Talk:Hashima Island

Content

This article needs work by someone that is more familiar with the subject. I just found that there wasn't an entry for Gunkanjima while doing some research and just created the article. There also needs to be the Japanese characters which I am not familiar with either. -James

The population denstity (/sq km) figure is not correct Swe 2 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? --Awiseman 04:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Cabinet Magazine, Hashima is 6,3 acres (0.063km²) and according to the same page, the peak population was 5259 people. 5259 inhabitants / 0.063 square kilometres = 83,476.2 inhabitants/km². No? --AiR 20:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

6.3 acres = .025 km², not .063 Nik42 22:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The claimed density that's on the page (3460/km²) is not even close to the following claim, "supposedly the highest population density ever recorded worldwide". Monaco's density is 23,660/km2.

I'm going to add the Cabinet Magazine figure:

Interestingly, it's accurate even if inaccurate -- regardless of whether or not that figure is correct, it's commonly claimed by residents in the area that it had the highest population density anywhere. Perhaps the wording could more accurately reflect that it's frequently claimed, though it may not be true. Nearby Takashima is a similar situation; it's not much bigger than Hashima but had a peak population of 22,000 (now 600). In a few weeks, it will be open to the public to land on via guided tour. They've just constructed a new pier for this purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.114.97.66 (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, and one other thing -- travel to the island is not and never has been prohibited. It's off limits to foreigners, but Japanese citizens with fishing licenses are allowed to land, though they're supposed to stay along the walls. On any given day, you're likely to see a few dozen people walking around it with fishing poles.

"The population of Hashima reached a peak of 5,259 in 1959. People were literally jammed into every nook and corner of the apartment blocks. The rocky slopes holding most of these buildings comprised about 60 percent of the total island area of 6.3 hectares (15.6 acres), while the flat property reclaimed from the sea was used mostly for industrial facilities and made up the remaining 40 percent. At 835 people per hectare for the whole island, or an incredible 1,391 per hectare for the residential district, it is said to be the highest population density ever recorded in the world. Even Warabi, a Tokyo bedtown and the most densely populated city in modern Japan, notches up only 141 people per hectare."

--Awiseman 21:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Wasn't this place featured in a hentai anime/movie? (Seriously.)

Group of people went there. Some woman being secretly kept in a cryogenic status ... or something. - Jigsy 11:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Movie's called "Hyakki" --217.238.96.31 23:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

i believe the movie Battle royale 2 was also filmed here 84.198.81.86 (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Current status

Though abandoned, it is now administrativly in Nagasaki-shi... Ranma9617 (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Google street mapped parts of the island - http://hashima-island.co.uk/ 66.188.243.96 (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Etymology?

What about the name Hashima itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.87.179 (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The late Edo period ( about 1750-1868 ) , coal had been discovered in a small island off the coast of the west of Nagasaki .

Since then , opencast coal was taken by fishermen , it was said to have been sold in the town of Nagasaki .

The name of the island in the literature of this time , it had been referred to as such as " Hatsushima " " Island at the tip (of Nagasaki) " " Hashima " in local people/area .

It is called that " at the tip of " in English = " 端 " in kanji = " Hashi " in Japanese .

" island " in English = "島" in kanji = " Shima " or " Jima " or " Tou " in Japanese .

In conjunction with these " Hashi- " and "-Shima " , and now referred to as " Hashima " .

If you could understand kanji , you would have been able to understand the meaning as soon as a look at the is written, Hashima . As specific words of English is made with a combination of Latin .--YOUadv (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hashima, Now and Then

Check out the visual dossier by Yves Marchand & Romain Meffre in Hashima, l'illusion d'une île by François Bougon (from Le Monde's M weekly), comparing current photos of the ruined installations with black and white photos from the island's "golden" days. Asteriks (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hashima in Popular Culture

My edit " The 2011 Comic, Atomic Robo and the Ghost of Station X, used Hashima Island as the location of a conspiracy to launch a world-killer nuclear pulse propelled spaceship based on Project Orion. " was understandably removed for lack of sources. I have the comic, and it explicitly states it as Hashima, as do the following links: http://calvinpitt.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/what-i-bought-323012-part-1.html http://www.herosandwich.net/category/atomic-robo/page/2/ Can someone add the required source info for it to be a valid entry? I'm not sure how to put it for the explicit comic reference, or if those can be linked because of their blog nature. 60.225.245.231 (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Project Hashima

