Talk:Lai Đại Hàn

Serious problem with sources

As much as Hankyurae maybe attempting to do good over here? The argument that "most Lai Daihans" were born from rape is completely unsupported. Yes, there were rapes and yes we have testimonites from women but most Lai Daihans are either born from Korean workers and soldiers in which it did not involve rape. In fact, many Korean fathers went back to Vietnam to look for their children after the diplomatic ties were reestablished as they were forced to flee after the fall of Saigon and were unable to take their children with them.

The fact that this article takes hankyurae's claims as facts is in fact flawed. Hankyurae, on numerous occasions inflated facts and they were called out for it.

http://legacy.h21.hani.co.kr/h21/data/L990426/1p944q0c.html

The atrocity at the monestary 린선사 was proven to be staged by VCs. This doesn't mean that there weren't atrocities commited by Koreans, but at least it is proven that this one is not true. The fact that Hankyurae refuses to change this and the fact that this was published as fact shows that there are fallacies in Hankyurae articles.

http://newslibrary.naver.com/viewer/index.nhn?articleId=1969112900209204005&editNo=2&printCount=1&publishDate=1969-11-29&officeId=00020&pageNo=4&printNo=14813&publishType=00020

While I believe Hankyurae can be used as a source or a reference point, I don't believe they can be taken for face value. They are facing numerous controversies in Korea as well in terms of the accuracy of their historical articles. Woo1693 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

delete?

why waste this article? instead of the current tit for tat bullshit, we could improve and keep it ive started with some minor issues, lets expand

Sennen goroshi (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice Meta puppeting Tag team edit

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Tag_team

Meta puppeting Tag team edit are not a tolerable.[1]

---

• They are usually abandoned by their soldier-father.

According to Korean-Vietnamese fathered not by Korean soldiers but by Korean workers who stationed in Vietnam during the War would probably reach 10,000 in number.[2]

• According to Busan Ilbo, there are 5,000 at least and 30,000 at most.

However, This Busan Ilbo says, "assumption record". they says, "추정". Accordign to Hankyoreh and maeil news, truth of Lai daihan peoples are 1000 ~1500 at most.[3][4]

라이따이한 숫자가 1000명 정도에 불과한 데다 대부분 30대 성인으로 성장해 더 이상 한국에 연연하지 않는다는 것이다.

"현재 베트남내의 라이따이한은 보도된것처럼 1만여명이 아니라 확인된 1천500여명과 미확인 숫자를 합치더라도 2천여명에 불과하며

• Lai Daihan problem is said to be confort women

Well, in Vietnam war period, There is no comfort women exist.

Also source is unexist book.

F. Namigoe, Nikkan kyoumei 2000 nen shi [2000 year history of Japan and Korea], Meiseisha, 2002, p. 672, ISBN 9784944219117

This is unexist book. also anybody can't confirm it.[5]

• rape

Source is unexist.

And Lai Daihan's father were probably Korean workers or soldeir who stationed in Vietnam during. probably free love and run to their country. Lai Daihan's mother was not raped. so this is not relation topic.

• The Hankyoreh expressed it as a massacre (대량학살).

Hankyore news is so biased and unreliable media.[6] However, even hankyoreh said, Korea soldier killed 50. is it really 대량학살?----Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Sorry for poor English.

I only ask whether this article is violation or not. This is not Tag team edit.

• 野村進によれば、これら混血児たちの父親の90%は韓国のビジネスマンであり、ベトナム人女性との間に子供をもうけた後に「母子を置き去りにして帰国してしまった」例が多いという。『コリアン世界の旅』、173頁。-- from ja:ライタイハン

According to Susumu Nomura, 90% of thoes mixed blood children's father is South Korean businessman, and many of them return home after having babies with Vietnamese women. But the babies and the women are abandoned.

from "Korian sekai no tabi (Travel of Korean World)" P173

There are not no soldier-father. And "According to Korean-Vietnamese fathered" is incorrect, "According to Park Oh-soon, Korean-Vietnamese fathered" is correct.

• The South Korea or the Vietname government have not investigated officially about the number of Lai Daihan. The exact number of Lai Daihan is unknown. So "1000 ~1500" and "5,000 ~30,000" are assumption record.

• This book is exist[7].

