Talk:Okinawa Prefecture/Archive 1

Archive 1

History section

I suggest changes in the history section I put them in and they were all reverted. I based my comments on a book by Hokama Shuzen the dean of Okinawa studies-- he was a professor at Hosei University. Then I found my additions were all reverted without comment.

Here are my suggestions for the history section

Five 18,000 year old human skeletons discovered in 1965 at Minatogawa in Gushigawa Village, Okinawa resemble the Liaojiang Man skeletons unearthed in Guangdong Province in southern China as well as the Jomon people of early Japan.

Okinawa lies along a chain of islands extending from Japan to south Asia which some scholars call Japonesia in order to highlight cultural influences that reached Okinawa from the south. For example, in ethnomusicology, musical scales similar to the Okinawan musical scale, long thought to be unique to Okinawa, such as the Perogu scale of Indonesia and the Gamaran music of Java and Bali have recently been found. Koizumi Fumio has reported finding the same scale in widely dispersed isolated areas in India, Sri Lanka, Burma, Nepal, Bhutan, Micronesia and Polynesia.

The most famous book on the relationship of Okinawa to the origins of Japanese culture is The Sea Road published in 1961 in which Yanagita Kunio. Yanagita, struck by how the Black Current brings plants and flotsam to Japanese shores from South Asian countries, proposed that the Yayoi culture rice culture, thought to be the root of Japanese culture, moved from southern China northwards through the Okinawan islands into the Japanese main islands. Yanagita, in his South Seas Notes published in 1925 after his first visit to Okinawa, wrote that many of the folk customs at the foundations of Japanese culture originated to the south of Japan. This book is the forerunner to his full-blown theory about the south asian origins of Japanese culture. Thus there is strong evidence of some important cultural influences from the south as well as the north. [1]

The islands that now make up Okinawa Prefecture were formerly not part of Japan, but part of an independent nation called the Ryūkyū Kingdom. The golden age of the Ryukyu Kingdom was the reign of King Shoshin (1477 to 1526). The most important events in the reign of King Shoshin were:

   1. Miyako and Yaejima islands come under Ryukyu Kingdom rule.
   2. The local lords (aji) were brought together at Shuri, and the social hierarchical system was established and harmonized with the
   political system.
   3. The indigenous religion focused around holy women (shinyo) was reorganized on a national basis.
   4. The frequency of tribute missions to Ming China increased from from once every two years to once a year.
   5. Great efforts were made to increase friendly relations with foreign countries. The strength of the Ryukyu Kingdom was to
   be increased by expanding trade with Malacca, Siam and other countries.
   6. Moreover the Buddhist religion was encouraged with the establishment of Buddhist temples, Shuri Castle and its environs were
   renovated, public works projects such as the building of roads and bridges were undertaken. Much income came through the entrepot :trade and so the King was able to both support the arts and reduce rents and taxes paid by the farmers. [2]

Okinawa Prefectures includes the main island of Okinawa and the Yaeyama and Miyako island groups. Okinawa's location in the East China Sea, and relatively close proximity to Japan, Korea, China and South East Asia allowed the Ryūkyū Kingdom to become a prosperous trading nation. The many castle ruins that dot the island date from this period. However, in 1609 the Japanese Satsuma clan, who controlled the region that is now Kagoshima Prefecture, invaded the Ryūkyū Kingdom. Following this invasion, the Ryūkyū Kingdom was forced to enter into a tribute-trade relationship with Satsuma in addition to continuing its voluntary and very profitable tribute-trade relationship with the Ming and then Qing Dynasty China. Satsuma maintained the pretense of Ryūkyūan sovereignty in order to access the China trade that had been severely restricted by this time. Though Satsuma maintained strong influence over the Ryūkyū Kingdom, the Ryūkyū Kingdom maintained a large degree of political independence. In 1879, following the Meiji Restoration, the Ryūkyū Kingdom was forcefully incorporated into Japan as Okinawa Prefecture. Japanese customs and personal names were imposed and Chinese cultural influences were suppressed. Although integrated into Japan, Okinawans often perceived their relationship to "mainland Japan" as an inferior one, much like the colonial status of Korea, which like Okinawa supplied drafted "comfort women" to the Japanese military during World War II.

Following the end of World War II and the Battle of Okinawa in 1945, for 27 years Okinawa was under United States administration. During this time the US military established numerous bases on Okinawa Honto and elsewhere.

On May 15, 1972, Japan resumed the exercise of its sovereignity over Okinawa, although to this day the United States maintains a large military presence there. See also Ryukyuan history.

Many Okinawans feel they are losing much of their traditions and culture due to the devastation of the Battle of Okinawa, which killed one-third of the civilian population, and increasing integration with the rest of Japan is expressed in a Yamano Kuchibaku's Ryukyuan poem The Island Bathed in Bullets. Yamano Kuchibaku wrote the poem after returning to his native village in postwar Okinawa after several decades.

   When I stepped onto the island
   and greeted them saying "gaiju-i"
   the islander answered "hai, o kagesama de" in Japanese!
   In my homesickness I started to wonder if I was really home
   "Uchinaguchi madein maru Ikusani sattarubasui" I said
   With a bitter laugh the islander replied in Japanese
   My, you speak good Okinawan.

[3]

The strong ambiguity in Okinawan feelings about "mainland" Japan is expressed in frequent controversies in the schools about the display of the Japanese flag and the playing of the Japanese national anthem.

--- The english translation from the Japanese poem is my own.

David Cowhig

---

According to Dictionary.com, "Okinawa" means Okinawa islands (沖縄諸島) or Okinawa main island (沖縄本島). According to Daijirin Dictionary, "沖縄(Okinawa)" means 沖縄県 (Okinawa prefecture) or 沖縄市 (Okinawa city). So some sort of disambiguation could be done. In any case, there should be at least a link from Okinawa (city) to Okinawa prefecture, if not a redirect. The Japanese Wikipedia site redirects you from 沖縄(Okinawa) to 沖縄県(Okinawa prefecture), by the way. Okinawa city isn't even the biggest city (Naha) on the island (Okinawa main island) anyway.

