Talk:Fusako Shigenobu

References

I'm glad to see that this article has some, now. However, I removed the reference to http://www.wanadoo.mu/kinews/afp/people/113808/japanese-red-army-founder-s-accidental-odyssey-into-extremism.html, for two reasons. Firstly, the copyright status was not clear to me - it looked like an "archival" copy of material from elsewhere. Secondly, my anti-malware software informed me that essentially everything hosted in the .mu is currently at a high risk of carrying malware. If anyone can find the same information elsewhere, please do add a replacement reference. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fusako Shigenobu. 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/20151208065343/http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/anicka-yi/%E2%80%9D%20target%3D/ to http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/anicka-yi/%E2%80%9D%20target%3D/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110824010930/http://palpress.ps/english/print.php?ChannelID=4170 to http://palpress.ps/english/print.php?ChannelID=4170

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) 01:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Final Paragraph in Fouth Section

The final paragraph on Shigenobu's connection to Anti-Japaneseism is completely unnecessary. It mentions protests, then suddenly talks about Aum Shinrikyo (now known as Aleph) and the Tokyo sarin gas attacks. Neither the group nor the attacks have anything to do with Shigenobu. I cannot verify the source this section it cites, since I cannot find it. I have found no references to anti-Japaneseism in association with Aleph. Regardless of the veracity of the source (I'm not saying it's false, I just literally don't know), it's out of place here. It might make sense on the anti-Japaneseism article (on which it is present), but I don't understand why it would make sense here. It seems to be in place only to bias the reader against Shigenobu and her beliefs. I'd like to see it removed.TheMonochroma (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The truth should not be deleted by individual supporter's feeling. MJGJ (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

"The truth should not be deleted"? What truth are you referring to? That an event completely unrelated to the subject of the article occurred? It's off-topic. EDIT: Side-note: I wasn't the one who removed that text, either. TheMonochroma (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suspect that MJGJ is not a native English speaking guy. And it's removed because it's better off in the JRA article. And said person talks like a conspiracy theorist. Ominae (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing, reliability, and neutrality

@Lfpmb1: It's great to see that you have tried to improve the sourcing in the article. However, there are still several unsourced paragraphs, and many of the claims made in the article, such as "played a significant role in establishing the International Relations Bureau for the organization", rely on sources that fall in either WP:BLPSPS or WP:BLPSELFPUB. https://www.fusakoshigenobu.com/ in particular seems questionable.

The Arab News article is a great addition to the list of sources since it provides a different perspective on whether Shigenobu is guilty. However, you rewrote the article so that it only reflects this one perspective, giving undue weight (see WP:UNDUE) to a single source. Multiple sources ([1][2]) have also supplied a contrary opinion, which is now missing in the article.

I would personally prefer to have some additions to the article based on more reliable sources. The website should definitely not be used, but the Arab News article can go in somewhere and add that some deny the charges against Shigenobu.

@Amigao: You seem quite involved in improving the reliability of Wikipedia articles as I've seen you several times already. Care to chime in? PetraMagna (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@PetraMagna: - I've tried to clean up some of the more tendentious statements and sourcing problems. Citing an entire book multiple times without providing page numbers is frustrating, and still needs to be addressed. Also, the book in question is written by Shigenobu herself, and is unlikely to be very neutral. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Update: user Lfpmb1 keeps trying to restore non-neutral language and citations to Shigenobu's own personal website or self-authored books.

Hard to overstate how tendentious Lfpmb1's original edits to the lede were in retrospect. The violent incidents and the Japanese Red Army itself were not even mentioned!

@PetraMagna: @Ash-Gaar: I appreciate your feedback and recognize the importance of sourcing as well as maintaining the neutrality of the Wikipedia page. I would, however, like to highlight a couple of points that I believe are crucial to our current discussion.

1. It's important to acknowledge the pervasive media bias against Shigenobu. Most often, the focus is on accusations and allegations against her that lack solid verification. This unbalanced view is predominant in her portrayal within English literature, which I believe warrants a more comprehensive review.

2. I find it concerning that we seem to discount direct testimonies from the subject herself, yet place heavy reliance on secondhand information from sources that have never directly engaged with her. Given this, it seems challenging for these sources to maintain a balanced perspective in their content.

I hope we can find a way to address these issues while still ensuring the accuracy and objectivity of the article.

@Ash-Gaar: Thanks for helping with the cleanup! I was away for a while and am surprised that the article has been greatly improved and expanded.

@Lfpmb1: I do agree that we are relying mostly on Western media. However, there are a few articles from the arab world, including Arab News and Al Jazeera. They are more likely to be sympathetic of Palestine's cause for which Shigenobu fought, so I added some of their views into the article. Due to WP:BLPSELFPUB, using Shigenobu's statements about herself should be avoided. If you find other reliable sources, especially the credible ones on WP:RSP, feel free to expand the article as long as you are not advocating just for one side. --PetraMagna (talk) 02:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)