Talk:Japanese embassy hostage crisis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Hajor, this line

it turned the international spotlight back on Peru's recent violent experiences with terrorism and the human rights violations perpetrated by both sides in the war on terrorism

goes a bit further than I had intended. What I meant with "human rights violations" was specifically the horrendous prison conditions, which I mention in the next paragraph. Also, I can add a line on "Chavín de Huántar". Thanks. --- Viajero 19:55, 10 March 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Original for comparison purposes:
Not only did suggest complacency on the part of security, it has exposed Peru's human rights violations to international scrutiny.
...which goes to show that the best way to get someone to reinterpret what you wrote is to omit a pronoun. Sorry about that: can I leave it to you to reinstate and/or amend, as you see fit?
Also, apologies to User:Jmabel for reverting his MRTAs back to MTRA: I got caught up in an edit conflict, and they slipped through the net when I was combining the two versions. (I hadn't noticed the transposition in the acronym -- well spotted!) –Hajor 20:25, 10 March 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that the MRTA Crisis is being disscussiong on another topic. However, I would like to mention some things that I believe will add a more accurate NPOV to the topic.
  • The article is extemely long. It could be improve by deleting information that is not much related to the topic (Declarations of Alejandro Toledo for example, as he was a low-profile politician at that time.)
  • Also, I remember that Javier Diez Canseco did spoke for the MRTA after he was released. I would not object against that. I must state that he, at any moment on peruvian history, was a prominent congressman. He was a member of the renmants of the Left in Peru. He ussualy gets atention from the media with controvertial topics.
  • I don't believe that the picture here is controvertial, since it is totaly related with the article on question. However, finding only this picturing on the article I believe that is not right. There are much more pictures showing the "rebels/guerrilleros" (I will not call them "terrorist") on the NET, the assault on the embassy and the Peruvian Armed Forces during the assault. Those should also be posted and in a much more smaller size (The Fujimori Picture is extremely big).
  • If the information is from an accurate source (and found equal in several sources), It is not nesesary to state it with a newspaper source each paragraph of the article. I believe that this can led to confusions and a messy article.
  • A list of the MRTA members should be included, along with a list of the hostages.
  • The article should be stated (or at least divided) according to the dates, as subdivisions. 3 subtitles are not enough to manage the information.
I'm adding some pictures to the article, and decreasing the Fujimori's one. This in order to make it fit better on screen. Messhermit 04:58, 19 March 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, It needs to be much direct and least detailed. Messhermit 05:13, 19 March 2005 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate to present detail. On the other hand, the article could certainly use a summary section before the rest. Detailed citation is entirely appropriate, especially in a potentially controversial article. At most, some of these should be commented out, but they certainly should not be lost. See Wikipedia:Cite sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 19 March 2005 (UTC)

NPOV notice

I'm going to put an NPOV notice on the article. There are numerous times when assumptions of fact are made, such as "It became apparent", when it really is opinion. One blatant portion even reads "The treatment of the bodies of the dead guerrillas raised troubling questions. If the MRTA had no popular support, why did Fujimori refuse to let the families bury their dead? Why did the government bury them secretly in unmarked graves?". Obviously, questions such as these are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. If questions were raised by somebody, mention who raised them, but there is no need for leading questions. --C S 05:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It might be more useful to place {{POV-section}} on the specific sections that have issues. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Renaming needed

This article must be renamed, as there was no crisis at the Japanese embassy, but rather at the residence of the Japanese ambassador. Descendall 11:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The crisis is known around the world by this name. I see no point in renaming it. Messhermit 23:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Messhermit. It's a misnomer, but it's an established misnomer. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and citation review needed

It has been some time since there has been any significant editing of this article. I agree that it does not meet POV standards, and there are several areas where citations are needed.

For example:

Two other moves were made simultaneously with the explosion. In the first, 20 commandos launched a direct assault on the front door in order to join their comrades inside the waiting room, where the main staircase to the second floor was located. On their way in, they found the two other female MRTA guerrillas guarding the front door. The women dropped their weapons and shouted "We surrender," but they were cut down by the rushing commandos.:

Is there documented proof somewhere that the two Emerritistas guarding the doors actually said "We surrender?" If so, this proof should be cited.