I've corrected the grammar and included a reference for the "H-Project" movie from Thailand.Steph6n (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

UNESCO World Heritage Designation - Background Info Section

Now that the island has formally been registered as a UNESCO property, is there any reason to keep the section detailing the steps and progress towards obtaining that status? I notice that most other wikipedia articles concerning UNESCO properties do not provide these types of details; they were relevant when it was still an issue under consideration, but seems redundant now that we already note the UNESCO status in the opening summary. Suggest we delete unless there are any objections.159.18.26.96 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are reasons to keep it. First, the controversies raised and how it unfolded have some diplomatic significance (not to mention it seems that there are still outstanding issues). Second, keeping the past records doesn't violate the purpose of an encyclopedia (removing them does, in some cases). No information/history on the past issues is irrelevant in an encyclopedia (whether significant or relatively insignificant). Third, it doesn't matter whether other articles on UNESCO property contain the same type of details. Not every UNESCO property has the same type of background in the approval process (some just don't have any worth-noting background). If other UNESCO properties also have some worth-noting background stories on the approval process and if they are not mentioned in other wiki articles, they should be added to the respective articles, rather than being used as a basis for removing it in this article. Hence, I've restored some of the texts from the past edits under the section 'Controversies on the World Heritage Site approval' and also updated some additional information. 211.31.201.14 (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The point is that this article is meant to be about the island, not focus on Japanese war crimes (which have their own separate entry). There is no issue with including mention of the wartime past, it was always part of this article and should continue to be there. However, it's clearly POV to put more focus on war crimes occurring over a 5-10 year period than on the actual 100+ year history of the island itself. It comes down to reasonable balance. There are thousands of places around the world where war crimes occurred, but it would be excessive to point this out in detail in every article (for example, about every city around the world that ever had a forced labor camp), because its not primarily relevant the topic of the article.

As to the UNESCO certification, the original comment above addressed a very long paragraph explaining in detail the timing and process for approval (application, delays, etc), along with the Korean objections and concerns. As approval has already been granted, the process is no longer really as relevant. I agree, however, that the objections themselves may be important enough to note as background information. I have added these back in, but they should remain proportional to their actual importance to this article. Listing point and counterpoint of what various politicians think or said in various media announcements just leads to an unnecessary POV/NPOV war. 159.18.26.96 (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Yes, this article is about the island. However, this article is NOT about presenting ONLY the pretty face of the island. It is not a tourist guide or travel expo brochure. If war crime is part of the island's history, then it is part of the island. Therefore, it reserves every right to be included in this article, given its historical and diplomatic significance. Not every place where war crimes occurred is deemed historically significant enough to be listed as the World Heritage Site. Even though the place is regarded to have high historical values, neglecting the dark side of history is NOT a true balance. If you feel there are other things about the island that are also significant, then just reinforce them, rather than deliberately distorting factual statements and deleting entries, which are true and based on identifiable sources, on your own subjective decision. By doing that, you are about to cross a fine line between vandalism and NPOV debate. NPOV does not mean avoiding to talk about the bad. It means talking about both the good AND the bad on equal ground. Deliberately covering up certain types of history is a violation of NPOV and subsequently damaging the article is vandalism. Sanitizing history can only be done through full acknowledgement and sincere apology, not by any other means of covering up.

2. I've never heard of a principle that the length and relative amount of a certain narrative in an encyclopedia article should be determined proportionally to the time duration of the event, not by its significance. This idea and your reasoning appear very bizarre and illogical to me.

