Talk:J. Mark Ramseyer

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

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 10 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): L7mRyu (article contribs). Peer reviewers: GumTreeKookabura.

— Assignment last updated by GumTreeKookabura (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Does adding any information require discussion on the talk page first?

@Ash-Gaar If you believe there are any syntax errors, you can help me fix them. Full rollbacks seems tantamount to vandalism to me.

Artificialrights (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ash-Gaar Could you explain why the information need to be deleted ?? Artificialrights (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Your behavior is clearly against WP:TENDENTIOUS. Do not edit war, do not accuse others of vandalism unless you have good evidence. Ash-Gaar has provided justifications for the reversions, and I've known them to edit with integrity. You're asking them to fix your edits instead of reverting it; the obligation really is on you to make sure your edits are good quality before making them. Nobody else is obligated to fix your work. When you edit on serious topics that impact living people, the burden is on you to get it right. Reversion was the correct move. If you want the edits to return, make them with more neutral language. seefooddiet (talk) 19:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

i think you're applying double standard here. I have provided justifications for my edit. Instead, it's him who ignore my edit summary and have made his own subjective accusations against me, which I think is a clear violation of neutrality. If I vaguely claim that your edits violate the Npov without giving specific parts and use that as an excuse to roll back at will, do you think that's a valid reason?

“You're asking them to fix your edits instead of reverting it”

I'm asking which part isn't neutral, and he's circumventing it. After I modified some wording based on his subjective preferences, he continue to claimed that I had to make a case on the discussion page in order to add any information (and started a edit war). I've never heard of that being a requirement.

"the obligation is on you to make sure your edits are good quality"

Who decides what is "good quality", Isn't that something subjective? What would you think if I continually revoked your edits and ambiguously claimed they weren't neutral enough?

“When you edit on serious topics that impact living people, the burden is on you to get it right.”

This page is full of other people's criticisms of the living person, but completely lacking in his own voices. I think it's obvious significant tendentious editing has affect this scholar's reputation.

"If you want the edits to return, make them with more neutral language."

Which part of my edit isn't neutral? I think Ash-Gaar can't answer this, could you? Do not accuse others violate WP: tendentious unlessoyou u have good evidence. Artificialrights (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

No double standard.

1. Ash-Gaar literally gave exact examples of what they thought to be POV in the edit comments. [1] You did not address them in your replies.
2. Who decides good quality is the WP:MOS. Grammar and style rules are fairly objective. POV is more subjective, but Ash-Gaar already provided examples that I agree with.
3. I agree that Ramseyer's positions may need to be represented more, but given your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, obvious WP:POV pushing, and inappropriate accusations of vandalism, I don't think you're the best person to do it. This is a sensitive topic that needs a more detatched writer than you.

seefooddiet (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

1. I literally addressed or explained every point he complains .[2] , though it's just his subjective opinion. (fierce criticism, states, regarded that and so on) I think you didn't read it.
2. "but given your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, obvious WP:POV pushing" I think this is a serious and very unkind accusation. Don't you think you have violated the principle of neutrality by presenting your own unfounded subjective opinions as if they were objective facts and judging others based on them?

Artificialrights (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

1. You're right, I didn't see that. That newer edit is better.
2. I stand by my comments. You shouldn't have made the tendentious edits in the first place; even you acknowledged that the edits were tendentious. WP:NPOV applies to article content, not to talk pages. Your accusations of vandalism are just as contentious. When you approach these kinds of contentious topics, the obligation is on you to get it right. It shouldn't take other users calling you out for you to fix the problems.

seefooddiet (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think haven't made so-called "tendentious edits" in the first place. When did I "acknowledge" my edit was tendentious?

It's very clear that what i meant was Ash-Gaar's accusation of me being "tendentious" is untrue and his mass-deletion is based on his own personal editing tendency, which violates npov itself.

Ramseyer is indeed facing fierce criticism", doesn't him? And there is nothing wrong with the original wording of "state" since Ramseyer firmly hold his opinion. The accusation that "state" is too "affirmative" just reflect Ash-Gaar personal preference.

What's more important, my second edit only proved that the so-called npov problem he gave was just an excuse, and even if I compromised and revised his every complain, it was still be rolled back, Haven't you see that?

"It shouldn't take other users calling you out for you to fix the problems"

There wasn't problem of npov in the first places. My compromise is only because I hope that live person's own voice can be heard instead of being canceled by some tendentious editors for absurd excuses. Artificialrights (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

There was a problem of WP:NPOV before the compromise. Your "compromise" shouldn't have been begrudgingly made. The fact that you still feel this way signals that you edit to see how much POV you can push, and are merely settling because you were challenged. Make your edits worthy of not being reverted or revised in the first place. I edit lots of controversial pages and almost never receive pushback.

Your behavior is far more tendentious than anything Ash-Gaar has done. Slow down. Learn how the encyclopedia works. Instead, shortly after making an account you immediately dove into controversy and are getting things wrong and getting mad at anyone who calls you out for getting things wrong. seefooddiet (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I was accused of pushing a particular narrative as I simply wanted to add a little opinion and source from the live person himself to a page full of criticism of the person involved.

By the same standards, certain user keep deleting Ramseyer's own voice from his own page for no credible reason, are surrly pushing a much more blatant POV. Don't you agree? Artificialrights (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

much more blatant POV You realize this phrasing means that you accept that you're pushing at least some POV right?

Even your final edit had a removal from the lead that wasn't properly justified (information in the lead is overlap with information in the body, see WP:LEAD. Again, you don't know how this website works), grammar and spelling issues, and the appearance of POV given your previous edits and edits on other pages. Stop being aggressive, and stop trying to push things through without reading Wikipedia policy. seefooddiet (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You realize this sentence means you acknowledge that Ash-Gaar or any other user was pushing its POV by mass-deleting the live person Ramseyer's own opinions, and through selective emphasize of certain information, they're actually conducting tendentious edit violating NPOV right? Artificialrights (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Which part of my message implies that?

I don't think Ash-Gaar was pushing POV; I think they were rightfully distrustful of your edits because of your behavior. Whether or not your final edit should have been reverted is debatable, but honestly perfectly understandable considering your continuous belligerent behavior. While your edits got closer to acceptable after your begrudging compromise (shouldn't have been begrudging), your final version still had issues with grammar and prose that shouldn't be on other people to fix. seefooddiet (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me make this clear:

Some users are unable to provide convincing reasons for why the author's important points should be deleted, so they resort to nitpicking over so-called language neutrality issues. Although I disagree with their personal views, I was willing to modify the wording since I believed these changes wouldn't significantly alter the core content. However, after I addressed their excuses, they further reversed the burden of proof, further demanding that I convince them why the new information needs to be added. At this point, the nature of the problem has become very clear: this is an unreasonable obstruction. Certain users, driven by unspoken motives (personal inclinations), are hindering the presentation of certain sourced viewpoints and information (meanwhile protecting unsourced, questionable views). This is clearly a biased editing behavior. Deleting sourced viewpoints and information added by others while maintaining unsourced factual statements and opinions, and then accusing the other party of biased editing, is an obvious double standard.

I don't think I'm belligerent. On the contrary, it's normal to feel annoyed when you spend a lot of time and energy on your contributions and then have them rolled back with lame excuses, especially when the excuses are double standards. Artificialrights (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Enough. I'm going to WP:ANI. You are being belligerent and this is unproductive. seefooddiet (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)