And another undocumented quote:

In the US, at an 27 April rally in Philadelphia against Clinton's cutbacks, Monica Ruiz told 5,000 demonstrators, "The truth is that these young MRTA revolutionaries were fighting for the same things we are fighting for and against the same enemy. Is it a surprise that the Clinton administration aids and abets the Peruvian government when it muzzles the voice of dissent by using police terror? Are we surprised that Clinton supports a government that enriches a small group of wealthy families in Peru at the expense of 80% of the population who live in utter poverty? After all, he is throwing millions of poor people, disabled children and elderly people on the streets here to beg for charity.":

What's the source article for this quote?

This was an important event in the history of Peru, so this article still needs work. SmartGuy 16:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that we may qualify them as examples of Misrepresenting Evidence; since they both lack a source and both try to push a certain POV. Messhermit 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Possibly. But these are just two examples, and there are many more. I would give this article a thorough rewrite, but I am not thorougly knowledgeable of the MRTA or this event. I only know what I read in the papers at the time.
I think that in the case of this particular event, anyone with solid knowledge of what happened will likely have a strong POV. Is it even going to be possible to put together an NPOV article? SmartGuy 19:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the article itself may push a POV. But I believe that presenting facts (and not uncited paragraphs) it can be achieved. Messhermit 21:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, I was tooling around the web today and found documentation of "We Surrender" that I mentioned earlier here : CNN Link - which mentions that a local Peruvian paper initially published this account. If someone actually wants to rework this document - there's something to work with. -- SmartGuy 18:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
That is a possibility, but the actual wording does not accurately reflect the caos and confusion that a battle (or gunfight in this case) is. Both Military and Insurgents I believe understand that. It also leads the reader to believe other things. Messhermit 18:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think we need to more clearly present that these are statements by various people, and attribute them. Saying flatly that the women said "we surrender" is stronger and less supportable than a statement like "According to [newspaper x], ...". If someone (Fujimori?) denied that claim, we should mention that also. --Delirium 18:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent anonymous cut

On the eve of his arrival, an article on The Times referred to him as a "dictator" and berated "his barbaric and mediaeval dungeons".

Probably shouldn't be restored without citation, but (assuming it is accurate) should be tracked down and cited. It would be some time between 9 and 11 February 1997. Someone must have access to the backfile of The Times. - Jmabel | Talk 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ten Years from the Japanese embassy hostage crisis in PERU

Let`s remember it ! For those who died and for those who are still among us !

BG diplomat who was there ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.122.182.33 (talk • contribs) 6 October 2006.

The public relations figure head for the effort to get these concerns over due process addressed was Lori Berenson, a woman imprisoned in Peru after a special court convicted her of being a leader of the MRTA. You may recall that an extraordinary publicity campaign came into being to seek “justice for Lori Berenson.” Every or nearly every ostensibly left-wing media fount in this country devoted great column space to promoting this campaign and denouncing the injustice of Berenson’s conviction. This includes The Nation, Pacifica Radio, Mother Jones, Z Magazine and others. Never addressed was the question of just what it was that Ms. Berenson was doing down there. Media campaigns with this level of concerted application don’t just happen. Berenson is a woman who had spent her entire adult life (up to the time of her imprisonment) traveling in Central and South American countries that have active CIA counter-insurgency campaigns. It is certainly curious to hear Colin Powell, in the above letter, taking the side of the plucky left-wing activist against the government of the CIA’s number one guy in Latin America. But Berenson is probably more than a plucky left-wing activist.

The Peruvian government accused her of, among other things, using phony press credentials to reconnoiter the hall of congress in preparation for an MRTA takeover of that building. Soon thereafter, the army raided the MRTA’s clandestine Lima headquarters and, after an eight-hour gun battle in which three people were killed, hauled off the leadership. That headquarters happened to be Berenson’s house. And soon after that, the MRTA took control of the Japanese Embassy, an episode which ended in a commando raid that killed all MRTA personnel and killed only one hostage. The press was told that this was a “miracle.” After the raid, the Fujimori’s popularity (formerly at an all-time low) skyrocketed and resistance to his political program softened.

