.e. user:Opp2, and user:Jjok).
 * Anyways, I was using the terms "KPOV" & "JPOV" out of convenience. At the same time, NPOV consists of both KPOV & JPOV arguments. In anyways, could somebody make a list of disputed contents here?
 * P.S. I do not "welcome" your implication that Korean editors are not mature. (Wikimachine 03:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
 * You misunderstand me. I did not implicate that Korean editors are not mature, I'm just trying to highlight that we hardly need any more meatpuppets, considering the amount of Japanese ones on this page already. Also, if you have any problems with the word "please" - a polite way of asking for something - that should say more about you than me. Please assume good faith.Mackan 08:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Areas of dispute
 * (a) Is there official contemporary Japanese documentation that the Japanese authorities coerced deliberately?
 * (b) Is there reliable non-official or non-contemporary documentation that the Japanese authorities coerced deliberately?
 * (c) Did the Japanese authorities coerce deliberately?
 * (d) To what extent did agents and individuals in the military etc coerce?
 * There are many women testifying to coercion but in Japan this is disputed too - e.i. some would add
 * (e) Was there coercion?
 * Personally, the testimony of some women is so compelliing and painful this is not something I would dispute so I would leave out (e) but JPOV (see below) marginalises it.
 * Another way of splitting up the areas of dispute
 * (1) Was there overt official coercion (a)
 * (2) Was there tacit official coercion (b and c)
 * (3) How much non official coercion was there (d)
 * The question of the existance and type of documentation is very important because not only would it prove coercion but also if (a) were found it would also prove that that coercion was overt, systematic and thus even worse. Hence the analysis of the deceptiveness of the word "ianfu" is very important I would say. --Timtak 05:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of "JPOV" it is interesting to refer to the japanese wikipedia entry
 * (e) above is in dispute on the Japanese wikipedia entry which suggests that the assertion of 'coercion in a broad sense' is marginal or even "masochistic" (however, there are several people arguing for the removal of "masochistic" on the talk page).
 * There is mention of various estimates of numbers. Non-Japanese estimates are given but said to be based on "unclear data."
 * The size of the wages is emphasised, reported to be more than four times that of a army general and thus 'enourmous'
 * In a list of controversies are the ones mentioned above there is the rather hair splitting "(f) coerced prostitution" and (g) were the women brought as a result of negotiation and financial transactions with parents, ignoring the will of the women themselves.
 * It is said that the statement of first Korean woman to testify contained contradiction, snd this drew controversy.
 * It is pointed out that there was a millitary memo (which has a seperate entry) sent concerning the comfort women to those concerned in the millitary in March 1934, basically ordering those concerned with comfort stations to make sure that comfort women are recruited properly (without coercion) by overseeing recruitment process and vetting recruitment agents, "so as not to damage the reputation of the army and cause a 'social problem' (perhaps = scandal)".
 * It is stated as fact that there is no official documentary evidence for coersion and that only the only evidence found is testimony of the women.
 * Doubt is drawn concerning the credibility of the testimony of author Yasuda Seiji, the x soldier who claimed to have forced Koreans into comforstations and to have "hunted for comfort women."
 * It is suggested near the top, and by the first link in the related link that the issue is really propoganda.--Timtak 05:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's important to look at what is meant by "coercion". Coercion can mean forced recruitment of women (i.e. kidnapping), or it can mean lack of freedom to leave or to refuse sex (i.e. sexual slavery). It seems that Japanese politicians have only said that
 * there is no evidence, that
 * the army was officially and directly involved
 * in the kidnapping of women.
 * It seems to me that it is a very specific denial which doesn't necessarily go against testimonies of the women. Phonemonkey 12:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree in part - these are important distinctions - but perhaps as a result of the discovery of the millitary memo which orders vigilance against agents decieving comfort women during the recruiting process, I think that there has been an increasing tendency even among politicians to deny even tacit complicity in coercion of the type testified by the women.--Timtak 01:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "villigence"? The word is not in my dictionary.218.216.99.67 00:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "vigilance", sorry. Corrected above.

First of all, we are not using primary sources, right? It seems as if you are trying to imply that these vague areas can be clarified by supplying primary sources - however, that's making your own thesis. Only 2ndary & tertiary sources can be used. And shouldn't that mean that there is no dispute? Combination of KPOV & JPOV 2ndary sources & tertiary sources should maike the article neutral - unless there's something else going on.

Another thing is that if you keep supplying KPOV & then JPOV opinions on the matter, then it just becomes a series of concessive assertions for the JPOV. Why don't we list all the changes we want to make to this article? Wording of the different viewpoints make whole lot of difference on this subject. (Wikimachine 15:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
 * If this refers to what I have written above the I must apologize. I can only read English and Japanese but I guess that the Korean Wikipedia site gives JPOV followed by Korean comment.


 * Wikimachine, my comment above was a response to Timtak's comment a) to e), perhaps I should have indented my comment to made that clearer. Anyway, you've lost me with your talk of KPOV vs JPOV. The bottom line is, if someone has an edit suggestion relevant to the topic and is able to provides a source then there's no reason why it shouldn't be included in the article as long as it is presented in a NPOV manner, and you're welcome to do the same.Phonemonkey 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the initiation of the dispute, has there been any agreement on the changes? What were they? Thanks. Im not trying to add anything new, I just dont want anything crazy resulting from the dispute. (Wikimachine 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC))


 * If there are any specific comments you would like to add to any of the edit suggestions on this page then you are welcome to do so. You're obviously not happy with some of the discussions on this page but unless you specify exactly which part and why, it's difficult to get into discussion. Phonemonkey 09:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A view of a Japanese columnist
A conservative columnist, Hideaki Kase writes in NewsWeek:"The fact is that the brothels were commercial establishments. U.S. Army records explicitly declare that the comfort women were prostitutes, and found no instances of 'kidnapping' by the Japanese authorities. It's also worth noting that some 40 percent of these women were of Japanese origin."

I recently read this because it was on Marmot's Hole. Following quote from the article might be useful in shedding light on where the author's coming from:"Many Japanese politicians have also come to believe that the Nanking Massacre was a fabrication of the Chinese, who are using it to pressure Japan into granting concessions in other areas. More than 60 Diet members conducted several study sessions in February and March. Much evidence disproving the massacre was presented; for example, although the Chinese Nationalist Ministry of Information conducted more than 300 press conferences over 11 months after the fall of Nanking, it never breathed a word about any massacre. Nor did Chiang Kai-shek or Mao Zedong refer to it in statements on the first anniversary of the war." Is this the best evidence he could find and does he think the politicians reached a reasonable conclusion from it? And there is a short Wikipedia entry on him - Hideaki Kase. --Empraptor 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hideaki Kase (Japanese: 加瀬英明) is a Japanese revisionist, who is known for praising Kamikaze pilots, and claiming that Japan's actions in World War II were justifiable.


