Talk:Murder of Junko Furuta/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copied from Talk:Main Page

Nice to meet you. I say Railroad acting in a Japanese version. Because the translation software is used, the sentence is strange. Please forgive me. In and a Japanese version, the version of the article named Junko Furuta including the link to this English version article was deleted. The reason is a thing of violations of privacy. Then, could you delete this article though it is asking? It did not correspond though it wrote in Discussion of the article. Please continue your favors toward the deletion. 　　--124.210.245.64 09:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)(Railroad)

Does anyone know privacy issues are of concern here? The only thing I can think of is linking Jo Kamisaku to this crime. This is not that well sourced. If you check out the Jo Kamisaku or do a Google for the name, it appears the sources did exist but are no longer available. If sources can't be found soon, I suggest the article be deleted per BLP and any mention of the name here be removed Nil Einne 16:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind I found a reference. I don't really see a problem now although I did remove a reference to the name of the other victim here. Doesn't really seem to serve any purpose Nil Einne 16:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Stuff to add

Waita Uziga wrote a manga about the crime that is worth linking. Do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.249.8 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagreed: it was a guru/hentai manga. It is a disrepect for Furuta Junko and her family, because people who reads the manga are actually masturbating over Furuta Junko's death, and wikipedia should not advertise the sells of this manga from this particular page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.166.195 (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Guro, you mean? I am sorry, but I disagree with you. Not everyone who reads guro or hentai is masturbating over it. Furthermore, the furthest deviants can do this to ANY sort of media, whether it is explicitly sexual (hentai) or violent/gorey (guro) in nature or not. Media should not be censored on the basis of how people are bothered by how a small portion of readers are going to react to it. Furthermore, while I do share the perception that it is potentially disrespectful to produce a hentai over a real tragic incident, media is also not censored on the basis of whether or not it treats topics respectfully or if people are offended by it. The only consideration here is whether or not Waita Uziga's manga would be notable. If it is, I would start by describing it along with his other works on his own article (if he's notable enough to get one that mentions this) and to link here, and at that point, it can be considered if it should be notable enough to link back to him. I haven't read it myself and do not have data on circulation so I won't add it, but I do encourage the IP address who suggested it to register and research this potentiality. Tyciol (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to create an "In Anime" sub-section and collect appearances of the incidence in Japanese Comics and Animation. See Crucifixion for a good example of a nice "In Anime" sub-section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.220.14 (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision

Something went wrong with the revision on the 8th of February. I don't know if this was vandalism or if it was actually meant to mean something, so I'm pointing it out for someone who knows more about this. Thanks. Prem-aka-Prince 23:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prem-aka-Prince (talk • contribs)

Arrests

How was the murder solved? Was there an investigation? .Did the boys confess? These are details too important to be missing from the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.14.133 (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree - how the concrete was discovered to contain a corpse and how the boys were linked to it are integral parts of the case. But there's not the slightest hint; for all the reader knows, one of the involved parties went to the police. --Gwern (contribs) 03:21 29 December 2009 (GMT)

NPOV

After seeing copied text from this page on another website, and not believing it to be a valid link because of the tone used, I have decided to flag an NPOV debate. In the section describing Junko's suffering, not one citation is to be found, and there is a distinct lack of them in other parts of the article, particularly to English sources. The tone is also a concern. Lingotic (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it is an NPOV concern; it is a sourcing concern. It is unreferenced and we need references. It is okay to have non-English sources, but the relevant Japanese texts must be quoted. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They used geocities and facebook. Since when are either one of those reliable sources? Gune (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

So... facts?

All of the external links seem to be dead except for the court document, which doesn't seem to list any names. Google searches for the victim and criminals only turn up blog and forum results. 128.253.26.156 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources?