CIA has a history of founding small, “rebel” groups in countries with an active insurgency as a way of undermining the insurgency itself. The creation of the Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines in order to weaken the communist guerrilla movement is maybe the best-known example. The MRTA is opposed to the Peruvian Communist Party (Shining Path), and is described by Z Magazine as “little known band ... small in number.” I would add that it also has the hallmarks of an Abu Sayyaf-type organization: a rebel group with no apparent base of popular support that nonetheless never gets wiped out

One clue to the ambiguous nature of the MRTA is that shortly after its leadership was rounded up in a raid supposedly conducted to prevent their taking over the congress building, a small group of MRTA disguised as waiters was able to establish complete tactical control of the Japanese ambassador’s compound during an evening party filled with some 600 government officials. These guests cum hostages included the head of Peru’s anti-terror police as well as its future president Alejandro Toledo. Also adding to the phony flavor is that the takeover was bloodless: state security forces surrounding the compound, including 300 heavily-armed police, offered no resistance to the 20 teenage “rebels.” The story is that their disguises were so effective that no one realized they were not simply waiters, despite their having brought in crateloads of military equipment, including crew-served machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and enough explosives to wire every room in the building (according to Toledo).

This scenario is implausible to say the least. Reuters reported that when the MRTA let most of their hostages loose shortly after the takeover, “more than half of the 225 [government officials, etc.] set free shook hands with the gunmen as they left, some even wishing them good luck.” In my opinion, the embassy takeover smells like an intelligence operation and Berenson has the look and feel of a “patsy” asset. As for the “left-wing” American magazines, a quick glance at their boards of directors and funding sources suggests the high level of influence CIA can expect to enjoy in their editorial pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.119.148.238 (talk • contribs) 8 October 2006.

I suspect that the above is copied from somewhere without acknowledgment, because of the phrase "Colin Powell, in the above letter". In fact, a search suggests that this constitutes the only time the two of them are even mentioned on the same page anywhere in Wikipedia.
And let's see if I get this: not only are you saying that Lori Berenson was working for the CIA, but also The Nation, Pacifica Radio, Mother Jones, and Z Magazine are working for the CIA? Wow. Z Magazine??? Have you ever bothered to read it? Or look at its structure? It doesn't have a "board", it is run by a handful of activists in Boston. This may qualify as the single most absurd accusation I've ever encountered on a Wikipedia talk page, and that's saying a lot. - Jmabel | Talk 01:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation issues

I've just cleaned up a few citation issues. In two cases where Revolutionary Worker was cited quoting the New York Times I've gone to the Times archive. The quotations were essentially accurate, although one was, perhaps, an oversimplification by omission, and I have rewritten based on the context in the NYT rather than RW.

There is an apparent complaint in the article about a citation, where I'm not sure I understand the issue. I'm putting this here with Wikimarkup, since the way this was done was a bit odd:

Peruvian TV also showed Fujimori striding among the dead insurgents; some of the bodies were mutilated.<ref name="Catalinotto">John Catalinotto, [http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/42a/051.html After the Bloodbath, the Truth is Revealed]. ''Workers World'', [[8 May]] 1997. Accessed 23 Feb 2006.</ref>''Unconfirmed Reference (Ivan Montesinos?)''

I'm not sure I see what is the issue, or what the person is asking. Catalinotto is certainly accurately quoted (his article is online). Workers World is not exactly a great source, so I'm assuming that is part of the problem, but what exactly is at issue? Catalinotto's article mentions Montesinos, but nothing in our article relies on that. The NYT article to which Catalinotto alludes is Clifford Krauss, "Rescue's Architect: Fujimori's Shadowy Alter Ego; An intelligence chief goes from political peril to 'man of the hour", New York Times April 28, 1997. p. A6. That article writes (of Fujimori, "…he strode triumphantly, wearing dark glasses, with the Army Chief of Staff into the liberated Japanese compound on Wednesday, followed by a television camera crew…" The NYT makes no mention of the dead insurgents, mutilated or otherwise, but Catalinotto doesn't say they did: he seems to be referring to the content of the actual television footage.

