Talk:Shūmei Ōkawa

I've translated

the contents of the Japanese page.--TokyoJapan 14:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have deep knowledge on history, but the Japanese page is very poor for my eys. And I'm afraid that very many articles on history in the Japanese Wikipedia are at the same level. I'll try to rewrite Japanese page, first. But it will take some time for my personal reason. -- J-ishikawa 14:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

Quote from the article "he completed the first Japanese translation of the entire Quran.[7]"
Note 7: This was not from Arabic, as Ōkawa could not read that language. He made his translation from about 10 language editions, including English, Chinese, German, and French. The most popular translation appeared in the late 1950s; it is by T. Izutsu, who was helped by Ōkawa. Ōkawa's version is difficult to find nowadays.
Read article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_translations
Quote "The first translation from the Arabic was done by Toshihiko Izutsu in 1945.[7] In 1950, another translation appeared by Shūmei Ōkawa (1886–1957), who had been charged with war-crimes after the World War II on account of his anti-Western sympathies.[8]"
Note 8: http://www.quran.org.uk/articles/ieb_quran_translators.htm

7/11/2011

The only civilian?

The article states: "After World War II, the Allies prosecuted Ōkawa as a class-A war criminal, the only civilian among the twenty-seven military officers"

This contradicts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East which lists 9 other non-military defendants.

2.242.47.136 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal Indie AVG Game relative to Dr Okawa

https://github.com/SnowyYANG/TongLingHime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.202.226.132 (talk) 05:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL in lead

(Provided a modified version of what I left on Hanafunda's talk page.) Labeling Ōkawa a "nationalist" and "ideologue" runs contrary to MOS:LABEL. This does not mean that you cannot mention that he advocated for nationalism, etc., but it needs to be rewritten in such a way that it does not tilt the facts towards one's own pet biases. The idea is simply to let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader make up their own mind. Explaining to the reader what and how he advocated for what he did rather than simply labeling him outright is simply better for factual accuracy and depth of presentation. I'm sure a compromise can be reached, but if not I'll be glad to solicit a third-party opinion. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24 @CurryTime7-24 not at all, this is the usual "open-gate" for far-right extremists to "clean" the cursus of some people involved in WW2.

Moreover, it doesn't help the researches on japanese nationalism, far-right, this also works with labeling.

Unfortunately I am more fluent in French than in English, nevertheless I am specialized in Japanese modern history with a long experience in Japan and Europe.

Shūmei Ōkawa played a key role in the Japanese nationalism and far right-extremism in the 20' and 30', the previous short description in English was even a little too neutral but it was acceptable.

And you had cancelled the two key words which can describe this person ?

It doesn't help anyone except giving a wrong image/title/label.

It is therefore more important to summarize his career on his "fame" than on his "diplomas".

I consequenly revert Hanafunda (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to explain Japanese politics of the Taishō and early Shōwa to me. I may know at least as much as you on the subject. :)

Your remarks seem to imply a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. It is merely for conveying information impartially to the reader, not for advocating one's point of view on a subject or person, much less for seeking justice. Your disregard for the three-edit rule is disappointing. Nevertheless, I will seek third-party arbitration in order to reach an amicable compromise. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Neither "nationalist" nor "ideologue" strike me as terms that are so negative or loaded that MOS:LABEL apply to them. If there is significant RS coverage referring to him that way, I see no reason it shouldn't be in the lead. WPscatter t/c 01:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to reply. However, I would ask that you please take a look at the lead for Adolf Hitler for comparison. In that lead, rather than labeling him outright as a German nationalist, anti-Semite, mass-murderer, etc., it instead describes his offices and his works, how he used them to support his views, how he advocated for those views, and how he put them into action. That he was a German nationalist, anti-Semite, mass-murderer, and so on is beyond doubt; coverage from respected sources referring to him as such is doubtlessly extensive. But if my understanding of MOS:LABEL is correct, the idea is to give readers information explaining why and how this subject is a nationalist and ideologue. Merely stating that he was is unhelpful to a reader. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of MOS:LABEL is clearly stated to avoid "value-laden" labels, which I will again argue doesn't apply here. While it's true that other examples seem to avoid the language, I read through WP:LEAD and can't find any policy-based reason they should be omitted here. I might argue that the reason it's avoided in other, better-known articles is to adhere to the policy that states "try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject". That again would not apply here since there simply aren't that many notable things about him. WPscatter ^t/_c 02:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

So for my own understanding, when are value-laden labels not so? For example, take a look at the lead for Nicolás Palacios, a Chilean nationalist and nativist ideologue who is, arguably, even less well known than Ōkawa Shūmei (their respective number of page views in the last 30 days would seem to confirm this observation). In Chile and likely with people elsewhere he is best and possibly only known for being a nationalist and ideologue, yet the lead does not label him as such. Instead, it explains why he was and how. So if the respective leads of Hitler, a famous nationalist and ideologue, and Palacios Navarro, a relatively obscure nationalist and ideologue are treated similarly, why does Ōkawa need to be different?

Again, thank you for replying. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on my own reading of the policy, I would not oppose similar phrasing in that article either. But this example is maybe evidence that there is consensus towards not including it. WPscatter ^t/_c 03:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)