An aside: US dictionaries' definition of Ryukyu islands is different from the Japanese dictionaries' definition of Ryûkyû shotô. Tongpoo 06:38, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I (Infrogmation) summerized some and removed more of the following anonamous addition to the article. It contains some interesting information, but unfortunately talks in a personal voice far from NPOV.

On October 1987, Mr. Syoichi Chibana burned the Japanese flag while it was being raised for the Kaiho National Athletic meet in Yomitan, Okinawa. This incident not only shocked Okinawans, but also Japanese. Why did Mr. Chibana do this? It is the same reason that Okinawans refuse to raise the Japanese flag at official events, which is related to Japan's emperor, the Japanese Imperial Military, and the World War II Battle of Okinawa.

Until the end of World War II, Japan taught its people their emperor was a god, and the flag was one of the emperor's embodiments. The Japanese Imperial Military took advantage of these teachings, and "Umi Yukaba," the Japanese Navy's anthem, is a good example of how they did it. "Listen" to the words:

Across the sea, corpses in the water; Across the mountain, corpses in the field. I shall die only for the emperor, I shall never look back.

This song shows us the emperor's influence on the Japanese people in those days. The relationship between the Showa Emperor (Emperor Hirohito) and the Japanese Imperial Military was very close.

Okinawa was the only place where there was a land battle in Japan during WW ll, and it was the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. In addition to the Japanese military people who died fighting in the Battle of Okinawa, more than one third of the civilian population, 100,000 people, died. The Okinawa victims were not only killed by bombs and shells, but also by the Japanese military. There were three incidents where the Japanese military killed Okinawans in the name of the emperor.

They butchered Okinawans. They sacrificed people to malaria on Yaeyama Island. They forced school girls to join a group known as the Princess Lilies and go to the battle front as nurses. The group suicide in the Kerama Islands. The butchering of Okinawans.

The Japanese military butchered Okinawans for many reasons. One of them was for non combatants who disturbed the Japanese military in their hiding places. During the battle, people hid in the many caves on Okinawa. At first, there were only civilians, but the soldiers also took refuge in the caves after the fighting became intense. During the many fierce battles, the babies in the caves started crying. Their mothers tried to stop the crying, but the soldiers, being afraid of being found by the enemy, murdered the babies at once. This brutality was not unusual to the Okinawans. They were also killed over small amounts of food. "At midnight, soldiers would wake up Okinawans and take them to the beach. Then they chose Okinawans at random and threw hand grenades at them. (Moriguchi, 1992)" Dead people do not compete for limited food supplies.

The suspicion of being a spy was another reason why Okinawans were killed. We found classified World War II Japanese military documents describing punishment for Okinawans who didn't speak Japanese. They were declared spies, and killed for speaking their own language. Additionally, Japanese soldiers shot Okinawans who wanted to surrender to Allied Forces appealing to them to quit fighting. The Japanese military commanders were afraid of their subordinates losing their fighting spirit while watching civilians surrender. So they killed innocent people to prevent their troops from losing morale.

The sacrifice of people on Yaeyama Island to malaria.

During March 1945, there was an intense battle on Yaeyama Island. The Japanese military forced people to evacuate from their towns to the mountains even though malaria was prevalent there. Okinawans, without food and medicine, lost 54% of the island's population to starvation and disease. After WW II, the government told us the Japanese military didn't know malaria was prevalent on Yaeyama Island, however we have found some evidence they knew about it before evacuating the Okinawans to the mountains. The bereaved families of the malaria victims filed a law suit against the government for its responsibility.

The tragedy of the Princess Lilies.

The Princess Lilies was an organization made up of girl students, 15 to 16 years old, who participated in the battle as nurses. There were seven girl's high schools in Okinawa at the time of WW II. The Princess Lilies were organized at two of them, and a total of 297 students and teachers joined the group and eventually served the Army as nurses. Two hundred and eleven died. Most of the girls were put into caves, which served as temporary clinics, and took care of injured soldiers. There was no medicine, food or water. Many of the young girls died while trying to get water for the wounded soldiers. The Japanese military also told these girls that if they were taken prisoner the enemy would rape and then kill them, and then gave the girls hand grenades to commit suicide with before being taken prisoner. One of the Princess Lilies explains this by saying, "We had a strict imperial education, so being taken prisoner was the same a being a traitor. We were taught to prefer suicide to becoming a captive. (Moriguchi, 1992)" Many students died saying "Tenno Banzai." which means "Long live the Emperor."

Why did these girls participate in the battle? The board of education, made up entirely of mainland Japanese, required their participation. Teachers opposed to the board of education, insisting the students be evacuated to somewhere safe, were accused of being traitors. Yet the cowardly mainland Japanese on the Board of Education, who required their young girl students to participate in the battle, didn't participate themselves.

The group suicide in the Kerama Islands.

The allied forces attacked the Kerama Islands 15 times, killing 31 Japanese soldiers, taking 121 soldiers and 1,195 civilian prisoners. But these figures didn't include the 700 civilians who committed suicide, because of the mistakes in Japanese imperial military's strategy. The Japanese imperial military only planned for a naval battle at Kerama, not for the landing of traps. They also assumed the enemy would attack Okinawa first, so there were not enough soldiers and facilities on Kerama to protect the islands. The headquarters of the Japanese imperial military in Shuri, Okinawa, ignored the serious situation on Kerama. After WW II Col. Yahama, who was the chief of Staff on Okinawa, said, "We knew it was 50% probable the Kerama Islands would be attacked by land forces, but we took a gamble there would only be a navel battle.(Ota, 1977)"

The battle for the Kerama was getting intense and the people couldn't evacuate to anywhere on those small islands. Thus, they obeyed their cultural teachings to commit suicide rather than be taken prisoner. The Japanese imperial military gave them the hand grenades used to kill themselves for "the soldier; the emperor; Japan." "On March, 28, 1945, soldiers of the Allied Forces were bivouacked on Tokashiki island, and they heard several explosions at night. Later, they found 150 dead Okinawans. One man bound himself his two children and both pearents with a sash, so they could all die together.(Ota, 1977)" This was only one of the incidents which eventually took 700 civilians lives in the Kerama Islands.