 * In an interview with BBC journalist Bethan Jinkinson, Kase said: "The majority of our people believe that Japan was forced into war by the United States. America was making unreasonable demands upon us. So we were fighting a war of national self-defence".


 * "Japan was forced into WW II to liberate Asia from the yoke of Western colonialism." 128.134.207.82 04:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to see more on the Causes_of_World_War_II wikiepedia about causes of the war in Asia. --218.223.193.144 08:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hata
Why is the political hack Hata given so much space in the article? He is a favorite of right-wing politicians and bloggers, but he is not a credible scholar on the issue of comfort women. Look here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22comfort+women%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search He is cited by only one article, and that only to basically criticize him as part of a political movement. This page should be about *comfort women*. Right now, it gives too much space to Japanese deniers and modern Japanese domestic politics. The deniers should get a separate page, like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldpowder (talk • contribs) 04:42, March 30, 2007 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous. How can you know Prof. Hata is cited in only one article? Did you read all 1700 articles on the site? If you search "Ikuhiko Hata" on Google Scholar, you'll find 171 articles that cite him. He is a respected scholar, although you can't read his articles. This rubbish shows how such people who confuse ianfu with Holocaust are ignorant and illogical. Ikedanobuo 05:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure a lot of readers come to this article looking to find out more information about exactly what the controversy is all about, so there's no justification in blanking information about where the controversy comes from. And you said it yourself - Hata is a "favourite of right wing politicians" and "part of a political movement" - and therefore important enough to warrent a mention. Oh by the way Ikeda, are you here for a discussion or do you just want to continue spitting everywhere? Phonemonkey 10:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is George Hicks?
Who is George Hicks? We all know he wrote "The Comfort Women". But what else do we know about him? According to his book, he is "an economist & writer w/ a lifetime's experience of Asia".George Hicks What scholastic achievement has he accomplished? Has he published any theses on this issue? Can we call him a historian, a scholar or just a non-fiction writer? Does anyone know?61.24.93.5 16:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

George Hicks is an Australian economist, who is a long-term resident of Hong Kong. It seems he has no academic background. He contributed a number of articles to International Herald Tribune. This article shows his attitude toward Asia very well. People say that it was "Yumi Lee" a Korean national living in Japan who appears in the acknowledgement of the book "The Comfort Women" that did the study required for the book. But I could not find what he does for living.61.24.93.5 14:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Yumi" is likely to be female.

Who is Hideaki Kase who wrote a column for Newsweek?
Hideaki Kase (Japanese: 加瀬英明) is a Japanese revisionist, who is known for praising Kamikaze pilots, and claiming that Japan's actions in World War II were justifiable.

In an interview with BBC journalist Bethan Jinkinson, Kase said: "The majority of our people believe that Japan was forced into war by the United States. America was making unreasonable demands upon us. So we were fighting a war of national self-defence".

Annother citation:

"Japan was forced into WW II to liberate Asia from the yoke of Western colonialism."

A conservative columnist, Hideaki Kase writes in NewsWeek:"The fact is that the brothels were commercial establishments. U.S. Army records explicitly declare that the comfort women were prostitutes, and found no instances of 'kidnapping' by the Japanese authorities. It's also worth noting that some 40 percent of these women were of Japanese origin." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.134.207.82 (talk) 05:02, March 30, 2007 (UTC)

Hideaki Kase is not a recognized scholar on comfort women either. Don't turn this page into an article about right-wing Japanese politics, move that into a "Comfort Women denial" article. This article should be about comfort women, citing respected scholars on comfort women, like Hicks and Yoshimi. Goldpowder 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional Sources
Since this issue has become an issue in international affairs, and with US and other, Canada more recently, issuing a statement, I've read the whole article and decided to read the discussion page and boy was I in for a surprise! Anyways after going over some of the sources I went ahead and typed 'comfort women' in Google and found Women's Studies Encyclopedia By Helen (EDT) Tierney. I am sure that my source will get shot down by Mr. Ikeda Nobuo (giggles), but the description of 'comfort woman' here does seem to be a lot more vivid than what is here. Since I don't have the talent or the time to do any sort of editing, I hope my little contribution will aid the more vigorous editors here. Mangiraikos 06:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow!

Summary of the facts
The Yomiuri summarized this issue in three articles. This would be a starting point to correct Wikipedia's entry. Western media's reports are unreliable because they were third-hand sources based on the misleading articles of the Asahi, which it admitted was incorrect in effect. (Fuji TV) If you disagree with this summary, show the facts to disprove them. Ikedanobuo 03:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if there happens to be an article somewhere in the international media which states that some of their information was gleaned off Asahi (and I haven't seen one so far) it is absurd to suggest that that would be a good enough reason to disregard all media sources unless it is Japanese (well, specifically Yomiuri it seems in your case). Phonemonkey 22:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no "jugun ianfu"
Comfort women were not treated as "paramilitary personnel," unlike jugun kangofu (military nurses) and jugun kisha (military correspondents).

The number is under controversy
According to Prof. Yoshimi, there were 50,000 - 200,000 comfort women, while Prof. Hata estimates it was less than 20,000.
 * Then we can say that the number of comfort women who served for the Japanese army is disputed. (Wikimachine 16:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC))
 * As agreed above.Phonemonkey 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A funny calculation: there were 3 million soldiers in the Pacific front. If there were 200,000 ianfu and "they accept 20 customers per day" as Prof. Yoshimi claims, 200,000 * 20 = 4 million, so soldiers had done it 1.3 times everyday without fighting.

In fact there were 200,000 government-regulated prostitutes for 30 million customers in inland Japan. If the same proportion of "labor productivity" is applied, 20,000 would be appropriate, as Prof. Hata estimates. Ikedanobuo 01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That "funny calculation" is original research, is it not?  on camera <sup style="color:#B9B9B9;">(t)  02:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If one reads The “Comfort Women” Issue and the Asian Women’s Fund, page 10 one will find out how the estimates are arrived at. He who does not seem to understand the way scientific estimates are made, can be funny, but not necessarily in the way he intended. And maybe he can not be funny at all. For one number in the calculation might represent how often a girl has been raped, and another how long she would have survived that.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 01:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The 200,000 is an estimate of the total number throughout the war - not a total at any one particular point in time. Please take your poor-quality original research elsewhere. Phonemonkey 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Army was involved in the establishment of comfort stations
The government has admitted the Imperial Japanese Army's involvement in brothels, saying that "the then Japanese military was, directly or indirectly, involved in the establishment and management of the comfort stations and the transfer of comfort women."

