Talk:Rape during the occupation of Japan/Archive 1

Changes today
I've added lots of material from Dowers' book on the occupation of Japan (which actually explicitly states that there was a low incidence of rape), removed irrelevant material about how the censorship policy worked, widened the scope of the article to include the rapes committed by the Japanese military on Okinawa (if the crimes committed by US troops during the battle were in-scope, it made no sense to leave out Japanese crimes) and moved in material on the incidence of rape during the occupation from other articles. I think that this has resulted in a better balanced article which, while still problematic, doesn't use vague accounts of individual incidents to imply that rape was out of control among the occupation troops. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Three marines
In this edit I've corrected the article's coverage of the New York Times story on the three marines which were killed by Okinawans. The material claimed that "Accounts from elderly Okinawans verify" that the men were rapists; in fact the article explicitly states that "While much of what the Okinawans said about those painful days after the war ended is corroborated, it has not been proved that these three marines committed any rape." The material also left out the article's qualifier that the estimate that 10,000 women had been raped was "one academic's estimate". Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In this edit I've corrected the claim that the marines were "ambushed and killed by men from the village"; the New York Times story states that two Japanese soldiers were also involved in the ambush. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice edit and move. Regular NPOV work, improvement. We should name, 10.000 as Oshiro Masayasu I suppose. I will deal with details about merging 10.000 statements. Kasaalan (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The mechanics of censorship
I've just re-removed this material:
 * According to David M. Rosenfeld, Allied censorship in Japan not only forbade criticism of the U.S. and other Allies "but the mention of censorship itself was forbidden." All traces of censorship had to be concealed, thus exasperating publicists since they could no longer simply redact material that the authorities found sensitive as had been done during the war, but instead had to rewrite the full text.

This coverage of how the Allied censorship policy worked and what publishers thought about it doesn't need to be here as it's not relevant to the topic and is included, word for word, in the Occupation of Japanarticle where it belongs (incidently, it should be noted that the material removed from the article says that "publicists" were 'exasperated', while the reference states that only "some producers of texts" found this worse than Japanese censorship; this is typical of Stor Stark7's missuse of sources). The reference provided doesn't link this policy to the occurrence of rapes (though this is hard to tell, as the reference is to the endnotes section of a book in Google books, and the relevant page in the body of the book viewable on Google books, though it's unlikely this book on a Japanese author would discuss rapes during the occupation period). As such, there seems to be no good reason to include this in the article. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also added sentences on why censorship of sensitive issues such as rape was introduced (in short, because the Allies were concerned that reports on this would endanger the occupation forces and their goals) and what happened when the censorship was lifted. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree about removal of censorship. All details are relevant and by WP:RS. And the claims are not long so no need for removal. Kasaalan (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference which draws a link between the mechanics of censorship and rapes committed during the occupation? - if not, there's no relevance and this material can be left to the articles where it belongs. Nick-D (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All references support each other as you can easily tell. Kasaalan (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded below. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Changes to lead
I've just removed the statement "Okinawan historian Oshiro Masayasu even claim the number of rape cases were 10.000" from the lead per WP:UNDUE. There seems to be no need to highlight this estimate, which is the highest noted in the article, in the introduction. I've also reverted the insertion of the the word "high" as this is highly questionable - John Dower, who may be the leading historian of the occupation, explicitly states that the number of rapes committed by the occupation forces wasn't high in his Pulitzer Prize winning book Embracing Defeat. Japan in the Wake of World War II and the article also provides another source which states that there weren't many rapes after the first few weeks of the occupation. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You appear to be have kind of WP:POV or lack of knowledge about John Dower. Did you actually read the book fully. Dower writes while the U.S./Japanese-sponsored brothels were open the number of rapes and assaults on Japanese women were around 40 a day, but after they were closed, the number rose to 330 a day.