The following is a list of sources copied from the Japanese article:

• 渥美饒兒『十七歳、悪の履歴書-女子高生コンクリート詰め殺人事件』作品社、2003年。ISBN 4878935723
• 門野晴子『女子高生コンクリート詰め殺人事件―彼女のくやしさがわかりますか?』おんな通信社編、社会評論社、1990年。
• 佐瀬稔『うちの子が、なぜ!―女子高生コンクリート詰め殺人事件』草思社、1990年。ISBN 479420390X
• 蜂巣敦『殺人現場を歩く』ミリオン出版、2003年。ISBN 4813010814
• 藤井誠二『少年の街』教育史料出版会、1992年。ISBN 4876522308
• 古村龍也・雀部俊毅『犯罪心理分析マニュアル』同文書院、2000年。
• 横川和夫・保坂渉『かげろうの家 女子高生監禁殺人事件』共同通信社、1990年。ISBN 476410251X

Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's an unusual Japanese WP article that bothers to list sources. Indeed, that list of books is about the only thing of any value in the Japanese WP article. Given the propensity of plenty of WP editors to read one thing on the printed page and then to solemnly misrepresent it, what we need to know is precisely which assertion is cited from precisely which page(s) of which book(s). Such a notion is almost unheard of in ja:WP. Aside from two footnotes that are about a film, the Japanese WP article now has just four footnotes. Three are to 22-year-old periodicals (requiring a trip to the library), and one is to a page of this private, anonymous website: even those who can't read Japanese can see what it's about. -- Hoary (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the standards are apparently different. I found this page while checking contributions of some "wannabe funny" editor(s) listed here. The careless and unnoticed edits in the history catched my eye and I wanted to find out more. Thanks for your help. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Manga series

About the manga series removed. They exist, but I don't think they've been officially translated, so most of he sources I find are scanlation sites and such. Anyway, it's still debatable how relevant they are. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

While not "relevant" to the case, it is definitely are part of the popular culture surrounding the case (I daresay the manga's existence helped the case's awareness). As such, it should be listed.

Artist is UZIGA Waita (氏賀Y太). 109.255.165.155 (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Killer name removal and details removal

I remembered last time that the list of the killers identity is posted here. And what happen to the specific details of what happened to Junko? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.136.191.127 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Time Discrepancy

It would help if someone checked my math, but I'm almost certain I'm not wrong. If Junko was abducted on November 25, 1988 and died on January 5, 1989 (and this is applying maximum time to her torture), that means she was tortured for 6 days in November, 31 days in December, and 5 days in January. The end number in this drawn out assumption is 42 days of torture, 2 days short of 44 days. If the math checks out, then the article needs an edit, and perhaps an inclusion that some mistakenly claim 44 days. 72.93.168.178 (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As another point on time discrepancies, I'd like to talk about her death. The opening of the article states she died on January 4, 1989. However, the body of the article states she was alive on January 5, 1989 and claims it as the date of her death. 71.126.233.40 (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Name and discovery.

Admittedly, this is a mere rumor, but I would like to address it here on Wikipedia since there are efforts devoted to unbiased accuracy. I read somewhere (I genuinely forget) that the victim's name was not Junko Furuta, and that name is a fake released by the press since her name was protected. Japanese articles don't list a name, obviously, but is there any credible source that truly names the victim as Junko Furuta? If not, perhaps this should be moved to a different page.

Also, the Japanese Wikipedia page on this crime states the means and date of discovery. Though there's no citation, it has remained on the site for a long while, and the date of discovery is somewhat supported by the movie Concrete, which shows police and forensic teams searching the house on March 30, 1989 (only 1 day later than the article). Should the date of discovery be included in this article on such grounds? I'm willing to ignore that one of the culprits confessed since literally all I have is Japanese Wikipedia, but the date of discovery is a different story. 71.126.233.40 (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

About Taion and The GazettE

Officially, during an interview with SHOXX, Ruki only commented that Taion was about a gruesome incident from history, and left no indication that it was about this incident in particular - meaning there is no formal reference to confirming that claim, only fan speculations. Unofficially, the PV of the song seems to most closely resemble The Hello Kitty Murder. Therefore, I removed the reference to The GazettE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.226.227 (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

About the changes from 173.35.67.177

I'm going to assume they weren't made by a troll.