There was no evidence of Army's abduction
Cabinet Secretariat official said in the Diet, "There is no evidence in public documents that clearly shows there were any forcible actions [in recruiting comfort women]." No further evidence that could disprove this statement has been found.


 * It might be that Mr. Hata has not made a thorough study of sources in Dutch. Beside the case tried in the Batavia Court, there are several credible testimonies of the Japanese Army being involved in (attempted) kidnappings (Jong, L. de; Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, deel 11b, Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, Amsterdam, 1985, p. 796-799). Furthermore it has been recorded that a Dutch police officer refused to cooperate with setting up a brothel. He was arrested by the Japanese Army and shot after trying to escape. The Japanese commander gave the order that his body was to be displayed with a warning in Indonesian that this was what would happen to persons not complying with Japan (Jong, L. de; Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, deel 11a, Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, Amsterdam, 1985, p. 304).


 * The case, so-called "Semarang incident" has been well-known for more than sixty years. Dutch court decided that it was not army's order but sexual abuses of army officers. The criminals were executed. In fact, in many countries, 34 Japanese soldiers were executed in charge of "sexual slavery" after WW2. U.S. Army investigated it and concluded "A 'comfort girl' is nothing more than a prostitute or 'professional camp follower' attached to the Japanese Army for the benefit of the soldiers." Ikedanobuo 00:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will return to what happened in Semarang when my search for sources on the subject is finished. But more cases of abduction by military personnel in official capacity have been documented, view my comment under . The US army report you quote is 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. Sources that there were some voluntary prostitutes among the comfort women only contradict the statement that all comfort women were forced. But nobody made this statement. There are some who maintain that no comfort women were forced by the military. Sources that some were do contradict the latter statement.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 01:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yoshida's testimony was a fabrication
The belief that comfort women were forcibly recruited started to spread by Seiji Yoshida's book. But researchers concluded in the mid-1990s that the stories in his book were not authentic.

Asahi's incorrect report misled the issue
What made the issue of "comfort women" a political and diplomatic one was an article in the Jan. 11, 1992, morning edition of The Asahi Shimbun that reported the comfort women were abducted by the Army.  But it proved incorrect, which the Asahi admitted in effect.

Wartime brothels were common to many countries
There was a case in which U.S. military officials asked the Japanese authorities to provide women for sexual services after WW2. During the Vietnam War, brothels similar to those established for the former Japanese military were available to U.S. troops.
 * Stop lying about RAA. Don't forget that RAA was created by Japanese government to please US soldiers. Japanese government was a shop owner and manager. American soldiers were only shoppers.
 * The RAA was created on August 28, 1945 by the Japanese Home Ministry to contain the sexual urges of the occupation forces and protect the main Japanese populace from rape. The RAA's own slogan was "For the country, a sexual breakwater to protect Japanese women" (お国のために日本女性を守る性の防波堤). In September, the system was extended to cover the entire country.220.76.64.107 14:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Japanese government should apologize for having acted as a pimp.
 * When recruiting for the RAA, what term was used?


 * "Wartime brothels were common to many countries" - so? First of all this article is about Japanese ones, so whatever took place elsewhere is beyond the scope of the article. Secondly as you know full well the issue is not about the existence of military brothels but about recruitment and treatment of the women involved. Phonemonkey 21:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, your sources are from Japanese sites. Its obvious that Japanese sites would present the Japanese view on comfort women, which is actualy very mild that hiring comfort women was ever done. Again, this goes for Korean sources too. We can't use POV articles. Good friend100 16:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It'll be impossible to come to a concensus if we continue debating whether media sources from whichever country is reliable or not. I think the only way out is to allow references to major media sources whether they be Japanese, Korean or Western. They just has to be presented in a NPOV manner i.e. taking care not to imply that what they say is the truth, but merely stating what the relevant sources are saying and acknowledging that they may conflict with one another. At the end of the day the purpose of the article is not to state what really happened, but to give an overview of current viewpoints which often differ. Agreed? Phonemonkey 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * News media can be reliable sources for news and current debate. For historic events, secondary or tertiary sources by scholars of the subject ought to be presented. My impression is that the backbone of the article can be based on such sources, showing some areas of dispute. After that, the disputes can be presented in detail, where necessary with media sources.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 23:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Western media's reports are unreliable??
They are still more reliable than Japanese or Korean media. I don't think any of the East Asian nations have freedom of speech or press, my friend.Merumerume 15:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. South Korea is a country that allows a lot of freedom of speech and press. Just listen to South Korean radio and you'll hear many people spitting insults at our president, Roh muh-hyun, something that was unthinkable during Park Chung-hee's time. Apart from South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (if Taiwan is an east asian country), all the other east asian countries heavily restrict speech and press. Good friend100 16:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I still doubt that any of the east asian nations have freedom of speech and press. When MBC had a report on stem-cell research fraud, they were bitterly attacked by all the places. 조영남 was kicked out from KBS shows based on his political beliefs. Freedom of Speech? Heck no. I don't think I would need to cite Japanese examples as they are already done by someone else.Merumerume 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More correctly, a freedom of speech that's heavily limited/pressured/constructed by the society. So? What does the public media have anything to do with the academia? You can't make generalizations to override/minimize validity of certain sources that both sides present. (Wikimachine 21:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

MBC was attacked by the public because of its presentation of Hwang that Hwang was a bad person. At the time, most Koreans supported Hwang and ignored the scandal until further evidence was found. Don't just accuse a country of having no freedom of speech/press because of a couple things. South Korea is a very democratic country. Good friend100 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese media are unreliable

 * The liberal-left Asahi Shimbun has been a target of attack for, among other things, its failure to use proper honorific terms for the emperor.


 * Tomohiro Kojiro, an Asahi reporter, was killed by a shotgun-wielding rightist in 1987.


 * In October 1993 a man named Nomura Shusuke killed himself in the Asahi offices because he felt the paper had been making fun of rightists.


 * The mayor of Nagasaki, Motojima Hitoshi, a mild-mannered Christian, was threatened for months by right-wingers, egged on by academics and a handful of senior politicians, for suggesting that emperor Hirohito bore some responsibility for the war.
 * He was eventually shot in the back, but survived, in January 1990, but not before 3.8 million people had signed a petition supporting what he said.