Why were so many Okinawans killed by the enemy, by the Japanese military, and by their own hands? The Japanese military educated imperialism to the Japanese people and used the flag as one of the symbols of the emperor. Japanese soldiers butchered Okinawans in the name of the emperor, forcing them to evacuate into mountains infected with malaria, compelling young girls to participate in the battle, and driving the 700 Kerama Islanders to commit suicide.

The Japanese flag reminds Okinawans about Japanese imperialism. Requiring Okinawans to raise the flag at official events makes Okinawans anxious. When the government makes them follow orders, it reminds Okinawans of the Japanese Imperial Military and the military's atrocities.

As an Okinawan, I hope we have learned from history and never have to suffer these misfortunes ever again.

Redirect of "Okinawa"

It seems to me that the article Okinawa should not redirect here, but should either redirect to Okinawa Island or else the current Okinawa Island should be moved to Okinawa. In English, if one refers just to "Okinawa," one generally means the island, and not the prefecture. john k 18:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, when people say "Okinawa" they mean something nebulous. Not necessarily the island and not necessarily the prefecture. Seldom but occasionally the city. Since the usual Wikipedia solution is to have a disambiguation page with a list of the things that people want, I suggest that. Especially since "Okinawa" is the name of those three distinct entities. Additionally, the disambiguation page could accommodate links to other things with "Okinawa" in the name, even if they're not commonly referred to by the single word ("Music of Okinawa," "Religion of Okinawa" etc.). That way, people with an interest in Okinawa (in the vague sense) or things Okinawan could get to the article they want in a hurry. Some other Wikipedias have "portals" --- have you seen the French Portal for Japan? This Okinawa redirect page would be a portal in miniature (or microminiature). Fg2 21:00, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Problem with the map

I think the map is useless as Okinawa is actually not displayed... it's made of small islands below the main ones, but only them main ones are displayed.

Yes, I agree. We need a map that shows Okinawas position relative to the rest of Japan, and shows all the islands. --Apoc2400 09:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well Ninja neko 08:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a year and a half later and we've still got the same problem. The map shows the well-known four big islands. It also shows something little in red, which I suppose is Okinawa because the map is titled "Map of Japan with highlight on 47 Okinawa 沖縄県.svg" (but what's with the 47, the .svg, and the kanji?). But that's on a cutout and there's no indication of where that is in relation to the big four, how far away, in what direction, and whether it's to the same scale. That's useless. -- How about this map from the CIA World Factbook to show the relationship?

[1] --Thnidu (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Diet & longevity

It would be interesting to have more information on the diet, since this seems to be relevant to their longevity. Climate and nature and Diet and lifestyle both mention this - but it would be good to have a source which describes exactly what they eat. http://www.okicent.org/ is referenced, and gives some idea, but is vague. --Singkong2005 02:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The longevity of the Okinawan people is largely a myth now. That only held true before western influences of diet and smoking came to bear upon the population. The old, unhurried and simple lifestyle of the old no longer exists and, in fact, is not embraced by the population under the age of 60. I lived there 9 years and saw a lot of unhealthy people. Yet most everyone I spoke to seems to cling to the old notion that they can expect a very long life. Not so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.121.101 (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Longevity on the traditional Okinawan diet still seems to hold true. It's the American fast food diet that's killing those Okinawans that are eating it, so yes, the average lifespan is going down. I have family members both on the traditional diet and the "American" diet, and the health differences are evident to the eye (one aunt is diabetic, the other is hale and hardy). Enough of my original research, however; there are articles out there that cover this. --健次(derumi)^talk 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not say that their longevity is a "myth now", as the long lives of the earlier Okinawans have been pretty well certified (see "The Okinawa Way") - unlike some other places reportedly full of centenarians, such as the Hunzas or parts of the Soviet Union. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Culture and Language

I have deleted the section that contends that Okinawan culture is closer to Taiwanese and Chinese culture than it is to Japanese culture. Although this may have been true before the Satsuma invasion, it is not true now. A few hundred years of Japanese cultural influence have made it's mark. If anyone has any sources that show otherwise, I'd love to see them.

Culture: I agree that terms like "Filipino" or "Malaysian" (as someone obviously wrote) would be incorrect to use in a historical analysis, particularly since the discussion on ancient cultural interactions should not be confused by the usage of contemporary nation-state names. "Austronesian" would be a more appropriate term in my opinion. --borneoaddict (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

People on Okinawa have their own language/dialect, which is very interesting. They use only 3 vowels. There should definitely be a paragraph about that on the page. --141.157.89.171 16:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the article on Okinawan language, "Okinawan has three short vowels, /a i u/, and five long vowels, /aː eː iː oː uː/." --Thnidu (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that one cannot talk about "the Okinawan Culture" as there is a lot of difference (albeit less and less) between main Okinawa and Yaeyama/Miyako. Yaeyama and Miyako are closer to South-Asia as the material remains suggest (pottery), and there would even be a connection to Polynesia regarding some names of fishes. South-Asian connections are obvious in awamori (made with Thai rice, the pots awamori is traditionaly made in are also South-east asian n origin), the Sanshin (as the snakeskin cover on the body is made from a snake that does not live on Okinawa but in South-East Asia.

