Talk:Okinawa Prefecture

SOFA

moved from article to talk page
Paragraph three is not accurate. The SOFA agreement did not and does not protect US servicemen from prosecution. It simply provideds for US constitutional rights not guarenteed under Japanese law; such as the right to an attorney, bail, etc. The SOFA also allows US servicemen accused of crimes under Japanese jurisdiction to be held in US military detention until the Japanese prosecutor files proper charges, which is what happened in 1995 and in every other criminal case under Japanese jurisdiction. The SOFA is not a "get out of jail free card" for US servicement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.27.60.94 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neier (talk • contribs) 11:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Kerama Islands not mentioned

Surely the Kerama group of islands should be listed as part of the main islands for Okinawa Shoto? I am adding this group to the article in place of Tokashiki which is only one of 22 islands that make up the Kerama Islands 86.27.169.171 (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Karate

Shotokan is not a style of Okinawa's Karate but a Japanese style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.202.130.204 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Map

Just an observation: the map at the top of this page, "Map_of_Japan_with_highlight_on_47_Okinawa_prefecture.svg‎", isn't bad but it doesn't really help show where Okinawa is. The prefecture is highlighted on the inset only, and there's nothing to indicate where the inset is located relative to the main map. If you don't already know where Okinawa is, this map isn't really going to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.72.2 (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Anti-US Political Bias

Incidents & crimes by US military personnel in the post-war era are discussed at length in two sections of this article, while the role of Okinawa during World War II as a Japanese military stronghold is not discussed at all. This represents both a gross omission of a key part of Okinawan/Japanese history and an apparent anti-US bias in the entry's general tone. I therefore dispute the neutrality of the article, and also request addition of a complete description of the island's history during the Japanese imperial period through 1945.

72.130.56.152 (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I just got here myself! I admit, skipping right along from 1879 to 1945, is a bit, er, terse! Feel free to add referenced material summarizing that history. Note that there is already an article Battle of Okinawa. Because of that article, the summarized portion could not be very long. It would have to include civilian casualties which, one assumes, were high. So it would include the role of Okinawa in the war and the reasons it was needed by the US.Student7 (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This "article" is nothing more than anti-US pamphlet. --84.126.10.233 (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Military controversy

Several of the references in that section(numbers 17 and 21 for example) are no longer working thus no longer valid. There are also several others that are in Japanese. Nothing wrong with that if this were Wikipedia Japan but it keeps other users who want to fact check the reference from doing so. There is also the possibility that something in those Japanese references was lost in translation and the originally meaning was over exaggerated and/or possibly false. Also, the map used marking the sections of the island that are being used by the US military is no longer accurate and misleading. This is a much more accurate map of the land used by the US military on Okinawa. [1]I'd say the entire US military controversy section can be misleading and bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SquallyZ06 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If an equally valid reference to Japanese can be found, that would be nice. If not, a reference in Japanese is just fine and quite "legal" in the English Wikipedia. Others may not be available. If you can find equal or better in English, feel free to replace them. There are translators available that can verify references if you need them checked. Student7 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's just the thing, online translators such as google translate do a horrible job and much of the original meaning of the article would be lost. Hence why I call the source into question when not everyone is able to understand it.68.53.5.240 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize that this is frustrating to a non-Japanese reader, but foreign refernces are allowed. If an English one is available, it is preferable, but foreign references cannot be automatically purged or ignored. You may ask for verification from a Wikipedia translator. BTW, there are (comparatively) a "lot" of Japanese readers around. You may have one locally. For the record, I do not read Japanese (it is not my reference!). So I can be of no direct help. Sorry. Student7 (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Who pays?

I would find it interesting to know who pays for these bases. Could someone in the know insert that here? For instance, does the US taxpayer pay or the Japanese, or do they share the costs and in which ratio? I remember from Germany that they paid for the US/Nato troops who were stationed there. From time to time an older agreement expired and it was re-determined how much Germany paid. Both Japan and the US have huge debts and maybe, just maybe, the conflict could be reduced if the bases were reduced? 121.209.51.28 (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)