128.134.207.82 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Japan’s Textbooks Reflect Revised History (NYT April 1, 2007)

 * The Ministry of Education ordered publishers to delete passages stating that the Imperial Army ordered civilians to commit mass suicide during the Battle of Okinawa


 * During the 1945 battle, during which one quarter of the civilian population was killed, the Japanese Army showed indifference to Okinawa’s defense and safety. Japanese soldiers used civilians as shields against the Americans, and persuaded locals that victorious American soldiers would go on a rampage of killing and raping. With the impending victory of American troops, civilians committed mass suicide, urged on by fanatical Japanese soldiers.


 * In explaining its policy change, the ministry said that “it is not clear that the Japanese Army coerced or ordered the mass suicides.”


 * As with Mr. Abe’s denial regarding sexual slavery, the ministry’s new position appeared to discount overwhelming evidence of coercion, particularly the testimony of victims and survivors themselves.

 128.134.207.82 00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * “There are many Okinawans who have testified that the Japanese Army directed them to commit suicide,” Ryukyu Shimpo, one of the two major Okinawan newspapers, said in an angry editorial. “There are also people who have testified that they were handed grenades by Japanese soldiers” to blow themselves up. The editorial described the change as a politically influenced decision that “went along with the government view.”


 * In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a noticeboard about the battle of Okinawa. If you want to contribute to the discussion as to how the comfort women article can be improved, please come back with a relevant edit suggestion and back it up with rationale and a reliable source. Phonemonkey 22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above article criticize Japanese government's effort to erase historical facts including sexual slavery and Okinawan coerced mass suicide with the same rationale that testimonies from victims are not important. This is worth mentioning in our article about comfort women.128.134.207.82 01:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear 128.134.207.82: It seems that you are mislead by New York Times. In Japan, the government does not make textbooks. Any publisher can produce history textbooks if they pass textbook examination. The examination is done in a scientific manner. When an examiner challenges a description in the textbook, the publisher must produce convincing evidence that supports the description. In the mentioned case, the publisher could not show a convincing evidence to support that the Japanese army forced the civilians to commit suicide. This is not an attempt to re-write history. Rather, it is a scientific way to find truth. Also, I agree with Phonemonkey. We should not spend too much space on this subject.61.24.93.5 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. Do you have any scientific evidence on Japanese emperor, Tenno? You donot apply scientific standard to any description on Japanese emperor. The examiner never never raises question on Tenno. Otherwise, Japanese rightist would try to kill that poor examiner. 128.134.207.82 02:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are some very unscientific description of tenno in Japanese history books.


 * Most scholars agree that the purported founding date of Japan (660 BCE) and the first thirteen emperors of Japan are mythical. It is much more likely that they were chieftains, or local kings, and that the polities they ruled would not have encompassed all, or even most, of Japan. For those monarchs, and also for the Emperors Ojin and Nintoku, the lengths of reign are likely to have been exaggerated in order to make the origins of the imperial family sufficiently ancient to satisfy numerological expectations.128.134.207.82 02:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Army's responsibility
There seems to be a consensus that no evidence of military abduction is found. It's a good starting point because all historians agree with it. Japanese Army was not responsible for kidnapping but responsible for the establishment and supervision of military brothels. And there was human trafficking, which could be called "sexual slavery" if you like, but the Army punished such conduct of agents because it was illegal.

Indeed the ianfu was a historical tragedy, but it was a result of war, a huge crime. Japanese Army didn't order sexual slavery, but it could be accused of invasion to Asian countries, which brought about many abuses of human rights, including the ianfu. Ikedanobuo 01:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * War itself does not justify the war crimes Japan committed during WWII. You can't just say "I did it, but because it was during war, it was ok". And the Japanese army did "order" sex slaves. They certainly didn't post up ads with a "become a sex slave in the Japanese army today" but instead put up something like "young women join the army and get money for your family" etc.
 * And if the army punished soldiers who committed war crimes, then how come the war crimes lasted all the way to the end of the war? It would have been diminished. Good friend100 03:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Military abduction has been documented in
 * The Semarang case is only the most flagrant example, but more instances are given. On what scale the military directly was involved in abductions can be disputed. The source quoted indicates that in the beginning existing prostitutes were employed and recruiting was aimed at women who volunteered. But later on both Army and Navy resorted to forced abductions.