Obviously, it would be good to get a more generally reliable source than Workers World, but the issue doesn't seem to be one of confirming a reference. Can someone suggest how to proceed? - Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I see now that the complaint came from an IP address with no other edits except one other similar complaint about a citation in this article (one I resolved by getting back to the NYT original). So I don't really have an individual to contact and draw his or her attention to the need for clarification. - Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this smell of bias? "The MRTA militants made several errors and missteps in the planning and execution of their attack." Would you say "Charles MAnson made several errors and missteps in the planning and execution of his murders?" I think not, unless you're a big fan of Charles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2007 154.20.135.250 (Talk | block)


Adding date, place to title

Anyone object to changing the title to "1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis in Lima", or something similar? This would keep the title parallel with the other titles for embassy attacks used on Wiki: List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions As it stands, the title doesn't indicate time/place to distinguish it from other attacks such as the 1974 Japanese Embassy attack in Kuwait. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Should 'terrorist' be used?

I just reverted a series of edits by the anonymous User:24.98.228.54, as he had replaced all the diacritics in the article with random symbols - looking at his other contributions, this was probably vandalism. However, at the same time I also reverted the other changes he made to this article, which were less obviously unhelpful. Specifically, he replaced the word 'terrorists' with other words throughout, such as 'rebels', 'guerillas', 'partisans', 'insurgents', 'revolutionaries' and 'hostage-takers', on the grounds that this was more neutral.(See [1]) I am not sure about this - alternate words like 'revolutinaries' are at least as biased as 'terrorist' is; on the other hand, WP:TERRORIST advises us to avoid using it wherever it might be controversial. So: does anyone else think the use of the word 'terrorists' in this article is inappropriate? Personally, I think it is acceptable here (anyone who takes hostages and makes demands in exchange for their lives is arguably a terrorist), but I can see that it may not be the best choice, so comments from others would be appreciated. Robofish (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the use of the word "terrorist" is always going to be controversial. As WP:TERRORIST points out, words such as "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are inherently non-neutral. While I agree with you that "revolutionary" is also biased, I think that words such as "hostage-takers", "insurgents", and "militants" are more unbiased. The main idea that I took away from reading the Wikipedia guideline page is that the word in general should be avoided. What is done at the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement and Shining Path articles is that they are first referred to as guerrilla organizations, then further down it lists the governments that label them as terrorist. This article originally used more impartial wording until it was changed by 200.8.5.253 (talk · contribs) two years ago. Any future changes should be discussed here. Khoikhoi 01:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

SAS Were The Only Consultants

Whats all this about the US and Israel? The only international team involved was a six man group from 22 squadron.82.31.236.245 (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/22/newsid_4297000/4297347.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.236.245 (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, as your citation provides no such reference. Nor does the article in question. Either you have committed a massive information security spill, sufficient to be rewarded with prison time or you speak about that of which you have no knowledge. I'll not remark upon which, I'll only suggest watching what you bluster about.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 7 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


Japanese embassy hostage crisis → The Peruvian Embassy Hostage Crisis – The name offers confusion on which country was involved in the crisis, while it was actually Peru that managed to free all the hostages. Also, improper grammar and capitalization as well as spelling which some people may find offensive. The name of the page is: Japanese embassy hostage crisis. Thank you. DoctorSpeed (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Copied misplaced request from Wikipedia talk:Requested moves (diff) wbm1058 (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. —Guanaco 09:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • We both stand bewildered, User:Wbm1058 as the user's idea is to keep the page title as "Japanese Embassy Crisis" while the events that occurred in these events happened in Peru, not Japan which make cause confusion. While it was a Japanese embassy, the results happened in Lima, Peru. I have seen the pages of attacks made, and to use an example that would be clear for yourself would be 9/11. What is confusing to me is that these attacks were redirected from "Attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001" not "Middle Eastern Hijackers Attack the World Trade Center". If you would look at other examples of this usage, please refer to other pages such as the Beirut Bombing and others. If you need clarification for any other terms, please let me know.