These edits are horribly mistaken.

1.) Simple math proves it was not only 40 days. The only reason I changed it to something less finite in the first place is that the truth seems to be lost to history unless one of the murderers intends to enlighten the world to this truth.

2.) The change to "and then murdered" implies the boys were deliberately seeking her death via the final fire. Unless someone can cite a source that proves the boys intended to end this tragedy there, the original phrasing is superior; grouping them together creates ambiguity, the same ambiguity we have due to a lack of source.

3.) A citation is still needed to verify how much concrete was in the drum. Removal is not to be done freely and without reason (I'm not even registered and I know this much).

I've manually undone every edit. If anyone wishes to edit it back, please present sources.71.126.233.138 (talk) 10:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry missed one.

4.) Some accounts say she lost at mahjong solitaire. Once again, a link is needed for this particular edit to be accepted.

For the record, I'm not fond of placing this contradiction back into the article, but I'd rather put up the contradiction and hope someone with careful thought and wiki knowledge sees all of this before alleviating the problem.71.126.233.138 (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Unusually grotesque

I'm still finding the section about her murder/assault/death unusually grotesque and disturbing. Wikipedia is not censored, but it's an encyclopedia. I don't believe that all this excess detail is needed, perhaps cut it down to a summary with fewer sentences and lesser shock value, and with reliable sources. Is this extra detail even encyclopedic? Note, comment hidden as source comment as collapse template was not functioning correctly IronGargoyle (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I propose rewording to: During her 44-day captivity, Futura was repeatedly beaten and raped, sometimes using various dangerous objects such as firecrackers and light bulbs. She was also tortured, forced to eat things, and set on fire.

Still reeling, kikichugirl ^inquire 20:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

What you're essentially requesting is degradation of information because you find it abhorrent. Not only do I believe such justifications are irrelevant when comprising objective sources of information, they’re nauseatingly disrespectful towards the victim’s involved. If you‘re concerned about inadequate references, then that's another matter. However, when victims do indeed endure such suffering, then it needs to be faced with respect and diligence, not simplified; brushed under carpets. LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Forced to eat "things"? That's silly. An apple is a "thing". And I am inclined to agree with Lookatyouhacker's points. Furthermore, if you find such topics upsetting, I think that the onus is on you to is simply avoid reading articles that have the word "murder" in the title.Asarelah (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the opening paragraph statement from "murdered in the 1980s" to "kidnapped, tortured, raped, and murdered in the 1980s" so that the reader will be forewarned of the subject matter. Asarelah (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Detailed description

There is absolutely no encyclopedic merit to leaving in the long description of the torture. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC) that's absolutely stupid.if wiki was my only source for information, if you were followed, i wouldn't know the details. would you like the page to read kidnapped tortured and murdered only without the details? i wouldn't — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.23.10 (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Statements

"According to their statements at their trial, the four of them raped her (over 400 times), beat the shit out of her with metal rods and golf clubs, made her suck her own cock, introduced foreign objects including a hot light bulb into her vagina..."

I don't think that "beat the shit out of her" and "made her suck her own cock" are very encyclopedic, if at all.

I also do not believe that is possible.

It was an idiotic vandalism. I reverted but the same IP added the same nonsense again. The article (particularly the claims in the section "Crime") should be verified by reliable sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

this article is crap. are you saying that none of tortures happened????? perhaps you're one of the murderers and would like to revise history? are you related to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.23.10 (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Details

Come on, bring back the details. This article used to be an interesting read. Surely someone can conjure up the "reliable sources" therewith. 17:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.6.180.167 (talk) Sorry the article about the horrifying debasement and murder of a human being wasn't "interesting" enough for you. I'm sure you can find something else on the internet to fap to if you look long enough.

