Talk:Yasuke

Requested removal of possible misattributed quote claiming to be from the Shinchō Kōki

For the past two to three weeks, @Eirikr and I have been working hard to verify the origin of a quote mentioned to be from the Shinchō Kōki[1] (transcription by editor Kondō Heijō, Editor's notes here talking about Oze Hoan as mentioned below[2]) on the Yasuke article, as it had been noticeably missing from the J.S.A Eliasonas and J.P Lamers Academic Translation of the Shinchō Kōki.[3] The missing quote is as follows:

然に彼黒坊被成御扶持、名をハ号弥助と、さや巻之のし付幷私宅等迄被仰付、依時御道具なともたさせられ候、

A black man was taken on as a vassal by Nobunaga-sama and received a stipend. His name was decided to be Yasuke. He was also given a short sword and a house. He was sometimes made to carry Nobunaga-sama's tools.

This omission had caught my interest, so I decided to work with Eirikr for possible leads on where this quote came from. From what we could discern, the source of the claimed quote originates from Hiraku Kaneko's book, "The History of Oda Nobunaga: Beyond the Shinchoki" (織田信長という歴史　『信長記』の彼方へ』、勉誠出版、2009年、311-312頁). Unfortunately, we are unable to gain access to this book, so if any editors here have access to it to verify the origin of this quote, please contribute as necessary.

That being said, we made sure to check other avenues such as the Shincho-ki, which is NOT the Shinchō Kōki. The Shincho-ki (or commonly known as Nobunaga-ki) was written by Oze Hoan, a Confucian scholar who was notably plagiarizing Ota Gyuichi's Shinchō Kōki by romanticizing the events or even making entire fabrications (J.S.A Eliasonas and J.P Lamers talks about this in their introductory page). So when we checked Hoan's Shincho-ki,[4][5] the quote was also missing. We had also checked for the Azuchi Nikki, which was in possession of the Maeda clan (we could not find a Maeda version of Shinchō Kōki). @Eirikr states his findings as follows:

I did find mention online that the Maeda manuscript is also called the 安土日記 / Azuchi Nikki, which is indeed listed on the JA WP page for the Shinchō Kōki, at w:ja:信長公記#信長公記#諸本と刊本. While the name 前田 / Maeda doesn't appear anywhere on that page, nor are there any links for the Azuchi Nikki entry there, there is a JA WP page for the w:ja:尊経閣文庫 / Sonkeikaku Bunko, the library that has the manuscript — and if this other page is correct, that library belongs to the Maeda family. So this Azuchi Nikki is very likely the one that ParallelPain mentions and (presumably for that first excerpt) quotes from.

The description of the Azuchi Nikki in the listing at w:ja:信長公記#信長公記#諸本と刊本 says:

巻11・12のみの残闕本であるが、信長を「上様」とし、後の刊本には存在しない記述もあるなど原初の信長公記であると見られている

This is an incomplete work [bits are missing] of only 11-12 volumes, but it calls Nobunaga 上様 (ue-sama [literally "honorable superior", like "lord" in imperial, shogun, or other nobility contexts]), and it includes episodes that don't exist in later printed editions, among other things, and this is viewed as being the original version of the Shinchō Kōki.

That description is sourced to page 4 of the 2018 Japanese book 『信長公記 ―戦国覇者の一級史料』 ("Shinchō Kōki — Primary Historical Sources on the Supreme Ruler of the Sengoku Period"), written by 和田裕弘 / Yasuhiro Wada, published by w:ja:中央公論新社 (Chūō Kōron Shinsha, literally "Central Public-Opinion New-Company"), ISBN 9784121025036. Google Books has it here (https://www.google.com/books/edition/%E4%BF%A1%E9%95%B7%E5%85%AC%E8%A8%98/pQ3MugEACAAJ?hl=en), but without any preview, so we cannot easily confirm the quote from page 4. That said, this seems to be roughly corroborated by other things I'm finding online, such as this page that talks about the Azuchi Nikki (https://www1.asitaka.com/nikki/index.htm). However, that page also describes this as a record of Nobunaga's doings during the span of 天正６年１月１日～天正７年８月６日, or Jan 1, 1578 through Aug 6, 1579 — too early for any mention of Yasuke... ??? That also seems far too short for the description in Kondō's comments below, of a work of some 16 volumes.

He also added this:

One problem with the Azuchi Nikki is that there is also an Azuchi Ki (same titling confusion as we have with Shinchō Kōki and Shinchō Ki). Another problem is that there seem to be multiple different documents / sets of documents called the Azuchi Nikki, as that one website describes "an incomplete work of only 11-12 volumes"; meanwhile, Kondō's colophon describes his source as 16-some volumes. Quite what this Azuchi Nikki is, and getting access to that (or those) text(s), would help immensely.

If anyone had access to these documents as well, it would help immensely as we could not find them. But if what is said true about Azuchi Nikki, it would not cover the period where Yasuke was involved. Accessing the Azuchi Ki would also help too.

So far, we're turning up empty handed, as we are unable to find the quote anywhere. The only lead we have is from Hiraku Kaneko, which his book is currently unavailable to us. What we can say for sure is that the quote is not in the Shinchō Kōki that we have access to, nor any mention of his name (tagging 弥助 in the following sources turned up names of unrelated individuals, way before Yasuke arrived). As far as we are concerned, the quote is currently unverifiable.

If we are unable to verify the origin of this quote, I request that it be removed from the article as it is a misattribution of its cited source. Hexenakte (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

So, you can't find anything and don't have the book, so you're claiming it needs to be removed and is misattributed just because you personally can't find anything? How many times does it need to be brought up that what you, an editor of Wikipedia, thinks is irrelevant? Hiraku Kaneko is the source. Hiraku Kaneko is actually relevant and an academic scholar on literally this exact period of history. Your opinion on Hiraku Kaneko's book, that you admit to not even being able to look at, is similarly irrelevant. You are not a source. Silverseren^C 01:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Please read what I posted, this is not a personal opinion, do not accuse me of doing as such. We have looked for the listed sources and practiced due diligence in being as thorough as possible with our search, and could not find them, and no one else has been able to provide the sources, so they currently stand as unverifiable. We looked at the Shinchō Kōki itself (both source text and J.S.A Eliasonas and J.P Lamers Academic Translation), the Hoan Shincho-ki (Nobunaga-ki), and mentions of both the Azuchi Nikki and Azuchi Ki, which do not appear to be accessible at the moment (according to ParallelPain's claims and source on the quote, it was missing there as well). If you have Kaneko's book on hand, by all means I ask for you to post it so we can verify it's origin.

The only reason for the request is because the quote is misattributed and unverifiable on where it originated from, we could get a better idea where by getting Kaneko's book. But the quote is not from the Shinchō Kōki. It is possible it is from another manuscript, and Kaneko specifies it as the Shinchoki, and we could not find the quote in Hoan's Shincho-ki, so please provide other leads if you have them. Accusing me of conducting OR is not productive to the matter at hand, I ask that you practice due diligence as Eirikr and I have.

To reiterate, I am asking for help from other editors here to see if they could find access to these sources. If we can't get the sources, we can't verify the quote's existence. Hexenakte (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

According to this tweet from Japanese user @laymans8 (who made this highly-viewed thread debunking claims about Yasuke), he has not been able to confirm the existence or non-existence of this quote because: "There are several different versions of the Shinchō Koki but these accounts are housed in the Sonkeikaku Bunko collection, which is not open to the public, so it is necessary to check the secondary historical sources that introduce them."

While I understand the need to check by ourselves, I think we'll have to trust secondary sources for this one.

Remember: "Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth".

I ordered the two books mentioned, might take some time to get to Europe. Thibaut (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and resources to solve this problem with us. It is important to know a few key factors to keep in mind: What Kaneko claims, the source text, and where does he claim it is from, since there seems to be a bit of confusion on whether it's referred to as the Shinchō Kōki or the Shincho-ki, which the title of his book and according to this[6] (which also talks about Kaneko's review of Lockley's work, however I could not find his actual review, if anyone has a link to it it would be greatly appreciated) it's reaffirmed to be referring to the Shincho-ki, so it is important to know what document he is specifically referring to.

But yes, we are here to verify the quote, right now that isn't possible at the moment but hopefully it can be once we get our hands on his book. Hexenakte (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Thibaut — Chiming in to say thank you for ordering the books. Also to ask, which books? I believe one of them might be Kaneko Hiraku's 「織田信長という歴史　『信長記』の彼方へ」, but I'm not sure what the other one would be? (I've been considering getting one or two titles here myself, but it might be best if I don't duplicate others' efforts.) Cheers, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The only other book I mentioned was the J.S.A Eliasonas and J.P Lamers book, which I assume is what he meant. I have the book myself so if needed I can provide quotes from it. Hexenakte (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Second one is "信長公記 ―戦国覇者の一級史料". Thibaut (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh that's perfect, thanks again. Hexenakte (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Here are the requested pages.