Similar problem with language; there is no lingua franca in Okinawa; the dialects of Miyako, Yaeyama and Okinawa maybe nearly mutually unintelligable. Vonstrohm 09:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Prefecture symbol

I was thinking yall could use Image:Flag of Okinawa, Japan.svg, which I created by hand. I am going to fine tune it later, once I find an official construction sheet. Enjoy. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Added the US military controversy section

Hello. I moved some of the information regarding the US military controversy and created a separate section. This issue is probably the biggest source of controversy in Okinawa today and deserves its own section. Thanks.Noodle boy 00:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it belongs in the article on Okinawa Island instead. Although controversy extends to other islands, it is overwhelmingly part of the island rather than the whole prefecture. Fg2 00:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Okinawa Island is the largest island and can be seen as the cultural center of the whole prefecture. I think it is fitting since this is an issue that has generated a lot of debate within Okinawa as well as internationally. Thanks for the feedback! Noodle boy 00:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the race of the soldiers - it seems this has had no relevance in the controversy, and would not likely have been mentioned if they had been Caucasian.

Yes, good call. However, I was not the person who wrote that.Noodle boy 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There is still an element of racism in the controversy, a double-standard that demands utter perfection from American servicemen. One bad apple seems to produce racist rage against all Americans. It belongs in a second article that is more neutral about the controversy -- which may be little more than an excuse to protest the physical size of US military bases. Therefore, I've given the article a POV tag.68.5.64.178 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese are a very racist group of people. It's not uncommon to hear Japanese state that blacks are genetically inferior. Japan breeds xenophobia, as they are racist against even the Chinese. Any non-Japanese are shunned from the islands. And the Japanese are unapologetic for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.156.253 (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In the section about "MCAS Futenma relocation" within the US Military base controversy section there is a paragraph that largely just talks about a random article contesting the relocation. There should be some identification of where the article comes from and why the article is important. If the article has no political significance even if it may or may not make a good point (I'm not saying either way) it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The presentation, emphasis and phraseology

Overall I am in favour of the content of this Wiki entry, however the phraseology needs revision; I feel that at times it puts emphasis on the "inherent independence" rather than on the historical context of Okinawa's placement as a part of Japan. Academically, that is the most neutral, default frame of reference as it stands today, until the time Okinawa becomes a separate country.

Take for instance the first line "The islands that now make up Okinawa Prefecture were formerly not part of Japan". That is an ambiguous line particularly given the time frame, leading potentially to a literal obfuscation to the readers. One could say United Kingdom was formally a part of Roman Empire. Or one could say the United States was formally a part of Native Indians. Those statements are both true, however their emphasis is skewed given today's context. If a different emphasis must be made (especially when it is opinionated), it should come under a sub-section (as opposed to it being the main thrust of the Wiki entry). Various spins may then be presented in a fair manner as a "controversy" under various sections, to provide various different angles on the subject. That is the most rational way forward.

At any rate, the main angle of this article should be more neutral accordingly to the international recognition as it stands today.

I suggest revising all such phraseology leading to obfuscation or ambiguation. This is easily done without altering the facts presented. It is a question of presentation, and as it stands it comes across inappropriately manipulated, though it is probably through passion than ill-intention. Jgrey 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree with you. The line "The islands that now make up Okinawa Prefecture were formerly not part of Japan" appears in the History section, which makes sense. Begin with the beginning. Saying that "the United States was formally a part of Native Indians" in the intro of the US history section would not be "skewed given today's context". Mackan 14:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Also admittedly this is as a fairly trivial observation on my part, albeit a subtle one. My point (the 'skew' may be a little misleading, I apologize) was a question of balance of emphasis and undertone rather than the content itself. Instead of making this a point of contention at this point in time, however, I would prefer to see how this article develops alongside others' comments. For now, I will give way. I shall revisit this particular point should the balance of emphasis become notable. Jgrey 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

New governor

Hirokazu Nakaima. http://asia.news.yahoo.com/061220/kyodo/d8m4fekg0.html

Thanks for updating that! Fg2 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"In pop culture" section

I removed the "In pop culture" section because it's a long, pointless list of people from Okinawa that doesn't actually deepen the reader's understanding of the prefecture or what it's like. This edit was reverted.

I can appreciate that my edit was heavy-handed, but I disagree with the reverter's comment that the content is worthwhile. While the reader interested in Gackt may be fascinated to discover that he's from Okinawa, it really doesn't say anything about Okinawa to state that Gackt was born there. In other words, I think that the items in the "pop culture" section belong in those articles, not in the Okinawa article.

See also: WPJ discussion, WP:MOS discussion, old discussion

I think the only thing the current pop culture section has to say is that "many musicians come from Okinawa". This could be said more succinctly elsewhere in the article. -Amake 06:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with your edit. -- Mackan ^{talk | c} 13:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who did the revert, I have to say that I both agree and disagree. That section should probably be cut down, and perhaps re-named. It's not important to have every singer and cartoon that hails from or mentions Okinawa to be in the list, but I do think it's relevant to have some of the more famous examples (such as Gackt) listed in the article. It was the removal of the whole list that I objected to.

The pop-culture section in this article is used differently than in other articles; it should be limited to "such fictional book is set in Okinawa" rather than the trivia list it has become. A famous person/pop culture list could instead have a few important items then a link to a new article. --健次(derumi)^talk 15:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. Even "x is set in Okinawa" is not helpful or informative in an article about Okinawa, unless that x is particularly notable. None of the items currently listed are notable.

I'm going to delete the section again since there are many more users in agreement per the discussions I listed above. If you would like some of the items to stay, please pick only notable items, or rewrite the section into something actually worthwhile. -Amake 13:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No problems there. The consensus is clearly for removing the section for now. If I (or someone else) has time to piece through that list and make something relevant out of it, it's still available in the history. --健次(derumi)^talk 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thought would be to link to Category:People_from_Okinawa_Prefecture in the See Also section. I attempted to do so, but I need to look up how to link to a category article first. :( --健次(derumi)^talk 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --健次(derumi)^talk 17:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think the recent incident with Marine Staff Sereant Tyrone Hadnott should be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.191.103 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

10,000 Rapes

I added the section on the WW-II rapes, it's hard to believe nothing on the pre-1955 rapes had been inserted yet! Some more info, for those curious.

