Talk:J. Mark Ramseyer/Archive 1

This is an article on a controversial subject; consider making use of this Talk page
This is an article on a controversial subject, which is why it's here. Please try to adopt a "neutral point of view", which is one of Wikipedia's guiding principles. If you are unsure of whether to change something, you can post on this Talk page and get input before you do an actual edit; if you object to someone else's revisions of your edits, you can use the Talk page to tell him why you think he's wrong.

For newcomers, it is OK and good to quote what scholars, newspapers, etc. say about Ramseyer's work, since their opinions about it are part of the controversy. Do not, however, put in your own opinions on it, or quote others whose private opinions would not be of interest. The Eckert quote currently in the article, for example, is abusive language, but is quite appropriate, because it shows what a Harvard professor of Korean history is willing to say in public about Ramseyer's work. (It would be good for someone to add a balancing quote from a Ramseyer defender, actually, but it's fine for whoever put the Eckert quote in to leave that for future edits.) --editeur24 (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the call to engage on the Talk Page. I am, however, alarmed by the bothsidesism that characterizes a number of the edits here. As discussed in the sources cited in the Controversy section, Ramseyer's article is controversial precisely because it ignores or contradicts the prevailing evidence and scholarly consensus. In terms of serious academic work, there are not two sides to this issue. Even Wikipedia's own entry on the comfort women describes them as "women and girls forced into being sex slaves by the Imperial Japanese Army in occupied countries and territories before and during World War II."


 * It is always possible that as new research comes to light scholarly consensus on certain issues may shift. But the biographical Wiki page of a single academic is not the place to carry out this research or to re-litigate an entire field. 58.140.208.181 (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It is false that Ramseyer's article runs contrary to the scholarly consensus. I can come back with cites to the books, but I'd say the *serious* consensus goes with Ramseyer, actually. He is not talking about comfort women in general, by the way,but about *Korean* comfort women, quite a different matter. Many of his critics-- including professors at top universities-- talk as if he is making claims about Japanese conduct in China, Indonesia, Vietnam. editeur24 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, I appreciate you making your position clearer - I sensed that underneath your call for balance you were actually defending Ramseyer, and it's helpful to know where you stand. I'm not sure what you mean by "serious" consensus since scholars as varied as Tessa Morris-Suzuki, Yoshimi Yoshiaki, and Yuki Tanaka have helped to lay out the history of the system, and both the United Nations and the Japanese studies community (in an open letter signed by ~200 scholars in 2015) have recognized the coercion that underpinned recruitment in Korea and elsewhere. Not only does Ramseyer fail to engage with this literature, but he also assumes agency rather than demonstrating it, using language such as (when referring to a Japanese girl sent overseas to provide sexual services) "even at age 10, she knew what the job entailed."


 * There are historical debates to be had about the role of Korean recruiters (who were central to the system), the number of women conscripted, and the diversity of their experiences. But it's hard to see this kind of blithe justification of child trafficking as serious research - or indeed, as falling within any scholarly mainstream. 58.140.209.16 (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I would point out, that, had the subject been one regarding a controversial scientific/medical topic, the author's Personal Biography are equivalent to a "Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest" that are required for most peer-reviewed scientific/medical publications. Ramseyer's conflicts of interest are pretty obvious from all his connections to and funding from Japan, and pretty much destroys his credibility for anything he writes on this topic of Korean comfort women. He's clearly in the pocket of the vast Japanese World War II Atrocities Denial Industry. It's just like Physicians who are in the pocket of Big Pharma touting the efficacy of drugs that are proven later to have no efficacy and are dangerous to patients, or like the old cigarette advertisements that showed lung surgeons touting the safety of cigarettes. It does not appear that this guy ever bothered to interview any of the South Korean comfort women. It's beyond appalling that Harvard lets him use their Gold Plated international podium to put out such odiously bad fabrications. DarthRad (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to Remove "See Also" Section
It seems this section is being abused. The issue at hand with Ramseyer's writing on comfort women is one of scholarly malpractice, not "challenging" some kind of narrative. Similarly, a See Also section is not a place to just pile on with scholars who have questioned someone's work. These sections shouldn't be used either as a fig leaf or a weapon. 58.140.208.219 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)