ISBN-10 4944219113[8]

ISBN-13 978-4944219117

• Source book is exist. Vietnam War, Saigon, Seoul, Tokyo(Iwanami Shoten Publishing)

• Hankyore is korean news paper. So I don't know whether Hankyore is reliable or not.

I think "massacre" is not about Lai Daihan, but about Vietnam War. So I think it should be deleted.

--NAZONAZO (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is true that "Korea soldier killed 50," are you saying that they were able to kill only fifty enemies although South Korea sent over 350 thousand soldiers to Vietnam? Are you saying that Korean soldiers are only a pack of cowards?--Wo Ai Nee (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The hankyoreh(hani.co.kr) references itself are not qualified references. It is not admit by Korea and Vietnam both. It is a POV and lacking evidence. The original author of Hankyoreh newspaper was a 구수정(Goo soo-jung), this 'young female student' outside writer wrote her own basless, exaggerated news by her assumption. Even her was(and is) not a official writer of hankyoreh newspaper, it was a 'outside contributed' article. Generally, newpaper have no responsible for 'outside contributed' article. and newspaper is not guarantee 'external essay' is true.
2. the hankyoreh essay itself have no evidence. There is no offical group and academic source confirmed this essay is 'true'. and The group of Vietnam soldiers officially denied Hankyoreh news, and says this news was "distorted and baseless".[9] The essay contains her own original research.
3. The controversial and contested, non-academic sources are not regard as reliable sources. it should not be presented as simple statements of fact.
4. According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." 660gd4qo (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Header and other material

1) According to WP:LEAD, the lead paragraph should ahve "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." The aforementioned section also cites WP:BALASPS, which states, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." In this case, the article is about Lai Dai Han people as a whole (Mixed ethnic Vietnamese-Koreans), not just those who were conceived as a result of sexual violence. As such, giving such prevalence to war rape in the header violates WP:BALASPS.

2) Secondly, in order to present the information from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV), it would be reasonable to avoid insertions into the quotations selected from source materials.

Original quote: "Distasteful as it may be, the argument is also difficult to refute and it is time for Seoul to find out the truth not only about the civilian massacres that took place during the Vietnam War, but also about the extent of military authorities’ involvement with Vietnamese authorities."

Modified quote: "Distasteful as it may be, the argument is also difficult to refute ( about this rape crime ) and it is time for Seoul to find out the truth not only about the civilian massacres that took place during the Vietnam War, but also about the extent of military authorities’ involvement with Vietnamese authorities."

The term "rape crime" is not mentioned in the article, and I would avoid direct insertion into the article as it is not supported by the source content. Keep in mind that persistent misrepresentation of source material is vandalism, and will be treated as such (see Wikipedia:Vandalism). BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Need a better overview and some bias problems

The overview section needs revision. The first two sentences captures the essence of the article well. However, the last sentence of the overview section is not well connected with the rest of the section. How is the fact that the Korean government has not acknowledged the reported violence during the Vietnam war has anything to do with "Lai Daihan"? This section needs more information or transition sentences. Same comment can be made regarding the entire article. The different sections are not well organized and don't flow well. It should be edited so that etymology, definitions, lives of the Lai Daihan and their mothers flow in the same section followed by historical contexts, reported violence and denial of violence.

The article seems fixated only on the Lai Daihan who are children born to mothers who are victims of rapes by Korean soldiers during the Vietnam wars. Sources suggest that there is a good portion of Lai Daihan children who are born to Korean workers in Vietnam, and their mothers are not victims of rape. There should be a section talking about that population of Lai Daihan people as well. Most sources are testimonies from Vietnamese survivors; there are limited sources coming from trustworthy Korean newsources. Some sources are only quotes without links or ISPNs. Vbaker93 (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Naming of the Article and New Sections in the Article.

I am starting this discussion over recent changes to the article's title, as well as related content. The fact is that most media sources on the issue use the term "Lai Dai Han". To avoid confusion for readers on the topic, it is imperative that we keep the article's title consistent with this usage.

As for the new section that is being added, which discusses "prostitution facilities", it must be made clear that this is based off of the "unconfirmed reports" of one individual, as per the source. Because of this, I do not believe that this makes the topic significant enough to be included in the article. However, if other editors do believe it should be included, then it must be made clear in the article's wording that the existence of these facilities are indeed based on unconfirmed reports.