 * "John Dower writes in his Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II that while the U.S./Japanese-sponsored brothels were open “the number of rapes and assaults on Japanese women were around 40 a day,” but after they were closed, the number rose to 330 a day .19 19 Dower, John. Embracing Defeat, p. 579, fn 16. U.S. Courts-Martial in Occupation Japan: Rape, Race, and Censorship by Terese Svoboda in The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus which is 'an open access, peer reviewed academic journal'"


 * 330 rapes a day isn't normal, and even if it lasts 10 days it means over 3000 rapes. Kasaalan (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * After investigating history of the article, I concluded you elaborately committed a cencorship attempt of historical events. As a 3rd party to the case, reminding you being WP:POV or having any WP:COI to the case will not end successfully. I assumed WP:GOODFAITH as a start, however found out in history that, you removed and misinterpreted the same WP:RS sources I used. WP:NOTCENSORED. Never again remove any academic source by falsely accusing parties as being non-RS, some of the journals you removed are even peer reviewed. Also John Dower says over 300 rapes a day, cannot sure how you counted that as "low", which you may only count as "relatively low" in comparison to Nazis for example if you push hard. Kasaalan (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that you started your intervention in this article by stating "I will fully review your edits. I will readd some of the info you deleted" and have since gone on to revert most of the changes I explained above without discussing them or using edit summaries (including re-adding the nonsense about Australians in Kure, which has been debunked and the blatantly false statement that Peter Schrijvers wrote that rape was "a general practice against Okinawan women") and have added further unreliable sources (eg, the personal website), I'm rather bemused by your intemperate post here in which you're attempting to portray yourself as a disinterested third party. I really can't be bothered interacting with such an uncivil editor, and am taking this off my watchlist. In regards to your last sentence, I'm also amused to see that Godwin's law has already come into effect here. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After finding out you deleted some important RS data from article history, with false claims, I stated "I will review your edits. I will readd some of the info you deleted." There is nothing wrong stating that.
 * I should have fully restore what you delete, before actually evaluating content or it would be a waste of time. And it took some time to restore content. I will try to examine your case, and ask questions for detail if I cannot judge it by myself. But you made some serious mistakes while editing. First of all, you removed factual details replacing with subjective statements like "330 rapes a day" with "low number of rapes", even it is strictly stated in the peer reviewed academic journal. You removed same peer reviewed journal claiming it was not RS. If I make any error I remove it myself or thank you if you correct it yourself. Discuss or do not, but I prefer you to discuss the case, because we present the case neutrally and a collaboration is required. Which link you refer as personal website, is it americanjournal.com Can we discuss the case. Kasaalan (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I just re-borrowed Embracing Defeat, and can confirm that the figures of 40 and 330 rapes a day are part of the footnote to the statement in which Dower states that the number of rapes was "relatively low given the huge size of the occupation force". As such, my original change was accurate and better reflected what Dower was saying than the journal article, and was't a "subjective statement" as you claimed. I'm happy to acknowledge that I was wrong in saying that the JapanFocus website wasn't a RS, but I wonder why the author of this article used Dower's figures, but left out both his conclusion that this wasn't necessarily a high number and the qualifier he included that the numbers were "one calculation"?. I've tweaked the article's wording to use Dower's exact wording and removed the reference to the journal article which was being used for nothing here other than to reference the page number in Dower's book. Given that you criticise me for getting Dower wrong ("You appear to be have kind of WP:POV or lack of knowledge about John Dower. Did you actually read the book fully." I'd be interested to know if you had read the book? Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't read the book. I read the JapanFocus article which gives quotes about numbers. But you read the book and removed the factual numbers provided by JapanFocus article while keeping (adding) Dower's subjective statement about the numbers are low, which isn't a good editing. For NPOV it is better to keep original quotes from Dower, so we will tell exact numbers he reported with his subjective comment about they are low. And JapanFocus article doesn't necessarily should agree on whether 330 or 40 rapes a day is a "low number" or not. Kasaalan (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can tell your recent reverts deletes some material and references. Removing an online reference, and leaving an offline reference is not helpful. I will discuss in detail about cases 1 by 1. Kasaalan (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_32#Undue_Weight_Criteria


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan&action=historysubmit&diff=332782930&oldid=332679388 misquote claim I will check
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan&action=historysubmit&diff=332803015&oldid=332782930 improvement over Dower quote accuracy
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan&diff=next&oldid=332803015 improvement, yet removal of WP:RS is not acceptable
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan&diff=next&oldid=332803508 2 additions are improvement, yet removal of censorship details by WP:RS, not acceptable
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan&diff=next&oldid=332808519 tagging, regular we should report numbers instead subjective statements
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan&diff=next&oldid=332818686 move, improvement over coherence
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan&diff=next&oldid=332819098 improvement, possibly we should name the 10.000 claim of historian, too
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Japan&diff=next&oldid=332819503 Japanese soldiers, improvement