3. I agree that the background is no longer relevant for selection of the World Heritage Site, now that it is finalized. However, it is still relevant to the island and its history, having important diplomatic implications in present times. Again, you are misinterpreting what NPOV means. After all, it is still a very much live issue given that Japan's effort in keeping its words will be assessed by the World Heritage committee in the future. The new section no longer contains a lengthy paragraph explaining in detail the timing and process for approval (only brief overview is given). 211.31.201.14 (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

A quote by the director of the peace museum in Nagasaki, Yasunori Takazane, sums up these points. "Auschwitz is registered as world heritage site so people can remember the historical crime. As for Hashima, some seem not to want to remember that dark side and focus instead on its contribution as a locomotive of Japan's industrialization. That's a betrayal of history." 211.31.201.14 (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand my comments. The point is not to avoid mentioning the full history of the island. Like I said, it was always there and should continue to be included. What I am concerned with is making the focal point of the article the war crimes, which while certainly part of the history of the island, are certainly not the main point. With the exception of Korea, for which this is a national issue, the island is globally not known (primarily) because of its war crime connection (unlike Auschwitz; which was purpose-built for war crimes). Its just an industrial island that happened to have war crimes occur on it at one point in history. This can be said about thousands of places around the world, but it is not noted in every single article about every single place where there was ever a forced labor camp (and certainly not with as much focus and detail). If that was the case then virtually every article about every European city or town would have a subsection about how a forced labor camp was set up by Germany or the Soviet Union at some point during WW2.

The second point is that Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Certainly make mention of it, but there is no need to sensationalize it and make it the focal point of the article. That's where I get concerned with POV. The majority of the sources for the comments provided are Korean, which is obviously the country most concerned with the island's UNESCO status. A majority of the sources are also based on opinions and statements; not fundamental facts. Providing opinion pieces about what specific word one individual used to describe "forced labor" (and drawing conclusions from that), or noting the a pamphlet hasn't yet been updated with new information on forced labor one month after the UNESCO approval was granted is not helpful encyclopedic quality information. The tone is POV because the narrative is set up to portray and emphasize a negative view of the Japanese position on this issue, without presenting it in a balanced or neutral manner.159.18.26.96 (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The statement that the recent edits are making war crimes a focal point of this article is an exaggeration. The information you removed is not detailed descriptions of war crimes, which try to shift the focus of article to war crimes. The removed information was a remark on the historical significance of the island and factual overview on political and diplomatic disputes (some are still ongoing) during the island's World Heritage Site selection process, which are very relevant to the island. If the status of the island as World Heritage Site is important, so is the political and diplomatic issues about it.

In my opinion, they are not sensationalizing the issue but if you think they are, you should point to the specific sentences rather than deleting the whole bulk of it. Fully acknowledging the past and explaining the current issues brought by the past should not be considered as sensationalizing. As I earlier said, "If you feel there are other things about the island that are also significant, then just reinforce them, rather than deliberately distorting factual statements and deleting entries, which are true and based on identifiable sources, on your own subjective decision." That is how the article gains the depth. Also whether or not other wiki articles contain the same kind of information is irrelevant. The fact that some information is missing from other articles does not justify removal of the information here. They should be added to other articles too, if deemed significant for that place, rather than being deleted here. Again, that is how the article gains the depth.

Regarding your comment on Auschwitz, what matters is not the design purpose of the facility. What matters is what actually happened at the facility and how the facility was used. The fact that the island is not widely known for its war crime connection has no reasons to influence the content of the article. In fact, it serves the purpose of an encyclopedia even better to include and provide sufficient information that is important but have not yet been widely known, unless one's best interest is in keeping the dark secrets.

"Beginning in the 1930s and up until the end of the Second World War, Korean and Chinese prisoners were employed at the facility as forced laborers under wartime mobilization." By this sentence, you are distorting the truth. The word 'prisoners' may cast a wrong impression that convicted criminals were used as laborers (more precisely, they were Korean civilians and Chinese 'prisoners of war'). The word 'employed' can also be misleading if the reader is not familiar with the notion of forced labor. Your expression certainly differs from the tone used in the referred CNN article, hence it would be fair to say it twists the truth.

It is not the status of the island as UNESCO World Heritage Site that Korea is concerned. It is Japan's attitude of having tried to include it without full acknowledgement of the past (which is in contrary to Auschwitz and that is exactly why getting Auschwitz listed as World Heritage Site did not cause as much hassles to neighboring countries). You have made a wrong assumption and brought that bias into the editorship of this article, which has led to the false accusation of the credibility of the resources (outlined in the next paragraph).