I also included the table of contents and the first page of the first chapter called "序章 『信長記』とは何か" where Hiraku Kaneko explains/define what 『信長記』 and 『信長公記』 are.

If you need the full chapter, please email me. Thibaut (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the pages Thibaut, I'm gonna to take a look at them and see what I can get out of it, but I feel like it could be of greater use to @Eirikr since he is more familiar with the language than I am. Appreciate the help you've been giving us. Hexenakte (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's the transcript of the relevant quote in Hiraku Kaneko's book, p. 311:

「◎巻十四

二月三日、きりしたん国より黒坊[主]まいり[参]候、[年之]齢廿六七と相見へ[え]、惣之身之黒キ事牛之こと[如]く、彼男器量すく[如]やかにて[器量也]、しかも強力十[之]人に勝れ/たる由候、伴天連召列参、御礼申上候、誠以御威光古今不及承、三国之名物又かやう[様]に珍寄[奇]之者[共余多]拝見仕候[也]、然に彼黒坊被成御扶持、名をハ号弥助と、さや巻之のし付幷私宅等迄被仰
付、依時道具なともたさせられ候、(二月二十三日条)扶持」

I hope Eirkir or someone else can translate this excerpt accurately. I see that the words "扶持" and "私宅" are present.

In page 312-313, Kaneko states something that might be of interest here:

「信長と南蛮文化との接触 という場面でよく取りあげられる、有名な黒人の挿話について、宣教師 (ヴァリニャーノ)から信長に進上された黒人の名前を弥助とし、屋敷などもあたえられたと書くのは尊経閣本のみで 興味深い (図版8)。 ただこれにしても、 黒人の名前を弥介とする一次史料「家忠日記』天正十年四月十九日条(「上様御ふち之大うす進上申候くろ男、御つれ候、身ハミノコトク、タケハ六尺二分、名ハ弥介と云」)に依拠した創作という見方も不可能ではない。しかしながら、右に掲げたすべての増補記事を書写過程でつけ加えられた創作 として無視 してしまうこともむずかしいに違いない。 とりわけ巻五冒頭の記事のうち二月十三日条の鹿狩記事など、表向きというよりむしろプライベートな信長の行動を記述 した記録という意味で、逆に真実味を帯びているといえないだろうか。」

Thibaut (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

From a quick analysis from the excerpt you gave out, a few key points I want to point out:

There might be a misunderstanding from the word Kaneko uses (屋敷) could be misinterpreted to mean "mansion" and this was evident when I put it through a machine translation, but the word also refers to residence, estate, etc., and when checking kotobank,[7] it seems to refer to a main residence, as a proper house. However, it doesn't match the same kanji used in the transcript above (私宅), Eirikr might provide context on this matter.

On another note, he does point out Ietada's diary, which does mention a stipend (and I agree with this point), but he also states that this manuscript may have been an interpretation on Ietada's diary that gave the additional information such as items such as the sayamaki (wakizashi without a tsuba) and private residence as well as his role as carrying Nobunaga's tools (whatever that could mean), so it is difficult to tell whether this is reliable if this is the case. If there is additional context from Kaneko about this it would be appreciated if it were provided.

That being said, while he does say we shouldn't dismiss it outright, he does frame it as a problematic entry (from what I could tell). Eirikr might provide some more insight.

Edit: Kaneko also mentions a deer hunt that Nobunaga participated in that selected excerpt, if we could see that excerpt that might be relevant to the discussion at hand. Hexenakte (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Thibaut, @Hexenakte, thank you both for your contributions here today. I have read them with interest.

I would love to reply more fully, including a rendering into English of both the quoted primary source text and the Professor's commentary, but I am under the gun on a couple projects in real life and have already overextended my time budget for Wikipedia. ご了承ください / thank you for your understanding. 😄 I will get back to this thread some time in the next few days. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't understand if you managed to verify the quotation. If you did, please add the correct reference. In the meantime, I'm tagging the quotation with "failed verification" because the cited source does not support it (as far as I can undestand from the google translation). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, has the quote been verified or not? Could you please provide a reference? Otherwise, if it has never been published before, either in Japanese or in English, we'll have to remove it and use Lockley's article in Britannica to support that Ōta states that Nobunaga made Yasuke a vassal, giving him a house, servants, a sword, and a stipend [8]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

pinging @Eirikr Thibaut (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Eirikr still has to go through Kaneko's book, remember WP:DEADLINE, the issue has not been forgotten. Hexenakte (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for the recent pings.

@Gitz6666, while I hadn't planned on diving into Kaneko right away, I do have the page number thanks to @Thibaut's earlier postings, so I'd be happy to see what that section of the book has to say.

That said, I'm not at my desk and don't have the book to hand at the moment. I should probably be able to read the relevant pages and post on the details tomorrow or Friday. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke's status as a samurai should be presented as uncertain

There is evidently deep debate about whether Yasuke was or was not a samurai. The sources quoted to suggest that he was a samurai are thin and relatively few, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are invalid. The mountain of evidence against the possibility that he was a samurai MUST be taken into account.

That the article presents Yasuke's samurai status as a fact and not as a possibility is highly alarming, and suggests deep cracks in Wikipedia's objective of neutrally presenting unbiased facts. The credibility of Wikipedia itself is increasingly suffering because of apparent agenda-laden "fact" imposition on at-best-uncertain matters like this one.

I hereby propose that (at least until some consensus is reached) the article be edited to indicate that all points about Yasuke's possible samurai status are framed as possible, not as certain, as is the case in many other articles about disputed matters. Gr33nshorts (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In the last RFC on the topic, nobody was able to find even a single high-quality source overtly casting doubt on the idea that he was a samurai or casting it as controversial. I wouldn't be surprised if now there were some recent sources discussing the hubbub, but nobody actually managed to turn any up, and there's a fairly large number of academic sources overtly describing him that way. If you think there's uncertainty then you'll need to actually produce the sources you believe document that uncertainty, not just claim that they exist; without at least that much, there's nothing to discuss. The sources that call him a samurai can be found in the RFC (and, I believe, they've also been added to the article), so you'll want to find sources at least as good as those disputing them before calling for another RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

We literally just had an RfC about this and the consensus was overwhelmingly that Yasuke should be represented as a samurai as the majority view presented in all the available sources. Silverseren^C 03:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren A post on Twitter with 3300 likes and 143 comments has disputed the RfC you were involved in. I believe it is good to have open communication so I am just pointing out the discussion. Maybe you can take a look?

https://x.com/iinchou125/status/1806581266390651324

Regards, NamelessLameless (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't really care what random Twitter users think? Also, we follow what the sources say. The fact that those claiming Yasuke wasn't a samurai couldn't (and still can't) present even a single reliable source making such a claim is something that's been brought up time and time again in these discussions. Furthermore, the closer of that RfC was quite clear on Lockley being far from the only source supporting the statement. Silverseren^C 04:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Twitter posts aren't reliable sources. Here's some sources that are, from the RFC: Also, given the numerous discussions of Lockley above, see Again, if you want to re-open discussions you need to find at least some WP:RSes of comparable quality, which nobody was able to do during the RFC itself. "Someone on Twitter is mad" doesn't mean anything. --Aquillion (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, and if someone is arguing that Twitter posts should be used then they would have to accept recent Twitter posts from actual Japanese historians like Yu Hirayama have weighed in on whether Yasuke should be considered a samurai based on the available and known information about him (and Hirayama also aligns with the majority consensus that Yasuke should be considered a samurai) https://x.com/mrjeffu/status/1814609906391200058 Theozilla (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm adding to this thread but also replying to @Traumnovelle's comment.

  From what I have gathered, the scholarly literature on Yasuke changed significantly with the dissemination in 2009 of a quote from the (still unpublished) Shincho-ki manuscript of the Sonkeikaku Bunko collection, which states that Nobunaga gave Yasuke a house, a servant, a sword, and a stipend. Hexenakte mentioned that the quote came from Hiraku Kaneko, "The History of Oda Nobunaga: Beyond the Shinchoki" (織田信長という歴史　『信長記』の彼方へ、勉誠出版、2009年、311-312頁) and, if I'm not mistaken, Eirikr and Thibaut120094 were able to verify this. If this is confirmed, I'll remove the template:failed verification from this important quote.

  Anyway, on the basis of this recently rediscovered primary source (as well as other sources showing that Yasueke was in Nobunaga's retinue, had a direct relationship with him, served him as a warrior, and was speculated to become a "tono", or lord), historians have revised their assessment of Yasuke's social status in Japan, which was probably higher than originally thought: apparently he was not just a servant, but a retainer (vassal) of Nobunaga and a high-ranking bushi (warrior).