 * I don't really see the point of including an online reference merely as a reference to what's in Dowers book - if readers want to see this, they should be directed to the book itself (which is freely available), not an article which draws on the book and uses the statistics it provides out of context. It's not that big a deal though. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not just any online reference, it is a WP:RS reference, and reader can learn other details from it. Also we cannot suggest everyone to buy the book to get info, wikipedia is a world wide electronic encyclopedia which is freely available over internet. Kasaalan (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of Japanese media
According to John Dower, Allied Occupation authorities imposed wide-ranging censorship on the Japanese media, which was imposed in September 1945 and continued until the end of the occupation, including bans on covering many sensitive social issues and serious crimes such as rape committed by members of the the Occupation forces.

+These bans were introduced to suppress Japanese wartime propaganda and limit opposition to the occupation forces and the political reforms they sought to introduce. Improvement

According to Eiji Takemae and Robert Ricketts, Allied Occupation forces suppressed news of criminal activities such as rape; on September 10, 1945 SCAP "issued press and pre-censorship codes outlawing the publication of all reports and statistics 'inimical to the objectives of the Occupation'."page 67

-According to David M. Rosenfeld, Allied censorship in Japan not only forbade criticism of the U.S. and other Allies "but the mention of censorship itself was forbidden." All traces of censorship had to be concealed, thus exasperating publicists since they could no longer simply redact material that the authorities found sensitive as had been done during the war, but instead had to rewrite the full text.Unhappy Soldier: Hino Ashihei and Japanese World War II Literature p.86

+Following the occupation Japanese magazines published accounts of rapes committed by American servicemen. improvement

2 improvements are good work, removing Rosenfeld is a non-improvement. We have a censorship section in a war rape article. The quote from Rosenfeld depicts the range of censorship. Kasaalan (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"5. Not only did Occupation censorship forbid criticism of the United Stales or other Allied nations, but the mention of censorship itself was forbidden. This means, as Donald Keene observes, that for some producers of texts 'the Occupation censorship was even more exasperating than Japanese military censorship had been because it insisted that all traces of censorship be concealed. This meant that articles had to be rewritten in full, rather than merely submitting XXs for the offending phrases. ' (Dawn to the West, New York: Henry Holt, 1984). 967. Unhappy Soldier: Hino Ashihei and Japanese World War II Literature p.86"