Your statement that "the majority of the sources for the comments provided are Korean" is not true. The resources I cited include CNN, The Guardian, The Telegraph, Forbes, which are not Korean media. A research journal article written by Brian Burke-Gaffney, who is not Korean, ("Hashima: The Ghost Island." Crossroads: A Journal of Nagasaki History and Culture (1996): 33-52) also highlights harsh conditions Korean workers faced and was also cited. The contents and tone regarding this issue are consistent across various medias and reports from various countries so it is an international consensus rather than a view only from a specific country, Korea. There is even an online scholarly article written by Japanese, criticizing the issue.. One of the resource is actually based on a research report carried out by Korean government. The fundamental fact is that Japanese government official acknowledged it during the World Heritage Committee meeting. You should not (and did not provide any basis for doing so) doubt nor try to undermine the credibility of the resources unless you can find and bring other resources presenting counter arguments.

What you are trying to do, at least for this article, is to intentionally and artificially diminish the significance of war crimes related to forced labor, which is also important part of the island's history along with the industrial progress. The negativity which you describe is not artificially enforced by the tone of the narrative. It is inherently included in what Japan has done in the past. You cannot get positive impressions when describing something negative. To maintain the neutrality, one must also accept this inherent negativity (as well as the positivity). In this regard (as being neutral), I have no objections for anyone to reinforce the positives but no one must try to cover up or diminish the negatives from the POV favorable to Japan. That is violation of NPOV.

I accept that comments on the pamphlet is pre-mature since it's only been two months since the approval. However, it doesn't apply to the tourism website because it shouldn't involve much time and effort to update the information.

211.31.201.14 (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that is where we disagree - the ultimate significance and importance of the issue, and to that point I don't know if there is more I can add. It's not about hiding the issue or ignoring it, its about portraying it with a reasonable relevance to this article. My comparison with other articles (and the lack of information on these types of issues in other articles) was meant to drive this point home. Something particular may be important to one person, or one country, or one group about a certain topic, but that doesn't mean it is important to the topic itself. In this case I think it certainly deserves to be included; I just think it is quite excessive to do it to the point you suggest.

I also don't dispute that there are many reference that are not Korean (most of which I have kept). However, even the international ones are mostly just repeated coverage about Korea's opinion or sentiment about the issue (not new facts), and the ones used to justify the most controversial statements in the article (like the the two examples I noted above) are primarily the Korean sourced ones. This then ends up reading like a forum, blog, or opinion piece explaining (or advancing) Korea's position on this issue, rather than an unbiased fact based summary of the actual issue. Just for quick contrast I found an article (Japan sourced, I believe) arguing how Korea's position on this issue is simply a diplomatic political attempt to fuel public sentiment and increase political approval for the ruling government. It's only one person's opinion presenting one Japanese point of view, but if we start including statements about how Korea feels about what Japan is doing, then we should add statements about what Japan feels Korea is doing. Personally, I strongly prefer not to turn this into a forum of opinion and exclude both arguments, as I don't think either is really relevant to this article. The core facts are that forced labor was used (which is mentioned), this issue was important to Korea and Korea objected to UNESCO status because of this (which is mentioned), and Korea waived their objections following Japanese agreement to acknowledge the issue (also mentioned). Is there really, from a pure fact based perspective, a need to say more than that?

Additionally: many of the quotes you note above are not specifically my wording but simply the wording that was used in the article before you made your edits. I certainly don't object to clarifying some of these points - forced laborers rather than prisoners, specifying Chinese prisoners of war, etc. The things I am concerned with are using unnecessary inflammatory language to present a certain point of view. You note in your comments that the issue is "Japan's attitude". I certainly understand that point of view, but everybody has an opinion on these things and there are certainly other points of view as well. A country's "attitude" is very difficult to ascertain, and should only be done in these types of articles with extreme caution. If a country officially says "our position is x", they have a clear attitude towards an issue that we can point to, but you cannot use the statements of one country or individuals as factual evidence in determining the official attitude of another country. This becomes opinion/analysis. Actually, what a lot of the write-up does is actually try to criticize the official Japanese position on this issue by implying it is somehow untrue or false, despite the agreement at the UNESCO meeting. This may be a valid opinion, but it is just that - it is not aligned with the facts (Korea and Japan reaching agreement to acknowledge the issue). 159.18.26.96 (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It is an indisputable fact that Japan attempted at pushing the deal forward without acknowledging the past until they were hit by objections. That is what I mean by "Japan's attitude" and why criticism has risen from Korea, China, families of British war prisoners and possibly many others. The fact that the Japaneses government gets criticism over its acknowledgement does not prove anything about the falsity of the acknowledgement. In fact, the focus of the criticism is on giving away diplomatic concessions, not on making the wrongful acknowledgement. It will be later shown that the contents of the acknowledgement are internationally verified facts.

