Talk:Sado mine

Accuracy?

This is one of a series of inadequately referenced articles on Japanese mines created by a single user. The source referenced only mentions Sado once (p. 293), and that seems to be for the Sado Gold Mine (see jp:佐渡金山), which is not in Hokkaido, but on Sado, Niigata. It also says nothing about it being one of the largest silver mines in the world. I can find no reference to a Sado silver mine in Hokkaido. Michitaro (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sado, Niigata#Gold mine: I think that you are right, the Russian paper messed things up. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this and adding a reference. Can the article still say it is/was "one of the largest silver mines in Japan and in the world"? Neither of the references says that. Michitaro (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I deleted world, there should no other mine from 1601 until 1974 ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Translating the content about Koreans

The Japanese version of the article is appropriately nuanced about the treatment of Koreans on the island I think. It doesn't read actively denialist like other articles on the Japanese Wikipedia. It does have some sourcing improvements needed, but otherwise I think it's a good starting off point. seefooddiet (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If there is no unattributed denialism I see no issue with it. But denials by attributed party can also be worth adding!

Sadly I don't read japanese and also would not have the time to do it, but I'll follow the edits :) Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Can be worth adding, but the issue is WP:UNDUE. I have no problems with mentioning alternate theories, but it needs to be made clear that they're alternate. The Japanese Wikipedia often has serious issues with that. seefooddiet (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ultimatelly, due and undue weight is one of the most contentious topic that there is. But I trust our collective judgement. :) Some very interesting denial go on with nation war crimes, regardless of which is the nation. I have little doubt believing that it happens a lot on the japanese wikipedia as well! Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Recognition of Forced Labor by the Japanese Government

Is there a Japanese source confirming that the Japanese government has recognized the labor of Koreans at the Sado Mines as forced labor?

The Japanese government has never officially recognized the labor of Korean workers at the Sado Mines as "forced labor." In April 2021, the Cabinet under then-Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga approved a decision stating that terms such as "forced labor" and "forcible mobilization" were not appropriate. This decision clarified the Japanese government’s stance that the mobilization of Korean workers was not considered "forced labor."

On the other hand, when the "Gold Mines of Sado Island" were registered as a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage site in July 2024, the Japanese government promised to exhibit the "entire history" of the mines on-site, including the involvement of Korean workers. Based on this, the city of Sado has taken measures such as installing information boards at the site of dormitories for single Korean workers. However, this does not imply recognition of forced labor.Pinus parviflora (talk) 02:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Whether the Japanese government accepts it as forced labor or not doesn't strongly matter I think; what matters is international consensus. It seems pretty widely accepted from the sourcing that what occurred in the Sado mines was forced labor. seefooddiet (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

In July 2024, the administration of South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol expressed understanding for the Japanese government's position that there was no forced labor and officially "agreed" with the Japanese government on UNESCO World Heritage registration. This agreement was widely reported by both South Korean and Japanese media, making it a well-known fact.[1][2] If the governments of Japan and South Korea do not recognize forced labor, does any other international agreement hold significance? Pinus parviflora (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

the administration of South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol expressed understanding for the Japanese government's position that there was no forced labor That's not what the Korean-language version of the article says. It says that the Yoon administration just accepted the registration, but that the expectation for Japan to keep to its word on showing the entire history is in place. De facto, it means that the Yoon administration is just letting it slide.

Even if it did match your reading of it, If the governments of Japan and South Korea do not recognize forced labor, does any other international agreement hold significance? this question doesn't work. International agreements are not the absolute authority on Wikipedia; what matters is consensus in reliable sources. Governments expressing opinions contributes to developing consensus, but government sources aren't all the reliable sources in the world.

I'm also mindful of your word choice of "making it a well-known fact"; you seem partial to adopt a certain position on this issue. seefooddiet (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The Japanese article linked above criticizes the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, accusing it of "conceding" to the Japanese government, which does not acknowledge forced labor. This article is a Japanese translation of the original Korean article. It demonstrates that even within South Korea, there is no consensus on the issue of "forced labor," with opinions divided. Despite the fact that the Japanese government does not recognize forced labor and there is no unified agreement within South Korea, you claim that a more authoritative "international consensus" exists somewhere. However, you have failed to provide any sources or evidence to substantiate this claim. Moreover, all records of labor at the Sado Mines during World War II are written in Japanese. Without the ability to read Japanese-language materials, it should be impossible to conduct proper academic research on this topic. Pinus parviflora (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If the articles do say the same thing, you're misinterpreting the situation. The article is not saying that Yoon's administration agrees that no forced labor happened, it's saying that Yoon's administration is letting Japan have the UNESCO nomination. Effectively it's just letting Japan's denialism slide, rather than agreeing with the denialism.