Where are the details of the crime?

This article is not much good if it doesn't have more detail than this. There are plenty of other Wiki articles (such as Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, for one) that provide a decent model. Someone needs to fix this article. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

When was Furuta's DOB?

When I first found out about this case, this very page listed her DOB as November 22, 1972. I then saw it get changed to January 18, 1971, IIRC. I then saw it get changed to January 5, 1971, and now it's listed as November 18, 1971. Does anyone have a source with her affirmative birthday listed? Because the constant changing is annoying and confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey kl22 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Quote: " According to their statements at their trial, the four of them raped her (over 400 times), beat her with metal rods and golf clubs, introduced foreign objects including a hot light bulb into her vagina, made her eat cockroaches and drink her own urine, inserted fireworks into her anus and set them off, forced Furuta to masturbate, cut her nipple with pliers, dropped dumbbells onto her stomach, and burned her with cigarettes and lighters. One of the burnings was punishment for attempting to call the police. It was also stated that some time after the first acts of torture, she became unable to drink water, which would cause her to vomit whenever she attempted to do so. At one point her injuries were so severe that according to one of the boys it took more than an hour for her to crawl downstairs to use the bathroom. They also related that "possibly a hundred different people" knew that Furuta had been imprisoned there, but it is not clear if this means they visited the house at different times while she was imprisoned there, or themselves either raped or abused her. When the boys refused to let her leave, she begged them on several occasions to "kill (her) and get it over with." What is this? Come on. Maybe children are reading this. Is it just to shock people?? Or to get attention? Several lines should be deleted. greets--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Have a read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Not_censored#Wikipedia_is_not_censored . --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, what has this to do with censorphip?? If the state forbids something for a state related reason or so, that is censorship. But for example look at the articel about albert fish. Someone could write: "he brutaly cut of the head of his victims" or i could write "he decapitate his victims" which creates less heavy imaginations/assoziations. This text about Furuta is just for sensational and shocking reason. Wikipedia is not like fox news or something. In which way is the quality of an articel increased if somebody writes such stuff?? And i bet this thinks about her torture can be written in a way more cruel style.(what means that the existing text is already censored because its not cruel enough). Also i find this text very disrespectful. When i read this text i have the feeling that it suggests in a weird way that something was "wrong"(in a laughable way) with Furuta and that she herself is to blame for that she cant go faster to the bathroom and not her perpetrators. Pls change this ! --Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the section is unreferenced and I can't find any reliable English source confirming the claims. It should be verified or deleted, we are not a platform for someone's sensational speculations. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you (Vejvančický) are right. For this reason, I have removed some material. And more material should either be sourced or removed. -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention. I don't think we have to follow some special diplomatic style of writing - the world is sometimes brutal and brutality is not packed in a pink gift box. However, anyone who wants to write similar things here on Wikipedia must provide very good and reliable evidence to demonstrate that the claim has a solid background. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, what has this to do with censorphip?? If the state forbids something for a state related reason or so, that is censorship. -- Don't be so disingenuous … the cited Not_censored page (which you apparently didn't read) obviously is not about action by the state, but rather the broader meaning of censorship that we all (even you) are familiar with.

When i read this text i have the feeling that it suggests in a weird way that something was "wrong"(in a laughable way) with Furuta -- that's entirely on you. -- 70.185.144.90 (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but i dont want to puke if i read the text, dont be ignorant. The others dont even understand what i was saying, but whatever...thx for changing the lines. ! Greets--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

WP is not here to cater to your desires or your sensitive digestion. -- 70.185.144.90 (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

"What is this? Come on. Maybe children are reading this."

What on earth are you even doing here? If you can't handle the details regarding the case, then move on. Regarding your comment concerning the potential viewing of a minor, why not say that about everything else? If children are reading this then that's simply due to the irresponsibility of their parents. This is Wikipedia, the culmination of facts and sources.

