Jump to content

Talk:United States military and prostitution in South Korea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Katherinegrace0 (talk | contribs) at 23:38, 16 June 2019 (Asked for current image on Wiki article to be removed and replaced with attached file). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gegill16 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Yxurbi13. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2019 and 7 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AGW24 (article contribs).

Poorly written and appears to contradict its own sources

Was this article translated into bad English by some machine? Some of the claims sounded odd, so I followed up one sentence, which went: "Other women were coerced into prostitutes by South Korean government and U.S. officials."[15] Following up on reference 15, it specifically contradicted coercion: "While the women have made no claims that they were coerced into prostitution by South Korean or American officials during those years..." It sounds like the governments might have facilitated prostitution, but not coerced it. Bad enough, as it is, but accuracy is important. Prostitution was certainly rampant; I was acquainted with at least two US soldiers who while in SK had live-in "rent-a-wives". But this article appears to be in serious need of attention from someone who knows something about the subject. Cyberherbalist (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. Some errors were corrected. I inserted "Most U.S. soldiers are ignorant of the trafficking, but sometimes help Filipinas escape from clubs.[37]". The sentence seems american soldiers are just the customers in good faith.--Syngmung (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Poorly written" is the tip of the iceberg. It's written by someone with minimal understanding of English grammar. It feels like most of this was translated via Google by someone with a huge POV bias. Meishern (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wianbu: first use is about Japanese "comfort women" who are not prostitutes

If the word "wianbu" is included in the article, and I think it should be, then it must be defined for the reader as first applying to Japanese comfort women who were primarily not prostitutes, but instead were coerced, raped and even killed. When the term wianbu continued to be used after 1945, it was without the sense of coercion or violence. So its first use was as a euphemism for forced sexual slavery, but after Japan's surrender it was a euphemism for willing prostitute or willing war-bride. Binksternet (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese cases have also some views, so in this article should not be written your POV, but only neutral. Cos this article is Western princess. I recommand you to write what you want in the article Comfort women. This page is no relation to Japanese cases. In addition, US cases have also forced or killed cases. You seem lacking of neutrality.--Syngmung (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see we are going to get along very well.
The word wianbu and the term "comfort women" is of course related to the Japanese forced sexual slavery, even if the word and the term were used later, to describe prostitutes in South Korea who served US military men. That connects this article very closely to the comfort women article. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@S. If this article has no relation to "comfort women" taken by Japanese, that's fine. That is what I thought. But then why did you restore reference to Japanese here: [1]? My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this[2] was inserted by other user, Secondly, the term Wianbu's literal meaning was comfort women. And Wianbu was the official name for the prostitutes for Japanese, South Korean and UN millitaries. This should be written in the article. For long time, prostitutes for Japanese, Korean or US military was considered undifferent ones. The term Wianbu have been used for prostitutes for US till comfort women issue raised in 1990s.--Syngmung (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter who initially inserted material. If you revert to keep it here, this is your responsibility. One must clearly explain the difference between these "comfort women" and other, Japanese WWII "comfort women" (see Rape of Nanking). My very best wishes (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I reverted and told you the contents should be written. Next, rape of Nanking is no relation to western princess. US was not the Japanese side. I dont care about your anti Japanese sentiment, it is ok for me. But this article is not Rape of Nanking, you should work off your sentiment in Rape of Nanking.--Syngmung (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't understand Binksternet's point of view. This article has an obligation to explain the official terms used. Shii (tock) 15:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term 慰安婦 pronounced ianfu in Japanese and wianbu in Korean. Has always meant prostitute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.152.14 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The principle of wianbu in the Japanese army and after has been the same. Wianbu in the Japanese army had always been considered to be prostitutes in Korea until the early 1990's. That is why the name was used for military prostitutes after WWII, same job - same name. I don't understand why people nowdays say that the wianbu during WWII were not prostitutes - this is not history but politics. The definition of a prostitute is a women who sells sex, during WWII the wianbu were paid for sex - alot of money. Some estimates put the nationality of WWII ianfu at 40% Japanese.

There are 2 very important primary sources that most people avoid. I don't know why these sources are avoided - they are first hand reports. One is an official report from the USA army while WWII continued and the other is from a book interviewing mainly Australian POW's. The first is Report No. 49: Japanese POW Interrogation on Prostitution (http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/codex/Documentos/report-49-USA-orig.html). Burma Basic salary 1.5Yen 30mins (monthly salary of a 2nd class private in the Imperial army, in WWII was 6Yen).