 * As for measures taken by the Army in the Semarang case, According to the source quoted, after that all women and girls from the brothels were visibly detained togehether, which was of course again very painful for those who had been forced to prostitution earlier. If your presentation were correct, three questions are hard to answer:
 * 1) If sexual slavery was clearly not in order, why take months and go all the way up to Tokyo before changing anything?
 * 2) If coercion was an exceptional crime in a single case, why close down all of the brothels?
 * 3) If coercion was the problem, why the limitation to Dutch and Dutch Eurasians?
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 19:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * According to this source, Japanese army demanded the brothel owner to release the women immediately after the army official found the fact.
 * Japanese army occupied French Indochina, British Malay, British Singapore, British Burma and US Philippines, and detained lots of European descendants. No forced prostitution by detainees is recorded in these areas. The Dutch case is exceptional in this sense also. Generalization based on this Dutch case needs caution.61.24.93.119 14:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have stated below I do agree that we have to be very careful with generalizations. There are more (and more recent) sources on what happened in Semarang, so I will try to compare them in future contributions. Is there an English version of the source you cite? Does it literally talk about 'releasing the women'? Up to now I have found only sources stating that the brothels were closed and the women detained elsewhere. There are indeed several different accounts of the reaction of the Japanese Army. As far as I know, the number of civilian detainees of European descent in the Dutch East Indies was considerably higher than in the areas you mention. I'll try to find some sources for that too.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear 61.24.93.119, to follow up on my last comment, I cite The text mentions that internment by the Japanese in the Dutch East Indies was different from elsewhere in two ways:
 * families were separated: men were put in other camps than women and children up to 8 year;
 * representatives of the International Comittee of the Red Cross and of governments under the Geneva Convention were refused access to the camps.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 19:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a minor point but you're right, the source says that the women were transferred to another detention facility after the brothel closure, but in effect they were "released" from forced sexual servitude. Phonemonkey 21:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It could be relevant, because afterwards the Japanese army detained all women of Dutch descent "released" from the brothels together, in the vicinity, but strictly separated from the other women internment camps (all under Japanese army control). This shows very clearly that the Japanese army had been heavily involved in the recruitment, was at the time itself unable to make a distinction between prostitution by force or by choice and knew full well that it was in for trouble if word got out. There are documented cases of the Japanese army after having made mistakes trying to make up for them at the time. But not in this case. There is no record of any disciplinary measures by the Japanese military against those who are supposed to have acted against the rules. The reaction of the Japanese army proves that the Semarang case was not 'exceptional' misbehaviour by a few 'criminals'.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 16:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "there is no record of any disciplinary measures by the Japanese military against those who are supposed to have acted against the rules"? The statement, as it appears, is not true. And you can not generalize anything based on untrue statemant.61.24.65.203 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If I am wrong, please present the source where these measures by the Japanese military have been documented.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 08:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This reportsays "Between July 1937 and the end of 1939 during the war between China and Japan, 732 Japanese solders were found guilty of rape by Japanese marshal court." citing a letter sent by the Adjutant to the Minister of Army, Naoich Kawahara to army commanders on September 19, 1940. So, measures were taken.61.24.65.203 14:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your contribution is another source for my statement above: There are documented cases of the Japanese army after having made mistakes trying to make up for them at the time. But as the Semarang case happened in 1943-1944 it shows in no way that the Japanese army punished the perpetrators, suggesting that at the time the army did only consider this case a minor violation of policy, not a major crime.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 20:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * StuartLaJoie, do you admit that you cannot make such a general statement like "there is no record of any disciplinary measures by the Japanese military against those who are supposed to have acted against the rules"?
 * Also, what do you mean by "make up"? I think Kawahara's letter has nothing to do with "make up".61.24.65.203 17:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear 61.24.65.203, maybe a minor change in the original interpunction would clarify my intentions even better.
 * But not in this case: there is no record of any disciplinary measures by the Japanese military against those who are supposed to have acted against the rules.
 * The statement was never more general than that. In the meantime I found a source for this statement:.
 * I wrote 'make up for'', which is quite different from 'make up'. Let me clarify this by rephrasing:
 * There are documented cases of the Japanese army after having made mistakes trying to make amends for them at the time.
 * Beside the Kawahara letter I am aware of more recorded cases of Japanese military being punished by the Japanese army if it found out they had committed serious crimes. Sometimes it even tried to make a gesture towards the victims. It is well documented that several army headquarters were informed about what happened in Semarang. The absence of punitive action against the perpetrators and atonement for the victims in this case suggests that the army did not consider it a serious crime. Such a mindset, in Japanese headquarters from Batavia up to Tokyo, makes believable that the forced abduction of women was not that exceptional.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 15:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Similar to holocaust denial
<i>"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."128.134.207.82 09:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the point here is that there is neither written evidence nor convincing testimonies that indicate Japanese Government or Japanese Army physically abducted or "drafted" comfort women in Korea. If you think testimonies by Korean former comfort women were trustworthy see the section "Credibility of recent testimonies made by former comfort women" above. All the old evidence shows comfort women were prostitutes.61.24.93.5 15:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are right to refocus on the subject of this article. As I demonstrate above, the presented criticism of the testimonies is not very convincing. Your statement that comfort women were prostitutes strictly speaking does not contradict the article or, for that matter, all later evidence: comfort women were forced to be prostitutes as a form of sexual slavery. You probably want to say something along the lines that All old evidence shows that comfort women were prostitutes by choice. Such a statement is simply not correct. Dutch war records stated well before 1990 that on the one hand, especially in the beginning, some women who had been prostitutes before became comfort women by choice. On the other hand they mention several forms of coercion, including multiple cases of Japanese army personnel using force in recruiting women. It has been recorded that there were Japanese orders to destroy documents shortly after the war. For that reason the absence of documents by itself can hardly discredit testimonies by survivors.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 20:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

We really don't care a bit. All the red accounts that pop up here & there as sock puppets & meat puppets & straw man puppets... Reliable & verifiable sources.... and maybe NPOV here & there... that's it. (Wikimachine 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Sorry Wikimachine, hope I'm not being rude but your post above escapes me completely. Phonemonkey 00:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dutch sources
As some sources are relevant for several topics, it might be useful to present them separately. This prevents having the discussion on the acceptability of the source spread over several topics. In this spirit I will present the results of my search for Dutch sources under this header, with some general information on translations, relevance and reliability. Everyone is invited to put his or her comments on these sources per se here. Any (proposed) statements or comments on (proposed) statements in the article that are to be based on these sources are not to be made here, but under the topic in question.

&hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 18:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The collapse of a colonial society
In 1955 the Dutch government commissioned a comprehensive history of the Netherlands in the Second World War from Dr. Louis de Jong, head of the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation (called Rijksinstituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie or RIOD at the time). This resulted in a scholarly study entirely based on pre-existing written sources. It was published from 1969 to 1988 in 13 parts divided over 27 volumes and nearly 15,000 pages. To illustrate the thoroughness aimed for: the 13th part consisted of appendices and corrections and the work was completed in 1991 with the 14th part by two different editors that contained the reactions to the earlier parts. As could be expected there have been heated debates and sharp criticisms on topics in these books, but it is generally accepted as the standard work on the subject: looking at the whole it is hard to blame De Jong with a bias in any direction. Over 70,000 Dutch households own the full series.

Most of the work dealt with the war in Europe, but part 11 (three subparts a, b and c in five volumes) is devoted completely to the war in the Pacific and the Dutch in Indonesia (at the time: the Dutch East Indies). Information on the subject of this article (3 to 4 pages in all) can be found in part 11b: Fortunately, as part of an on-going collaboration project with Japanese scholars (!) all relevant chapters have been translated in English and published as a separate book: I will make my references to this latter publication, as this is the english Wikipedia. I have checked that nothing in Part 13 or Part 14 of the original work refers to the subject of this article. It seemed useful to give some information on the original source. This study was not based on Japanese research and was not influenced by international developments. It might be helpful to source some statements from the article in an authoritative work by a scholar of renown. This study of course also has it limitations.
 * 1) It is imported to note - and explicitly stated in Part 11 - that the Dutch (including those of mixed descent) only comprised about 0.4 percent of the population of Indonesia at the time. The end of the Second World War also marked the beginning of the struggle for independence of Indonesia. As a result Dutch sources on the war in the Pacific contain very limited information on the experiences of the Indonesian people itself.
 * 2) A recurring theme in Part 11 is that the Japanese occupation cannot be described with sweeping statements. The Army acted different than the Navy, there were differences between regions (islands), phases of the war and even individual commanders. It was exceptional if the Japanese military uniformly adhered to detailed official regulations. This suggests to me that any sweeping statement in the article better be very well sourced.

&hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 18:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you dutch? It seems impressive to me how Dutch historians are interested in this topic. Good friend100 02:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am. Many Dutch people are interested in history, especially in the Second World War. As most people of Dutch descent eventually came to the Netherlands when Indonesia became independent, there are also a lot of people who have done research and have written on their war experiences in the Pacific. In relative terms the number of Dutch women involved is probably not so big (200-300), but this were women who could read, write and as citizens had the right to vote, so their ordeal was better documented than that of other victims. As there is a lot of controversy around this article it is probably useful to have some sources that are not easily disputed. But I sincerely hope that sources from other countries will be presented, so we can get the full picture.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 21:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

more sources
More Dutch sources will be presented here, but this will take some time.

&hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 18:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Audio Source
http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_220_Comfort_Woman.mp3

This is a link to a NPR interview of an ex-confort woman.--67.175.156.20 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Abe's call to Bush
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-04/04/content_5930992.htm "Abe restated his position that he stands by the statement made by the then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono, who officially acknowledged and apologized over the fact that Japan forced women from other Asian countries to be sex slaves for its soldiers during World War II, the ministry said in a statement." 128.122.9.68 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He didnot change a bit. He never confronted Kono statement until now.

Congressional Research Service report
The U.S. Congressional Research Service delivered a report on "Japanese Mlitary Comfort Women System" to the congress on April 3. It says

"The military may not have directly carried out the majority of recruitment, especially in Korea; but the Abe government's denial of any evidence of military coercion in recruitment goes against the testimony of former comfort [women] to Japanese government researchers who compiled the 1992-1993 government report."

One factual error: since the testimony of comfort women to Japanese government was not disclosed, nobody can know whether Abe's statement is against it or not. Ikedanobuo 10:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "There is little question that, since 1992, the Government of Japan has acknowledged fully the role of the Japanese military and government in establishing and operating the comfort women system before and during World War II."220.76.64.49 16:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Establishment and operation of comfort stations by the military is not the issue and has never been disputed (as far as I am aware). Ikeda is right in pointing out the factual error although he hasn't stated how this should affect how we should build this article. Phonemonkey 01:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote by Ikedanobuo is not complete. Though there is no ellipsis (...)-sign, an interesting part before the period is missing. After government report the quote should continue:
 * ...and the testimony of forced recruitment by nearly 200 former comfort women from different Asian countries and the Netherlands of the 400 plus testimonies cited in Yuki Tanaka's book, Japan's Comfort Women.
 * As this source is publicly available, the supposed factual error is substantially diminished. But even this diminished factual error can be refuted. Just reading the quote makes it clear that the Japanese government researchers who compiled the 1992-1993 report should know whether Mr. Abe's statement is consistent with it or not. The paragraph following the one quoted implies the latter.
 * The CRS report itself could be a valuable source for several statements in the article.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 00:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear StuartLaJoie: I do not understand your point. Ikeda is just pointing out a tiny error in the report in page 21. Surely, "the testimony of former comfort [women] to Japanese government researchers" has not been disclosed. So, no one can say if Abe's statement is for or against those particular testimonies. It is said that 16 Korean former comfort women made those testimonies. There is criticism against those testimonies as I wrote in the section "Credibility of recent testimonies made by former comfort women" citing the Minute of Cabinet Committee, House of Representatives, Parliament of Japan, Feb 21, 2007.
 * The stand point of Kono statement is that Government of Japan apologizes to the former comfort women regardless of existence or non-existence of evidence. This political generosity may be puzzling to many Europeans. Abe assumes this stand point. Abe's denial of evidence does not imply denial of coercion much less government's apology.61.24.65.203 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear 61.24.65.203, I in my turn was only pointing out some tiny errors in Ikeda's comments. Would you please explain why the 1993 Japanese government researchers would not be able to say wether Mr. Abe's statement is compatible with the testimonies of the victims or not? I agree with you that no one else can. But in cases of sexual abuse it is quite acceptable not to disclose information identifying the witnesses (including their testimonies) because that could amount to punishing victims and rewarding perpetrators. Having researchers judge the validity of the information seems an acceptable solution. Quoting minutes from 2007 about interviews held by a parliamentary committee in 2003 can by itself not refute the findings of researchers in 1993. How could this committee know what was said to the 1993 researchers if it has not been disclosed? But more important for the article we are writing: apart from many other testimonies there is documentary evidence in Dutch records of several cases of forced abduction by the military. These findings were presented to the Japanese government in 1994 and have not been denied.


 * The Kono statement says:
 * The Government study has revealed that in many cases they were recruited against their own will, through coaxing coercion, etc., and that, at times, administrative/military personnel directly took part in the recruitments.
 * so contrary to what you state, the apology was explicitly based on evidence. If one stands by the Kono statement, one stands by this part too. There are no new findings that refute this part; there are several older records that support it. As for the larger picture, records were either not kept or destroyed, testimonies are an important source. Mr. Kono clearly acknowledges this. Nothing puzzling there.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 17:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Overall this report is silly. Its answer to the core question whether Japanese Army was responsible for the coercion of the comfort women depends only two sources; one is wrong as I wrote, and the other is Yuki Tanaka's ridiculous book. Tanaka is an obscure political scientist who publishes books only from a communist publisher. The book "Japan's Comfort Women" is a second-hand compiled translation of would-be comfort women that is endorsed with no evidence, which has no value as historical material.

In short, CRS couldn't find the hard evidence that the Army coerced women into sexual slavery. In fact they confess it; they don't say Abe is wrong but his comment "goes against the testimony" that they had never read. Indeed, if the testimony is true, Abe might be wrong; but since there is no such disclosed testimony, Abe would be right. Ikedanobuo 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Ikedanobuo, happy to hear from you.