Below is a list of quotations made by some of the experts from various resources, some of which are already provided in this article.

"There’s terrible working conditions, and there’s strikes and there’s a whole social history that’s part of it, and if it’s just going to be glossed over, left as a footnote or even left out, then that’s an equally big problem," - Description of working conditions and criticism of potential disregard (left as a footnote or left out) of the issue

Andrew Gordon, a historian at Harvard University in a newspaper article

"While Japanese youth disappeared onto the battlefields of China, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, the Japanese government forcibly recruited large numbers of Korean and Chinese to fill the empty places in its factories and mines, and many of these men perished as a result of the harsh conditions and starvation diet. Hashima was no exception. By the time the atomic bomb rattled the windows on Hashima apartment blocks and Japan surrendered to the Allied forces in August 1945, about 1,300 laborers had died on the island, some in underground accidents, others of illnesses related to exhaustion and malnutrition. Still others had chosen a quicker, less gruesome death by jumping over the sea wall and trying in vain to swim to the mainland." - Description of working conditions

Brian Burke-Gaffney, a professor at Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science in a research journal article

"Rampant racism and discrimination meant Koreans were treated as second-class subjects and would have been assigned some of the hardest and most dangerous jobs", '"If Japan, and especially the companies involved, had been more sincere about facing up to their wartime past, then there would be no problem with highlighting” the Meiji period [1868-1912] industrial revolution' - Description of working conditions and criticism of not having been sincere about the issue in the past

William Underwood, a US-based expert on forced labour in wartime Japan in a newspaper article

"The common stories I heard from Korean and Chinese laborers was that they are enormously hungry. The meals were miserable and when they could not go to work they were tortured, punched and kicked." - Description of working conditions

Yasunori Takazane, the director of the peace museum in Nagasaki in a newpaper article

'Korean and Chinese prisoners of war were kept here, enduring varying degrees of hardship. Conditions in the mines were grueling. Workers were subjected to heat and humidity with very little to eat and beatings if they slacked. According to local records, 123 Koreans and 15 Chinese died on the island between 1925 and 1945.', 'To Japan's neighbors, the island, in its ruined eeriness, is a symbol of a war wound that won't heal. To most Japanese, it's a decaying remnant from a forgotten time.' - Description of working conditions and a remark on the historical significance of the island as a symbol of a war wound

Diana Magnay, a reporter from CNN (US media)

"We were able to verify through cremation-related records that poor working and living conditions caused frequent fatalities and scores of diseases that increased the mortality levels amongst the laborers" - Verification of cremation-related proofs of poor working conditions (the 'new' fact you were looking for)

Ji-Hyun Yoon, a member of the Commission on Verification and Support for Victims of Forced Mobilization under Japanese Colonialism, an affiliate of the Prime Minister’s Office

"In particular, one of the 23 suggested sites, Gunkanjima (Hashima Island) in Nagasaki Prefecture, an active coal mine until 1974, was worked by Korean and Chinese forced laborers during the 1930s and 1940s, and the terrible conditions they endured meant that many died. To be clear, I am not opposed to Gunkanjima’s registration as a World Heritage site under all circumstances. If Japan applies for registration predicated on this negative history (fu no rekishi) that acknowledges responsibility for this exploitation, then I think there is room for discussion. Sites like Auschwitz in Poland, Hiroshima’s atomic dome, and the English slave-trade port of Liverpool are registered World Heritage sites because of their negative histories, in order to provide materials for humanity’s self-examination, and warnings of actions that must never be repeated. However, the Japanese government does not regard Gunkanjima in that way." - Criticism of Japanese government for not acknowledging the exploitation unlike other sites in Europe