  Does this mean that he was also a "samurai"? Some subject-matter experts believe so, and Lockley has explained their reasoning (Japan Times, Britannica). To date, no Japanese or non-Japanese historian has challenged their interpretation, which has been widely reported in the press (BBC, CNN, TIMES, etc.) so until new research emerges (excluding tweets, blogs, etc.), we have no reason to deviate from their account (as per RfC consensus). Note, by the way, that in Yasuke's time the Japanese word "samurai" was usually applied to the lowest-ranking bushi, so that a warrior of elite stature in pre-seventeenth-century Japan would have been insulted to be called a 'samurai' [9]. This means that in 16th-century terms, Yasuke's status in Nobunaga's service may have been higher than what his contemporaries called a "samurai" - but admittedly, this is my personal OR and SYNTH and, mind you, I'm no expert on the subject. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  [...] if I'm not mistaken, Eirikr and Thibaut120094 were able to verify this.

  They were not, but only because Eirikr still needs time to look through Kaneko's book, WP:NORUSH. Hexenakte (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  I should point out that per WP:EXPERTSPS, the professional opinion of Professor Hirayama actually is a reliable source, even if it's on Twitter. Loki (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  Oh that is a helpful clarification then. Theozilla (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a logical fallacy here. Is the expectation that a primary source will turn up that says "Yasuke was not a samurai?" Why would they say this? The point hasn't been debated until very recently. It would be, if you'll allow a significant exaggeration, like finding a similar text saying "Yasuke was not a geisha." Unless it was pertinent, nobody wrote (or writes) what people are/were not, because what sort of an odd exercise would it be disprove a random thing that a person is not? Something claimed about history is not a fact merely because nobody specifically states the opposite.Gr33nshorts (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The main point being made here is that no academic secondary source explicitly states that "Yasuke was not a samurai", although I would agree that the same logical fallacy applies here as this is a recent matter. I don't think it is reasonable to assume there would already be academic sources contending this idea when the idea was never conceived before the last decade, much less within the last 5 years, or even within this year as it became mainstream. Which is why it is most appropriate to have Lockley and related academic works to be attributed as a theory due to the problems with their academic work as far as citations go, because there are no citations made to support these claims, they are often stated as unattributed or misattributed. I think it is extremely irresponsible for Wikipedia editors - especially when such work is now under government investigation for cultural appropriation/theft and more works are slowly coming out against the idea - to enshrine this in wikivoice as an unattributed fact, over a (temporary) technicality. Hexenakte (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a major misunderstanding of how history works here as well as Thomas Lockley´s posititon. The first problem is forgeting, that "we don´t know" is an option. Another is misunderstanding how academic consensus is reached. Or more to the fact, in most cases it isn´t reached. Academic debates don´t function like internet "debates". It isn´t about winning so much as discussing interesting ideas. The differences of opinion are often nuanced, academics are also less likely to say a colleauge is wrong. Also, a lot of time academics don´t take a position and use neutral language. A scholar might prefer to avoid the word samurai or use quote marks if they were uncertain. Which is important, there is an argument that there isn´t enough evidence either way. That´s not worth writing a peer reviewed article for.

To claim that the historical consensus exists because every secondary source one could find says that, is original research. Especially, because in this case there are so few secondary sources. Lockley is the only Yasuke scholar. Others have mentioned Yasuke, but have not researched him in depth. Therefore, scholars often on rely on his research. Which is why it is important that Lockley´s postion is understood, and this article doesn´t reflect it. Lockley has referred to Yasuke as a samurai, but when talking about his status, he has at times acknowledged a lack of certainty. Most recently in his article for Encyclopedia Brittanica, where he states that samurai status is disputed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I also found this interesting, where he states there is clearly a dispute when others are saying there is no dispute, so should this not be reflected in the article by Lockley's own admission? Why is wikivoice even being considered? Hexenakte (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

in his article for Encyclopedia Brittanica, where he states that samurai status is disputed. In fact, Lockley says that Yasuke's status is disputed "by some people", while Yasuke "is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth". No one has disputed Lockley's claim, and indeed some Japanese historians (Hirayama Yu [10] and Yūichi Goza [11] have commented confirming that, if the primary sources are reliable and Yasuke received a stipend, a house and a sword from Nobunaga, then there is no doubt that he was a samurai. So far, no historian has denied that Yasuke was a samurai, or stated that we do not have enough information to conclude that he was. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666, please review the quote (written by Lockley) from the Japanese language social studies textbook "Tsunagu Sekaishi". I posted it here, as did another editor before me. Lockley clearly states that the claim is contested.

Also, as has been stated by other editors, let's please put to rest the notion that we should require some source to explicitly state that "Yasuke was not a samurai", otherwise we have to say that he was.

I am of the opinion (again, just an opinion), that considering Lockley's very public record of somewhat zealous claims in English language interviews and the like, which clearly deviate from how historians typically deal with such heterodox claims, that the prudent thing to do is to err on the side of cation in the lede of this article. In other words, if we think there is any possibility that "maybe we don't have rock solid proof that he had the title of samurai", that this is reflected in the lede. I don't think this should be a particularly controversial take, since a) there are only a few paragraphs ever written about him in primary sources and b) apparently nobody ever claimed he was a samurai before 2010 or so.

BassHistory (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The quote you are referencing was discussed at length during the RSN on Lockley by many of the people involved throughout this process. My response to this is the same. The reliable secondary sources we have refer to Yasuke as a Samurai. Lockley's quote is all that has been brought to show that there is 'some' contention, but to quote my linked comment:

"Is 'some' Academic peers in the field?

Are 'some' the general consensus of Japanese historians?

Are 'some' the general populace of Japan?

Are 'some' a fringe subsect of Japan or Japanese Nationalist groups of some kind who may be biased on this issue?

What is this disagreement based in?

Is it based in strict adherence to the primary source text above any interpretation?

Is it based in some retroactive application of the current Japanese populace's understanding of what a Samurai is?

etc etc etc"

I have no idea who specifically Lockley is referring to, and whether those dissenting are worthy of DUE or if they would classify as fringe. What we know is:

1. there is currently a frenzy around Lockley, but none of his work has been retracted or a source published calling it into question. (Reviews of a pop history book calling it pop history is not discrediting the author as an academic ftr)

2. Many claims that have been asserted have been BLP or bordering on BLP sourcing from blogs, twitter, or low quality publications which just summarize the drama. If any of these pan out to something in a reliable source then it would be worth visiting. The Japanese version of Lockley's talk page had a conversation where a 'controversy' section was edited out as editors there could not find reliable sources covering the matter.

3. Lockley before any of #1 or #2 noted in a published work that 'some' people disagree with Yasuke being a Samurai. So far from everyone's hunt for relevant sources there really hasn't been anything that could answer the question of who this 'some' are, and how their argument manifests.

The standard you would like to employ on this page is counter productive to an encyclopedia since it imposes an unnecessary hurdle to move beyond purely presenting primary source material - which is not what encyclopedia's are for. There are an endless list of topics where the secondary scholarship over many decades has been built to increase understanding off of the same primary sources - with an example I'll give being classical Greek texts such as Thucydides' account of the Pelopponesian war having had significant advances in understanding in only the last few years. As noted by Lockley in many interviews and touched on in some of the secondary source documents, it wasn't until the relatively recent translation of the portuguese documents that many started to really look into Yasuke. Similarly many historians who may have read Yasuke's name in passing even further back would not have had access to the Shincho Koki. Though Wikipedia maintains a very conservative approach to adapting to changing interpretations (for good reason), here we have a case where those operating with the current documents are generally in favor of the title's attribution for the reasons Gitz has stated. If you have an argument for why we should refocus the lede to be purely primary source rather than based in the understanding of the secondary sources, I would ask that you further explain why what you'd want to occur would not be a counterproductive standard for history articles for the reasons I've described. Relm (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The reliable secondary sources we have refer to Yasuke as a Samurai.

I would like to know which sources you're specifically referring to. For all the talk on the WP:RSN, nobody actually bothered making a list of available reliable secondary sources on the subject. It's hard to find a consensus, or lack thereof, among sources if we don't even gather said relevant sources. I do realize it is a difficult task because Yasuke is rarely the main focus of any research paper but I do think the matter will not be laid to rest until we do. Yvan Part (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

>So far from everyone's hunt for relevant sources there really hasn't been anything that could answer the question of who this 'some' are, and how their argument manifests.

I don't think that matters as I noted in my response in RSN as it is doesn't make sense in the context of the sentence for Lockley to be referring to a "fringe subset of Japan" or to laymen. Here is the quote again:

In this era, the boundaries between samurai and other classes were unclear, and there is debate as to whether Yasuke truly became a "samurai," but it is believed that, at least for his lifetime, he was undoubtedly appointed as a vassal of Nobunaga.

What is the relevance from the first part of the sentence to the second part if he is referring to a fringe subset of people or laymen? That is, why follow up "some people disagree" with "he was a least a vassal" if the some people who disagree are not basing their claims on reasonable arguments? To give an exaggerated example, would it makes sense to write something like "there is debate as to whether the earth is round, but it is believed that it is at least 3 dimensional," if those who disagree are fringe or laymen? Why should the preceding opinion change that of the proceeding one as is implied in that sentence?

