Talk:United States House of Representatives House Resolution 121

Untitled

This was a joke wasn't it? I think it must have been. They wanted Japan to apologise AGAIN!

According to this Wikipedia article (and from a Korean point of view):- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_apology_statements_issued_by_Japan

Japan has apologized for the general war including in Korea 14 times.

Japan has apologized to Korea individually for its colonialism and the war 15 times.

Japan has apologized for the comfort woman situation in Asia (which includes Korea) 5 times.

Japan has apologized to Korea individually for Korean comfort women 4 times.

These apologies do not include the compensation paid to comfort women under the Korea-Japan 1965 treaty, that the South Korean government withheld from individuals and instead invested it in industry. A treaty which exempts Japan from any further payment obligations to South Korea.

It also does not include the setup of the Asian Women's Fund which included a personal signed apology to individual comfort women from the Japanese Prime Minister at the time (Murayama).

Can we have a section added, something like. "This resolution was obviously just an anti-Japanese statement as Japan had already paid compensation to the Korean confort women and had already apologised many times before including 4 explicet apologies to comfort women". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.152.14 (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a joke, all the way from the "Slavery in Japan" article, the writing seems to be just anti-japanese propaganda, and the more you click on related articles, the more obvious it becomes. They even put a paragraph saying that there was some response on the Washington Post listing the facts about the issue, but the image attached is so small that it seems like it's just a post for ants.181.44.129.128 (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yoshida memoirs

STSC blanked Controversy section with an edit summary "per WP:OR - The Resolution was not just based on the memorandum by Larry Niksch". Ironically this edit summary admits the resolution is based on the Yoshida memoir. The original edit does not say "the resolution was soley based on the memoir" but "... memoirs were used as an evidence for ...". This is an undeniable fact and hardly WP:OR. STSC, it is against the policies to delete the sourced content just because it is an inconvenient fact for you. You will be blocked if you continue pushing POV.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur that this information is relevant and worth including, however, please assume good faith and don't accuse other users of POV pushing due to legitimate content disputes.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

My edit summary has two points:

• "Seiji Yoshida's false memoirs were used as an evidence for the abduction of women in a Congressional Report which was prepared for this resolution" - It is your own finding, there're no secondary sources.
• Your edit is trying to imply that the Resolution was based on false evidence; it's just a case of coatrack, therefore, it should be removed.

STSC (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed "abduction" to "roundup" for consistency with the report. It is self-evident that "Seiji Yoshida's false memoirs were used as an evidence for the roundup of women in a Congressional Report". An article published by Mainichi Shimbun says "A document explaining the comfort women system to congressmen, which was attached to the draft resolution, also mentions Yoshida's book." Also please read WP:Essays are not policy. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Larry Niksch only mentioned 1,000 Korean women from Yoshida's book. STSC (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed the description "Seiji Yoshida's false memoirs were used as an evidence for the roundup of over 1,000 women in Korea in a Congressional Report which was prepared for this resolution." (emphasis mine)―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for explanation of basis for deletion

Aoidh, you claim that this article has been deleted because "assertions not supported by reliable sources". Please explain the rationale in detail. Your deletion without discussion violates wikipedia's deletion policy. Eyagi (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

My removal of the content added follows WP:BRD, actually, and "violates" no policy. The additions were WP:OR and made claims not supported by the sources. You need reliable sources to support the kind of claims being made. The additions were contrary to Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. - Aoidh (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Please indicate specifically which sources are unreliable. Abstract opinions do not advance the discussion. Eyagi (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you read my above comment again, because I said nothing about the unreliability of sources. The content I reverted was WP:OR and there is nothing abstract about that explanation. - Aoidh (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Please point out specifically which part applies. WP:OR is written as follows. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas. Eyagi (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, please read my comment above. You are asking questions already answered, but I'll repeat it: WP:SYNTH very specifically applies here. Your edit made conclusions that were not not explicitly stated by any source. Before you ask "what part was the problem", it was everything that was removed. You cannot say "This source says X, therefore we can conclude that..." that's WP:OR. This is best summed up by the top sentence removed: In addition to citing Seiji Yoshida's book, there are some doubts as to the veracity of the memorandum and testimony upon which this resolution was based. What source says there are doubts? - Aoidh (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)