Yasunori Takazane, the director of the peace museum in Nagasaki in a research journal article

These statements, made by various individuals, who are experts in the field, from various countries, are consistent and complement each other. Unlike your assertion, these are opinions of their own, not the re-statement of the opinion of Korea. The 'least' sense I can make out of these statements is that there is a global consensus on the historical importance and significant of this issue, rather than from only one person, or one country, or one group. This international consensus is the basis for me to say that these issues are important.

If you feel that these issues are not significant or important, then it is fine. However, you are enforcing your own POV in your editorship without support from other resources in reliable publications from a third-person POV. This violates NPOV. The article you referred is about interpreting the political motives behind the action of South Korean government and, hence, it is an example of political argument or opinion (which you want to stay away from), not an example of opinion on the historical significance of forced labour to the island's history (which is relevant to this article).

Not to mention the acknowledgement by Japanese government during the World Heritage Committee (WHC) meeting and various other resources, the occurrence and nature of the forced labour ("forced labourers" were under "very harsh working conditions and brutal treatment") are verified facts by international standards as included in the 1999 report of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations under the International Labour Organization. This is NOT a position specific to Korea. To rebut this, or to make an alternative description of the event in the history section, you would need to bring a reference with equal or higher credibility.

The agreement and the official statement made by Japanese official during the WHC meeting were not only the acknowledgement that "there were a large number of Koreans and others who were brought against their will and forced to work under harsh conditions in the 1940s at some of the sites" but also that Japan is "prepared to incorporate appropriate measures into the interpretive strategy to remember the victims such as the establishment of information center" as well. The acknowledgement and promise to "incorporate appropriate measures" from Japanese government are a fact. Not showing the sincerity for that acknowledgement is another fact related to the island, especially given that it will be monitored by the WHC. Ignoring the later is another case of 'only highlighting the positives while ignoring the negatives', which violates NPOV.

211.31.201.14 (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

While this debate is unnecessarily heated, I actually think it is helpful in us narrowing down the points of agreement and disagreement. I understand you think this point is very important - that's fine and I wont debate that any further. However, the positions you note are all opinions of certain individuals, agencies, etc - this is fine, and these can be included or referenced, but they need to be attributed to their source, and should not be presented as some sort of universally agreed upon fact (e.g NPOV: "x said this, and believes Japan is non-sincere because..", rather than POV: "Japan is not sincere because..."). This is what I meant about presenting a certain POV. Lets present the facts of what happened, what was said and by whom, but don't draw conclusions from it ourselves - let's leave that to the reader. Wikipedia articles should not be advancing any particular POV.

Additionally, if you add in all the negative points of view of the UNESCO meeting agreement, it's only fair to put in the positive points of view as well. To the extent it's necessary, I may do this for balance of the article. I hope you'll agree that showing both sides is the only way to remain NPOV. Again - personally I think both sides of this argument are opinion pieces that don't add much value to this article (I would much prefer to exclude both), but to the extent you want to include one side of it, the other side may also need to be included for fairness and balance.

You'll note my recent edits today were all point by point, with explanations. I kept virtually all the facts you presented, only revising for an NPOV tone in presenting some of them. I think it reads fairly balanced at the moment, but still acknowledges all the facts you added concerning this issue. I hope going forward we can address any disagreements in this point by point manner in working constructively to improve this article.