 * 1) The CRS report explicitly presents a selection of what it calls 'bodies of evidence' in a list on page 7-8, containing 9 items. It then tackles your 'main question' in three parts. The answer for each of these parts rests on more than two independent sources. You questioned one of these sources, because it has not been disclosed. I have presented a rebuttal to which you have yet to respond. Assuming that this source has not been disclosed to you or me, how can either of us say it is wrong? Sounds like a factual error to me;-)
 * 2) You do not show why Tanaka's book should be considered ridiculous, or he himself obscure. He appears to have written several serious, well-sourced studies on different subjects, quoted in works from other scholars. At least two of these have been translated in English. As far as I know neither Routledge nor Westview Press are communist publishers. As written records have deliberately been destroyed, reports of witnesses relating their experiences are valuable historical material in themselves, especially if they are carefully compiled by a scholar. As all historical sources, they can be critically examined, they cannot simply be dismissed. Everyone is free to present evidence on the likelihood that ((some parts of) some of) these reports are not true.
 * 3) Mr. Abe's controversial statement is conflicting with several documents in Dutch war records, mentioned on page 8 of the report. The Japanese government has been informed about these records in 1994. The validity of these records has not been challenged. So we must conclude that Mr. Abe's statement is wrong. The pattern emerging from these records adds to the likelihood that the accounts of forcible abduction by the army are true.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 22:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the report more carefully. The evidences listed on pages 7-8 prove what you don't want to be true. The report concludes "The evidence indicates that comfort stations in many locales were run by civilians" (p.10) Ikedanobuo 05:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Ikedanobuo, apparently you presume that comfort stations being run by civilians implies that the military in those cases was not involved in forced abductions. Both in the Semarang and the Pontianak case the Japanese military were involved in forced abductions for brothels run by civilians. The sources I have read would agree with the statement you quote from the CRS report, they would also agree with the statements from this report you objected to earlier. The CRS report is a reliable secondary source.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 22:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion of Congressional Research Service Report
There is little question that, since 1992, the Government of Japan has acknowledged fully the role of the Japanese military and government in establishing and operating the comfort women system before and during World War II. However, even before Prime Minister Abe's controversial statements of March 2007, rhe persuasiveness of the acknowledgments has been weakened in the eyes of many by related controversies over Japan's historic record, such as the Prime Minister Koizurni's visits to the Yasalcuni shrine (where Japan's war dead are enshrined but also where 14 major convicted war criminals also are enshrined), the content of history textbooks, and statements by individual Japanese political leaders such as the statement of the Minigter of Education quoted above. ...

The comfort women issue is part of a broader debate in Japan over how Japanese should view Japan's record during the 1930s and World War II. History revisionists in Japan, as represented by the LDP Committee to Consider Japan's Future Historical Education, appears to seek to absolve Japan from ma.jor guilt for its conduct during this period. Opponents of the history revisionists argue that Japan should acknowledge the negative aspects of its record and teach these to future generations in Japan. A recent example of this struggle, involving another historical issue, was the ruling of the Japanese Ministry of Education to delete passages from high school history textbooks that described the role of the Japanese army in the mass suicides of thousands of Okinawans during the Battle of Okinawa (April-June 1945).220.76.64.49 14:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yasukuni, textbooks, the battle of Okinawa - none of these directly relates to this article. Comfort women may be part of a wider issue which you seem to want to raise, but this article is specifically about comfort women, so let's keep it at that. Phonemonkey 00:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Abe Government's denial is a repudiation of Article 11 of the 1951 Treaty of Peace between the Allied powers and Japan?
Moreover, the contention that there is no evidence of forcible, coerced recruitment seems to either ignore or be a rejection of the findings of the Dutch War Crimes Tribunals' findings and verdicts (including three death penalties) against seven Japanese army officers and four civilian employees of the army for coerced prostitution and rape of Dutch and other women in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). This raises the potentially very important question of whether the Abe goveimment is Repudiation of Article 11 of the 1951 Treaty of Peace between the Allied powers and Japan. Article 11 states: "Japan accepts the judgments of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and of other Allied War Crimes Courts both within and outside Japan. . . ." according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service delivered a report on "Japanese Mlitary Comfort Women System" to the congress on April 3.220.76.64.49 14:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New sources on forced abduction by the army
According to Bloomberg, Japanese scholars have presented some documents that up to now appear to have been overlooked.

&hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The press release is here. According to them, a document submitted to Tokyo Tribunal includes following passage:"Q: How many of these women were forced into the brothel? - A: Five."
 * In fact this isn't a new proof but a tiny footnote for the Semarang incident. It was unfortunately blown out by the Korean gunman of Virginia Tech. Ikedanobuo 06:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The above link for the press release is not currently valid. Meanwhile, this Japan Times article has some details that are not on Bloomberg. - Fayenatic london (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

When I read the news reports, I expected that it could be 'document 5330' and your link confirms this. A copy of this document is in the archives of the Dutch National Institute for War Documentation (NIOD). Originally it is a report of the Dutch East Indies Military Intelligence Service (Nefis), but because it was presented to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, it is in English. The quote mentioned in the link is from this document, although it contains a small, but relevant mistake:
 * Thank you Fayenatic,
 * The Special Naval Police (Tokei Tai) had order ed s to keep the brothels supplied with women; to this end they arrested women on the streets and after enforced medical examination placed them in the brothels.

&hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 22:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The case itself has not been part of the Semarang case in any way. The Semarang case involved the 16th army and was brought before a Dutch Court Martial in Batavia, the Pontianak case involved the Navy and was presented to the War Crimes Tribunal in Tokyo. It is only a footnote in The reason to put it in a footnote is that apparently no women of (partial) Dutch descent were victim. For our article there is no reason to follow this example. I cannot find the source for the quote you make, but it is definitely not in document 5330. This document mentions that the Navy commander "issued the order for the establishment of official brothels. Those brothels were to be divided in two groups:  three establishments for use of Navy personnel only and five or six for the use of civilians, of which latter one was reserved for the higher officials of the Naval Civil Administration (Minseibu)." It was definitely not a matter of just five women being forced.
 * Dear Ikedanobuo,

&hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 22:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

During my research on 'document 5330' above, I found a new pre-1992 source for forced abduction by the Japanese army in China. Apart from the testimonies of witnesses who came forward, the statements in the article can be based on more than the Dutch records, although I still intend to expand the presentation of those sources too. The new source is in English:

&hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comfort women on PBS
Yoshihisa Komori of Sankei Shimbun, Japan's national daily, talked with Fareed Zakaria on a PBS program "Foreign Exchange" on 3/30. See it on Google Video and its transcription. It shows the sad fact that even professional journaist is ignorant of history. Ikedanobuo 05:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Zakaria: But the military was paying for it--just to get at this institutional nature of--of the sex trade; as I understand it the soldiers were not paying for the prostitutes. The military as--as an institution was paying--was contracting with the intermediaries, buying the services of these women and providing them to its--to its soldiers.

Komori: But each soldier was paying--that--the individual.

Zakaria: The individual?

Komori: The individual...


 * Both journalists appear indeed not to be very well informed of what happened. So I suggest we do not use this interview as a source for our article.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 22:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This transcription shows usual misunderstanding and its correction.


 * Zakaria: Japan’s new Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sparked outrage in Asia and beyond when he recently said that there was no evidence that Japan’s Army had forced women to work in military brothels during World War II. [...] Komori why did Abe feel he had to make that statement?