Sources. These are all non-South Korean. [3] "slave labor" [4] "forced labor" [5] "forced labor" [6] "forced to work" [7] "forced labor" [8] "forced labor" [9] "forced labourers" [10] "forced labor" [11] "forced laborers"

It's not even a remotely popular position at all in South Korea to deny that forced labor happened. Instead, conservatives in South Korea downplay the significance of things like forced labor and advocate for stronger ties with Japan. Downplaying the significance of something is not the same thing as outright denial.

Moreover, all records of labor at the Sado Mines during World War II are written in Japanese. Without the ability to read Japanese-language materials, it should be impossible to conduct proper academic research on this topic. A huge number of South Korean academics can read Japanese. They publish on the topic. seefooddiet (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The above Japanese article criticizes the Yoon Suk-yeol administration, using terms such as "concession" (譲歩) to Japan regarding forced labor and "regression" (後退) compared to previous administrations, which seems to differ from your understanding. Moreover, while you criticize South Korea's conservative faction, it is widely perceived in Japan that South Korea's left wing has long politically exploited anti-Japanese sentiment. The article in question represents precisely that perspective in its criticism of the administration. Pinus parviflora (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

"Concession" in the sense of letting the denialism slide. That's not the same as "total agreement"; you're reading too far into this.

At no point did I voice criticisms towards South Korean conservatives. You are misinterpreting this as well. Reread my comment carefully and tell me specifically where I criticized South Korean conservatives. My wording is neutral, and my description of them is something that even South Korean conservatives would agree with.

You also don't really have any reply to my other points. I'm pretty unconvinced by your reasoning thus far. You're relying on a single article for your point, and you're even interpreting it incorrectly. seefooddiet (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Articles criticizing the Korean government for making a concession to Japan exist elsewhere as well.[12][13] If the Korean government can prove forced labor, why would they make a concession? Additionally, one of the articles you referenced above states that approximately 780,000 Koreans worked in mines, but what is the source for that figure? According to Japanese records from that time, a cumulative total of about 1,200 Koreans worked there. As of May 1942, a total of 1,239 people were working at the Sado Mine: 709 Japanese and 584 Koreans. The current population of Sado Island is 52,000. Even the English-language articles from Korea’s JoongAng Ilbo and the English article I referenced above state that around 1,500 Koreans worked there.[14] Quoting inaccurate articles repeatedly does not contribute to academic research. In this thread, I have been asking if there are any Japanese sources that substantiate the claim that the Japanese government acknowledged Korean labor at the Sado Mine as forced labor, but it seems you have yet to provide an answer to this question. Pinus parviflora (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Those articles say what I was saying before, that the Yoon government is basically letting the revisionism slide in order to improve diplomatic relations.

If the Korean government can prove forced labor, why would they make a concession? Because they want to improve diplomatic relations.

The 780,000 figure ([15]) is not solely referring to Sado. An estimated 780,000 Koreans worked in mines and factories during Japan’s 1910-1945 colonial rule of the Korean peninsula, many in appalling conditions and without proper pay or holidays. You really cannot interpret sources correctly.

Your ask about Japanese government sources I already responded to. Whether the Japanese government accepts it as forced labor or not doesn't strongly matter I think; what matters is international consensus. I don't think its sources really matter.

You've misinterpreted most sources in this thread so far, with the 780,000 example being by far the most obvious example of that. seefooddiet (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

If the figure of 780,000 is a misunderstanding on my part, I will retract it. However, what is the source for this number? Additionally, according to Japanese records, Korean laborers at the Sado mines were paid the same wages as Japanese workers. Furthermore, your claim that it is not significant that the Japanese government, one of the involved parties, does not recognize forced labor could be perceived as being based on anti-Japanese sentiment or Korean nationalism.