I extracted the full quote. As you can tell, japanologist Donald Keene makes the argument even stronger. I will replace interpretations with full quotes from Rosenfeld and Keene in original form. Kasaalan (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way I find your additions and help useful, thank you for improving the article. Not many editors actually bother to make any research. Kasaalan (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. However, I don't think that this belongs in the article as the source doesn't link it with the topic of this article - sticking sources together on unrelated topics while implying that they're related is synthesis, which of course isn't allowed (see WP:SYNTH). Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it is your own WP:SYNTH to consider a "censorship in japan quote", unrelated to the "censorship of rape in japan" section. Can't guess how you assume WP:SYNTH by any means. It explains the mechanics of censorship and its extents, and all WP:RS sources suggests the same way. The section title and source title are the same. Kasaalan (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I don't follow your argument here. Can you please provide a reference which states that the suppression of reporting that censorship was taking place is relevant to the incidence of rapes? If not, the topic is not relevant to this article. Having it here risks creating the perception that Allied troops were committing crimes on so great a scale that they needed to cover up all traces of them, which is nonsense. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Follow the paragraph: "Occupation censorship forbid criticism of the US or other Allied nations" but also " mention of censorship itself was forbidden": as Donald Keene observes, this means for some texts producers the Occupation censorship was even more irritating than Japanese military censorship had been [possibly pre-occupation] because it insisted that all traces of censorship be concealed and articles had to be rewritten in full, rather than merely submitting XXs for the offending phrases." So this a general statement, that covers all censorship procedure, including rape or other crimes. "Can you please provide a reference which states that the suppression of reporting that censorship was taking place is relevant to the incidence of rapes? If not, the topic is not relevant to this article." So your arguments are already answered. Petty or big crime, all news censored, and mentioning of or indicating censorship was forbidden, and instead XX lines, it requires story to be rewritten. "Having it here risks creating the perception that Allied troops were committing crimes on so great a scale that they needed to cover up all traces of them, which is nonsense." is your own WP:OR WP:SYNTH against 2 WP:RS academic people. We don't discuss WP:RS of article, we are discussing relevancy. We have separate WP:RS articles, supporting each other, and we have no objecting WP:RS about censorship, so we are assuming they are telling the truth anyway. If you find any source that there were no censorship, we can include it, but that doesn't mean we will subtract relevant quotes. Kasaalan (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that there was no censorship; I'm arguing that the mechanics of how it was applied has no relevance to the topic of this article and belongs elsewhere. You have not provided a reference which links the censorship of censorship with incidents of rapes, and until you do so it's clearly synthesis - the source for this material has no relationship with anything else in the article, and the Google books link Stor Stark added as the reference illustrates that it was found by him Google searching "criticism censorship Germany allied occupation". This material appears to be an artifact of Stor Stark's practice of dumping material on alleged Allied miss-deeds everywhere he can (other references doubtlessly state that Allied censorship wasn't as bad as Japanese wartime censorship - the Japanese Government suppressed news of defeats and forced the media to print propaganda, for example). Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As an example of a different view, Dower states that "censorship under the occupation was by no means as pervasive and stunting as that practised in Japan in the decade and a half prior to surrender" (p. 408) and that most Japanese journalists regarded post-war censorship as being lighter than what they'd experienced during the war - not least because the wartime censorship sometimes included murdering journalists who wrote the wrong thing (p. 409). This article plainly isn't the place for a debate on whether Allied or Japanese censorship was worse - that belongs in the occupation article, where I'll add this tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not long, and you cannot expect readers to jump from one article to another to get exact background info, this is WP:SUMMARY. "You have not provided a reference which links the censorship of censorship with incidents of rapes, and until you do so it's clearly synthesis" as I said it is about background of censorship and its extents. We know "rape incidents were censored" for sure, and this is "censorship procedure", no need of WP:SYNTH to remove such info. Your argument relies on this quote belongs elsewhere, so cannot be relevant here since the quote doesn't mention rape incidents. Actually it is exactly the right place. "rape incidents censored" are related to "other misdeeds censored" as you can tell. Likewise in this source it tells "everything including censor itself" is censored. We can add views of Dower which may balance views. Whichever censorship is worse, again a bit relevant about both before and after of occupation. Kasaalan (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotes of objecting parties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_32#Undue_Weight_Criteria


 * According to Robin Gerster's well-reviewed 2008 book Travels in Atomic Sunshine claims of Takemae and Ricketts are wrong: Australian troops had not arrived in Japan at the time [p. 114] and the Australians started to arrive in February 1945 while they claim that the rapes took place in January. Australian troops were not in Kure at the time [pp. 55-56] for the timings of their arrival and the operations of small advance parties which seem to have been in Tokyo. While some small groups of Australians were present in Japan before the main body of the occupation force arrived in February, they don't appear to have been in Kure, which was occupied by American troops until the Australian force arrived.
 * Gerster states that another source giving a date of December 1945, casts doubt on non-scholar memoir book of Allan Clifton's reliability, though concluding that he is at least partially reliable [pp. 114-117]
 * Gerster states that BCOF authorities were very active in prosecuting reports of serious crimes such as rape, which were hampered by the Japanese police not passing some reports on, though the penalties were indeed relatively light [p. 118].


 * Tanaka refers to advance units arriving from Hong Kong. Dismissal of Clifton as a primary source is irrelevant, since it is used by a reliable secondary source.
 * British Commonwealth Occupation force:
 * "Australians were in Japan on 2 September 1945 when the surrender document was signed and advance parties of various units started arriving from then on, firstly to organise the repatriation of Australian prisoners of war and then to set up logistic units to support the main force. The first main Australian component arrived in Japan on 13 February 1946 in the Stamford Victory from Morotai."
 * Ergo, if you accurately interpreted Gerster that there were no Australian troops components in Japan before February then we must conclude that Gerster is a thoroughly unreliable source if he gets the dates that wrong and proceeds to draw sweeping conclusions from that.