Please state opinions on either subject. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Problematic Editing

Article is largely just a political/nationalistic debate between Japanese and Korean posters at this point in order to highlight comfort women and debateo that issue, similar to pretty much every article dealing with Japan and Korea e.g.History of Japan–Korea relations, Japan–Korea disputes, etc. There are concerted groups dedicated to making these types of edits/posts/information campaigns known as Netto-uyoku in both Japan and South Korea. I'd suggest removing most irrelevant references and comparisons to comfort women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.10.234 (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the recent edits are part of a political/nationalistic debate and the criticism from Japanese sources need to be clearly identified and put in context. Mztourist (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Editing Out Broken Links

I undid the revert but kept the original links and discussion the user @JPxG: found problematic for me to remove. I originally removed them since it was editorializing the piece, e.g. a user was giving their opinion on an article.

Sources claiming majority conceived due to rape

Is there any reason to state that it's Japanese sources claiming? Not sure what the point of this talk section is, still waiting for a reason from @Mztourist: as to why he is blocking it 8ya (talk) 07:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

All of the sources provided for the claims are Japanese sources and so it is correct to state that they are Japanese claims. Stop edit-warring this until this is resolved. Mztourist (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I just gave you a non-Japanese source. Do you want me to include it in the article? That statement is about sources in general, not just the ones cited in this article. 8ya (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What source are you talking about? If all sources are Japanese, as is currently the case, then the page needs to state that. Mztourist (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The one in the change log? And it doesn't need to do so, rather it's worded like it's only Japanese sources saying that, which has nothing to do whether or not we include sources on Wikipedia or not. 8ya (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Why can't you answer a simple question, what source are you talking about? All the current sources in the Comparisons to Comfort Women section are Japanese, which is why it states "Japanese sources claim..." Mztourist (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Why can't you read what I'm writing? Here to save you the work my friend: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&oldid=995487722 (s/i.e./e.g.). And sources exist even if you don't include them in the article, there's a realm outside of Wikipedia :) 8ya (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Why can't you just give a diff or state the source? I shouldn't have to read an old version of the page to try to figure out what you wrote. If there is indeed "a realm outside of Wikipedia" add them in, but I don't believe they exist. Mztourist (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry my friend, I don't know how to quote just the change log text :) But here it is, I hope we can start talking past each other now. "The problem with the sources is that, at least from what I've found, in English speaking publications they use Lai Dan Han exclusively for the ones conceived due to rape. However the numbers given by non Japanese (e.g. https://www.laidaihanjustice.org/who-are-the-lai-dai-han/) very often surpass half with even the most generous countings of "total" Lai Dan Hai given by other sources (e.g. the Korean ones in this article)". Any objections to it? 8ya (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

You need to learn how to create diffs, find the version that you want to show me in the Edit History, click on Diff and then copy url of the resulting page. I really don't understand what you are saying. In relation to laidaihanjustice.org, as noted below, it cannot be considered a WP:RS and there is no certainty that it is "non Japanese". As I have said repeatedly, if you can find and add non-Japanese RS then the word "Japanese" can be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of that source is not something I want to get into, but it should be applicable similar to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources (the last sentence). Note that the article states "Japanese sources claim", which indicates possible bias. And the next sentence goes on to talk about "Rape allegations". However I don't really see a need to include this source, as it adds nothing to do article, only to the wording 8ya (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

All sources must be reliable, otherwise the relevant provisions of biased sources must be followed. As all the sources are Japanese it is relevant to point that out because Japanese sources are biased as they see this issue as a counterpoint to the WWII comfort women issue. Mztourist (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

So am I understanding this right that you have nothing against it and we can finally solve this by writing "Some sources"? 8ya (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have always said that if there are RS, non-Japanese sources added in then "Japanese sources claim" can be changed to "Sources claim". However, laidaihanjustice.org is not RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I still don't understand your reasoning. On one hand you want to append Japanese, because you say those sources are not trustworthy because of the nationality of the author, on the other you don't want to want to accept others because they are not trustworthy? You still haven't told me why http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources doesn't apply here, as this section is about Comparisons made to Comfort women and we are talking about "claims" here. 8ya (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I have explained myself clearly and repeatedly above. You have not offered any reliable non-Japanese sources. Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

You didn't. It just feels like you are intentionally ignoring everything I am saying because you want the article to appear in a certain light 8ya (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I did, but you seem to just want to keep arguing it, so I suggest you take it to another forum as we cannot reach agreement here. Mztourist (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion

Springnuts (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below. I know there is extensive discussion above, but it would really help me, and can I please request that you keep the summary to one sentence. With all respect. Springnuts (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (Mztourist)

Lai Đại Hàn is a very politically loaded topic with certain Japanese groups using it to deflect Japanese responsibility from the Korean comfort women issue. All of the sources in the first para of the Comparisons to Comfort Women section are Japanese and therefore it is relevant to state "Japanese sources claim..." at the start. If non-Japanese sources are provided then it can state "Sources claim..." Mztourist (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you; that is admirably clear. Springnuts (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

In response to the comments below regarding laidaihanjustice.org, as I noted below under the heading Justice for Lai Dai Han, it is unclear where this group is established and operates, who funds it and who runs it. Mztourist (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (8ya)

I agree with Mztourist that this is a very politically loaded topic, but as such this requires us to be extra careful about presenting a neutral point of view. Currently the article says "Japanese sources claim", which would be better stated "There are claims". As it is currently it makes it seem like it is only Japanese claiming such high numbers, but such numbers are also giving from non Japanese, e.g. https://www.laidaihanjustice.org/2018/08/vietnamese-community-recounts-sexual-assaults-experienced-during-vietnam-war/ (worth noting that they refer to Lai Dai Han exclusively as the offspring of raped women), giving numbers way above the half of any estimate Lai Dai Han population. The way it is worded currently makes it kind of seem like it is only a Japanese narrative which is not simply not true. In my opinion it would best to write it like http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&oldid=1011163599#Comparisons_to_Comfort_Women presenting it more neutrally. 8ya (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Springnuts: For the record, the source quoted above—www.laidaihanjustice.org—is a pressure group's blog, and as such only a reliable source for information regarding themselves; they are not considered independent from their area of interest. ——Serial 12:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As per WP:PARTISAN (which is what is being done to the Japanese one) it is a sufficient source for saying that there are claims coming from more than one nationality, especially since there are numerous articles claiming the same, very likely stemming from them (see their News section). Note that this is about comparisons to comfort women, with the very next sentence speaking of "allegations".

It is worth pointing out that in my proposed edit there would be the existence of contrary claims pointed out in the very same sentence (which in the current version aren't presented as being contrary, but for some reason cited alongside it).8ya (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 8ya. Now I must do my homework! Springnuts (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, since it's not a WP:RS, it shouldn't be used in the article at all; and if 8ya cannot source their claims to an RS, then the claims should not be made. ——Serial 14:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion by Springnuts

Good afternoon, I am Springnuts: I have, AFAIK, never edited this article or in this area of the encyclopedia; nor have I interacted with either of the two editors involved. I should also mention that in the course of writing this 3O I find that I was briefly – and many years ago - at the same school as Jack Straw, International Ambassador for Justice for Lai Dai Han; a man for who I have immense respect (though I do not know him personally). I do not believe that has compromised my neutrality in this 3O. Because this is clearly a contentious topic, it may be worth my reminding all involved that what I am offering is simply my opinion. It has no authority; and you are of course free to ignore it – but I hope it may help at least a little.

May I first of all thank you both for editing in good faith, and for being generally civil to each other. That really does help. Also, I think it is helpful to dwell a pause to look beyond the (electronic) paper of the article to see the real human beings behind it, and their historic and clearly continuing suffering. This may provide context and perspective to any debate about article wording. It should not be possible to write dispassionately about rape, for example (though we must try to do so); and in an ideal world it would not be necessary, because it would not happen.

But the issue is quite simple – under the heading “Comparisons to Comfort Women” Mztourist wishes to include that all the sources for a particular view are Japanese. Mztourist wishes to include this information “because Japanese sources are biased as they see this issue as a counterpoint to the WWII comfort women issue”. 8ya has denied that all the sources which exist are Japanese, however the only non-Japanese source adduced so far is a pressure group blog, so clearly partisan, as helpfully explained by Serial in crashing the 3O summary request. Nevertheless, it is at least a RS for the view of the group who publish it. However, in some cases it is reprinting articles from other RS: eg here: https://www.laidaihanjustice.org/2020/04/1968-the-year-that-haunts-hundreds-of-women/ which is taken from the BBC here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/lhrjrs9z9a/vietnam-1968 ; and here: https://www.laidaihanjustice.org/2019/01/women-raped-by-korean-soldiers-during-vietnam-war-still-awaiting-apology/ taken from The Guardian here: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jan/19/women-raped-by-korean-soldiers-during-vietnam-war-still-awaiting-apology ; and here: https://www.laidaihanjustice.org/2019/08/we-must-strengthen-justice-and-increase-accountability-to-end-sexual-violence-in-conflict-for-good/ which is taken from the Daily Telegraph here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/women-and-girls/must-strengthen-justice-increase-accountability-end-sexual-violence/. The latter is Jack Straw’s opinion, but still, published in a national newspaper. The other two articles are presented in quality RS as factual.