• H-Net review of Peter Schrijvers book
• Talk:Battle_of_Okinawa#Regarding_the_recent_Atrocity_additions.
• 3 Dead Marines and a Secret of Wartime Okinawa
• Some book pages available through Google:

• [2]scroll up to read the preceding page too), *[3],
• [4],
• [5],
• [6]
• This one written by a black soldier of the occupation, seems to indicate that rape was very commonplace several years into the occupation. No wonder they dislike the U.S. bases...

--Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am disgusted that a section is added about American atrocities, which I would not normally have an issue with, however, there is NOTHING in the Okinawa article about the atrocities committed by the Japanese against the native inhabitants (Okinawans)? WHY is this ignored and not included? What the japanese did in Okinawa was FAR and away worse than what the Americans did during WWII or since. If you are going to include one side, you damn well better include the other. I'd hate to think your political corrective nature would lead you to paint a pretty picture of your own people while blatantly playing up the bad things another group has done, when that group couldn't possibly hope to equal the atrocities done by the japanese. RTShadow (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well

It all good but ain't there any english references for the fourth link? I don't understand written japanese and I can only understand a few spoken words. I would like an english reference proving that the U.S. Armed Forces presence in Okinawa is really that contested. Freedom Fighter 1988 (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(Untitled)

How come there's nothing on American military bases on Okinawa and the controversy surrounding them? I'm thinking for example of the cases of Okinawan girls raped by US militaries stationed at Okinawa. I don't know much about this so I can't contribute anything but I'm really interested in this area.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.47.220.223 (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

(Untitled)

How come Ryukyus are a blend between Chinese and Filipinos? This is a blended ignorance. Maybe the only thing they have in common with the Filipinos is that they still tolerate the US Army.

The Japanese from the main land Japan are as well mixed. There were many Chinese and Korean invations in the past. It is known that, as well the culture as the ethnical characteristics of main land are blends of many other cultures.

Some say that tea, silk and rice was known in Okinawa much earlier than in main land Japan. [This should be though confirmed]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.51.106 (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

I agree w/ IP 216... 63.138.70.132 (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2010 (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)

A statement says, "Accidents and crimes committed by U.S. servicemen have reduced the local population's support for the U.S. military bases" This is clearly {{WP:BIAS]]. More clear is the political intent of the opposition to use American crimes to further their political (and developers) ambitions. Exaggerating crimes is merely one of those ways. Student7 (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Stating that accidents and crimes reduced the population's support seems neutral and factual enough to me, though it needs a citation. Stating that the local media is exaggerating reporting on crimes and accidents is definitely POV. imars (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is fairly neutral. Having been in Okinawa for the past several years, I can say that it is an accurate statement too. I don't know of one single source to back that up, but it is obvious from the increase of anti-base protests (and attendance of them, although some attendees are paid to come from mainland Japan in order to inflate their numbers) and articles in local papers.--114.151.242.212 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's clearly ging out of it's way to play politics. I suggest we use this, to set the correct "mood" for lack of a better word.

http://d.hatena.ne.jp/reservoir/20080214/1202958732 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 sldiers)　 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% Brazillians (the same) 0.52%

US army possesses significantly lower crime rate compared to the rest, even lower than Okinawa people. Probably because the basement is the safest even compared with basements inside the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2011 (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. [7]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)

I am on dial-up. I found a ref which has good info on quantities of military (but no dollar figures) and some statistics on crime. It is for all of Japan, not just Okinawa. Cannot be used directly - a bit too blogish (and see blogs below columnist commentary, even more useful), but maybe can serve as a baseline for further research which I am restricted from doing because of low speed. http://www.japaninc.com/node/2920 Student7 (talk) 16:41, 4 August 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)

Well, this says $4.9 billion in 1997, a bit out of date. Agreed we need statement here if specific figure can be found.

The flip side is, which isn't mentioned for a reason for base retention is that quite a few Americans died capturing this island in WWII. While the Okinawans did not invite Americans (!), neither did Americans invite the war. So there is that, which can be mentioned here if there is a reliable ref someplace, but it does count. And yes, more Okinawans died in the battle. But again, Americans did not start the war. The point being, that the US is a bit loathe to vacate bases that it quite legally captured; also, Japan is on the same side now, another reason. Do the Okinawans hate Americans (and all capitalism. Except for their own developers, of course)? Yes! Does this enter into equation? I suppose so. Is "mainland" Japan as suspicious of Okinawans intent as Americans are? Probably! Student7 (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither did the Okinawans invite the war. They were pressed into service along with Chinese, Taiwanese, Koreans, and others by the Japanese army who had conquered parts of these territories. Anyway, my understanding is that Japan pays for the infrastructure, but the US pays rent to the land holders as well as operating expenses. Computermacgyver (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is still relevant that American soldiers died conquering the island. Would that not entitle the Red Army to still be in Berlin? The conquering was aimed at deleting the then hostile activities by Japanese soldiers, was it not, or was it meant to conquer land in perpetuity? We have a situation here that there are bases which cost money - big time. Both Japanese and Americans are kind of drowning in debt - and yet they keep up these bases which most of the local population resents. If we could find out who pays for them, we might be able to ascertain what the exact purpose is. You could be forgiven for thinking someone has not been updated that the Cold War has died 21 years ago. Whoever funds the whole thing, the taxpayer might be interested in assessing whether they would still like to pay for such an expensive facility. Democracy is about transparency and that should apply to Japan as well as the US. I am also thinking of what I saw on TV, Japanese pensions are so low that some old people steal in supermarkets so that they can get 3 meals a day in prison, which they cannot afford from pensions. In a situation like that it is astonishing that high amounts of money are spent on facilities whose precise purpose is not known (assuming Tokyo pays some share). 121.209.51.28 (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