It has came to a mutual understanding that we can agree on the title that you proposed, having looked onto the Spanish translation of the page.

  • A quick note also not to intervene with the proposed title, thank you. Our party is currently trying to match the case for the direct translation of the event according to primary sources, the Federal Commission of Terrorism during the Administration of Alberto Fujimori of Peru, who have called the event "Toma de la residencia del embajador de Japón en Lima" or directly translated to "The Hostage Crisis of the Japanese Embassy in Lima, Peru". If you have any other problems, please feel free to let me know,

DoctorSpeed (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose the move as currently proposed, since it doesn't meet Wikipedia's Manual of Style for titles - specifically incorrect capitalization and the inclusion of an unneeded "the". However, Takeover of the Japanese ambassador's residence in Lima seems like an improvement to me. There's no need to add a date unless this location has been taken over repeatedly. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: agree with the IP above; none of the words "Embassy", "Hostage", or "Crisis" are proper nouns, and so should not be capitalized. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Please disregard the formatting for the title, it will be reinstated later. The new title could be misleading as well; please take a look at this work Bel Canto by Faulkner Award winner Ann Patchett (2001), a primary source who was present during the incident, who describes the building as an embassy more than a residence.

"The house where they were staying had been rented for this group by Lori Berenson. She rented it, her and a Panamanian. I saw a copy of the rental document. The two were foreign internationalista revolutionaries who had come to Peru to support the MRTA. And I understood that she actually lived there with her boyfriend who was one of the leaders the assault group that was going to attempt to take over the Peruvian property purchased, which would later be assigned by James F. Mack as the embassy for Japan. Berenson had come to Peru posing as a journalist for the “Third World Press” from Brooklyn, New York. I think the Third World Press was just a front. She had just left an interview in the Congress with a female Peruvian Congresswomen named Townsend on what was it like to be a female in a predominantly male Congress. Berenson was picked up by the police shortly after interview getting on a bus, along with the wife of the MRTA leader. The leader himself happened not be in Lima at that moment so was not arrested with the others. The reason that the government found out about this plot was that apparently someone in the neighborhood reported an enormous amount of bread being delivered regularly to this upper middle-class house. Clearly the food deliveries were a lot more than one would expect for a family of four. The fact is they were a family of 45. The police surrounded the place. When they realized what they were dealing with, they called the army for backup. A shoot-out ensued. A few guerrillas were killed but most of them were arrested. Berenson had been arrested near the Congress shortly before the shootout so was not at the house at the time. In the house the police found automatic weapons and Peruvian Military Police uniforms. They also found somewhere a truck painted to look like an army vehicle. The group was clearly ready to go. Their audacious plan probably would have worked if their staging house had not been discovered." DoctorSpeed (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No consensus on any of the proposed titles, so I'm relisting this. Too much of this discussion has been wasted on ones that don't conform to MOS or any kind of precedent. How about Japanese embassy crisis in Lima? —Guanaco 09:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose: current title makes perfect sense and is in no way offensive, the proposers rationale seems completely misjudged and suggests a dearth of knowledge about international relations. A 'Japanese Embassy' is an embassy belonging to Japan, not an embassy in Japan; while a 'Peruvian Embassy' is an embassy belonging to Peru, not an embassy in Peru. This hostage crisis took place in Lima in Peru and therefore the current title is correct. Note for example the article Iranian Embassy siege which follows the same principles. The only thing which should be changed about the current title is that the word 'embassy' should be capitalised as 'Embassy' as 'Japanese Embassy' is a proper noun. Ebonelm (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Japanese embassy hostage crisis. 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:

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) 04:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Japanese embassy hostage crisis. 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:

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) 03:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Japanese_embassy_hostage_crisis/Archive_1&oldid=1145059212"