 * Komori: Because he has been asserting that the Japanese military as a matter of policy never coerced the recruitment of young women in Asia. There have been some isolated cases* where soldiers and officers who are defying the order from [inaudible] forcefully taken away--some unfortunate ladies--young ladies, China or Indonesia, but--but again there’s no proof that the Japanese military as a policy--as a whole did such thing.


 * (*) This "isolated case" means Semarang incident.


 * Zakaria: You mean voluntary by the military officers--not by the women?


 * Komori: No, no, by women; you--you may be surprised to hear this but there are lots of the newspaper ads and some other commercial advertisement for recruitment for those women but remind you though sadly the prostitution per se was legal in those days--not just in Japan and there’s--between women and the Japanese military there’s a huge sort of business people who were running these brothels for the military--maybe at the request of the military. So yes; the military was involved but the military never as a policy was coercing those--those women and that’s the sort of complexity of--of the issue.


 * Zakaria: But he also said that the military was not involved in an official capacity.


 * Komori: So official capacity or not that’s policy; I mean that’s pretty much an established fact. I mean you really have to show us you know and the military is a top level. They made a decision--need proof that they are coerced--that they are ordering them--coerced recruitment of the young women.

As Komori says, it's established among historians that there is no evidence of military order to coerce the ianfu. It's regrettable that Wikipedia is protected without acknowledging such established facts. Ikedanobuo 03:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * At an intermediate level there is evidence of military orders to coerce women into prostitution.
 * In the Semarang case it is described that a young Japanese captain objected against coerced recruitment and asked his superior, Maj. Okada, to be relieved of this task; this request was denied:.
 * In the Pontianak case, the Naval commander ordered the Tokei Tai (Special Military Police) to recruit women. This would be an unlikely candidate to recruit volunteers.
 * I know of no serious source stating that such orders existed at a higher level. But it is recorded that these higher levels took no action to punish the perpetrators in the Semarang case: . This implies that at higher levels enforced recruitment in reality was condoned.
 * When ascribing actions to persons or organizations who apparently are trying to hide their involvement, it is not reasonable to expect them to deliver clear evidence proving this involvement. By that standard, the article on Al Capone should not describe him as a gangster, but only as a furniture dealer, convicted of tax fraud.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 16:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you admit that there is no serious sources of high level order at last. Semarang incident was an abuse of military order to recruit women voluntarily. Even Yoshimi admits it. As Komori pointed out, this is the established historical fact, like it or not. Ikedanobuo 01:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you please show me where the article or any of my contributions stated that there existed sources showing high level orders? If there are no such statements, it is not correct to use the words 'admit [...] at last'. If the military orders to 'recruit women voluntarily' showed the genuine intention of the army, than a breach of these orders should have brought the perpetrators for a Japanese court martial. It did not. The army may have had genuine intentions, and only been negligent in acting upon them, or the army could have given the orders to hide its real intentions. I don't know, it could even be a little of both. Either way, the army was involved in forced abductions. Semarang was no unique incident. There are independent records for this form of involvement in Pontianak and Kwelin (China), beside the testimonies of witnesses who came forward. The statements in our article can be based on solid evidence.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 11:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Treatment of comfort women - Just a simple copy edit.
I just wanted to point out a simple copy edit. In the "Treatment of comfort women" section there is a phrase: "We were the emperor'soldiers" I believe it should say "We were the emperor's soldiers".

Looks like someone got typing too fast. Padillah 16:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

✅ Done. Sandstein 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of Comfort Women by US troops after WWII
We need to add a reference to the comfort women used by US troops after World War II as detailed in this CNN article

TOKYO, Japan (AP) -- Japan's abhorrent practice of enslaving women to provide sex for its troops in World War II has a little-known sequel: After its surrender -- with tacit approval from the U.S. occupation authorities -- Japan set up a similar "comfort women" system for American GIs.

''An Associated Press review of historical documents and records shows American authorities permitted the official brothel system to operate despite internal reports that women were being coerced into prostitution. The Americans also had full knowledge by then of Japan's atrocious treatment of women in countries across Asia that it conquered during the war.''

Tens of thousands of women were employed to provide cheap sex to U.S. troops until the spring of 1946, when Gen. Douglas MacArthur shut the brothels down.

Peepeedia 23:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A more scholarly description can be found in and.
 * &hearts; Stuart LaJoie &rarr; overleg 00:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Advert in the Washington Post
A full page advert in the Washington Post was run by the Washington Coalition for Comfort Women Issues, the Greater New York Support 121 Coalition, the Greater Washington Support 121 Coalition, and the 121 Coalition, on Thursday, 26 April 2007, (page A-6), expressing concern at Shinzo Abe's statements distancing the Japanese government from the Comfort Women issue.

Mark Sublette 14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 14:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Things are getting interesting
""I feel deeply sorry that they were forced to be placed in such extremely painful situations," Abe told a small group of Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill, according to a Japanese government official.""

Health of Comfort Women?
I think that this discussion has been primarily focused on whether or not comfort women were "sexual slaves" and other such related political issues. Personally, I feel that we should also take a look at the more human side of this issue. One thing I've noticed is that nowhere in this article is the health, including mental health, conditions of comfort women or former comfort women mentioned. Afterall, part of the reason former comfort women demand reparations and an official apology is that, not only were they wronged, their health was also permenantly ruined. So perhaps we ought to explore this topic as well?

The only source I've found on this topic so far is case analysis for a group of former comfort woment in Taiwan: http://taiwan.yam.org.tw/womenweb/conf_women/conf_abo.htm, http://www.cmht.com/cases_cwcomfort4.php

Though I cannot guarantee the credibility of my sources, from a biological standpoint, I can guarantee that there were probably immense health and psychological repercussions for the comfort women, even if protection was used (highly unlikely). AkrobaticMonkey 04:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Tanaka, Yuki / Tanaka, Toshiyuki
Probably trivial, but I am confused. The book on Japan's comfort women, in a search on Abe Books for the availability of the book, gives the above as author - actually in only some of the listings, some others only list the author as Tanaka. Yuki. What is in fact correct?? --Dumarest 17:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the same guy, of the Hiroshima peace Institute. The official listing refer to Yuki Tanaka and it is under this name he also wrote Hidden horrors - Japanese war crimes in WW II whil e he was a Visiting research fellow at the Australian National  University. I also suggest you Comfort women by Yoshiaki Yoshimi.--Flying tiger 00:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Toshiyuki Tanaka is a professor at Hiroshima City University's Hiroshima Peace Institute in Japan. 61.24.66.101 15:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hiroshima Peace Inst.
 * Toshiyuki Tanaka's Factsheet

Spelling Errors
Can someone fix multiple spelling and gramatical errors in this article. Thanks 70.196.208.213 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)