Quotes "A "comfort girl" is nothing more than a prostitute" "They lived in near-luxury in Burma in comparison to other places." "The girls complained that even with the schedule congestion was so great that they could not care for all guests, thus causing ill feeling among many of the soldiers." "This meant that in an average month a girl would gross about fifteen hundred yen." - A HUGE AMMOUNT OF MONEY, OVER 20 YEARS SALARY OF A JAPANESE SOLDIER IN ONE MONTH "The girls were allowed the prerogative of refusing a customer"

The second is The Consolation Unit: Comfort Women at Rabaul (summarized here http://www.japanfocus.org/-Hank-Nelson/2426) New Guinea Basic salary 2Yen 30 mins Quote "Captain John Murphy, captured on a coastwatching mission in 1943, was the only Australian military prisoner alive in Rabaul at the end of the war. Having served as a government officer in the civil administration of New Guinea in the prewar, he was on familiar ground. He was imprisoned in Chinatown in Ah Teck’s tailor’s shop where he had been fitted for his newest pair of civilian trousers.[20] In another Chinatown building they would sometimes see, Murphy said, the women of the ‘8th Consolation Unit’: a barefoot ‘frumpy lot’ they were unlike the painted geishas the prisoners expected. They flashed their bodies, beckoned and mocked the prisoners. An American pilot imprisoned with Murphy, Joseph Nason, recalled that one day as the prisoners were returning from a work site, a guard, Okano, called the women: ‘One of the girls leaned over the balcony and squealed, “Fuckee, fuckee!” with appropriate gestures of her hand’ but the prisoners in their weakened state had no capacity to respond, let alone overcome what other moral and practical inhibitions might have restrained them. Seeing the lack of response, one of the women ‘coyly drew back her kimono and displayed her sex. The other girls playfully tried to cover her up again, but their efforts resulted in even more exposure’.[21] Nason asked a quiet (and embarrassed guard) where the girls were from and he said they were from China and Korea. When asked if they came willingly, he claimed he did not know. One night the prisoners heard a ‘wild disturbance’ and pistol shots coming from the direction of the ‘Comfort House’. Soon after, a brutally battered Japanese soldier was flung into their cell. That in itself was unusual: for a Japanese soldier to be so degraded that he was cast among prisoners of war meant that he had committed a gross violation of Japanese military law. The prisoners soon found that the soldier had died, but by leaving him propped up in a sitting position they were able to claim his rations for four meals. New Guineans were brought in to carry away the body. The prisoners were told that the dead soldier’s crime was trying to get into the Comfort House at a time when it was reserved for officers.[22]"

For reference, please refer to the following reliable sources:
A former comfort woman's saving:
  • Soh, Chunghee Sarah (2008). The comfort women: sexual violence and postcolonial memory in Korea and Japan. University of Chicago Press. pp. 183–184. ISBN 0226767779. The discovery of her savings account records at the Shimonoseki post office in 1992 revealed that it had a balance of 25,245 yen saved during her life as a comfort woman in Burma and Thailand from 1942 to 1945
  • Ishikida, Miki Y. (2005). Toward Peace: War Responsibility, Postwar Compensation, and Peace Movements and Education in Japan. iUniverse. p. 63. ISBN 0595350631. One Korean former comfort woman, Mun Ok-chu, working in Burma, saved 26145 yen for two years and seven months, 843 yen a month, and sent 5000 yen back to her parents, though she was not able to withdraw money when military currency lost its value in 1945.
  • Driscoll, Mark (2010). Absolute erotic, absolute grotesque: the living, dead, and undead in Japan's imperialism, 1895-1945. Duke University Press. p. 309. ISBN 082234761X. Even though these establishments were expensive to operate and prices were high— one short session with a forced sex worker normally cost between 1.5 and 2 yen ( when the monthly salary of a Japanese soldier was between 6 and 10 yen)—many profited handsomely.
Wikipedia somehow manages to contain the spread of revisionism on the 'Comfort women' page, let's be very clear here as well. 'Comfort women' is the euphemism referring to victims of sexual slavery for Imperial Japan military until 1945. This article is about prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military, who happened to have been often referred to by the same term until surviving victims came out and differences became clear for everyone except die hard revisionists. Abuses and coercion did happen in the post-war system, and they also deserve full investigations, apologies and compensations, but that certainly doesn't absolve Imperial Japan's war crimes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephane mot (talk • contribs)
Please provide RS/old documents/records, not recently written books, that 'comfort women' is the euphemism referring to victims of sexual slavery for Imperial Japan military until 1945. Preferably old documents/records in ja as there are lots of propaganda books. And if you want a major change, use talk page and ask for consensus. Oda Mari (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to restrict our reliable sources to old documents and records. In historiography, analysis with the benefit of hindsight is preferred to contemporary accounts. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And please, Oda Mari, please stop censoring documented facts that don't fit your points of view. This is the second time that you delete blocks on this page that are supported by quotes (latest: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Prostitutes_in_South_Korea_for_the_U.S._military&oldid=612333753&diff=prev, and the first time, you had the gall to write on my user page and negate the existence of quotes that already existed before and still stand now). I understand that we don't share the same appreciation of a dark moment of history, and that - judging by your edits - you stand on the side of revisionism, but deleting documented facts is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Because that's a key issue to understand the whole page and the different views, I regrouped the appellations in one chapter, which includes the 'Comfort Women' issue (and parts already validated there). I ended this segment with the significant use of 'miguk wianbu' (often by progressive medias), an expression that focuses on the parallel with Imperial Japan's sexual slavery system, and gives away some resentment towards both the US and Korean rulers... Stephane mot (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative names