Summarized claims of both sides. Correct if I made any mistake while summarizing. Kasaalan (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as newspapers report, Allan Clifton mentions of Australian troops rape case in 1946, not 1945. So is there any dispute about Allan Clifton. Kasaalan (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Out of context quote
I don't believe this should be in the lead sentence to the reported rapes section: According to John W. Dower, despite Japanese fears, "the incidence of rape remained relatively low given the huge size of the occupation force".[16] (1) it is out of context as it only describes the rapes comitted during a certain period, (2) and "low" is a subjective word which can be replaced by the estimates given by the same author later in the same paragraph. I also believe this paragraph needs extensive organising. 90.5.192.84 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious material
I've just removed the following material from the article as it is one-sided and of dubious accuracy:


 * According to Takemae, Ricketts and Swann, members of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force (BCOF) were also often involved in rapes:


 * A former prostitute recalled that as soon as Australian troops arrived in Kure in early 1946, they 'dragged young women into their jeeps, took them to the mountain, and then raped them. I heard them screaming for help nearly every night'."


 * Ian Clifton, an Australian officer who acted as interpreter and criminal investigator wrote:
 * "I stood beside a bed in hospital. On it lay a girl, unconscious, her long, black hair in wild tumult on the pillow. A doctor and two nurses were working to revive her. An hour before she had been raped by twenty soldiers. We found her where they had left her, on a piece of waste land. the hospital was in Hiroshima. The girl was Japanese. The soldiers were Australians.
 * The Moaning and wailing had ceased and she was quiet now. The tortured tension on her face had slipped away, and the soft brown skin was smooth and unwrinkled, stained with tears like the face of a child that has cried herself to sleep.

As to Australian justice Clifton writes regarding another rape that was witnessed by a party of card-players:
 * "At the court martial that followed, the accused was found guilty and sentenced to ten years penal servitude. In accordance with army law the courts decision was forwarded to Australia for confirmation. Some time later the documents were returned marked 'Conviction quashed because of insufficient evidence'."

Robin Gerster's recent (2008) and well-reviewed book Travels in Atomic Sunshine, states that the claims made by Takemae, Ricketts and Swann are wrong (Australian troops had not arrived in Japan at the time - see p. 114 - the Australians started to arrive in February 1945 and the source provided for this claim states that the rapes took place in January; Gerster states that another other source give a date of December 1945), casts doubt on Ian Clifton's reliability (though concluding that he is at least partially reliable - pp. 114-117 ) and states that BCOF authorities were very active in prosecuting reports of serious crimes such as rape (they were hampered by the Japanese police not passing some reports on) though the penalties were indeed relatively light (p. 118). It should also be noted that Ian Clifton's book is his memoirs, and not a scholarly study or work of history. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I note that Tanaka refers to advance units arriving from Hong Kong. Let me also note that your dismissal of Clifton as a primary source is irrelevant, since it is used by a reliable secondary source.
 * Third, you should know better by now than taking it upon yourself to decide which source is right, and then deleting the information from sources you do not agree upon, quite frankly that stinks, and not only of OR. Present the arguments by both "sides"!!!
 * Also, let me quote the British Commonwealth Occupation force:
 * "Australians were in Japan on 2 September 1945 when the surrender document was signed and advance parties of various units started arriving from then on, firstly to organise the repatriation of Australian prisoners of war and then to set up logistic units to support the main force. The first main Australian component arrived in Japan on 13 February 1946 in the Stamford Victory from Morotai."
 * Ergo, if you accurately interpreted Gerster that there were no Australian troops components in Japan before February then we must conclude that Gerster is a thoroughly unreliable source if he gets the dates that wrong and proceeds to draw sweeping conclusions from that.--Stor stark7 Speak 12:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why an 'argument' which is provably false belongs in the article: Australian troops were not in Kure at the time - see Gerster pp. 55-56 for the timings of their arrival and the operations of small advance parties (which seem to have been in Tokyo). While some small groups of Australians were present in Japan before the main body of the occupation force arrived in February, they don't appear to have been in Kure, which was occupied by American troops until the Australian force arrived. I'm amused to see that you're continuing your approach of attacking the credibility of any source which disagrees with the stuff you post - have you bothered to look at Gerster's book or the positive reviews it received? Also, I'm not sure why you're claiming that a quote from a veterans' association website (not a reliable source) was published by the BCOF. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will fully review your edits. I will readd some of the info you deleted. Kasaalan (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored the material, including WP:RS sources and this controversial one. I tagged section as POV for discussion. I will reevaluate the sources. At least I will add some reasonable doubt if some historians reject the claims. If the claims are 100 percent wrong, then we may delete them. Kasaalan (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We may add Gerster's objections in the section as a precaution if he is reliable enough. That will solve the case for NPOV possibly. However the user stated he will not track page history anymore. Kasaalan (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If this discussion is done the tag should be removed. Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Faked quote
I've just re-removed this statement from the article
 * According to Peter Schrijvers, rape was "a general practice against Okinawan women".