Secondly, if you are looking for an academic who Lockley might be referring to, see this line from Makoto Tsujiuchi: (more discussion here)

The perception of the Negro in mid-16th-century Japan, however, cannot be judged as totally full of contempt for the Negro. It is true that Yasuke was regarded as a beast and not a human being. But he was nevertheless released after the assassination of Nobunaga. In general, black people were viewed with curiosity rather than contempt rooted in the belief of racial hierarchy.

Truth be told I doubt he is actually referring to this exact paper but this does show an example of at least one historian who at least heavily seems to imply contrary to Lockley. As for how the argument manifests, Tsujiuchi sees Yasuke as viewed entirely as a novelty/curiosity. To clarify, I'm not saying Tsujiuchi's comment is explicitly stating Yasuke is not a samurai. What I am saying is that could one read that comment and think "this person likely disagrees with me?" And the answer to that is yes in my opinion. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Wether Tsujiuchi disagrees with Lockley is purely speculative. Even if he disagrees, however, that wouldn't be conclusive. His essay was published in 1998; the quote from the Sincho Koki (stating that Yasuke received a stipend, a house and a sword) was first circulated by Kaneko in 2009 and apparently had a great impact on the way professional historians understand Yasuke's social status. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying that Yasuke is not a samurai, I am saying that he might not be a samurai, and that is what the sources said. I am operating under the assumption that Thomas Lockley is a reliable source. This middle position has been attacked from both sides. One side is the "Lockley is a liar" school and the other is the "There is no explicit doubt" school. Both schools, while operating in good faith, are flawed and misunderstand Lockley´s position but also wikipedia policy and reliable sources. I think that an academic consensus hasn't formed yet, and it is hard to say what position is the minority and which is the majority opinion. Current published scholarship leans towards Yasuke being a samurai, which is a lot weaker than what the article says now. The article treats it as a fact, when even if there was a consensus, it would be the best guess.

My suggestion is to rewrite the article to say that Yasuke was possibly a samurai. To say probably a samurai would be a compromise, but suggests a more mathematic understanding of the situation than exists. Other options would be saying that he is believed to have been a samurai. Perhaps that samurai is a rank should be emphasized. It is a bureaucratic legal designation, not a job. It certainly isn’t some romantic idea of a "true samurai." Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I am saying that he might not be a samurai, and that is what the sources said.

As Relm explained, this is not what the sources said.

• The Smithsonian
• Time
• BBC
• Britannica
• CNN
• Professional Historian Hirayama Yu
• Vera's work
• Lockley's work
• Atkin's work
• Several academic reviews of the above

All of the above reliable sources refer to him as a samurai. There isn't a single RS that says he wasn't.

To say probably a samurai would be a compromise, but suggests a more mathematic understanding of the situation than exists.

It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to depict something as contested when it is the majority view in reliable sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

A few points:

- it is the Smithsonian Magazine, which isn’t that scholarly.

- Lockley wrote that it was disputed, why are you ignoring that?

- CNN is not reliable and in general news media isn’t a good source for history or science.

- Twitter isn’t a valid source and I heard Hirayama Yu recanted.

-Britannica says it is disputed.

Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

>Britannica says it is disputed

I assume you are referring to this line:

>Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people.

It's not exactly clear what he means here, but being this is written by Lockley I assume he means the "foreign birth" part is disputed, although he might have written it unclearly intentionally. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone believes that Yasuke was born in Japan. Lockley doesn’t communicate in a way that gives the impression that he is parsing his words, most likely any lack of clarity is unintentional. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, Hirayama Yu did not recant. He merely chose to remain silent on Twitter after being attacked on Twitter. It does us no favours to report hearsay even on the talk page. _dk (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree Twitter is a poor source. I have found some other sites referencing other tweets he made, but I can only find the first one on twitter. It looks like he only posts once a year anyway. Even then, it doesn´t matter because there is enough evidence to say that the status is disputed, so the incapacity to doubt of one historian doesn’t contradict that. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Even then, it doesn´t matter because there is enough evidence to say that the status is disputed

There is not. There is not a single RS stating as such. Again, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to depict something as contested when it is the majority view in reliable sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

there is enough evidence to say that the status is disputed There's literally not a single source that disputes Yasuke's samurai status - it's just a bunch of WP accounts, Reddit users, videogamers, bloggers, youtubers, etc., and other WP:SPS on the internet. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Half of these sources are not scholarly (Time, BBC, CNN, Britannia and possibly Smithsonian) and can be summarily discarded from this source list. The academics you have mentioned should be the focus instead. I'm aware of problems with Lockley's work pointed out in this talk page so ideally a source other than him should be used, like those other researchers. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources on that list are scholarly or are citing the work of scholars. However it should be noted scholarly is a weasel word, and there is no requirement that sources be scholarly.

Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.

Every source on that list is considered reliable.

I'm aware of problems with Lockley's work pointed out in this talk page

Aside from people pushing WP:OR, I have not seen any issues with his work overall. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

In this case we should avoid non-scholarly sources. Perhaps they may work in less controversial issues, or ones where a lack of scholarly material is available. But from a reading of this talk page there seems plentiful scholarly sources, both already-existing ones and Japanese historians who are just now making their views on the subject matter. The non-scholarly sources you mentioned can then be discarded out of hand.

I also don't appreciate you calling the word scholarly a weasel word. There is meaning behind the word, namely studies published in history or science journals and work from individuals at tertiary institutions. These are objectively better sources to use than BBC or CNN and attacking the word only diminishes quality sources in favor of sources with questionable notability like the two news articles mentioned above.

I have no comment on Lockley. I'm not involved in the subject like some of the other editors so perhaps my reading of the talk page is malinformed. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think either are fine. I am fine with a preference for scholarly sources, however there is no reason or precedent to avoid mainstream high quality sources, and core Wikipedia policy explicitly calls this out even for scholarly articles. CNN for instance has been called outright "unreliable" by editors here which is not true [12], and may fall under POV pushing. Symphony Regalia (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG scholarly sources are generally better for academic topics than newspapers. Newspapers, even if assumed reliable (which has been contested in this particular case for Yasuke), are limited to repeating what scholars have to say on the topic. As such the historians consulted by these newspapers should be used directly rather than the news releases.

As for CNN, or any other individual news source, the perennial sources page is not relevant for the current conversation per the policy I cited above. Newspapers are not scholarly and this immediately reduces their value as sources for history. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

High-quality mainstream publications are not necessarily limited to repeating what scholars say. They can also offer analysis; they generally have lots of fact checking staff and experts on hand. And when they function in a tertiary role they help establish due weight. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

How do you think they fact check things? They ask the experts. The specific problem with this specific CNN article is that it has clearly mistaken fiction for fact. I think that most of Lockely´s work is fine as a source, however his one book is written as a novel and contains dramatization and historical fiction elements. CNN in this case, has cited the fictional elements as fact along with Lockley´s black Buddha theory, which seems very suspect, but I know of no source contradicting it. The Time article is much better, and reads mostly like it was based off of an interview with Lockley. For more about the media and researchers I suggest you read this: https://rambambashi.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/more-archaeological-disinformation/ Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

High-quality mainstream publications have stringent publication processes: in-house fact checkers, multiple subject matter experts both in-house and out-house to refer with, and so on.

The specific problem with this specific CNN article is that it has clearly mistaken fiction for fact.

You are projecting what you personally think the facts are onto everyone else. Certainly if a reliable source is unique in a part of its analysis that would reduce the weight of said analysis (usually requiring attribution), but that does not mean that said analysis is false. Symphony Regalia (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I come to the conclusion that the analysis is bad, because the facts are wrong. Actually, rereading the article, Lockley is attributed for most of the statements. I clearly misread it or confused it with another article. The thing is Lockley has expressed doubts about some of those things and not repeated all of them. If you contrast his Encyclopædia Britannica article with his statements in the CNN article, it is clear the CNN article is more sensationalist, less cautious contains more claims. Looking at the primary sources, you will see that the claims missing are those least supported by the sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This is just circular reasoning. The BBC, Time and Smithsonian all rely on Lockley as their source which already fall to into WP:tertiary sources and are only used to give more legitimacy to what is essentially Lockley's opinion on the matter. On top of that the most recent update on Lockley is the Britannica article which is unambiguous in the contested status of Yasuke. Yvan Part (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not circular, and on the contrary it is exactly what Wikipedia values.

On top of that the most recent update on Lockley is the Britannica article which is unambiguous in the contested status of Yasuke.

Lockley unambiguously refers to Yasuke as a samurai in his own voice. Symphony Regalia (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You forgot:

although this has been disputed by some people.