"Is it just to shock people?? Or to get attention?"

Oh so you'd like to portray it like that wouldn't you? To suggest those things never happened in order to contain your nausea? I don't think I have ever read anything so disrespectful in my life. Ugh.--LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thx for confirming my concerns. Greets--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The only thing confirmed is your intellectual dishonesty. -- 70.185.144.90 (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

English articles

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2004/07/29/news/man-who-killed-as-child-back-in-court/#.WvEW959Ok0M

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

What happened to the page?

Where did all of the information about the actual murder go and why was it removed? I remember reading it before, but it's been removed. From an outside perspective, it reads like she was merely abducted for forty days instead of being subject to various kinds of tortures, physical and psychological, which grossly misrepresents the actual case. Occamsrazorwit (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Our content must be backed up by reliable sources. The removed information - as it was written - was unreferenced and apparently unverifiable. Therefore it was removed. You can expand the article with relevant facts if you can support the facts with reliable and independent sources. See also the discussion above. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course I agree for the need of reliable sources, however, in its present state, I find the "Crime" section quite unsatisfactory as a chronicle of the events. Basically, it says that the criminals adbucted the girl, kept her captive for 44 days then... disposed of her body? What happened in between? How, when and why she was killed? How could they hold her captive for so long in their parent's home, and why did they do that? Et cetera. It leaves too many unanswered question and gaps to be truly informative. I've tried to google up a reliable source, but the best I could come up with was this

http://lawyersupdate.co.in/LU/9/748.asp

An article from Lawyers Update, an Indian "Magazine for Legal Professionals & Students". The facts recounted more or less match the former contents of this article's "Crime" section. The author (who is supposed to be a journalist) claims to have contacted The Japan Times, whose Staff Editor "confirmed that such a case did occur some 20 years back and [...] also confirmed that the facts of the case were as gruesome as reported", even if he (she? here it's said that Setsuko is a female name, and the suffix -ko seems to support this notion) says that she wasn't able to "guarantee" that all the facts reported online were accurate, despite suggesting "that they were, by and large, true". It's not much, I know, but maybe this article should just report this objective aspect of the case, as the "Lawyers Update" article did, that there is a wide series of mostly unsourced allegations about the dynamics of the incident, concurrent with the difficulty of finding a reliable source for these allegations. As I see it, it's better to relate the widely circulated stories, clearly branding them as unreliably sourced, rather than just omitting a great deal of informations that, for better or worse, have a relevant cultural impact (e.g. no Wikipedia article will ever declare that UFOs are extraterrestrial crafts visiting Earth, but the fact that many believe in it will be reported). --93.40.155.93 (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The article by Lawyers Update is not bad, however, it retells mainly the sensational stories circulating on Internet. ("The Internet is abuzz with the story and there are videos on You Tube enacting the story, but most of the content is user uploaded. After going through nearly all web pages on the story, the only authentic source that I came across was The Japan Times", says the author). I'm sorry, 93.40.155.93, but I disagree. We cannot reproduce content that became popular on social sites for its "horribleness". We must follow reliable sources, especially when dealing with sensitive cases such as crime and murders. I believe it is possible to dig up more from the Japanese press from the 1980's, but we should wait until someone makes proper research, we cannot give space to wild speculations, no matter how "widely circulated" they are. Of course, it is just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We could, however, briefly state the fact that the story is widely recounted on many web sites in graphic details without giving such details, and state that the aforementioned sites fail to cite reliable sources for the content. To me, it seems like an interesting aspect of the social and cultural impact of the murder, along with other more "official" media produced about the case (manga, books, movies). Something like:

"There are many web sites, including blogs and social network pages, dedicated to the case of Junko Furuta. These sites usually relate the abduction, detention and death of Furuta in graphic detail, describing the harrowing and repeated acts of abuse that would ultimately lead to the death of the victim. However, few of these sites, if any, manage or care about citing reliable journalistic sources capable of substantiating these allegations.", citing the Lawyers Update article as a source for the statement (by the way, forgive my wavering English).

