Talk:J. Mark Ramseyer

Mitsubishi
What does Mitsubishi have to do with he? And there is no manifestation of Korean Nazism in such a statement?Kaustritten (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Korean "Nazism"? And you're the editor who added a neutrality disputed tag? Yeah... Taking that down, and, yikes. 58.140.209.120 (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, Mitsubishi relevance is provided on Ramseyer's own faculty page: https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10697/Ramseyer. This of course doesn't demonstrate anything in terms of ongoing funding from Mitsubishi, but the title of an endowed chair is relevant to any biographical wiki of this nature. 58.140.209.120 (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There is every reason to believe that you are an employee of the Korean propaganda agency KOTRA. Unjustified removal of the neutrality template by an unregistered user of Korean origin. An attempt to organize an edit war. is a violation of the project rules.


 * This project is not a tribune for any party. The article contains questionable data. and therefore it is not neutral.


 * Korean Nazism is a real phenomenon, as Nazism is the ideology of "clean blood" which is the norm for Korean nationalism. Attacks on US Ambassador Harris because his mother is Japanese. Propaganda hate to Japanese in the #nojapan movement. The murder of a boy on November 11, 2018, just because his mother is Russian, for which the perpetrators of the crime, Koreans by nationality, were not punished, rewriting history to claim to Russia, China and Japan - all this is the norm of Korean society. And state support all this things, it's impossible to deny it.


 * Your link is doubtful, since a scandal has already begun about the actions of an employee of Harvard University of Korean origin Jeannie Suk Gersen (Suk Jeuyn) who wrote a refutation on behalf of this scientist, which he never gave, and she is also the one who is in charge of filling the site submitted by you. https://twitter.com/TIOffoa1Iny67ll/status/1365595518160670727

Kaustritten (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * We get it, you think Koreans are Nazis and you don't like Ramseyer's academic title. These don't have any bearing on the neutrality of the article, though. Please refrain from engaging in an edit war here. 58.140.209.120 (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason why we should write Mitsubishi? What do you mean by Mitsubishi? Which Mitsubishi are you referring to? If you don't know, it's strange to include it. It should be removed.GreenLeaves14 (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Asked and answered (see above and below). 58.140.208.202 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

IRLE Article Under Review?
Professor Ramseyer's thesis, "Contracting for sex in the Pacific War," is currently under peer review. In response to this peer-reviewed paper It is not neutral to publish such an article that focuses only on leftist ideology now, and it should wait for the International Review of Law and Economics to complete its review. It is not appropriate for us to deal with claims made by non-specialists.

Also, is there any reason why we should write Mitsubishi? What do you mean by Mitsubishi? Which Mitsubishi are you referring to? If you don't know, it's strange to include it. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenLeaves14 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I moved your comments here for clarity.


 * Mistubishi is relevant because Ramseyer is the Mitsubishi Professor of Japanese Legal Studies at Harvard Law School. I've seen chatter on the internet insinuating Ramseyer is being paid by Mitsubishi, but all this title indicates is that Mitsubishi endowed the position (in this case, I believe in the 1970s) that Ramseyer currently holds. It does not indicate any say in his hiring or any ongoing relationship with him, financial or otherwise. You can verify Ramseyer's academic credentials at his faculty page: https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10697/Ramseyer


 * Ramseyer's article in IRLE is not under peer review; the International Review of Law and Economics has already completed its peer review process. Because of the widespread blowback to Ramseyer's article from experts in history, law, and economics, they are holding publication to give him a chance to respond before deciding how to proceed with the article.


 * You'll have to expand on what you mean by "leftist ideology." People feel strongly about this issue, but the controversy has centered on academic misconduct, not Ramseyer's politics. You'll notice the broad spectrum of people cited on this page, many of them from diverse backgrounds, almost all of them journalists or subject specialists. 58.140.208.202 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I hope this is clarifying. I'm going to bed but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to further engagement. In the meantime, I would request that you not make any drastic changes to the article. 58.140.208.202 (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I will check with the university and the person in question about Mitsubishi. I can't help but feel that it is a manipulation of impressions, just like Korean newspapers, to write "Mitsubishis" all the way.


 * I read that the peer review of the IRLE paper was done once, but too many leftists complained, so it will be reviewed again, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenLeaves14 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see any neutrality in what you are writing.
 * I have read the news about the Wikipedia War between Taiwan and Chinese agents before.
 * Is Wikipedia paid by China or Korea?
 * I see too much importance being placed on Chinese and Korean propaganda.


 * Is there no neutrality in Wikipedia?


 * As Professor Ramseyer has written in his past papers, there is a blatant suppression of speech in Korea. Especially on issues like the comfort women issue, those who share Professor Ramseyer's views have been imprisoned or stripped of their professorships.