Comment: I was surprised not to see somewhere in the lede a reference to the nature of the majority of the liaisons which led to the birth of these children – only that some were “war-time sexual assault ”. Perhaps the RS simply do not exist. However, it makes the phrase in the disputed sentence “… the main cause …” difficult, because we don’t know what the other causes might have been. So perhaps “… that one cause of the Lai Dai Han …” might be better.

Comment: I also note the phrase “mass rape”. I don’t have the language skills to check the non-English sources, but to me this phrase implies a large number of women all at once. But the English language sources suggest something different.

Discussion on the question. The BBC, Guardian and Telegraph are non-Japanese sources, so I don’t think the statement “Japanese sources claim …” can stand, as it clearly implies “only” Japanese sources. However, @Mztourist, are you able to find RS to demonstrate that the sources currently listed are: (a) Japanese (which may be obvious), (b) biased, and (c) motivated by a wish to see this issue as a counterpoint to the WWII comfort women issue? If not then even without the BBC and other sources, attributing the sources as “Japanese” seems a bit weaselly to me, but if you can find sources a-c as above, then certainly the information about those sources being Japanese can be kept in. I recommend some in-text attribution, and a clear statement. How about an edit along these lines:

“Some Japanese sources have used the issue of the Lai Dai Han as a means to counter South Korean criticism of Japan over the WWII comfort women issue.(and here you will put in references to RS to support a-c above)

I would also recommend amending the first sentence to reflect that there are good RS outside the Japanese sources. How about something like:

At least one factor in the birth of the Lai Dai Han was the rape of Vietnamese women by South Korean troops and the subsequent desertion of women and children during the Vietnam War. In other cases, South Korean troops had married Vietnamese women and had children, but were forced to leave after the Fall of Saigon.

Well, that’s my 3O. Please continue to discuss the issue here until you are agreed on a wording. I hope and expect you will be able to do so, but if not, then you could try WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options.

With all respect and good wishes to you both, Springnuts (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the careful 3rd Opinion! I am still going through all those WP: pages in order to not make mistakes, but User:Mztourist, what would you think about my proposed edit http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Lai_%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_H%C3%A0n&oldid=1011163599#Comparisons_to_Comfort_Women as a base, putting the fact that it's contended in the same sentence? Also the section currently seems a bit random, is there any objection to at least ordering it by date? 8ya (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

8ya no your wording is even worse, adding in claims of purported massacres to rape accusations.Mztourist (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Mztourist I am not sure if you mistook something, but I never added anything about massacres, they're already in the article and I don't see the relation to what we are discussing here. Although I am not sure if I am mistaking something, but your wording makes it seem like you are trying to doubt the existence of both the rapes and the massacres? 8ya (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I have never doubted that some rapes happened, but like the claims of massacres I believe that they are greatly exaggerated. I don't accept your wording. I accept Springnuts' proposed wording moved up on the page. Mztourist (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

What do you dislike about my wording? In my opinion Springnut's proposed wording is unfit for this section, more suited for other parts of the article. First it is having two sources claiming conflicting information (the ones I am wanting to contrast in my edit), and secondly children born through consensual marriages have little to do with the comfort women issue. Additionally the contended claim of it being the majority of Lai Dai Han is a crucial point that's missing. Also "At least one factor in the birth of the Lai Dai Han was … the subsequent desertion of women and children during the Vietnam War" doesn't make sense. 8ya (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Read what I wrote to Springnuts below, their wording should be adopted into the article into a new Causes and Numbers section to replace Number of Lai Dai Han​ and the current paragraph deleted because it is unrelated to Comfort Women. Mztourist (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with you that what Springnuts should go into a new section, however I still think that what I wrote belongs in there: as we both know the rape of comfort women was over a huge scale. There being claims of large scale rape of Vietnamese, and not just a few cases, is what makes it relate to comfort women and should be pointed out when making the comparison. Of course since this is not uncontested we also point that out in the very same sentence. And once again I believe that their exact wording shouldn't be taken, for the reasons explained above. What exactly is it that you find wrong with my wording? 8ya (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Springnuts' wording is clear unlike your proposed wording and your explanation. The paragraph has nothing to do with comfort women and doesn't belong in that section. Mztourist (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

