Talk:Ianjo

Add description

Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NPOV are core Wikipedia policies. They are not open to negotiation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The current article cites unsubstantiated material and is unreliable. I quoted the primary material and posted a new article. If you want to rewrite these articles, first discuss what you want to rewrite on talk, and then rewrite it after reaching a consensus. Eyagi (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Thats not the way Wikipedia works. You can't change an article to suit your viewpoint and then require everybody else to gain consensus to change it. --John B123 (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC) I understand your comment. I post my article to talk. Please point out specifically which part of the article I posted is my viewpoint. Ianjo(慰安所: comfort stations) are licensed brothels in front lines and occupied territories for Imperial Japanese military personnel and civilian employees established and operated under the supervision of the Imperial Japanese military. In the Empire of Japan, licensed prostitution was legal. In 1932, January 28 incident broke out. In Shanghai, the Imperial Japanese Navy used brothels run by Imperial Japanese as designated military brothels on the condition that they accept to be present at STD examinations by the military. In July 1937, the front expanded with the outbreak of the second Sino-Japanese War. The Imperial Japanese Army decided to set up licensed brothels exclusively for military use in compliance with domestic law in front lines and occupied territories, and from 1938 onwards established comfort station regulations and became involved in the establishment and operation of comfort stations. The comfort station regulations can be categorized into the establishment and operation, and the use of comfort stations. The former stipulated compliance clauses for comfort station operators and employment contracts for comfort women and etc., while the latter stipulated the designation of persons responsible for auditing the accounts of comfort stations, as well as enforcing and supervising discipline and hygiene, hours of use and fees, compliance by users and comfort women, and other matters. Injuries and rapes on Koreans by members of the armed forces were violations of criminal law. Operators and comfort women who violated comfort station regulations were suspended or dismissed, and users who violated the regulations were banned or punished by confinement of the guard-house. These violations are classified as violations of military and criminal law, and misconduct and are recorded by the Military Polices. Records from the North and Central China region show that the number of criminal code violators and persons to misconduct at comfort stations was very low, with the main misconduct acts being the beating of receptionists and comfort women by drunken persons. In 1996, UN Human Rights Commission Special Rapporteur Coomaraswmy reported that the comfort station regulations were evidence that former Korean comfort women were enforced into sex slaves, and in 1988, McDougall also determined that the comfort stations were rape centers. Debate continues today as to whether comfort stations are licensed brothels or sex slave centers. Eyagi (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC) References @Eyagi: It has already been explained to you that your WP:OR and WP:POV additions are not acceptable. Please see previous comments by K.e.coffman at Draft:Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire and AndyTheGrump et al at Talk:Comfort women. It is a waste of other editors time to rehash the same discussions on this page. --John B123 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Your comment is just labeling and has no substance. This article describes historical facts. Please explain specifically which part is OR. Eyagi (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC) Draft:Licensed Prostitution System in Korea under the Japanese Empire is a description of regulations enacted in 1916, as the title suggests. There is no room for OR. Please read. On Talk:Comfort women, AndyTheGrum doesn't refute the talk I posted and just keeps closing it. He can't argue with anything, so he's just trying not to let it get debated. Why aren't you here discussing this? Eyagi (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete new articles added

Again, Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NPOV are core Wikipedia policies. They are not open to negotiation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I posted a new article below and it was deleted again without discussion. As anyone can see, the content is an explanation of the legal content. No room for OR. This clearly violates wikipedia policy. The Licensed Prostitution System in the Empire of Japan The Licensed prostitution systems for the purpose of preventing the sexually transmitted disease(STD) and maintaining social morals were established in 1900 in Mainland Japan, 1906 in Taiwan and 1916 in Korea. To obtain a license to engage in prostitution, the applicant had to be at least 18 years old in Japan, 17 years old in Korea, and 16 years old in Taiwan. The applicant had to appear at the police station with jurisdiction over the place where she worked, and submit an application along with written her will to engage in prostitution, a written consent from a parental authority, and a copy of a written contract with the employer. Licensed prostitutes (Japanese legal term: shogi) were employed by the Kashizashiki (Japanese legal term: licensed brothels) operators under a multi-year indentured service contracts with the advance payment, and subject to periodic STD examinations. Their residence and the place to work were limited only in kashizashiki. This system took root in each society. Notes Citations Eyagi (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