 * Professor Ramseyer has written his paper with proper "primary sources" and evidence. And none of the opposing views have any "primary sources". There is no evidence other than the testimony of self-proclaimed comfort women who often change their stories.


 * Also, neither Alvin Roth nor Paul Milgrom are experts in East Asian history, and they use the irrelevant phrase "Holocaust denial" without any evidence.


 * These irrelevant, image-manipulating terms were created by Korean and Chinese propaganda.


 * In fact, "Comfort Women" subject did not become an issue until the 1980s. This is because this propaganda work was being done by China at that time.


 * It is a clear desecration of Professor Ramseyer's name to include the words of a propaganda operation. It is defamation. Please delete it.GreenLeaves14 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's me again. I created a Wikipedia account.


 * For what it's worth, I hold a PhD in East Asian history. The history of comfort women is not only supported by abundant oral testimony but also by a document trail, principally (but not exclusively) in Japanese. A number of historical documents were systematically destroyed at the time of the Japanese surrender in 1945, but enough remains to corroborate the existence of and certain aspects of the system. Sources in English, while far scarcer, also corroborate these impressions. As a general observation, it's interesting that there has been a sustained effort to discredit the testimony of Korean comfort women, but not European comfort women (such as Jan Ruff O'Herne). There's a lot of discourse out there reducing all the available evidence to Chinese or Korean "propaganda," but that just isn't the case.


 * If you click through the citations on the article - which I recommend you do - you will see many, many remarks by historians on the quality of Ramseyer's work and their concern that he is making arguments based on contracts he does not possess and has not seen. This is the germ of the controversy. Because Ramseyer used game theory to make his claims, and published in a law and economics journal, experts from other fields have also gotten involved. This is why Roth and Milgrom commented.


 * As a general statement, I think we should be careful what we label propaganda. It's true that this issue has become very politicized, but this doesn't mean we should reduce all questions of scholarship to points in a political war. Evidence and argumentation matter.


 * In terms of Mitsubishi, I'm not sure what more to say. There's too much made out of this connection, in my opinion, in Korean-language media right now. But this Wikipedia article mentions it only once, in Ramseyer's title. This is fundamental information in a biographical wiki, and it would not make much sense to remove it. Roanoke51 (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the claim above (also seen regularly among netouyo on social media) that "none of the opposing views have any 'primary sources'," have a look at these two examples of "opposing views":
 * Stanley et al.: "'Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War': The Case for Retraction on Grounds of Academic Misconduct" (2021)
 * Yoshimi: "Response to ‘Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War’ by J. Mark Ramseyer" (2022) ThomasKyhn (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit by Daiichi1 on March 17 2021
The edit replaced:

"... to discredit the testimony of comfort women conscripted under Japanese imperial rule."

With:

"... to discredit the testimony of comfort women, who worked in Japanese wartime military brothels in the 1930s and 1940s, including those who did so under coercion."

This is wrong, since the paper attempted to discredit those who were forced into sex slavery, not those who supposedly volunteered (i.e, "worked") for money.

A similar phrase was removed altogether from another section.

The user noted "cleaned up wording" as edit summary, but that's no cleaning - it's diluting and obfuscating.

Instead of undoing the edit, I am making a note here so that those better practiced with WP policies and editing can make the call.
 * original sentence is incorrect, comfort women were not conscripted. The content i added "who worked in Japanese wartime military brothels in the 1930s and 1940s, including those who did so under coercion." is meant as a description of comfort women as a whole, not specifically the women whose testimony the paper is trying to disprove. While were discussing this im going to reinstate a part of my edit (removing Category:Anti-Korean sentiment) as you dont seem to have taken issue with that and it is i hope obvious it doesn't belong on the page. Daiichi1 (talk) 06:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "original sentence is incorrect, comfort women were not conscripted. "


 * This view of yours is contradicted by much established research as well as relevant wikipedia articles.


 * Your edit purporting to "clean up wording" was disingenuous.


 * I suggest you stop tampering with articles to push your unsupported PoV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.23.87.18 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * quite literally they were not conscripted its not a POV. Even if you hold the most extreme view that every single woman was a slave that does not make them conscripted that only makes them slaves. Daiichi1 (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

New Sections "Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War" and "Criticism of the paper and argument"
This is a bio page, and these new sections, focusing on a single paper, seems excessive and inappropriate, especially when the paper is already noted and adequately summarized in other sections.

I suggest the editor Wiwa Steve create a separate page for the paper if s/he feels the paper is notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.23.87.18 (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Remembering the Asia Pacific War
— Assignment last updated by GumTreeKookabura (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)