What about it is "unclear"? Also it being supposedly large scale is very well a parallel to comfort women, and thus makes it belong into that section. 8ya (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Your writing is always unclear. You asked for the 3rd opinion. I am happy with Springnuts' wording, you're not and are insisting on your own wording as usual. So you now have to either accept it or elevate it to another forum. Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

What's being unclear are your accusations about my writing, instead of saying what's bad you keep throwing out vague stuff without elaborating. The third opinion was about the Japanese with which they agreed was improper. Since it seems like you have no intention of cooperating to find a better wording I am going ahead and editing the article and getting rid of what was found to be improper. Feel free to actually tell me what you don't like. 8ya (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Springnuts gave a third opinion which suggested language that I accepted. You don't accept it insisting on your language and now you are continuing to edit war and I am requesting that the Admin blocks you again, unless you self-revert. Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not insisting my language, I asked you multiple times for feedback, getting none every time. They gave a suggestion for adding in more sources, unrelated to our edit war, not one telling us that this is how to word it, as you very well know from their reply down below. And, as you know from what I've told you, it was glaring issues, which for some reason you chose to ignore, even after being told so repeatedly. I am still waiting on a reason as to what is wrong with my edit. Your acceptance is not required to edit this page, conforming to Wikipedia's standards and the truth at hand is, which is what my edit does. 8ya (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I accept Springnuts' language and am not interested in debating your language with you. You have gone and changed the page again to your language. That is just continuing the earlier edit warring and I await the Admin taking action against you. Mztourist (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

So you aren't interesting in improving this article? There is no such thing as "mine" or "Springnuts'" language. You have yet to give me a reason as to what's wrong with my edit. You can also just edit the page and fix stuff you don't like.

It's not continuing the edit warring, as that was over the improper inclusion of the word "Japanese". My edit wants to fix different stuff from that (see the reasons given before, like conflicting citations). Either way, I don't get what's stopping you from actually trying to work things out with me, but so be it. 8ya (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

You asked for the third opinion, it was provided, I accepted the proposed language and you don't. I am not going to be drawn into edit warring with you again. You claim to be improving the article but you actually just seek to impose your views on it, so further discussion with you is unproductive. Mztourist (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop (intentionally?) misinterpreting the 3O. Sad that that you have such a warped view on me, but so be it, please focus on the article instead. 8ya (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Springnuts thank you for your input. I am aware that Justice for Lai Dai Han refers to a number of news reports, but the Guardian story just repeats what Justice for Lai Dai Han claims: "A campaign group, Justice for Lai Dai Han (JLDH), is urging the country to recognise both the tens of thousands of children born as a result of rape by Korean troops, and their mothers, of whom around 800 are still alive today." there is no investigation or verification, just parroting their position. The BBC story just takes the same claims by the same Vietnamese woman in the Guardian and puts it into a story about Korean misconduct in the Vietnam War. I don't regard Jack Straw's opinion piece as RS. So I stand by my view that the sources for the paragraph are Japanese, but if non-Japanese sources are included then more neutral language can be provided. I like your rewording as it strikes a balance between claims of rape and wartime romances (you will see here: [10] that I was abused for making such a suggestion previously), but think it should be moved up in the article perhaps into a new Causes and Numbers section to replace Number of Lai Dai Han​. Unfortunately I have no optimism about agreeing wording as there are certain Users who have an agenda about Koreans in the Vietnam War that they wish to advance. As you will see below I have earlier RFCed on whether or not Justice for Lai Dai Han should be referred to as an Advocacy group after a lengthy debate (see the section 27 January 2021​ below) and that has had no responses. Mztourist (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