You also appear to downplay the Japan-South Korea agreement by stating, "International agreements are not the absolute authority on Wikipedia; what matters is consensus in reliable sources. Governments expressing opinions contributes to developing consensus, but government sources aren't all the reliable sources in the world." In that case, please provide authoritative international consensus or Japanese-language sources that support such a consensus beyond this agreement. It seems that you have not addressed this point. Pinus parviflora (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know what the source is for 780,000, but that's not really the crux of this conversation. If you don't like that source, we can use others.
• Provide a source for the wages bit; you admonish me for sources but do not provide enough of your own.
  • Even if you do provide a source, wages are only one aspect of the conflict. There's discrimination [16] According to the records of Niigata prefecture, the Japanese managers did not hide their view of Koreans as racially inferior.[126] They said that strikes occurred because the “intelligence level of Koreans (知能程度)” was lower than first estimated, pointing out “a unique Korean deviousness (半島人特有の狡猾性)” and “tendency to blindly follow crowds without personal judgement (付和雷同性).”, there's selective violence (same source) According to Sakaue Torakichi, the Mitsubishi dormitory boss, policemen beating and kicking Korean laborers was common, and there's the matter of whether forcefully mobilizing an occupied country (with questions around the legality of said occupation [17] Korea has maintained the position that the annexation treaty was always illegal and invalid, while Japan’s view is that the treaty was originally legal and valid, but was invalidated as of 1965.) can count as "forced labor". A significant majority of international sources I see seem perfectly comfortable with calling it "forced labor", it's pretty much only Japanese sources that hold back.
• I already provided sources on the use of the term "forced labor". Do not act like I have not. You just want more sources (possibly more academic ones), which is fine. But it is disingenuous to try and paint me as having not provided sources.
  • [18] from The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus
  • [19] A really comprehensive paper. Page 360. This Korean-language paper authors did a survey of Japanese-language research on Sado Island, and mentioned Hirose Teizo (広瀬貞三) as an authority on the topic (I discuss a Hirose paper below). The Korean-language paper also has a pretty nuanced take on the issue. It argues that Koreans were unambiguously forced to work there, but Japanese people were as well. It argues that both Korean and Japanese workers were mistreated (although Koreans were systemically mistreated even worse), and that despite that some Koreans and Japanese workers displayed solidarity towards each other. Overall, it affirms that "forced labor" did occur, but just like every other bit of history, it's complicated.
    • [20] A paper from Hirose Teizo, see page 12. 朝鮮人の就労「継続」を計った。これらの事実は「募集」形式でありながら、 実態は強制労働であったことをよ.く示している。
  • [21] This Korean-language paper supports the points in the other news articles, that the Yoon administration is just passively letting Sado's nomination slide (without strongly commenting on historiography) in order to improve Korea-Japan relations.
  • Also look at the Japanese Wikipedia version of this article; it honestly does a fairly decent job in presenting both sides of the issue. 鉱山で労務係を務めた男性の手記（1974年）の中には、朝鮮人労働者に関し、「なぐるける。はたでは見ていられない暴力」や「弾圧による稼働と食事に対する不満」といった苛酷な状態の中にあったことを示す記述もあり、「彼らにすれば強制労働をしいられ、1年の募集が数年に延長され、半ば自暴自棄になっていた事は疑う余地のない」といった記述があるという

I want you to notice something. While you have a more firm stance on whether forced labor occurred, I myself have not really expressed opinions on what happened. History is complicated. I don't feel comfortable advocating for a position, like you are doing, because it's complicated. My goal is solely to represent what the international consensus is on pretty much every topic. You seem to prefer taking a Japan-centric view on this (notice, I have not taken a Korea-centric view), but I don't think that's acceptable.

What we should do, instead of advocating for/against whether forced labor happened, is to take a detatched view and discuss both sides of the argument, while giving appropriate WP:WEIGHT to international consensus. seefooddiet (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I am shocked to see how much this discussion developed, @Seefooddiet worked to bring sources and well wrote arguments to the table without even needing to go this far.

@Pinus parviflora Sources can disagree, sources can be opinionated or biased, governments can decide something and others can comment on it. Deciding on WP:WEIGHT can be complex. In this case the only thing you did is asking for "japanese sources" on an historical event connected to japanese colonialism. Strange. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I had this conversation once because I knew others would try the same thing again in future. Tried it quash it now. seefooddiet (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the time you spent working on this. Cinemaandpolitics (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)