I'm making this section here and not on the article talk page but we can move this discussion there if you want.
First, i dont think the see also section should be split up between "scholars who support this view" and "scholars who support that view", a simple "scholars who have published research relating to comfort women" section would be better, where the most prominent researchers of the topic are linked. This would prevent the section from getting too long and would prevent a needless sectioning off of things.
Your framing of things in this sentence "There are two school of scholars, most of them supporting the established history, and a few who try to revise it", is simply wrong, both as a statement in isolation and when applied to the people you want to label as "supporters of the established history" and as "revisionists". If you want to keep this section in your preferred state then there are a few things you need to do.
- 1. show that there is an established view on this issue accepted by most researchers
- 2. show that the people you want to describe as "revisionist" support the view that is unpopular.
If your going to label someone a revisionist you need to show that they are a revisionist or else it seems like your just labeling them that because you dislike what they think, given your tendentious editing history on this page i think the possibility of that being the case isn't zero. Writing unsourced material about a living person on wikipedia is a WP:BLM violation, simply providing a source describing the people you want to label revisionists as "revisionists" is all you need to do.
On the removal of the Hillary Clinton part,
- 1. She is unimportant in the general discussion surrounding comfort women
- 2. If she is listed here then everyone else who is at least as important as her to the comfort women issue need to also be listed, the problem with this is it would make the section would never end.
To make a last comment if you agree that Ikuhiko Hata is not a revisionist then on what grounds are you labeling all those other people as revisionists? XiAdonis ( talk) 03:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm making this section here and not on the article talk page but we can move this discussion there if you want.
First, i dont think the see also section should be split up between "scholars who support this view" and "scholars who support that view", a simple "scholars who have published research relating to comfort women" section would be better, where the most prominent researchers of the topic are linked. This would prevent the section from getting too long and would prevent a needless sectioning off of things.
Your framing of things in this sentence "There are two school of scholars, most of them supporting the established history, and a few who try to revise it", is simply wrong, both as a statement in isolation and when applied to the people you want to label as "supporters of the established history" and as "revisionists". If you want to keep this section in your preferred state then there are a few things you need to do.
- 1. show that there is an established view on this issue accepted by most researchers
- 2. show that the people you want to describe as "revisionist" support the view that is unpopular.
If your going to label someone a revisionist you need to show that they are a revisionist or else it seems like your just labeling them that because you dislike what they think, given your tendentious editing history on this page i think the possibility of that being the case isn't zero. Writing unsourced material about a living person on wikipedia is a WP:BLM violation, simply providing a source describing the people you want to label revisionists as "revisionists" is all you need to do.
On the removal of the Hillary Clinton part,
- 1. She is unimportant in the general discussion surrounding comfort women
- 2. If she is listed here then everyone else who is at least as important as her to the comfort women issue need to also be listed, the problem with this is it would make the section would never end.
To make a last comment if you agree that Ikuhiko Hata is not a revisionist then on what grounds are you labeling all those other people as revisionists? XiAdonis ( talk) 03:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)