You may wish to refer the BBC, Telegraph and Guardian sources to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I sense you are not going to agree about whether they are RS, and if so, what for. Springnuts (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Springnuts having been to RSN previously I know that the response will be "BBC? Guardian? Of course they're reliable!" Anyway that's a distraction which would just lengthen the process, as I said above I'm fine with your reworded para provided that it is moved up into a new Causes and Numbers section, do you agree with that approach? Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I think and with all respect, I will leave it to you and the other editors involved with this page to work things out from here. As I said: the above is simply my opinion. With my very best wishes, Springnuts (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Justice for Lai Dai Han

I have searched online for information about Justice for Lai Dai Han and am unable to find out where it is established and operates, who funds it and who runs it. Given the lack of organisational transparency any assertions made by it cannot be presumed to be reliable. Mztourist (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Disagreed. this is original research. And this statement is highly problematic. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

How is it OR? I searched through their site and am unable to find out where it is established and operates, who funds it and who runs it. You are free to do so yourself. Without that basic information how can they be regarded as trustworthy? I'm perfectly happy for it to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for community input. Mztourist (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Presumably its based on this source here [11], a trusted news site with their own reliable fact checkers. if some random guy on the internet with a weird agenda has the deciding factor on what institutions and organizations are deemed trustworthy, this is original research. presumable BBC News has better fact-checkers and are more reliable than some guy on the internet.216.209.50.103 (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I find it some strange guy would both try to dispute this source and organization, including when it was reported by reputable news sources. And claiming its disputed, when 'no sources' dispute that some children were conceived due to rape. And you proceed to call reported sexual assaults 'wartime romances', which is on another level of grossness I won't get into. I am not going to waste my time arguing this specific topic, so I won't reply anymore. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I am talking about the reliability of the organisation itself, not a BBC report of a couple of rapes in wartime and some disputed massacres. As I said I'm more that happy for it to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for community input. I realise this all ties into your POV A bicyclette. Mztourist (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

27 January 2021

Earlier today an IP added this new para: [12]. By this diff: [13] I removed a non-existent link to the sculptor; replaced "campaign" with "pressure group" and deleted "Jack Straw is the campaigns International ambassador" as irrelevant. User:XiAdonis reverted those edits and editwarred the points, claiming that:

• "pressure group" was an "unsourced addition" and "a defamatory descriptor" which is a strange argument to make. How else would you describe the group? When I entered "pressure group" on search it redirected to Advocacy group and so I have replaced "pressure group with that link.
• The mention of Jack Straw seems out of place and intended simply to give credibility to the group. XiAdonis's comment that "jack straw is relevant enough to have a wiki page and he is related to the article contents." is unconvincing. Yes Jack Straw is a public figure and so what? If he actually said something about the sculpture as a spokesperson for the group that could be included, if not it doesn't belong there. I can't access the Telegraph story which is behind a paywall.

I would also point out that "to stand and speak for the women and their children of the Lai Dai Han," is not supported by any source that is freely accessible, rather the sources state that the statue is "to honour all victims of sexual violence". Mztourist (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not edit war you are the one who broke the 3RR I did not. "pressure" group is 100% your own wording there is no source in the article that refers to the group as a "pressure group" this constitutes original research & is an unsourced addition. "How else would you describe the group?" describe the group as it is described in reliable secondary sources. Advocacy group is a better alternative but unless it is sourced it cannot remain in the article either, how do we know it is an advocacy group? does it describe itself as such? does the media do so? it is simply your own interpretation. XiAdonis (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course you edit-warred, you didn't follow WP:BRD and bring the issues to the Talk Page you just reverted my comments. Of course its an advocacy/lobbying/pressure group, they exist to raise awareness of Lai Dai Han and put pressure on governments to recognise the issue, its not OR its WP:BLUE. What does "campaign" as they describe themselves even mean? Mztourist (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your addition you did not revert mine I made no additions to the article, you reverted my revert, the onus is on you to start the discussion then going by WP:BRD by no definition of the word did I edit war, im not going to spend any more time arguing about this i hope you stop bringing it up the issue is the content focus there. It is not common knowledge it is an advocacy group like the sky being blue, it needs a source, not every campaign, group, or movement is an advocacy group, if you want to describe them as such you need to prove that they are in fact an advocacy group. The definition for campaign is fairly simple. XiAdonis (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I revised the IP and then you editwarred with me rather than raising the issue here. I really can't believe you can say "not every campaign, group, or movement is an advocacy group" those are all different names for advocacy/pressure/lobbying groups. You say "The definition for campaign is fairly simple" then provide it. Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You did not revert the ip you edited a portion of their additions, it was an original edit where you added content. You were the one who broke the 3RR not me how can you claim I edit warred? The responsibility falls on you to start a discussion and prove the worth of your additions by WP:BRD. If your incapable of seeing how your at fault and you aren't already medically diagnosed as a narcissist then I recommend seeing a psychiatrist. "'not every campaign, group, or movement is an advocacy group' those are all different names for advocacy/pressure/lobbying groups." No they are not, thats such an incorrect thing to say that I genuinely cant tell if your being dishonest for the sake of your argument of if youve somehow deluded yourself into believing that.