There are several things wrong with this quote: 1) the words within the quotation mark don't appear anywhere in the reference [which is very easy to verify with a text search] 2) the closest equivalent which does appear ("For instance, rape ... was a general practice against Japanese women") are the words of the book reviewer Xavier Guillaume as they're outside the quotation marks of quotes from the book 3) I borrowed Schrijvers' book earlier this year when Stor Stark first starting adding this material to other articles, and it didn't appear to contain this claim (which is quite extraordinary - "general practice" are very strong words, and no other sources suggest that the incidence of rape was common like this does). As such, rather than being a quote from Peter Schrijvers sourced to a scholarly book as the material claims, it's actually a claim made by Xavier Guillaume without providing any supporting evidence whatsoever (other than a misleading implication that Schrijvers' book supports the claim) in an online book review. As book reviews are tertiary sources (at best) they shouldn't be used as sources for claims about anything other than the reviewer's views on the book (see WP:PSTS).

As such, I don't think that this material is usable in any Wikipedia article - if Xavier Guillaume has published research in a reliable source showing that rape was common we can reference this, but without any supporting evidence its not usable. Note also that the review contains other claims made by Guillaume which don't appear in the book, so I don't regard it as being even an accurate review of the book (which is rather odd given that Schrijvers thanks Guillaume in either the book's introduction or end material - I guess that he was reviewing a draft of the manuscript which was toned down prior to being published). It's worth noting that I removed this claim from the Allied war crimes during World War II article after Stor Stark added it over a year ago and Stor has subsequently edited that article but not re-added it, so there seems to have no good reason to repeat this falsification here. Nick-D (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't make a full research on this case. But if Schrijvers make such a comment it would not be a surprise since he has similar other writings. On the other hand, "a general practice against Okinawan women" might be somewhat a subjective statement. So until making a full research I cannot really judge the case. Kasaalan (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Schrijvers made no such statement in the book that I could find. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For instance, rape--which is considered a way to sharpen aggressiveness of soldiers, steeling male bonding among warriors, and, moreover, "reflects a burning need to establish total dominance of the other" (p. 211)--was a general practice against Japanese women. "The estimate of one Okinawan historian for the entire three-month period of the campaign exceeds 10,000. A figure that does not seem unlikely when one realizes that during the first 10 days of the occupation of Japan there were 1,336 reported cases of rape of Japanese women by American soldiers in Kanagawa prefecture alone" (p. 212). Furthermore, confronted by kamikaze assaults on their lines, GIs began to see only one solution to the fanaticism of the Japanese soldiers: mass destruction. Reasoning was more and more perceived as hopeless vis-a-vis the Japanese as a whole. War correspondent Robert Sherrod summarizes a general opinion about the Japanese shared by many GIs: "killing them was easier than teaching them" (p. 222). or