True about Berlin. But Okinawa is more like the boonies than Berlin, the "heart" of Germany. Or was. I perceive Okinawa as the unwanted relative of the main islands. Part of Japan, but considered weird. I could be wrong. The Japanese government does indeed pay as mentioned above. Better Okinawa than the "real" Japan they seem to be saying. The point being that Japan, who has the power, wants the bases. Okinawa for political and development reasons, does not, but it does it have the power to stop them by itself. Student7 (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have found an answer, I believe. Japan pays 78 % of the costs. This may be an answer to why they are still there, and why the North Korean negotiations are not fruitful. If they were, the reason for that 78 % expenditure would no longer be there. The US economy could probably not abosrb the nearly 80,000 soldiers who would return from South Korea and Okinawa. I am no military specialist, but that's my interpretation. 121.209.49.105 (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong and even a good idea to record this information. But it needs to be unique to okinawa, not all of Japan. And certainly not including South Korea. The latter has its own separate problems, I would assume. Student7 (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese government pays for a lot of the infrastructure on the US bases as well as utilities such as water and electricity. However, the US does give Japan a substantially sum of money for the land that is being used, it's pretty much rented. They also pay the families of land owners who own land that is used on base and I hear it's quite a large amount. Much more then what they would be making off the land if they were to sell it or try and develop it. There are even some locals who are allowed access to their land on base and have small farms and whatnot on the actual base. A lot of the Okinawans who own land on the bases do not want to see them go because of the free money. Unfortunately I don't have any solid numbers when it comes to how much is getting paid to who since this is all knowledge I gained from speaking with people who knew how the system worked and lived on Okinawa for many years.

Also, saying that Okinawans "hate" Americans is pretty ridiculous. After living there for several years and marrying an Okinawan, for the most part they like Americans and really don't care about the base issues. Majority of the residents live far enough away from the bases that it doesn't effect them and in turn they don't care about the base issue. It's the very vocal minority (majority of them from mainland Japan) who actually get paid to protest the bases as well as the media who make it look worse then it actually is.SquallyZ06 (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Would be nice to have WP:RELY footnotes supporting any of what you are saying. The article does not agree with this so far. A poll claims that an Okinawan plurality (not majority) want the US military out. Right now, nothing to counter this. Student7 (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Injury Statistics

Between 1972 and 2009, there were 5,634 criminal offences committed by US servicemen. What sort of offences? Internal injuries? Skull fractures? Can statistics be listed on the injuries inflicted against civilians trying to get through their day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.156.186 (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

These are a bit phoney as the text goes on to say. Servicemen's offenses are listed in excruciating detail. No details at all on the locals. As it turns out, locals have more than their share, higher than servicemen, which is highlighted by the fact that a) the general population is much older than the servicemen and therefore should not be as prone to crime, b) no total numbers of servicemen population are given, and c) as the text says, Japanese crimes against women are seriously under-reported, and d) the military has much higher standards nowdays than they did in 1973 when they started to accumulate these statistics. So pretty much bogus, set up by your friendly Communist Party, still in operation here though defunct pretty much elsewhere in the real world, plus contractors with an eye on developing the land area, plus news media, trying, like everywhere in the world, to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Having said that, the 2008 rape was real and a lot of attention was focused on that single crime. Heinous everywhere, but worse in Japan. Student7 (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Misleading (Deceptive?) Crime Statistics

There are two problems with the statistics given about crime and the US military in this article: 1) They have a strong potential to mislead 2) They are almost entirely uninformative, and do NOT convey the information they want to convey.

Taking each point in turn,

1) Maybe it's just me, but reading that 4% of the population committed 1.7% of the crime makes it SEEM, on first read, that almost 50% of servicemen on Okinawa are criminals (because, again, on first read, it seems that if servicemen comprise 4% of the population and if they committed 4% of the crimes, then every serviceman is a criminal; and if 4% committed 2% of the crime, then 50% are criminals). The source of this confusion is that a layperson who hasn't thought about statistics in years (eg, me) might initially look at the 1.7% and the 4% and think that they are percentages of the same value; that you have 1.7% of X and 4% of that SAME X, so that the statistics are comparable. A little thought shows this to be a mistake, but I think it has the potential to mislead many people, especially those just glancing over the article. The same statistics could, I think (please correct if wrong), be stated as, "Okinawans comprise roughly 96% of the population and committed roughly 98% of the crime." This makes the servicemen seem much, much less criminal. But, at first glance, it makes the Okinawans look bad. The solution would be to give hard numbers.

And that is where the real problem lies.

2) Looking at the source, I can see that, between 1972 and 2001 servicemen committed 5,006 of the 290,814 crimes in Okinawa. So, that makes sense, and that's where you get the 1.7% figure. HOWEVER, there is NO information about the population of Okinawa over this span, or about the number of servicemen in Okinawa during this span. Sure, servicemen comprised 4% of the population but if what that means in hard numbers is that there were 200,000 servicemen in Okinawa between 1972 and 2001, then you would have 200,000 people committing 5,006 crimes, which would indicate a criminality rate of 2.5%, which would not (I think) be too bad. Conversely, if there were 20,000 servicemen committing 5,006 crimes, then you'd have a criminality rate of 25%, which would be really, really bad.

In the end, then, it boils down to this: The article wants to talk about the percentage of criminality among servicemen. To determine that, we would use the following formula: Percentage of criminal servicemen = # of crimes committed by unique servicemen in Okinawa between 1972 and 2001 [divided by] # of servicemen in Okinawa between 1972 and 2001. The article gives 5,006 (or, roughly 1.7% of 290,814) as the value of the first variable (or, at least, a poor facsimile thereof; it gives us the # of crimes. To use this # is to assume that each crime was committed by a different serviceman. If any given serviceman was responsible for more than one of the total number of crimes, then the percentage of criminal servicemen will actually be even lower than we will be able to figure from the numbers in this article. But that's an issue for another day). HOWEVER, we have NO information about the second variable. To get that information, we would need either the number of servicemen in Okinawa between 1972 and 2001 or the population of Okinawa between 1972 and 2001 (multiplying the latter by the 4% statistic would give us the number of servicemen in Okinawa between 1972 and 2001). This article gives neither. And so we cannot compute the percentage of criminality among servicemen. And so the statistics completely fail to make their point, or any other point for that matter. We are left without knowing whether .05% or 90% of US servicemen in Okinawa are criminals.