There are many alternative names in the lead section. According to MOS:LEADALT, "if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section". I think it will improve the readability of the lead. The lead should be more focused on the summary of this article.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

I am not confident about this proposal, so I don't initiate a requested move this time. The initial title of this article was Western princess, then it was moved to Korean prostitution for the U.S. military and further to the current name Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. I think the title should be Prostitutes for the U.S. military in South Korea because the focus is not "Prostitutes in South Korea" but apparently "Prostitutes for the U.S. military". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about South Korean prostitution and the U.S. Military? Other articles on the subject use "prostitution" in the tile. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 04:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV issue

The article appears to be highly focused on a POV which serves to be negative towards those service in United States Forces Korea and its relation to illegal prostitution. As such I am tagging this article, and suggesting it be worked on.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, RightCowLeftCoast again. Your argument have closed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military moment ago.--Syngmung (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the AfD one suggestion was rather than taking to AfD, was to summarize the content and merge neutrally stated will referenced content into the main article about Prostitution in South Korea. Just because this article survived AfD, doesn't mean that that shouldn't be done; and it doesn't mean that this article doesn't contain POV issues.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This article has an axe to grind, a cause to carry forward. It should be trimmed of its non-neutral tone. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest making a balance between:

  1. those who celebrate, approve of, tolerate, or condone US servicemen's use of prostitutes in Korea
  2. those who regard all sexual relations, paid or not, as ordinary as eating food
  3. those who oppose prostitution, Korean prostitution, or US servicemen's use of prostitutes (in Korea or anywhere)

It is definitely an issue which is emotionally charged. So lets separate the facts (what has been happening) from the attitudes (how do Koreans and other feel about it).

Here's some information contributing by a U.S. soldier which simply tries to "tell it like it is". [3] --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link above might fall into WP:ELMAYBE but is not a reliable source and might fall under WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE. Removing opinions would be a great start to neutralizing the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, this is indeed a very biased propaganda piece written by Japanese nationalists. Perhaps they should worry more about China right now but that is beside the point. The aim of the piece is to equivocate the comfort women issue of mass rapes by the Japanese during World War Two. Political projects like that have no place on Wikipedia, no matter how desperately they are written up. Akafd76 03:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akafd76 (talk • contribs)

Personal experience

Hi, I'm a wikipedian, but I'm also an active duty United States military member currently in Korea. I came across this page and I'm going to try to expand it and improve it as possible. I think that it's good that this page exists, because the issues that this article covers are important simply because they have a substantial impact on United States South Korean relations. This article is also relevant to the history of the United States Military. Just a few months ago, in June of 2013, a change in U.S. policy regarding "Juicy" bars resulted in almost a month of large scale protests in korea, and weeks of coverage on national korean television. I will provide references for any material I add, and I am open to reasonable compromise on any issues. Also, I know that this is an international encyclopedia, and I will try to remove my own bias as an U.S. military member as much as possible. I thought I would try to contribute, because very few people have the first hand experiance with these specific issues in this article like I do.--DrunkDriver (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for jumping in, DrunkDriver. I would like make sure that our coverage of this issue is even-handed and accurate. Your first-hand knowledge of restrictions placed on folks from the 7th should be backed up by a newspaper article or military bulletin. Otherwise the hard policy of WP:No original research is in danger. Also, the restriction for the 7th should be shown to be a significant development rather than a routine military matter. If it was routine then WP:NOTNEWS would apply. Binksternet (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Ideological Sources