I don't see why this part should be dismissed if Lockley bothered to add it. Yvan Part (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

You are leaving out:

Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth

Wikipedia generally reflects what the expert consensus is, and not an unattributed fringe. Symphony Regalia (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you look at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The CNN article also obviously didn’t fact check. Or should we add that Yasuke was seen as a god and trained Japanese warriors in martial arts in the Wiki article? It is well documented that the news media does a poor job of covering subjects like history and science. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:RS:

Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.

As for:

It is well documented that the news media does a poor job of covering subjects like history and science.

What is your source for this claim? I would like to remind you to refrain from inappropriate POV pushing. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• The Smithsonian — presumably you are referring to "Who Was Yasuke, Japan’s First Black Samurai?".

This has been discussed before, multiple times, starting from March 13, even before the "Assasin's Creed" issue exploded. This Smithsonian article has been deemed unusable.

Moreover, for statements about Yasuke as a samurai, the Smithsonian piece relies on the Lockley / Girard book African Samurai (deemed unusable in the discussion at RSN) and on the CNN Travel article "African samurai: The enduring legacy of a black warrior in feudal Japan", which likewise appears to rely on Lockley / Girard.

• Time — this is probably the article "The True Story of Yasuke, the Legendary Black Samurai Behind Netflix’s New Anime Series", also discussed before and discarded.

This relies in part on Lockley / Girard, and it seems also on comments directly from Lockley. However, the article also includes this particularly egregious gem from Lockley:

“Anybody who took up weapons on behalf of a lord could technically call themself a samurai, or could be called a samurai.”

This is at odds with every definition I've ever read of the term "samurai". Moreover, Yasuke is only recorded as having fought ("took up weapons") in the Honnō-ji incident, so even according to Lockley's reductive description, Yasuke would not have been a samurai until then. And immediately afterwards, Akechi is quoted as saying that Yasuke was not a samurai.

• BBC — likely "Yasuke: The mysterious African samurai".

Appears to rely on Lockley / Girard. Due to how the article is written, there are actually zero statements about Yasuke as a samurai that are directly attributable to anyone but the article author, one Naima Mohamud, a Somalia-born filmmaker, who has no expertise at all about Japan, as best I can tell.

• Britannica — "Yasuke" entry

As @J2UDY7r00CRjH already pointed out, the Britannica entry was written by Lockley himself, and he explicitly points out that Yasuke's status is in dispute.

• CNN — "African samurai: The enduring legacy of a black warrior in feudal Japan"

Appears to rely on Lockley / Girard for statements about Yasuke as a samurai.

• Professional Historian Hirayama Yu — must be various comments on Twitter. Also as @J2UDY7r00CRjH has pointed out, Twitter isn't a valid source. I can't find any posts of Hirayama's recanting his position, but googling briefly just now, I did find this other comment by economist Nobuo Ikeda, pointing out a logical problem in Hirayama's argument that Yasuke was a samurai because he was a 家臣 (kashin, "vassal"), in that if kashin = samurai, then all the other kashin in Nobunaga's household would also be samurai — including the pages and the performers (actors, geisha, etc.).

Even here, Hirayama does not say that "Yasuke was a samurai" — he says things like 『「侍」身分であったことはまちがいなかろう』 ("it is probably without doubt that [he] was ‘samurai’"), where he hedges his comments and does not make any flat-out absolute statements.

• Vera's work — problematic as it lacks inline citations, but it appears usable.
• Lockley's work — his Japanese-language work that has been peer-reviewed has been deemed acceptable in other threads. His English-language work seems problematic, and the African Samurai book has been deemed unacceptable after a long RSN discussion.

Even here, Lockley's Japanese-language texts (and his more-careful English texts like the Britannica article) don't make unqualified statements that Yasuke was a samurai, and instead they use softer hedged language like "many historians think that".

• Atkin's work — A History of Popular Culture in Japan: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present

Already included in Yasuke#Citations, and already discussed as not stating that Yasuke was a samurai.

• "There isn't a single RS that says he [Yasuke] wasn't [a samurai]."

As has already been pointed out multiple times, it is a logical fallacy to insist that authors will have made explicit statements in the negative, and that the positive statement must be true if there is a lack of such explicit negative statements.

Ultimately, we have one independent source that describes Yasuke as a samurai, in clear, unambiguous, and unhedged terms: López-Vera.

"It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to depict something as contested when it is the majority view in reliable sources."

Once we pare down the list of sources to those that have done actual research on the historical texts, we find that it is not the majority view that Yasuke was a samurai. We might be able to demonstrate a majority view that it was within the realms of possibility that Yasuke might have been a samurai, but that is not the same thing. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe it was @Tinynanorobots above who pointed out that twitter is not a valid source. Otherwise this looks like a good review of some of the problems with these sources as they've been discussed on the talk page so far. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

it was @Tinynanorobots above who pointed out that twitter is not a valid source. Please see WP:EXPERTSPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". I truly don't understand why some editors here are trying to undermine Hirayama Yu: either they ignore policy (in that case I suggest a careful reading of WP:V and WP:RS) or they are pushing a POV (and in that case WP:SOAPBOX and WP:IDNHT are the relevant pages).

@Eirikr: may I suggest, for the sake of clarity, that you refrain from stating your personal views as if they were the outcome of a consensus? E.g. This Smithsonian article has been deemed unusable, Lockley / Girard book African Samurai (deemed unusable in the discussion at RSN), Time [...] also discussed before and discarded, etc. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

>Please see WP:EXPERTSPS,

I didn't stake a claim on that point. I explicitly said that someone else said it, not me. If you look at the rest of the page and the archives, you will see I never said one way or another if his tweet is reliable. Not sure why you are replying to my post about it. Edit: I guess maybe my wording implied that? To be clear, I was exactly rephrasing the above post. "as J2UDY7r00CRjH has pointed out, Twitter isn't a valid source" -> "it was Tinynanorobots above who pointed out that twitter is not a valid source." This was not meant as an endorsment of the claim. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Note the second last sentence of WP:EXPERTSPS: Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.

I don't think we should be sourcing article content to Tweets. Rotary Engine ^talk 22:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed we have someone else [who has] published [the information] in independent, reliable sources - Thomas Lockley. But these reliable sources are disputed by hordes of samurai-enthusiasts who really can't accept the idea that Yasuke was a samurai. So Japanese historians Hirayama Yu and Yūichi Goza have posted SPSes stating that if the primary sources are accurate, then Lockley is right and Yasuke was a samurai. In doing so, they have added to the pile of subject-matter experts (López-Vera, Atkins) and news agencies (BBC, CNN, TIME, etc.) that subscribe to Lockley's research and/or consider it reliable. Since no expert has ever contradicted them, it's surprising that the debate about Yasuke as a samurai still continues on this talk page, despite previous discussions (an RfC + RSN thred) and the absence of new sources. This seems to be in defiance of WP:IDHT. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yūichi Goza specifically does not say he was a samurai. In fact his conclusion is that we should not claim that, as I pointed out below. His reason was that he thinks the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shinchō Kōki has the potential to be unreliable and that it is only one source. You seemed to have called that "something hardly relevant" below but I disagree. (Although perhaps you were referring to something else there.) The only reason I did not push to add this source, which I actually believe supports the view that he may not be a samurai, is because it's just on a blog and while WP:EXPERTSPS exists it doesn't seem reasonable to use it in a disputed page (note the {{Controversial}} banner). I actually have the same feeling about tweets (in fact, even more so than a blog). These may be reliable in the general case from experts but it isn't clear how reliable they should be for something {{Controversial}}. I'm not saying the are certainly not reliable. Taking the idea that WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require exceptional sources, and one of the first things to go for exceptional claims is "self-published sources," that implies to me that a similar standard should hold for controversial claims.

>an RfC

Multiple new sources have come out since the RfC, including one where Lockley says the claim that Yasuke is a samurai is disputed and all we know for certain in that he was a retainer, and the Goza source, which while it may or may not be suitable to directly quote, perhaps it can still inform what the apparent consensus is among historians. One of the points of the RfC was that no source explicitly disputes Lockley, so we have to assume all sources that use "retainer" must agree or not be commenting on the matter. Goza's conclusion is not the same as Lockley's so he is disputing him. Although the conclusion is 100% clear. To me it sounds like he is saying we don't really know enough to actually make the claim based on that one source which doesn't exist in other versions. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that the phrase "took up weapons" shouldn’t be taken literally. It has more the connotations of a peasant picking up a weapon and going to war, than an armed retainer. I believe that Lockley misspoke here and means that any armed retainer would be considered a Samurai. Otherwise, only samurai who fought would be samurai. I do think there are different definitions of samurai. The List of foreign-born samurai in Japan mentions several definitions, but I suspect contains errors. The Separation Edict article says: "during this period of history the word "samurai" did not refer to warriors, but rather to the wakato, who were retainers of warriors just like the chugen and the komono". I think the most common definition is the Edo period definition after Samurai status became fixed. The question is then are we talking about Sengoku period usage, or the modern definition? Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length and these violations of the WP:OR policy are exactly what we need to stop.