The statistic that actually MATTERS in this discussion (seeing as how it focuses on criminality in the population of servicemen) is the percentage of criminality within the population of servicemen in Japan. Either THAT number needs to be given, or the statistics need to be replaced with hard numbers that will allow people to actually understand what percentage of military personnel are committing crimes. So long as that does not change, we cannot determine the percentage of criminal servicemen and so: 1) we do not learn the very thing which this portion of the article wants to teach, 2) we are left only with the potential to draw a very misleading conclusion (described above)

--merc

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.234.158 (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, what is said holds no relevence in the history section, considering that crime is apart of every location in the world, and always have been. The entry should be removed, possibly moved to a "criminal" section that also encompasses the other population groups.

65.24.242.242 (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Jade Rat

Actually, what is glaringly missing is criminal statistics among Japanese. There are none, merely rant about US Servicemen. I am removing tag.

It's possible to reword what statistics there are about US Servicemen. But that is the way they were presented in the citation. There are none for Japanese. Do Japanese not track crime statistics, or do they just not report them? Student7 (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Tributary Status with China

I think that this status should be cleared up because it appears to be supporting the Chinese claim for sovereignty over the Senkaku islands and possibly Okinawa and the Ryukyu islands. Many nations paid tributes to China for trading privileges including Japan itself and the Netherlands. It does not mean that Japan, the Netherlands and any other nation that paid the tribute belongs to China... it was merely a form of trade tariff.

The Chinese Navy was huge in the 12th century. It could have beaten any navy in the world, including any in Europe, had it known where it was and had a reason for doing so! It phased out its Navy by the 16th century because of its need to focus on land threats from the North (Mongols) and having created a structure of internal canals which did not require a large ocean fleet to protect it. It could easily have intimidated Okinawa, Japan, India, and any other nation it wished to, early in that time frame.

This is not "recognizing a claim," since it has made none for Okinawa. It does recognize reality. Hopefully, the History of Okinawa has more details. The material here is skimpy. Whatever tribute Okinawa paid, China could have forced double or triple, had it wished to at the time. Student7 (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic Okinawans

Are the native Okinawans ethnically and/or genetically distinct from the Japanese? The article says that Okinawa was only recently incorporated into Japan and that the language is a bit different from Japanese, so that raises the genetic question. Also, since the Ainu were recently officially recognized as an ethnic minority within the country, I was wondering about the status of the native Okinawans. Kdammers (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad map

The map at the top of this article is really awful. There is a map of Japan, an inset of Okinawa, but nothing on the Japan map indicating where the inset is (the main map does not actually even cover the area where Okinawa is located). If you didn't know where Okinawa was, the map would tell you nothing except that it is a series of islands, and it may even suggest that it lies to the northwest.

If you put an inset in a map, it is pretty key to indicate where on the main map it is located. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.10.58.188 (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been a problem at least since 2006 (archived thread). In 2008 I suggested an alternative (same thread). Now I've implemented it, taking the map of Japan from the CIA Factbook (US Govt owned, free to use) and adding a red rectangle around the islands of Okinawa Prefecture: significantly more visible than the tiny dark red marks produced on the previous map by the widespread location map scheme. Thnidu (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Question on material

New material reads:

"It has been argued that the US presence on Okinawa, which has provoked strong opposition and resistance among the island's inhabitants, is not geared towards defending Japan, but rather to serve as part of an American forward deployment strategy aimed at Southeast Asia and China.[30]"

I don't know about "it" being argued. Sounds like one person. Not something we can verify or anything, as it is not online.

What is there about defending South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, etc. that would wind up not defending Japan? In other words, how could an "intruder," such as the material suggests, fail to defend Japan (and it's commercial interests which are a lot closer, and more of it) when it opposes moves in these other areas? Is there a question of whether Japan would like to remain autonomous, of (say) China? If so, that is certainly worth mentioning, if true.

I failed to mention, that these moves also defends the United States, which is a lot further away than Japan is. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the U.S. presence? This comment seems poorly thought through. I question it's reliability.

Maybe this should be rephrased: Name another first world (democratic) country that would not welcome American military assistance if needed and offered. Student7 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've erased material that implies that Okinawa, a prefecture, has some sort of formal (or even informal) relation with the United States. It doesn't and can't. Student7 (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think these comments miss the point which has been raised by, for instance, the late Chalmers Johnson in his "Blowback Trilogy", that Japan is, in fact, not under any credible military threat from China. Also, the claim that "defending South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, etc." would "wind up [...] defending Japan" sounds suspiciously, to me at least, like a rehashing of the long discredited domino theory. Seriously, are there any serious scholar of international or security politics or who argues that Thailand is under threat from China? Simply put, if the threat is not credible, then the purported "need for defence" becomes largely fictitious as well. Similarly, " Name another first world (democratic) country that would not welcome American military assistance if needed and offered" also assumes that it is indeed "needed" and when that's questionable the rest of the argument is called into question as well.