campaign - "an organized course of action to achieve a goal." — Preceding unsigned comment added by XiAdonis (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Where is that definition from? I suggest you read Advocacy Group and see what it means because your definition obviously falls within it WP:BLUE. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It does not. If you cant grasp basic definition then you have no business editing this page. XiAdonis (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

then I suggest that you raise an RFC as to whether a campaign is an Advocacy Group because you are the one who can't see it. Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I dont need to raise anything you are adding unsourced material which is being challenged. The onus again is on you to prove its worth by WP:BRD which you originally cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XiAdonis (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong, the IP added material which I changed and you reverted, I opened the discussion here at BRD and we can't agree on it, so the remedy is not to revert to the original disputed wording of "campaign" but to raise an RFC. You changing it again just shows that you aren't interested in resolving issues through consensus, you just want to edit war. Mztourist (talk)

You're adding unsourced disputed material why are you so intent on denying that? "Campaign" is only disputed by you who down below admitted to not even knowing the definition of the word. Then after that you said every single movement and campaign in existence is an advocacy group. If somehow in your brain "edit warring" means "protecting the page from disruptive edits and unsourced additions" then that would explain why youve been accusing me of that since my first revert despite the fact that I never once violated the 3RR while you have not only done that on this page but on multiple others as evidenced by the many reports against you for edit warring, do as i say not as i do. "As long as i project what im doing onto you i can always play the victim and get others on my side". I wouldn't be surprised if you have multiple sockpuppet accounts given how you open an SPI against literally every single editor who voices disagreement with your edits. XiAdonis (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

No point discussing with you any further. I have opened the RFC below.Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup lets not interact with eath other again. XiAdonis (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, there is something fundamentally wrong with MZTOURIST. There is just no ability to achieve consensus, and he spends several hours a day blocking edits by several users while being paranoid that everyone who disagrees with him is the same person. I bet he's going to start editing war the revert I just made. Personally, on the facts his edit seems so pointless, but on the principle that he decided to take ownership of wikipedia and certain wikipedia pages is the real issue. For example watch him revert the latest edit I made. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This is really rich after you deleted my comments previously [14], a complete breach of policy. As usual A bicyclette you hurl insults and edit war but never try to reach consensus via BRD, you want to insert your POV in everything. If you don't achieve it you come back a few months later with a new sock and try all over again. I'm trying to keep an NPOV on this page but you want it to be all about what horrible murderers and rapists the Koreans were. Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment

This page refers to Justice for Lai Dai Han which describes itself as a "campaign", is it appropriate to refer to them by the linked term Advocacy group? Mztourist (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

10 March 2021

User:Ritchie333 and User:Jpgordon which one of you is going to revert this page to the status quo before the edit warring began? Obviously I can't do so because that would risk me be blocked again and if you fail to do so you are effectively endorsing 8ya who started the edit war. I look forward to your impartial Admin action. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mztourist: They may both operate to a strict interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, which may or may not apply in this situation. I have restored to the status quo ante bellum; discussion needs must continue here. All the best, ——Serial 12:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What SN54129 said. Given I've blocked the two editors in this dispute, I think it's imperative that I stay away from editing the article otherwise one of you will shout WP:INVOLVED. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: ...from a helicopter, just above the US embassy, with Paint It Black grinding in the background  :) ——Serial 17:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:Serial Number 54129 I really don't understand why the blocking Admin restoring the page to the status quo before edit warring would be seen as being in any way INVOLVED. Thanks for taking the initiative on this. Mztourist (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"Talk:Lai ??i Hàn" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Talk:Lai ??i Hàn has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § Talk:Lai ??i Hàn until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 16:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)