Talk:Hashima Island

message: 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)
replies: text: Care to elaborate? --Awiseman 04:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 6.3 acres = .025 km², not .063 Nik42 22:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Content

message: 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)
thread_title: Trivia

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

message: Check out the visual dossier by  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)
thread_title:  Hashima, Now and Then 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hashima in Popular Culture 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Given that the term is used in the sources, it should not be excluded from the article entirely. Scr★pIronIV 20:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Slave" Labor vs. "Forced" Labor

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A film about this island debuts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Historical revisionist slant (?)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deaths of Forced Labor