Just a quick comment: Many of the sources for this article seem to me to be highly ideological and of dubious reliability. It is very common for dishonest people to attempt to create the impression of factual documentation by providing many footnotes to sources which appear to be aimed more at winning converts to some ideological position and fomenting hatred and conflict. It seems to me Wikipedia is supposed to be scientific history, which is about documenting the facts of the past, not assigning blame. I would urge the contributors of this page to take another look at the reliability of the sources from this perspective. Thanks. Gunnermanz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got here from researching information on WW II comfort women, and while I might differ with some of the details of the above argument, I certainly endorse the thrust that there is a lot of bias in this article. While not as overblown as some other infamous Wikipedia articles (such as that on Angeles City, Philippines before the editors imposed some discipline on the battle of deletions and reinsertions), there is a lot of cherry-picking of data and conflation of fact with opinion. Tito john (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. The article is a mess because it was created in anger by Syngmung who was focused on adding lots of non-neutral information about rape by soldiers. Syngmung was later topic-banned, prevented from editing on military rape, and cannot edit articles such as this one. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military → Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.N. military – Because not only U.S. soldiers were client NiceDay (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC) As we can see in File:Registration of comfort women.jpg, comfort women did not work only for U.S. soldiers. So the article name is incorrect. --Relisted. walk victor falk talk 22:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC) NiceDay (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does "U.N. military" mean? What do you think of using the phrase "United Nations forces", since that phrase is found in many sources? Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree to United Nations forces. NiceDay (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both versions of the title are bad. First, it should be about "prostitution", not "prostitutes"; then, the order of modifiers is grammatically awkward (if anything, it would be far more natural to say "prostitution for the XYZ military in South Korea"). A simple, natural title would be Military prostitution in South Korea, which is what many reliable sources use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I would suggest an universal article on "Military prostitution after World War II" that covers South Korea, Japan and other countries. STSC (talk) 03:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I attempted to clean up the article further, but the concerns previously voice by others about a heavily biased Point-of-View and statements that disagree with citations still haven't been fully addressed. A few of the linked sources are in Korean, so if we could get a Korean-speaker to verify that statements are actually in citations that would help.

I also agree with an earlier editor that this should likely be merged into the article about Prostitution in Korea to avoid redundancies. 

Daskies (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC) User:Daskies[reply]

What exactly is the POV here? Zezen (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formal merger proposal.

No consensus to merge. WP:NAC. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As a previous posters have noted, this page should probably be folded into the Prostitution_in_South_Korea page. There's a great deal of redundancy between the two and placing the relevant bits of this page there will hopefully even out some of the ongoing POV issues.

Ergo I'm initializing a formal merger proposal.

Reve (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - To engage in prostitution, or sex work, means to offer sexual services in exchange for payment, be it money, goods, services, or other benefits the transacting parties agree on in the absence of any physical, verbal or other coercion. At this point, this page includes instances of coercive labour situations in businesses catering to U.S. military personnel, i.e. women being forced into these businesses. Since the conflation of sex work and commercial sexual exploitation of adults ("human trafficking") is already an opened can of worms, I suggest to leave this page separate. One could discuss the merits and demerits of folding this page into the Comfort_women page but that might draw a strong response as these issues are very contentious. Happy to discuss this further, keeping it concise for now.

I would like to apologise if commenting on this proposal via editing this entry is not the appropriate procedure.

Satellithias (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing conflicts

I note there has been some conflicting editing. I have made changes as follows.

1. Reinstated 1 million prostitutes. This is well referenced. If an individual doesn't agree with that it's not relevant.

2. Reverted back to 'Since the 2000s, the majority of prostitutes have been Philippine or Russian'. Again this is well reference. The state report does say 'Some foreign women on E6-2 entertainment visas—mostly from the Philippines, China, and Kyrgyzstan—are subjected to forced prostitution in entertainment establishments near ports and U.S. military bases., but this is talking about trafficked women not the prostitutes overall.

3. The trafficked women is significant fact so I have included that (but used the 2017 Trafficking in Persons Report as the reference John B123 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be expanded...

This article is inaccurate. I served in Korea with US military from 2005-08. Woman from many countries, not just the Philippines are known as "juicy" girls. Another is that while regrettably the US besmirched it honor allowing the practice to proliferate by many members utilizing them, they cracked down hard on it. Even before the crackdown other foreign national laborers still keep the practice going strong even though US military has cracked down. Jwunderwood007 (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo

The infobox for the current version of this article depicts two women identified as North Korean nurses standing in the middle of four men identified as US & ROK Soldiers. Given the scene and the source article, we do not know if these particular women were indeed forced to become prostitutes, do we? As actual people photographed and depicted, who may or may not still be alive, who have their image being used on Wikipedia in these circumstances, we should probably be using a different photograph if we want some kind of illustration for the infobox. What do other editors think? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The photo for this article does not relate to the article's content. The photo needs to be deleted and another one needs to be uploaded. I uploaded a file that could be used instead. File:South-koorea-the-united-states-mi.jpg Any thoughts? Katherinegrace0 (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Katherine[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_military_and_prostitution_in_South_Korea&oldid=902156174"