This is at odds with every definition I've ever read of the term "samurai".

so even according to Lockley's reductive description, Yasuke would not have been a samurai until then.

Moreover, Yasuke is only recorded as having fought ("took up weapons") in the Honnō-ji incident, so even

However, the article also includes this particularly egregious gem from Lockley

I will respectfully remind you that you've been warned about this time and time again for the two past months now. Per WP:OR

Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

The conclusions of reliable secondary sources cannot be declared unusuable for contradicting your WP:OR readings of primary sources.

The above sources are all reliable according to our standards, and they cannot be dismissed for simply providing analysis that you disagree with. On the contrary, we rely on them for that analysis.

As has already been pointed out multiple times, it is a logical fallacy to insist that authors will have made explicit statements in the negative, and that the positive statement must be true if there is a lack of such explicit negative statements.

It is not, and would be at odds with core Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not concerned with what editors personally believe to be the truth, it is concerned with what reliable sources say. Per WP:V

"Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information."

Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

So can I change the article to better reflect the reliable source: Encyclopedia Britannica?

Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth

Lockley confirms that it is the majority scholar view, and then says that it is contested by "some people" who he does not refer to as historians. Wikipedia generally reflects what the expert consensus is, and not an unattributed fringe. Symphony Regalia (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for actually responding to this point. That is an interesting interpretation. "People" is indeed ambiguous. I don’t see how you can be sure that it is fringe, though. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Since it follows what I said ealier I will simply reply here. This is WP:OR. You are the one interpreting "some people" as "not historians" and "fringe", two elements that are not stated in the article.

While it's true that he does say "Japanese historians" which is at best vague and does not really help narrow down who he is talking about, it does also exclude historians who are not Japanese from the discourse.

Not directly related but it does make part of your recent revert undue on the "status/rank/title of samurai" because the Britannica article used as source for this use both status and rank but not title, as discussed in Talk:Yasuke#Is_Samurai_a_title? below. Yvan Part (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not. Lockley is the one who uses the term "some people", choosing to not refer to them as historians. As for "fringe", that is my voice and it is not being attributed to the article. I am using it in the context of WP:FRINGE. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I know that it was Lockley saying "some people". It is quite unusual wording. Usually it would just say that it is disputed, and I was pointing out that it is your interpretation of Lockely´s words. After reading the whole article again. I am inclined to agree with you, although the phrasing is unclear. Important though, is this section: "During this period, the definition of samurai was ambiguous, but historians think that this would contemporaneously have been seen as the bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank." The key word here is "ambiguous" and that is in my view where the uncertainty comes with. As opposed to other editors, I do not believe that Lockley is using a unique definition of samurai. He just explains it poorly. I have read several secondary sources that say that in the Sengoku period the difference between low level samurai and non samurai is not clear. It is possible that historians have additional information that we don´t have that explains why they think Yasuke is a samurai, but it seems to be more the expert opinion of historians, but not fact. The wikipedia NPOV addresses fact and opinion, but doesn´t really deal with this in between. I think though, that we can follow Lockley´s lead and say that this is the conclusions of historians, and when disenting opinions are found, we can also add that. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

With about 20 minutes of searching, here's list of more than a dozen scholarly sources which mention Yasuke, but do not describe him as a samurai.

1. Fujita M. (2021). The presence of black people in Japan during the Edo period. In The Tokugawa World (pp. 453-469). Routledge.
2. Leupp, G. P. (1995, March). Images of black people in late mediaeval and early modern Japan 1543–1900. In Japan Forum (Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1-13). Taylor & Francis Group.
3. Leupp, G. P. (2003). Interracial intimacy in Japan: Western men and Japanese women, 1543-1900. A&C Black.
4. Meyer, M. J. (2020). Wrestling, Warships and Nationalism in Japanese-American Relations. Martial Arts Studies, 10, 73-88.
5. Morris, J. H. (2018). Christian–Muslim Relations in China and Japan in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, 29(1), 37-55.
6. Nardy, D. T., & Coates, J. (2021). Back to the future: imaginaries of Africa on East Asian Screens. Open Screens, 4(1).
7. Nitta, K. (2017). The Reception of African American Literature in Prewar and Postwar Japan. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature.
8. Russell, J. G. (2008). Excluded Presence: Shoguns, Minstrels, Bodyguards, and Japan's Encounters with the Black Other. Zinbun, 40, 15-51.
9. Russell, J. G. (2008). The other other The black presence in the Japanese experience. In Japan's Minorities (pp. 106-137). Routledge.
10. Suzuki, H. (2020). African Diaspora in Asia. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History.
11. Tsujiuchi, M. (1998). Historical Context of Black Studies in Japan. Hitotsubashi journal of social studies, 30(2), 95-100.
12. Yamada, K. (2019). On the Genealogy of Kokujin: Critical Thinking about the Formation of Bankoku and Modern Japanese Perceptions of Blackness. Japanese Studies, 39(2), 213–237.
13. Wright, D. (1998). The use of race and racial perceptions among Asians and Blacks: the case of the Japanese and African Americans. Hitotsubashi journal of social studies, 30(2), 135-152.

Some of those sources are obviously more focused on the topic of Yasuke than others; some are mere passing mentions, but the same is as true (if not more so) of the sources which have been provided in support of samurai.

ADD: Noting, for the record, that the search string used to collate this list was "Yasuke" "Nobunaga"; including the second term to ensure results were likely to be referring to this article's subject; not other Yasukes. I did not cherrypick only the results which did not describe Yasuke as a samurai; I did skip over references which had already been mentioned in the lists above and below - they seemed to have already been picked out.

There were another half dozen or so sources for which I was not able to retrieve the full text but which appeared on a second search for "Yasuke" "Nobunaga" -"samurai"; matching the third term would imply that they do not include the word samurai in any context.

Have not even begun to look at Japanese language sources.

Can we please move on from claims that all the sources say samurai? Rotary Engine ^talk 22:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

To state that the word "samurai" is not mentioned in Interracial intimacy in Japan: Western men and Japanese women and The use of race and racial perceptions among Asians and Blacks: the case of the Japanese and African Americans isn't concluding anything, and is in fact natural. Not explicitly mentioning something does not mean that the author disagrees with it, or even that the author has a view on it at all.

Can we please move on from claims that all the sources say samurai?

This is a strawman. The claim is that, among reliable sources and major publications, there are an abundance that describe Yasuke as a samurai and zero that say that he wasn't.

And this is demonstrably true. I see no need to mince words. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There are no primary sources or major publications that reliably describe Yasuke as a samurai. The roles of "chūgen," "komono," and "koshō" are entirely different. The problem arises from the existence of unreliable sources that fail to distinguish between these roles and confuse the roles of "koshō" and "komono."

Even among the rikishi who received better rewards than Yasuke, there were those assigned roles as "chūgen" or "komono." Therefore, it is inferred that Yasuke was likely one of the chūgen, komono, or kobito. As a newcomer who served for only 15 months, he probably did not have the opportunity to be entrusted with roles like "koshō," which were given to those with family names. Carrying tools was a role for chūgen and komono.

For example, the "Shinchō Kōki" records that spear-bearing was entrusted to the chūgen.

And those below the rank of chūgen (chūgen, komono, arashiko, and kobito) are not considered samurai.

"Shinchō Kōki"

https://ja.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%BF%A1%E9%95%B7%E5%85%AC%E8%A8%98#%E9%A6%96-%E5%8D%81%E5%85%AB

「其時上総介殿御手前には織田勝左衛門織田造酒丞森三左衛門御鑓持の御中間衆四十計在之造酒丞三左衛門両人はきよす衆土田の大原とつき伏もみ合て頸を奪い処へ相かゝりに懸り」

"At that time, in front of Kazusa-no-suke-dono, there were Oda Katsuzōemon, Oda Sakon, Mori Sanzaemon, and about 40 chūgen serving as spear bearers. Both Sakon and Sanzaemon were from the Kiyosu group and were grappling with Ōhara of Tsuchida, trying to take his head. Then, the enemy attacked, and a battle ensued." Phoepsilonix (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

According to some sources, chūgen, komono, and arashiko are samurai. This is, I believe, the issue. The usage of the word samurai historically is broader than many think. It is also possible that such a high ranking person as Nobunaga would have servants with high ranking status, whereas a normal samurai would have servants of lower status. In Europe, that was the case. https://www.google.de/books/edition/Ogyu_Sorai_s_Discourse_on_Government_Sei/tgOY9Cnxh3UC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=samurai+hereditary&pg=PA123&printsec=frontcover Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the lack of English terms to distinguish the different ranks within the samurai class is a cause of confusion. There are many mistakes in historical English sources regarding this matter.

