Talk:1995 Okinawa rape incident

Race of the assailants

If there is a relevant reason for including the race of the individuals involved, then I would support the addition. Did race have any bearing on the case? What was relevant was their nationality (American), which prompted re-evaluation of the status of forces agreement between Japan and the United States. If race is to be included, why not include the state they were from, their religion, their shoe size? If it's relevant, OK, but if it's not relevant it should not be included. Eastcote (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If, as I suppose from the hidden comment in the prose, the "reliable source" for their race is the linked image, it far and away doesn't qualify as such. I don't have any input on whether it's pertinent information, but it's certainly original research. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

On the page "Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military" it is mentioned that race issues played a role there. Gage the mood. I think race can be mentioned as there are still quite some differences in lifestyle. It completes the picture, the State where they came from could also be included as could rough family background information. To those who seek to address these crimes, it is useful to understand what the background environment of the perpetrators was, unless you say this is irrelevant and it's genetic. 58.174.193.2 (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I have read, since World War II, when a number of Okinawa women were raped and murdered by African-American soldiers during the Battle of Okinawa (Source: Feifer, George (2001). The Battle of Okinawa: The Blood and the Bomb. The Lyons Press. ISBN 1-58574-215-5) Okinawans have perceived that black US servicemembers were of particular concern when it came to certain crimes against native Okinawans, particularly rape. During the trial for the rapists in this case, Okinawan protesters displayed signs in public highlighting the race of the defendents (Source: Stars and Stripes). That being said, unless this article clearly explains, with reliable sourcing, why the race of the defendents was notable in this case, their race should not be mentioned. For example, a Wall Street Journal article mentioned that all the defendents in this case were of the same race, a racial minority in the US. I haven't seen, however, so far how this is particularly relevant to the incident so I have not included it in the article. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(to pd_Thor) Yes, making a statement in the article about the race of the participants based on a photo is original research. Cla68 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Citation Needed on NYT Ad

Regarding the "citation needed" in the paragraph which references the "full page ad in the New York Times" by the people of Okinawa, I did attempt to phone the NYT to locate this as ads are not archived to my knowledge, but was unsuccessful. I presume this is in relation to the date and the hour, fair enough. I will continue to attempt this at my own expense as, to my knowledge, I have no local ability to check any microfiche for this ad, and will attempt again to contact the paper at my earliest ability. I did not write the line, but the contention seems reasonable enough to warrant the effort. It is definitely something worth citing, though, and I am hoping the OA might come through on this in my stead.

Best regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.205.45 (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp961016/10160391.htm
  • In 1995 Okinawa rape incident on 2011-05-25 06:15:54, 403 Forbidden
  • In 1995 Okinawa rape incident on 2011-06-08 03:14:41, 403 Forbidden

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The above is Y Done. All refs were updated to template format with access dates added, and dead url is updated with archived. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

murder of Yun Geum-i

I removed the sentence mentioning this murder in Korea, because it is not relevant to the Okinawa incident. It may have a place in a page discussing violence committed by US troops in Asia or something of that nature, but it is not related to this particular incident. Furthermore, I looked up the 2 references. the second reference is wrong--there is no mention on page 91 of this Okinawan incident. If you feel that there is something in Grace Cho's book that should be in this article, you will have to find the correct page. In the first reference, by Katharine Moon, she does not say what you say she says. The context of the mentioning of the Okinawan incident is: "In Japan, the highly publicized gang rape of a twelve-year-old Okinawan girl in 1995 by three U.S. Marines galvanized political activism and brought wider attention to military-related violence against women. Unlike the rape of the girl, Yun’s murder did not itself spark a national debate about the presence and prerogatives of the U.S. forces or a crisis in the alliance relationship." To say that this means what you say it means is YOUR interpretation. That means that it's original research, and therefore a violation of WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not here to analyze. According to WP:NOR, "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. " The sources you mention are both about Korea, not about Japan, so they are not directly related to the topic of the article nor are they by experts in Japan. If anything, the first source uses the incident to reflect upon and compare the reaction in Korea. As it is, all you're doing is shoe-horning into an article about Japan, a Korean incident. And it has no place there.QuizzicalBee (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Correction: I removed that sentence, and cited the exact same policy you have cited. 182.249.241.43 (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"If the offenders had been tried..."

The part "If the offenders had been tried " is pure speculation, as being tried does not imply a necessary sentence of guilty. The fact that harsher punishments might have been possible is not really relevant, as there is no guarantee that they would have been imposed. One of the reason nations like Japan prefer to try such cases themselves is because they see the US and particularly the US military not as an impartial arbiter in such cases. And there's plenty of cases to justify such belief.... --95.90.157.85 (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Type of discharge

The article used to claim that they were given dishonarble discharges. There was no citation for this. Only a general court-martial can impose a dishonarable discharge. I can find no reference to such a court-martial being held, and kind of doubt the military would go through the trouble to hold a new trial after their release from prison. I changed it to say other-than-honarable discharge instead. If anyone can find out what is correct, please do. 78.71.232.243 (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is the "Injured" field set to zero?

There's literally a beaten rape victim, shouldn't that be set to 1, or is the "Injured" field have a different requirement than I expect? Martheencp (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)