 * Did you read book fully, or checked the relevant pages. Also did the book you borrow was 2002 published edition or a later one, maybe pages changed.
 * It is possibly reviewer's comment or may also be his interpretation of the book text [10.000 in 3 moth, 1,336 reported cases of rape in Kanagawa prefecture alone] of Xavier Guillaume (Department of Political Science, University of Geneva) at H-Net, which is at least a second degree WP:RS scholar source by many aspects.
 * However you say Guillaume's comments don't match with page references, so he might review a draft.
 * Until I can read the relevant pages [at least 210-212] myself, I cannot make any statement about this case, because you say the review does not match with final book.
 * Actually we don't utterly need of "general practice" quote anyway, since we have estimated figures. So this debate is not top priority, leaving this until I have opportunity to read the text from the book. We may also ask writers about this case. Kasaalan (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I borrowed the 2002 edition. I checked the page numbers for the quotes on either side of the statement that rape "was a general practice against Japanese women" and they didn't contain this claim, I then used the index to check for it elsewhere with no results and also read through all the relevant sections of the book (which is heavily focused on the experiences of US soldiers in the Pacific during the war). I also found another instance where a claim made by the reviewer (that "Most dead Japanese were desecrated and mutilated.") was not only not supported by anything in the book, but the book actually said the exact opposite - (see: Talk:American mutilation of Japanese war dead). As such, the claim in question here seems to be nothing but the book reviewer's view, for which he provides no source whatsoever, and the review is not even an accurate account of what's in the book. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I decided to check the book to verify Nick-D's claims. I noted 3 things.
 * 1. There is much about GI rape in it, but for whatever reason Nick-D, who apparently read it well and has been very active in this article, in particular as regards deleting things, did not seem inclined to add any of the material to this article.
 * 2. The sentence "general practice" could not be found by me either.
 * 3. There is enough supporting material in the book to understand why Guillaume attributed to it the conclusion that rape was general practice in his review of the book.

I quote some paragraphs below, with my underlining. Meanwhile, civilians who continued to roam Okinawa’s battle areas were in mortal danger. “Shoot the bitch, shoot the Jap woman,” a lieutenant of the 11th Marines suddenly heard some of his men scream at the top of their lungs. Shots rang. An Okinawan woman struggled to her feet. She tried to pick up her baby. More shots ripped the air. The mother crumpled. Many women on Okinawa came to wish the Americans had just killed them and dumped them into a hole. Instead, the enemy brutally violated them, showing not even the least mercy. Marching south, men of the 4th Marines passed a group of some 10 American soldiers bunched together in a tight circle next to the road. They were “quite animated,” noted a corporal who assumed they were playing a game of craps. “Then as we passed them,” said the shocked marine, “I could see they were taking turns raping an oriental woman. I was furious, but our outfit kept marching by as though nothing unusual was going on .” That drive for indisputable control, to be accomplished in part through demeaning, was undoubtedly what moved US marines, for example, to rape almost all women of one of the villages on Motobu Peninsula. Exactly how many Okinawan women were raped by American troops will never be known, as the victims were either too ashamed – or too frightened – to report the crime. The estimate of one Okinawan historian for the entire three-month period of the campaign exceeds 10,000. Remarkably, to be of Oriental appearance was sufficient reason for women on Okinawa to run the risk of rape. When, for example, Korean ‘comfort women,’ brought to the island by Japanese forces before the battle, fell into American hands, some of them, too, were forced to succumb to GIs.

--Stor stark7 Speak 18:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

10,000+ rapes
Did the 10000+ rapes occur during the entire time span of the American Occupation? i.e. from 1945-to-1952? Or, did it happen during a smaller time frame? The time span should be mentioned in the article. Edit: Never mind, the article mentions it.

Also the "There were 1,336 reported rapes during the first 10 days of the occupation of Kanagawa prefecture." - looks like this a separate figure? How about adding up all the number of rapes from all instances in the 7 year time span? In like a nice table for easy reference.


 * "There were 1,336 reported rapes during the first 10 days of the occupation of Kanagawa prefecture" - This statistic is meaningless without a baseline rate of assaults - what was the rate before the occupation, and how many of these rapes were committed by American servicemen? This statistic implies they were all committed by foreign soldiers without providing any evidence to that assertion. It seems like a random statistic someone found in a book and just dropped into the article, without it actually adding to the content substantially (see WP:NOT#STATS). I think the line should be removed, given the reasons above, but even if the baseline and American:Japanese rate was known (in which case it should be part of a broader estimation of the rates of rape across the whole of occupied Japan), this statistic only refers to one prefecture - unless a large proportion of the American occupation force was stationed there, why does it deserve to be individually mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallas84 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If Tanaka's numbers are accurate, Americans couldn't have been raping 330 women per day in 1946. He says that over a seven month period in 1946 there were 165 reported rapes by occupation troops in the Tokyo and Kanagawa areas. If Dower's numbers are only for women raped by Americans, there should have been many thousands of rapes by Americans in those two prefectures. I have one problem with Takemae Eiji's figure of 1,336 reported rapes in the Kanagawa prefecture in the first ten days. He says that in Yokohama, the capital of the prefecture, there were nine reported rapes by Americans in the first week. Yokohama had a considerable percentage of the prefecture's population; is it credible that hardly one percent of the rapes would have occurred there? I note that Tanaka says there aren't statistics for the whole country or the whole period of occupation; it is probably impossible to determine just how many women were raped.(Aaron Carine) Any input is welcomed. Thanks.(216.99.61.229 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC))