「また、小姓や奉行になれるのは元々武士身分の人に限られ、例えば力士などは信長から扶持を与えられても名字を名乗ることが出来ず、「たいとう」「ひし屋」などの力士は馬揃えのときの刀持ちをしているが、家臣であっても小姓にはなれなかった。」

"Additionally, only those originally of samurai status could become koshō or bugyō. For example, even if sumo wrestlers were granted stipends by Nobunaga, they could not take a family name. Wrestlers like Taitō and Hishiya served as sword bearers during horse parades, but even as subordinates, they could not become koshō."

It is explained that "Taitō" and "Hishiya," who excelled in sumo tournaments and received greater rewards than Yasuke, were still unable to attain the status of a koshō.

The author, Mr. Taniguchi, also served as a member of the editorial committee for the Nobunaga Document Collection in Gifu City. Mr. Taniguchi is a person who has left behind many books based on historical records of Nobunaga. Phoepsilonix (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a point I have brought up in the past, and why Wikipedia utilizes unique titles such as Uji (clan), Taikun, Omi (title), Jizamurai, etc., which cannot accurately be equivalent to any English term. Even attempting to make close approximations, such as equating Ju go-i (Junior Fifth Court Rank) to a European Court Baron,[13] the writer here Anthony Bryant states that "[titles] simply do not make the transition very well." For lack of a better word, there is very little middle ground to choose from, one feudal system is structured entirely different from the other, and that goes for their titles as well, so it is very much a complex matter, especially if you are not considering how the Japanese language handles it. Hexenakte (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

What is a koshō? I think there is a lack of clarity regarding samurai and other retainers, what English words match which Japanese terms and what was used historically compared to what is meant now. Also, it seems that there were a lot of different ranks that were more important than the broad status of samurai or bushi. Tinynanorobots (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the status of bushi, even among Japanese people, opinions can vary. The customs and practices established during the long Tokugawa shogunate in the Edo period likely differed from those in the periods before the Azuchi-Momoyama era and the Sengoku period. Additionally, these practices may have varied among different warrior families. However, in the case of Yasuke, it is important to refer to the division of roles and examples within Nobunaga's household. That seems to be the key point. Phoepsilonix (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Not all "bushi" should necessarily be called "samurai." This is because there is an example of the class control edict issued by Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Since "samurai" exists as a category within that classification, it should be considered just one division of the bushi class. Phoepsilonix (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Usually in English, bushi is defined as warrior and Samurai as a higher status warrior, often contrasted with the ashigaru. This seems to be the oversimplified version, and if true at all only fits a certain period of time. By the Sengoku period, the difference in equipment was minimal, or at least overlapped, and the legal/social boundary seems unclear to scholars. Really though what we need is a good secondary source that explains the situation in English, but has a good understanding of Japanese language scholarship and terminology. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the Weblio gives its source as 出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 (2024/08/01 18:05 UTC 版) From Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia. It is explained that "Taitō" and "Hishiya," who excelled in sumo tournaments and received greater rewards than Yasuke, were still unable to attain the status of a koshō The section you posted says nothing about Yasuke, and so stating they received greater rewards than Yasuke isn't supported by the quote from the source you provided. Brocade River Poems 21:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"Although it is written on Weblio, the reference material it is based on is not Wikipedia. The reference, 'Taniguchi's "Nobunaga's Elite guard" Chuko Shinsho (ISBN-13:978-4121014535),' remains a high-quality source."（ https://www.amazon.co.jp/%E4%BF%A1%E9%95%B7%E3%81%AE%E8%A6%AA%E8%A1%9B%E9%9A%8A%E2%80%95%E6%88%A6%E5%9B%BD%E8%A6%87%E8%80%85%E3%81%AE%E5%A4%9A%E5%BD%A9%E3%81%AA%E4%BA%BA%E6%9D%90-%E4%B8%AD%E5%85%AC%E6%96%B0%E6%9B%B8-%E8%B0%B7%E5%8F%A3-%E5%85%8B%E5%BA%83/dp/4121014537 ） Phoepsilonix (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's because the Weblio page is a verbatim copy of the same article on the Japanese wiki. 例えば力士などは信長から扶持を与えられても名字を名乗ることが出来ず、「たいとう」「ひし屋」などの力士は馬揃えのときの刀持ちをしているが、家臣であっても小姓にはなれなかった。 The wording is the exact same, and it uses the exact same source from 1998 that you linked, which also predates the general access of the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobunaga-ki and likewise doesn't actually address anything about Yasuke. It is WP:SYNTH/WP:OR to infer that a passage talking about what wrestler's were awarded were greater than what Yasuke when the passage doesn't mention Yasuke at all. Brocade River Poems 08:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tinynanorobots That source Ogyu Sorai's Discourse on Government seems like it would be helpful to improve Samurai if you haven't considered utilizing it over there already. Brocade River Poems 21:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There are no primary sources that

Wikipedia is mainly built off of secondary sources. This is to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources by editors (original research), and because Wikipedia values the analysis and opinions of subject matter experts.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

I am emphasizing this because your post contains heavy original research. For instance

... Therefore, it is inferred that Yasuke was likely one of the chūgen, komono, or kobito. As a newcomer who served for only 15 months, he probably did not have the opportunity to be entrusted with roles like "koshō," which were given to those with family names. Carrying tools was a role for chūgen and komono. For example, the "Shinchō Kōki" records that spear-bearing was entrusted to the chūgen. And those below the rank of chūgen (chūgen, komono, arashiko, and kobito) are not considered samurai. "Shinchō Kōki" https://ja.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%BF%A1%E9%95%B7%E5%85%AC%E8%A8%98#%E9%A6%96-%E5%8D%81%E5%85%AB「其時上総介殿御手前には織田勝左衛門織田造酒丞森三左衛門御鑓持の御中間衆四十計在之造酒丞三左衛門両人はきよす衆土田の大原とつき伏もみ合て頸を奪い処へ相かゝりに懸り」

An individual editor's personal beliefs or personal interpretations are not appropriate for Wikipedia.

or major publications that reliably describe Yasuke as a samurai

There are an abundance that do. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The point you mention as my personal interpretation is actually your own interpretation, and that judgment is incorrect. This is because I have clearly cited works by well-known researchers of Nobunaga as my sources. In other words, I am presenting reliable secondary sources based on primary sources. There are many unreliable secondary sources. For example, as revealed in interviews with the authors, works like "African Samurai" are clearly documents that include fiction not discernible from primary sources, yet they are considered reliable sources. This is the root of the problem. Therefore, my post presents high-quality, reliable secondary sources based on primary sources. Hence, your rebuttal can be considered inappropriate. Phoepsilonix (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"If Japanese sites are acceptable, I can provide multiple reference URLs. Since there are very few primary sources about Yasuke, secondary sources often contain a lot of the author's imagination. Therefore, there are several Japanese articles pointing out the imaginative parts of his descriptions. Shall I list the URLs here?" Phoepsilonix (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Phoepsilonix (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The JapaneseWithNaoto blog was discussed on the Lockley RSN. It and Note.com are personal blogs and not reliable sources unless the user is a subject matter expert (as discussed in regards to Yu Hirayama's tweets on this page). Note.com is a site where anyone can make a blog and is thus just as reliable as Tumblr - so just posting the links by themselves do not help here. Relm (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur with Relm. Self-published blogs and Tweets aren't going to be particularly useful in curating article content. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It has become clear that there are contradictions between the English and Japanese versions of Thomas Lockley's works. His Japanese book contains many fictional descriptions where there are no historical sources, as noted in the annotations. One example of contradiction is that a black person thought to have served the Ryūzōji family is not definitively identified as Yasuke in the Japanese book, which is a reasonable judgment due to the lack of sources. However, the English version, "African Samurai," definitively describes this person as Yasuke, despite the lack of evidence and geographical separation. This can only be considered a fictional description. The main issue is that unless readers can distinguish these fictional parts, the work cannot be considered a reliable source. If such non-peer-reviewed works like "African Samurai" are accepted as sources, then articles written by Japanese historians should also be recognized as references. It is not always the case that another book will be written to point out Lockley's elementary mistakes. If pointing out contradictions in his works is labeled as original research and deemed meaningless, then it could be said that there are limitations to Wikipedia's policy on references. Additionally, the references in this discussion seem to include newspaper articles. It is uncertain why these would be considered reliable sources if they are based on information written by Lockley. Ultimately, they originate from the same source. Even Britannica articles are written by Lockley. If the voices pointing out his elementary mistakes are ignored, then there are essentially no reliable sources. Phoepsilonix (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the blog would have to be written by someone with expertise more specific than Japanese historian, so someone whose expertise seems to be simply being Japanese, is not enough. Lockley is not a trained historian, but his work is not self-published. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I had a spare couple of minutes, so went through the first seven sources in the reflist below. Not sure they amount to a hill of beans.

