Talk:United States Forces Japan

message: 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)
thread_title: More information needed

message: 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)
thread_title: Abbreviation

message: The map of the facilities on Okinawa appears to be incorrect or possibly dated. This is a much more accurate map of the US military facilities on Okinawa.SquallyZ06 (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of facilities on Okinawa 

message: I removed one ref that lead to a "404 Page Not Found". I also replaced it with a similar link to a BBC article. I then realized that the first sentence in the Controversy section said the exact opposite of the source given. The source says: "この日米安全保障条約は日本の平和と安全に役立っていると思うか，役立っていないと思うか聞いたところ，「役立っている」とする者の割合が73.4％". That says that 73.4% of those polled believe the treaty between the U.S. and Japan is "Useful" in protecting Japan. It goes on to say that only 13.2% feel the treaty is "Not useful". There are various other figures about the feelings of those polled but nowhere dose it say, or even imply, that "a large portion of the population demand a reduction in the amount of U.S. military bases in the region" or that only "some" Japanese appreciate the mutual security treaty. I have reworded the article to accurately reflect the source cited. Colincbn (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadlink ref and what the sources actually say 

message: The controversy section is not neutral, instead focusing on the US faults instead of placing it into perspective. While the statistics are accurate, it fails to inform the reader that the US personal and families living in Japan are the least likely to commit crime if you divide by group. 
Percentage of crime out of 1000 people
National crime rate (includes foreigners)　　　　0.30%　　←　this means 3 people out of 1000　   　 
Okinawa people (except US soldiers)　             0.30%　　
US soldiers in Okinawa                                   0.14%  　　 
The Chinese (both short, and long term stay)    1.57%
North and South Koreans (the same)               1.94%
Brazilians (the same)                                       0.52%
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/reservoir/20080214/1202958732
76.181.114.227 (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: US personal and families living in Japan are the least likely to commit crime, you say !  but just because they are a small part of the population does not mean they will not commit more crimes or more hideous crimes than other groups. And the fact that they are extraterritorial military personnel aggravates the numerous and constant cases...--5.249.14.10 (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" section is not neutral.  

message: I think the section on crime rates is applicable to the article and especially the controversy section. The material is presented in a factual and statistical manner with no commentary, thereby confirming to the WP:NPOV policy. Colin Cbn (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime rates 

message: I'm dubious as to whether this section actually contributes much to the article as opposed to just being an exhaustive list of stuff. That notwithstanding, I certainly think that there's an argument for breaking it out into a separate list article as it makes this one unnecessarily long. danno 23:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of former facilities 

message: The following section was removed completely by User:Mkonji128 in this edit without explanation. Haven't read it carefully, but proposing it be added back? Computermacgyver (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Added back for now and suggest that issues/problems be edited in the article rather than just deleting it. Please try not to delete text without explanation, and if text is referenced another reference should justify removing it. Computermacgyver (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the name of the section to Crime issues. Controversy does not apply here, does it?--5.249.14.10 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed without explanation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Forces Japan. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101022060139/http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/h14/h14-bouei/2-6.html to http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/h14/h14-bouei/2-6.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Forces_Japan&diff=820391355&oldid=820390974
 
I know AA 13:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: Hi everyone. I can see with a glance at the talk page that this has been a neutrality issue before in this article. Yet, the way it is written now (A statistic description intended to demonstrate how cool the U.S. Marines are, compared to the local population) looks like a big POV, borderile brainwashing. I don't argue that the fact is not true, I'm sure it is, but the way it is written gives the exact opposite sensation, imho. I suggest borrowing from Okinawa_Prefecture#2007–present the following sentence "Between 1972 and 2009, U.S. servicemen committed 5,634 criminal offenses, including 25 murders, 385 burglaries, 25 arsons, 127 rapes, 306 assaults and 2,827 thefts" (and its The Guardian reference) and putting it  at the beginning of the section, and continuing with a "Yet,...." and the cool statistics. And I would suggest doing the exact opposite in the other article, to be fair. What do you think ?Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so without further notice from anyone, I am proceeding with the change I suggested above.Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of the "U.S. service member behavior" section 

message: — Assignment last updated by Karanaconda (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: War and the Environment