Revisionist History
Today is 18 April 2011, and my father is still alive. He was one of the first Naval officers on the streets of Japan after the surrender of 15 August 1945. He witnessed no rapes or abuses of women. According to my father, the Japanese men were somewhat fearful and angry in the first few days of the occupation, but after the first week pretty much everyone (men and women) were cordial. There were a lot more Japanese women around than men, for obvious reasons, and the US servicemen did take advantage of this, as well as the many bath houses. Most of the people Dad met were just glad the war was over — a sense of relief was evident among the Japanese people within weeks of the occupation. People just wanted to rebuild and get on with their lives. Qualified researchers may contact  for more information. 71.105.194.27 ( talk) 02:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Personal testimony of absence of an ocurrence is immaterial, as Japan was quite big…

10,000 rapes on Okinawa
A charge of this magnitude deserves more than one source or, at the very least, a source that doesn't consist solely of the account of an Okinawan playright-cum-historian publishing under a rather nationalistic-sounding pseudonym ("the island is strong"). And seeing as Schrijvers seemed content just to parrot Masayasu's number, it doesn't really do any good to cite him, either.--172.191.112.218 (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken; it appears Masayasu writes other works under that pseudonym. Regardless of that, the idea of 10,000 rapes occuring in less than three months (122 a day) strains credulity to say the least. One wonders how he arrived at this figure. Again, the claim being made is too extraordinary to rely on a single source.--172.190.132.87 (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We've decided on the Okinawan topics that George Feifer is not only WP:NN but not WP:RS either. (no opinion on other authors). Student7 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This whole article is a crock of shit, and demonstrative of why Wikipedia is regarded as a joke. 03:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC) [[User:‎98.215.208.184|‎98.215.208.184].
 * If you have any specific criticisms about material, feel free to list them here. Student7 (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Saunders Home
Dear IP editor, If you would like to link the Elizabeth Saunders Home with the topic of this article, please provide citations to reliable sources that support such a link. You cannot assume that the children cared for by this organisation were conceived through rape. If you cannot find such sources, please stop adding it. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Politically-motivated Japanese Revisionism
I'm just gong to start out by saying I find very little of the wild claims made in this article to have any merit; exactly what proof is there, what individuals; platoons; companies; battalions can be blamed? Who; what; where; how and by whom? None of these questions are asked, nor is there any motivation to ask them, mark my words this will become an even greater and more pervasive invention of historians after the last soldier is dead, and cannot defend himself.

These are spurious allegations by unnamed plaintiffs seeking to lessen their own national guilt and create some moral ambiguity, much of this is politically motivated by resistance to American military bases in Japan, particularly the one in Okinawa, these historians are quoting "Japanese feminist groups" who make unsourced claims and assertions, which are then presented as facts derived by academics.

Because there is no authority, nor respect for objective truth at wikipedia these flagrant and scurrilous lying claims can be made, and in fact great attention is directed towards these, as if there were any proof whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LikkerdySplit (talk • contribs) 13:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A former Israeli soldier told in a documentary: "There is no such thing as decent occupation of a country." Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like this comment might've been made while some verifiable testimony was removed (unilaterally) by another user. I suggest you revisit the article and look for the segment about the Australian officer.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Repetitious section
The "silence about rapes" subsection appears to mostly be repeating with slightly different phrasing things that are said earlier in the main section. In particular it stands out how the "fewer than 10 rapes reported before 1946" statistic is stated for the second time. Either this should be deleted or these lines should be removed from the previous main section. Overall, the whole section lacks structure, as if a random order was given as different editors added material piecemeal from different sources without revising things into a more coherent whole.--68.92.94.195 (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)