Talk:United States Forces Japan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Japan To-do:

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I believe Kishine is mistakenly listed as a former navy facility. During the Viet Nam war Kishine (Yokohama) was the site of the 106th General Hospital, an army installation that occasionally had patients from other branches of the service. The 106th had the burn center for the Far East, so it handled everything from civilians burned at barbecues in the Philippines to helicopter crash survivors.

[edit] More information needed

US military personnel deployed in Japan are required to be proficient in the Japanese language and certain customs. There are also deeper and more controversial issues with regard to the friction between the locals and US servicemen. If you know more about these, please provide the information. --222.165.171.64 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

-I'm stationed here and there is no requirement to learn the language, though it is encouraged to do so. The same goes with cusotms. As far as friction goes, it is mostly generated in the newspapers, the tv news, the Prefectural government, and the Japan Communist Party and it's associated organizations. I don't have the crime statistics readily available, but the percentage of crimes commited by SOFA personel are extremely low compared to the local population. Also, it is very competitive for local residents to get jobs on base, so I guess that can create a different kind of friction! --Okinawa Matt 11:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources in "Controversy" Section

I added the minutes of the Lower House Foreign Affairs Committee as a more reliable source. Check the next Qs and As.

赤嶺委員　日本の警察の捜査権は及ばない状態が一年近くにわたって続き、そして、米軍が再発防止だのあるいは責任者の処罰だのと言ってきたその中身も、一年近くなろうとしているのに皆さんはまだ説明を求めている最中。これでは、ああいう事故というのは本当に何だったのかということが、私、問われると思うんですよ。それで、あの事故は、市民生活を恐怖に陥れた事故なんですよ。二度と起きてはならない。そのための事故調査報告じゃないですか。それでさえも中身ははっきりしない。私、そういう土台にあるのが日米地位協定の問題だと思います。ことしは戦後六十年という節目の年ですが、米軍の事件、事故、この問題についてさらに突っ込んで聞いていきたいわけですが、今回の事故の場合も、第一次の裁判権は米軍が握っている、こういうところから全くあいまいな世界になっている。それでは、旧安保条約を締結して以降、現在までに起こった米軍による事故の件数、あるいは死亡者数、これを全部示していただけますか。

土屋政府参考人　お答えします。米軍の事故についての件数、死亡者数についてのお尋ねでございますが、防衛施設庁が知り得ました昭和二十七年度から平成十六年度までの在日米軍による事件、事故の件数は、全国で二十万一千件でございまして、そのうち、公務上のものが約四万七千件、公務外のものが約十五万四千件となっております。この件数は、結果的に賠償に至らなかったものも含んでおりますが、九割以上が交通事故ということでございます。それから、死亡者数についてお尋ねでございますが、被害者側の死亡者数につきましては、昭和二十七年度以降でございますが、全国で約一千八十人でございまして、そのうち、公務上の被害者側の死亡者数は約五百二十人、公務外の事故によるものが約五百六十人というふうになっております。

赤嶺委員　今の資料を確かめたいんですが、その数字の中には、復帰前の沖縄で起きた事件、事故も含まれていますか。

土屋政府参考人　お答えします。復帰前の沖縄の事件、事故の数字は含まれておりません。

Ryuji Tsuchiya, high officer in the Defense Facilities Administration Agency answered that there were 201,000 accidents and crimes committed by the US military personnel from 1952 to 2004, and the death toll was 1,080 and these figures don't include the cases and the victims in Okinawa before the reversion to Japanese administration. Amagase 13:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'communist party' is the main source for this outrageous excuse for a crime rate. There is no way that there have been that many crimes committed. Self proclaimed communist groups aren't known for their honesty. There needs to be reliable source on this, not political lies. They make it sound like ethnic cleansing! I am sure there are many websites that say the holocaust was a myth, that doesn't mean it's true. Contralya 21:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Contralya, check the source[1] and my above comment once again. These figures are not from original researches by the Japanese communist party, but official statistics showed by the Japanese government in the Lower House Foreign Affairs Committee. If you doubt this account, you should show more reliable sources than official statements by the Japanese government, which negate these figures.

And I recommend you to use words and terms with more deliberation. I think many users question the appropriateness of your words such as "ethnic cleansing"(which you misused), "communist party propaganda" and "USSR sympothisers".

If you can not pose other sources, I remove the tags in the head of this article and controversy section. Amagase 10:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't do sourcing, I am mostly just a reader at wikipedia and put tags up when I find something wrong. The killing of 200,000 people would be just like ethnic cleansing. And if the information which I know to be incorrect is kept, I would say that there is limited evidence or SOMETHING. What is described is NOT the sort of thing the U.S. military does. I believe that there were probably crimes, especially in the period just after the war, but those numbers are at the VERY LEAST exaggerated. You can't trust all sources, and you have to remember, different political parties have conflicting views on all kinds of facts. And I was right about the communist party thing, they cause nothing but trouble. If you are going to remove the factual accuracy, I would keep the neutrality tag because there is nothing challenging it. I am certain the U.S. military has records somewhere, and they DO NOT lie about such things, not of that scale anyway. I am sure the military could provide the facts, though it would be hard to find information. And if you are an anti-American fool, than it should definitely have a POV tag. The U.S. military has standards and ethics. Just because nothing has been found doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Besides, that source could easily be errant or forged. I don't see anything indicating that it is valid, like a connection to an official government page. Contralya 14:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just stumbled on this page, so I don't know really know anything about what's going on, but I do see that the house notes state (and is translated above and in the article) that there were 201,000 accidents and crimes, not number of people killed. 50 years for 201,000 crimes with 1000 deaths seems very possible — 4000 crimes a year. I'm not sure what crime statistics are like for Japan in general, but that seems like it could be quite a small percentage. Megaversal (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems rather important that if you include those huge numbers you also include the bit "この件数は、結果的に賠償に至らなかったものも含んでおりますが、九割以上が交通事故ということでございます。" which states that over 90% of these incidents where traffic accidents/vehicle related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.17.69.239 (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Much of this discussion seems to be because of confusion over accidents versus crimes and number of incidents over deaths. 200,000 accidents and crimes seems reasonable for the entire history of USFJ occupation, especially if one includes traffic accidents (including presumably fender-benders). 1000 deaths may be ok too. Nonetheless, given that more complete information is included in the source (as mentioned right above, over 90% of the incidents are traffic related), the inclusion of just saying 200,000 accidents and crimes, I suspect, is misleading (perhaps on purpose). Therefore I will add that to the article. Those seeking to remove this clarification should justify their reasoning, as I see no good reason not to mention it.

Also, perhaps this is in bad taste, but I cannot help but wonder why the people like Amagase that can clearly read Japanese and added the material, did not think to mention this additional clarifying content. Did they not realize that conflating accidents and crimes together would give a false impression? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.178.36 (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviation

Isn't USAF usually reserved for the United States Air Force? I'm aware that the abbreviation is defined to mean "armed forces" in general in the opening paragraph, but perhaps one could still find a better abbreviation in order to avoid confusion? Vargher (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)