Tell me what you think. --93.40.147.232 (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The main issue is the language barrier: Most of the sources are in Japanese, and at the time it didn't get much attention with the English media. What may help is contacting ja:Wikipedia:Chatsubo and ask them for helping with sourcing this article. English sources are preferred but Japanese ones can be used if equivalent English sources don't exist. There may be scholarly articles on CiNii. BTW try not to use Furuta's actual name on JAwiki since it may be restricted. @Occamsrazorwit: @Vejvančický: @93.40.147.232: WhisperToMe (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Indian film inspired by the Furuta case

An Indian filmmaker made a film set in India, with the main character named Junko but with the characters being Indian, based on the case https://youtube.com/watch?v=SQXc8Ap2ZxU . However for me to include this in the article, I have to find secondary sources talking about this film WhisperToMe (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you delete it?

I'm sorry. I am Japanese, English cannot be spoken well, and forgive me, please though sentences might be strange because the translation software is used. May I ask for the deletion because a specific version is deleted by the Japanese version article with the link to this English version article, and victim's real name has been described? 124.210.245.64 07:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)(Railroad)

@Railroad: In the English language world a deceased victim's name is usually seen as public information and not shameful (after all she is the victim), though for living rape victims the media does block those names. The Japanese article of course doesn't mention her name, but in English it does. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of days confined

Several anonymous IP's have repeatedly changed the number of days that Furuta was held captive from 40 to 44. This is demonstratably wrong. Do the math. She was kidnapped on November 25 and died January 4 so she was held for 5 days in November, 31 days in December and 4 days in January. 5+31+4=40 not 44. Please stop changing it to 44. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC) 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 = 6 days. Unless you think the first night she was kidnapped shouldn't count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:D383:8000:D893:DFD:D10:EE32 (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

My guess is they keep changing it to 44 because all the blogs out there keep calling it "44 days of hell" for whatever reason. House Tules (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)HouseTules

It should be changed back to 40 now. Every Japanese news reports and articles say 40 days as well. The English articles seem to get everything wrong somehow. SachikoKudou (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Name

The furuta kanji is from Nanyasore. Both Kamisaku's and Furuta's kanji are in the same entry. WhisperToMe 05:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Added references to news. Adding other references as they are available in English or can be cited. Thegline 15:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I found this 2ch post. It mentioned

• 宮野裕史
• 変体野郎
• 不潔で臭

WhisperToMe 07:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe her father could be named Akira Furuta (古田 晃)because Junko would be the family name as the family name comes first in Japan so I don't think this is correct? House Tules (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@House Tules: The lead of the article clarifies that in Japanese she is known as Furuta Junko, with Furuta being the family name. However modern day Japanese people usually have their names written surname last in English, so she is known in English as "Junko Furuta". This convention is used on Japanese people, but not Chinese nor Koreans and Vietnamese. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Furuta is her family name and Junko is her given name. If you look at the source I’d used as well, it clearly states at a part of the video that her father’s name is Akira Furuta (古田晃). The family name is stated last in Kanji writing. SachikoKudou (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Days in Captivity

Just to clarify something, the English blogs and articles are wrong about this. It is NOT 44 days. It is actually 40. Every Japanese news article and news clips, even the ones from 1989 say 40. I’m not sure how people came up with 44 days, but it is wrong. Even just looking at the time from November 25 to January 4th is 40 days, not 44. So, please, stop changing it to 44. It is not a typo, it is actually stated as 40 in the sources (some include January 5, when the body was hid and say 41, but it’s still 40 from when she was alive). I’m not sure where or how people got 44, but it is wrong. SachikoKudou (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The claim for 40 days now comes with one source. That would normally be enough; but if people disagree with you (even if only because of inferior/circular sources), SachikoKudou, then how about adding two or three references to articles in Asahi/Mainichi/Yomiuri/etc that also say 40? (These shouldn't be bare URLs. Instead: Author, [URL Article_title], Website, Date, Date accessed.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