A draft of a new article to be posted

Again, Wikipedia:No original research and WP:NPOV are core Wikipedia policies. They are not open to negotiation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is the draft to be posted. If the editor removes it for WP:OR , please point out specifically which part is applicable. Establishment of comfort stations Purpose Comfort stations are kashizashiki set up in front lines and occupied territories for Imperial Japanese military personnel and civilian employees. By using the comfort stations, the military aimed to ease the deadly atmosphere of the officers and soldiers, and establish military disciplines, that is, to prevent the spread of rape and venereal diseases on front lines, and promote counterintelligence. 1932 to 1937: use private licensed brothels After the Shanghai Incident broke out in 1932, the Imperial Japanese Navy stationed in Shanghai designated kashizashiki operated by mainland Japanese and Korean as a comfort station on the condition that they accept to be present at STD examinations by the military. 1938 to 1945 : Military involved in establishment and operation In July 1937, the Second Sino-Japanese War broke out and the front line expanded. Recognizing the need for comfort stations to prevent rape and STD by soldiers and for counterintelligence, the Imperial Japanese Army revised the Field Syuho Regulations in September, adding the following: "Syuho may also provide necessary comfort facilities”. In December 1937, the Police Department of the Consulate-General of Japan in Shanghai, after consultation with relevant organizations, decided to set up military comfort stations (de facto kashizashiki) at various locations on the front lines, and established the division of roles and necessary procedures for the organizations concerned to set up these stations.Since then, comfort stations have been established throughout China under this division of roles. In December 1941, the Pacific War broke out, and after that, comfort stations were established in occupied Southeast Asia and operated until August 1945. Eyagi (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC) References

Talk deleted : Clarification of Editorial Policy

This talk page is for discussion of policy-based content discussions only. Explanations and links to relevant policy have been provided multiple times.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Following Talk's closing, it has now been deleted. This Talk is a discussion with John B123. Why would an unrelated third party, AndyTheGrump, delete this Talk? It is a violation of wikipedia policy to close or delete another person's Talk without any discussion, based on your personal views without evidence. Please cancel the deletion. Eyagi (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC) The sole purpose of Wikipedia talk pages is for discussion of policy-based article content. Your proposals are not remotely compliant with policy, as you have been told by multiple contributors, on multiple occasions. Wikipedia policy applies to article content whether you agree with it or not, and whether you understand it or not. Since you have consistently refused to initiate any form of dispute resolution over the broader topic, and have instead attempted to shoe-horn your policy-violating POV-pushing warcrime-whitewashing nonsense into this article, where it self-evidently doesn't belong, I have removed your proposal. Feel free to raise this elsewhere (e.g. WP:ANI) if you have an issue with it - but note that doing so will bring your tendentious behaviour under further scrutiny, and almost certainly lead to sanctions against you. The English-language Wikipedia will not be party to attempts to falsify history, under any circumstances. This is non-negotiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Please be specific in your opinion, not abstract. Deleting this Talk because it doesn't meet your views is out of the quetion. This is the Talk page for the Ianjo article and we are discussing why my contribution to the current article should be removed. If you are going to participate in the discussion, please specifically refute the content of my posts based on evidence. Eyagi (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Repeated interruption of talks and posts

The document that AndyTheGrump repeatedly claims as evidence of no original research is the Licensed brothel and prostitute regulation order in Korea under Japanese Empire, a law that came into force in 1916. By all accounts, his claims are out of the ordinary. He is making a political statement himself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political journal. AndyTheGrump, please stop interruption of my Talks. John B123, please undelete my posts. I don't want this kind of barren editorial battle. Eyagi (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Only a total imbecile could fail to understand why Wikipedia cannot base a paragraph on events occurring during WW2 in areas under occupation by the IJA on primary-source material dating to 1900 and 1916. Since you clearly fall into this category, I suggest you find another hobby, before you get blocked per Wikipedia:Competence is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Why does this article even exist?

This article duplicates content at Comfort women, while adding nothing of substance, and missing the broader context presented there. And I note that none of the English-language sources cited, or in the bibliography, even use the term 'Ianjo'. Is there any legitimate reason why this article should not be turned into a redirect? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• A redirect to Comfort women makes sense; it's a sub-topic of that article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
• I think a good reason not to redirect is the size of Comfort women, its a very large article. There also does appear to be coverage in English such as [1]. Now for the reason to redirect: there is not much coverage and none of it establishes it as a topic independent of Comfort women. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Soh's work is cited extensively in the Comfort Women article. And no, it isn't an independent topic. As Soh notes (p.xiii), 'Ianjo' translates as 'Comfort Station'. The actual topic of both articles isn't the buildings, it is the women (sometimes girls as young as 13) in them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to claim. Please explain clearly and logically, Soh's book is a secondary source. When quoting a secondary source, please show the primary sources that is the basis. Comfort women were prostitutes hired by operators of Kashizashiki(licensed brothels) for Japanese military personnel and civilian employees (Koreans were also members). What is the source of “it is the Women (sometimes girls as young as 13) in them.”? What do you want to say? Eyagi (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you moronic little fuckwad, I will do no such thing. Wikipedia doesn't work like that, as you have been told on umpteen fucking occasions. Fuck off back under whichever rock you crawled out from you disgusting little mass-child-rape-war-crime whitewasher. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

• No objection to the article being redirected. --John B123 (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)