159.18.26.96 (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said multiple times, I'm not opposing anyone adding the positives as long as they are legitimate. I was just offended by the deletion of properly sourced negatives, which represent the major view point of the issue around the world. While what happened in the past is certainly negative, I wouldn't say that the act of acknowledging the past is negative. Otherwise I agree with you in general. 211.31.201.14 (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Your The Asahi source (and the related texts) is relocated to a position more suitable with respect to the chronological context. Also, instead of the customary comments on the significance of the meeting made by themselves (not specifically relevant to the island and there were many other discussions during the meeting), only the key outcome of the meeting is highlighted. 211.31.201.14 (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Looks good - thanks. 159.18.26.96 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

References

"Slave" Labor vs. "Forced" Labor

ScrapIronIV. I checked all 4 references provided for that section. Most references are to "forced" labor, a few (as you noted) are to "slave". Summary as follows: 1) Guardian mentions "slave" twice and "forced" three times 2) CNN mentions "slave" once (in a caption) and "forced" six times 3) KoreaTimes mentions "forced" seven times; does not mention "slave" at all 4) http://www.ilo.org/ mentions "forced" 204 times, and "slave" 22 times (although it's a general report applying not only to Hashima

Given the official UNESCO acknowledgement uses the term "forced", the fact that there was actually a separate controversy over what "forced" means (as noted in the UNESCO controversy section), and the fact that "forced" appears the more commonly used term in media, I think it is most correct to go with "forced" in this context. Happy to discuss if you feel otherwise.159.18.26.96 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that the term is used in the sources, it should not be excluded from the article entirely. Scr★pIron^IV 20:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hashima Island. 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/20151008133516/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201506220035 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201506220035
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420215521/http://www.history.com/content/life_after_people/episode-guide/the-bodies-left-behind to http://www.history.com/content/life_after_people/episode-guide/the-bodies-left-behind
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210223211/http://www.mx.emb-japan.go.jp/400/calenda4.html to http://www.mx.emb-japan.go.jp/400/calenda4.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

A film about this island debuts

A Korean film would be shown soon, http://www.firstshowing.net/2017/full-us-trailer-for-slave-labor-war-film-battleship-island-from-korea/ . We need to mention about the film. --Cheol (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

NPOV on World Heritage Site approval controversy

We should be careful in editing this section to keep Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Point 1: There is an international consensus that the Koreans and Chinese were "conscripted as forced labourers" as it was acknowledged by the international labour organization in 1999. It is not a view specific to Korea or China. There are also many media and academic articles globally discussing the forced labour that took place on the island. Hence, I will undo the edit to return to the original sentences containing the term 'forced labour'. At least, I do not think sticking to the statement of ILO violates NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.192.140 (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with this. The only country that rejects that forced labor occurred is Japan. Even Fumio Kishida has admitted that "workers were requisitioned against their will" to work.

Of course, counterarguments to it should be presented. Welcome anyone to add the Japanese POV, with the qualification that only Japan supports the theories. toobigtokale (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

As per recommendations in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV#When_to_remove, I removed POV tag because there has been no discussion in the past month. 89.131.192.140 (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You can not.Yasuo Miyakawa (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Read the section "When to remove". It says "You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:" and the point 3 says "In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant". Please do not inflect your personal preference by insisting the NPOV tag. 89.131.192.140 (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Historical revisionist slant (?)

This article appears to support an historical revisionist point of view. Several citations link to dubious Japanese-language sources to indicate or "prove" that Chinese and Korean forced labourers were actually "equal economic actors." Some edits to the article conflate supposed South Korean government statements and initiatives with consensus and closure (DPRK, for example, is a separate polity). This article should be locked, really, and edited thoroughly. NevinThompsonGlobalVoices (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

That's your opinion, I need to assume? We don't close (in our wording: delete) an article solely because it contains POV of some kind. We can edit it to remove it though. :)--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Deaths of Forced Labor

The article currently says: "it is estimated that about 1,300 of those conscripted laborers died on the island."

The two references given, in English and German (which I read) both say 1,300 laborers TOTAL died during 1939-1945, without breaking out the number of forced laborer deaths.

So, the article is clearly misrepresenting its sources.

The Japanese (which I read) version of this article claims: 1162 Japanese dead during this period, with 122 Koreans and 15 Chinese, for a total of 1299.

Much of the Japanese article is based on a book 『軍艦島の生活<1952/1970>:住宅学者西山夘三の端島住宅調査レポート』創元社、2015年、ISBN: 978-4422700991.

I am citing this book and correcting the 1300 figure to 137. As I anticipate this change will draw interest, I leave this detailed note here.

The number also includes both conscripted and POW labor, so I will change the word to "forced" in order to include both types. Swiss Frank (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)