On the Crime, there should be at least four on there. On the In Popular Culture, it only has one from those. I’ve also been trying to cite a newspaper that also says 40, but for some reason it’s not letting me. I’m going to add a news clip as well on there. SachikoKudou (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are in Japan, and near any major library that's open these days, then you'll be able to use the library's online access to the back issues of each of the major newspapers. (This material is searchable.) If the "news clip" is on Youtube or similar and was not uploaded by the broadcaster itself, then it won't be acceptable. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the help! I’m still trying to figure out how it all works so I haven’t been able to source that good SachikoKudou (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Repeated Spam/Vandalism

There’s been recurring spam on the page. The case name keeps getting changed to “44 Days of Hell” even though this is incorrect. This is a title of an English blog post that called it that. Not only is the 44 days wrong in Japan, the case name really is called “Concrete-encased high school girl murder case”. The person repeatedly changes this every time I revert it to normal, but they’re using an IP address so I am unable to report this issue. Can any admins please tell me what to do? I can provide sources if that might fix it. SachikoKudou (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The original school portrait of Hiroshi Miyano

I found the original school portrait of Hiroshi Miyano, the main culprit, from a Japanese article published when the case broke out. By original, I mean that the current photo on the Wikipedia page is edited. Notice how his left ear is erased, as well as part of his eyebrows. This here is his original unedited school portrait.

File:Https://i.imgur.com/vcbIRYA.jpg

Original school portrait of Hiroshi Miyano

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newvolook (talk • contribs) 05:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

This made his girlfriend lost interest in him, and the relationship broke up. Problem: Improper English I suggest this sentence or an adaptation: This delinquent behavior consequently caused his girlfriend to lose interest with him and end their relationship. 2600:8807:2A19:E700:84E3:F01D:42C7:93F9 (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

where is this phrase? 晚安 (トークページ) 09:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022

Change “40 days” to “44 days”. If you search how long she was missing, every single site states 44 days. 49.185.194.223 (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

40 days is correct, as the court documents and all Japanese articles state and news clips say. 44 days is a misunderstanding in English articles.

Sachiko124 (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

https://president.jp/articles/amp/29649?page=1 https://www.news-postseven.com/archives/20180830_750592.html?DETAIL The Japanese Wikipedia also states it as 40: https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A5%B3%E5%AD%90%E9%AB%98%E7%94%9F%E3%82%B3%E3%83%B3%E3%82%AF%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88%E8%A9%B0%E3%82%81%E6%AE%BA%E4%BA%BA%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6 Sachiko124 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Here’s some notes that give statements from the court documents as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Junko_Furuta#Some_notes_from_my_cleanup Sachiko124 (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2022

There is a line in this article that’s repeated for no reason I believe. “He was 17 at the time of the murder.” 76.86.244.21 (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

What in the world is this?

Would someone verify or revert the recent edit? It's vaguely sourced and potentially a misinformation. Her death has been called "Concrete-encased high school girl murder case" since her corpse was dumped in a vacant lot in an industrial zone, buried with concrete inside the drum; and now we have internet and this time, her death has been buried with misinformation (i.e. too graphic yet unverified details, "44 days," etc.) ... Like What in the world is this? ~~ Balistix 21 (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, nvm. I guess I can edit now. Revert this tab. Sorry. Thanks.

Truly yours... ~~ Balistix 21 (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused about what I've done. Balistix 21 (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Verify this. I'm so done. Balistix 21 (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe they’ve got this from Japanese blogs. I have read some that say such things but since nothing was featured in the court documents, it’s safe to delete it to avoid misinformation. Sachiko124 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I saw the edit you were referring to. According to accurate sources, the victim’s autopsy was not as exaggerated like most foreign articles say. Sachiko124 (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)