Mojowiha (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Okinawa Prefecture. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130115165740/http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20020515b9.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20020515b9.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090107044333/http://www.jtu-net.or.jp:80/kiji/heiwa/01.htm to http://www.jtu-net.or.jp/kiji/heiwa/01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100523062343/http://www.asahi.com/politics/update/0513/SEB201005130037.html to http://www.asahi.com/politics/update/0513/SEB201005130037.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402092036/http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080226zg.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080226zg.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130121141423/http://www-edu.pref.okinawa.jp:80/somu/gakkoichiran/ko.html to http://www-edu.pref.okinawa.jp/somu/gakkoichiran/ko.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130115170801/http://www.city.ishigaki.okinawa.jp/140000/140400/index.htm to http://www.city.ishigaki.okinawa.jp/140000/140400/index.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lack of "Administrative divisions" section

Can an "Administrative divisions" section, with map, be added to this article? It seems very odd that there is no mention of the administrative divisions, nor separate article on this. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

　Okinawan: ウチナーチン 　Uchinaa-chin　

うちなーちん（=ウチナーチン）は琉球語で沖縄服[8]です。　 The "ウチナーチン Uchinaa-chin" is a meaning of formal Okinawa clothing.Not in Okinawa Prefecture. It is Okinawa's clothing.--狐坂紺 (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Okinawa Prefecture. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20071012182308/http://ao.jpn.org:80/kuroshio/yamashitacho/200306.htm to http://ao.jpn.org/kuroshio/yamashitacho/200306.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930030528/http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/view/contview.jsp?cateid=14&id=586&page=1 to http://www3.pref.okinawa.jp/site/view/contview.jsp?cateid=14&id=586&page=1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101022060139/http://www8.cao.go.jp:80/survey/h14/h14-bouei/2-6.html to http://www8.cao.go.jp/survey/h14/h14-bouei/2-6.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120626020236/http://www.g2mil.com/okinawa-solution.htm to http://www.g2mil.com/okinawa-solution.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110605125624/http://www.okinawastory.jp/en/ to http://www.okinawastory.jp/en/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071214184956/http://www.virtualginza.com:80/ to http://www.virtualginza.com/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080318233222/http://www.okinawamarinelife.com:80/ to http://www.okinawamarinelife.com/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110201151912/http://okinawapc.com/ to http://www.OkinawaPC.com/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080905212026/http://www.radiolequios.com.br/ to http://www.radiolequios.com.br/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060613232631/http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net:80/index.html to http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/index.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141224145934/http://descargarcallofdutyheroes.com/ to http://descargarcallofdutyheroes.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Map has no place names

Why does the map of Okinawa have no place names listed? This makes it almost completely useless. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The map is not a map of Okinawa, it is a map of "mainland" Japan with an insert of the Okinawa archipelago, which makes Okinawa appear to be in, or near, Korea! This map is worse than useless, it is misleading and insulting. Imagine a map of Hawaii which, instead of depicting Hawaii directly, showed the 48 contiguous states with an insert of Hawaii, too small to be seen properly, and situated off the coast of Mexico.Tresmegistus (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, however I believe the IP is referring to a map further down the article, captioned "Map of Okinawa", which shows the various municipal divisions with all of the islands in inserts. It really is useless if you aren't familiar with Okinawa Prefecture. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 04:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Okinawa Prefecture. 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/20090107044333/http://www.jtu-net.or.jp/kiji/heiwa/01.htm to http://www.jtu-net.or.jp/kiji/heiwa/01.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20080226zg.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 15:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Okinawa Prefecture. 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/20140102192753/http://www.okinawabbtv.com/news/h_news.htm to http://www.okinawabbtv.com/news/h_news.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 00:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Okinawa Prefecture. 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/20141129055807/http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/u-s-base-relocation-opponent-elected-okinawan-governor to http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/u-s-base-relocation-opponent-elected-okinawan-governor
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160220082950/http://okinawa-takae.org/index.php/takaes-story/ to http://okinawa-takae.org/index.php/takaes-story/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Added translated page templates from ja:グスク時代 dated 2017-09-23 and from ja:沖縄県の歴史#琉球と沖縄の名称 dated 2017-11-13.

Expanded article and added reference(s) by partly translating from ja:グスク時代 dated 2017-09-23 and ja:沖縄県の歴史#琉球と沖縄の名称 dated 2017-11-13. ----Omotecho (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal: High life expectancy in Okinawa to this article

The article High Life Expectancy in Okinawa should probably be integrated here instead of having one specific feature of Okinawa be a standalone article Hamburg-1982 (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest it would be better merged with Okinawa diet, which is mostly about the longevity as resulting from their diet. (Although partly about a weight-loss diet based on their cuisine.) Note there is a separate article about Okinawan cuisine, which should probably stay separate as it is culinary rather than scientific. Ben Finn (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Benn Finn. Okinawa diet and longevity merged make more sense.I know AA 12:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there is provisional agreement here, so I've switched the merge templates over to reflect this change, just to check that there are no objection from those reading Okinawa diet. Klbrain (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Notable People Update

Under the notable people section of the article, a popular superhero from Okinawa was left out of the spotlight. Ryujin Mabuyer is a tokusatsu (live action television drama) about a young man named Kanai. In the beginning of the TV series, Kanai becomes possessed with a local spirit and gains superpowers that he uses to fight evil. The show is very popular in Okinawa, as it promotes good values to children, and it contains many local details about the island that many Okinawa residents can relate to. The opening song for the TV show was also performed by Murasaki, a popular rock band from Okinawa. Scumbagpancake (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Article comparing military base situation in Okinawa versus Hawaii from 1996

https://web.archive.org/web/20020420074632/http://lookjapan.com/LBcoverstory/96NovCS.html from Look Japan WhisperToMe (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Ryukyuan transliterations of “沖縄県”

I would like to add the transliterations of “沖縄県” in the Ryukyuan languages. So far, I only have the Central Okinawan “Uchinaa-chin”. Does anyone know the term for “Okinawa Prefecture” in the other 5 ones? If so, please share them. Thanks! — Shima383 (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Regional Information

I have some major confusion about the regional information listed within the article. Should there be a differentiation between the political region (Kyushu) & the geographical region (Ryukyu Islands)? As a foreigner who's avidly interested in Asia, I'd like to know what is considered to be correct? Would listing both regions be correct in the Summary area?

I reverted my previous edit regarding this since I realized that there are 2 actual types of regions applied to Okinawa as a prefecture & the geographical island chain.