Details

No. Title. Primary Topic. History? Historian? Passing Mention? Sourced? "Black Mecha Is Built for This: Black Masculine Identity in Firedance and Afro Samurai"; Depictions of black men in science fiction; Not history; Not historian; Passing mention in a footnote; Unsourced. "Following Naomi Osaka and Rui Hachimura on Social Media: Silent Activism and Sport Commodification of Multiracial Japanese Athletes"; Social media use & activism of African-Japanese athletes; Not history; Not historian; Passing mention in text; Sourced to Lockley & Girard's African Samurai. "Examining Afro-Japanese Encounters Through Popular Music"; Lesson Plan; Not history; Not historian; Passing mention (x2); Sourced to the author's own article, The Significance of Yasuke, the Black Samurai, at AAIHS Black Perspectives; which is sourced to Lockley & Girard's African Samurai and Serge Bilé’s Yasuke: Le Samouraï Noir. "Black Lives Matter in Japan: The Specter of Race and Racism Haunting Japan"; BLM in the context of the 2021 Japan elections; Not history; Not historian; Passing mention; Attributed & sourced to Russell, John G. 2009. “The Other: The Black Presence in the Japanese Experience”, in Michael Weiner (ed.), Japan’s Minorities: The Illusion of Homogeneity. 2nd Edition. Abington: Routledge. Which does not directly support the claim. "Historicising Japan-Africa relations"; Japan-Africa relations over time; HISTORY!; HISTORIAN!; Two paragraphs; Sourced to: Russell, J. G. (2007). Excluded presence: Shoguns, minstrels, bodyguards, and Japan’s encounters with the Black Other. Zinbun, 40, 15-51; Tsujiuchi, M. (1998). Historical context of Black Studies in Japan. Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, 30 (2), 95-100.; and Weiner, M. (2009). Japan’s Minorities: The Illusion of Homogeneity. Sheffield Centre for Japanese Studies, Sheffield: Routledge (in a chapter written by Russell (pp. 86-87)). None of these 3 sources directly support the claim. "African Slavery in Asia: Epistemologies across Temporalities and Space."; African diaspora in Asia, forced movement, slavery; Possibly history; Not historian; Passing mention; Sourced to Lockley & Girard's African Samurai and to "Boxer (1989)" (which unfortunately does not appear in the reference list). "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, A Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan"; Book review; Sourced to Lockley & Girard's African Samurai - the book being reviewed.

Of the 7 sources listed: One is a lesson plan. One is a book review. Five are passing mentions only (See WP:RSCONTEXT: Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source or information that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.) Four explicitly source the claim to Lockley & Girard's African Samurai. Two explicitly source the claim to sources which don't directly support it. One makes the claim without reference to sources. Six of the seven are not by historians, and the one that is references sources which don't support the claim. None are primarily focused on the topic of Yasuke.

Was any examination of the sources was done before compiling this list? It seems indistinguishable from a list which might be compiled by looking only as far as the snippets in a search on Google Scholar. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding to the pile of doubt here, the far more useful book by Taniguchi than one that makes mention of wrestlers to the topic of Yasuke is actually Taniguchi's book 「織田信長家臣人名辞典 第２版」. The second edition of a dictionary of Nobunaga's vassals which was updated in 2010 to account for new research. The African bestowed the name of Yasuke is not mentioned. The dictionary has pages, bodyguards, so on and so forth and no Yasuke. It's looking more like a case of Yasuke was given a stipend and a residence because Nobunaga just liked him and thought he was neat. There is a reality wherein Nobunaga told the Jesuits he wanted Yasuke and they gifted Yasuke to Nobunaga and he simply provided Yasuke with a living and kept Yasuke around without actually making Yasuke any kind of vassal. The dictionary of Nobunaga's vassals is thoroughly researched, it'd be strange not to include Yasuke in it if there were documents that clarified he was a vassal. The 2010 Second Edition is also post-Kaneko's book, so. Brocade River Poems 09:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a great point although I'm not sure we can expect the author to have read Kaneko's book which is several hundred pages and published only 1 year before that book. It certainly adds to the body of evidence though. We should definitely expect someone writing a book about Nobunaga's vassals to be aware of Yasuke in general though, so Yasuke not being there in notable. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this post! I'd like to note that Lockley himself in his Japanese article from 2019 noted that Yasuke was rather overlooked and a footnote until the recent (year range?) research into the Portuguese primary sources and translating them into Japanese. I didn't track down the dates for that scholarship or look into the specifics of how that may have changed interpretations of Yasuke or brought his case to the attention of scholars. I think it is notable that since 2010 there have been multiple sources which have referred to Yasuke explicitly as a 家臣 (Vassal) as previously discussed on this page, including the most recent published sources - including the aforementioned Lockley article where he says something along the lines of 'Even if one doubts that Yasuke was a Samurai, he was at minimum a 家臣' but the exact quote can be found on the archived RSN where the quote was discussed when the article was first accessed. Hopefully this helps. Relm (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It's looking more like a case of Yasuke was given a stipend and a residence because Nobunaga just liked him and thought he was neat.

This is your personal interpretation, and it is something that many historians and subject matter experts disagree with. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be a premature conclusion. One would have to read the book, where it probably explains the methodology, and see why Yasuke didn’t make it in.

What does vassal mean in this context. I have been pursuing books about samuari on google books and the words vassal and retainer are used interchangeably, but also inconsistency. In most cases, retainer can refer to someone higher ranking than a simple samurai.

I am not sure what giving him a house and a stipend makes him, if not a samurai. He may have made him a samurai because he liked him, as an act of largesse. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wasn't really "drawing a conclusion". I said the book is more useful than one that talks about how wrestlers were treated. The absence of Yasuke in basically an enyclopedia of all of Nobunaga's vassasls is more relevant than a conversation that wrestlers weren't allowed to do whatever it was. Saying it's looking like and that here is a reality wherein Nobunaga told the Jesuits he wanted Yasuke and they gifted Yasuke to Nobunaga and he simply provided Yasuke with a living and kept Yasuke around without actually making Yasuke any kind of vassal isn't a conclusion, it's speculation. If it was a conclusion I would have said "This book definitively proves that Yasuke was not a samurai or a vassal".

I just said it was more useful and that it looks like Yasuke might have just been someone that Nobunaga liked (per Goza, it's possible that Nobunaga made Yasuke a samurai in-name only) and so Nobunaga gave him a paycheck and a place to live. It does not aspire to such lofty heights as being a conclusion on the subject of Yasuke's status, but it does add to the doubt pile regardless. Brocade River Poems 23:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood, the book is useful, but the simple fact of Yasuke not being in it is not useful unless one knows why he is excluded. As far as Yasuke being samurai in-name only, that phrasing is a bit misleading, but also seems obvious to me. I always understood the question of samurai status to be about a formality. A lot of things that apply to a "typical" samurai don’t apply to Yasuke. He isn’t Japanese, he didn’t receive a typical samurai training as a kid etc. Furthermore, the typical presentation of samurai is probably not based on the most common type of samurai. Military historians and pop history treat the samurai as a type of warrior, pop culture most often depicts samurai as wondering Edo period swordsmen. Additionally, in history, there is always more information and therefore more attention on higher ranking period. In reality, many samurai were bureaucrats and administrators, even in the Warring States period. On the other hand, there were peasants that fought, and used the same equipment as samurai. So really, the only meaningful difference is the formal status. However, there is a bigger difference between a low ranking samurai and a high ranking samurai than between an ashigaru and a low ranking samurai. "African Samurai" with its title and cover seems to depict Yasuke as either a black Miyamoto Musashi or Minamoto no Yoshitsune. The trailer I saw for the game seem to depict Yasuke as a commander of either other samurai or ashigaru. Those are the depictions that Goza is criticizing.

I think that giving Yasuke a stipend makes Yasuke a vassal/or retainer. A vassal or retainer is a form of employment. It is possible that in this context it has a more specific meaning. It can be confusing, because in feudal systems vassals are dependent in the same way as serfs, but also can have higher status and can’t be forced to do demeaning work or certain types of punishment Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Grounds for stating that Yasuke had a servant / servants of his own?

The second paragraph of the lede currently states:

As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend.

This sentence is sourced to the CNN Travel article "African samurai: The enduring legacy of a black warrior in feudal Japan", written by one Emiko Jozuka. The article relies heavily on Lockley / Girard's book African Samurai.

The portion of the article that states that Yasuke had a servant reads in context as a paraphrasing of Lockley / Girard. Jozuka herself is a journalist, and her mini-bio on her own website states that she is more fluent in English, French, Spanish, and Turkish than Japanese, so she is probably lacking expertise in Japanese-language materials about Yasuke.

I haven't seen any sources other than Lockley / Girard stating that Yasuke had servants of his own. Is anyone else aware of any such sources? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The CNN Travel article reads like it was a write up of an interview with Lockley. Suggest it would be inappropriate as a reference for unattributed statements of fact; but likely usable for attributed opinions. The essay Wikipedia:Interviews#Reliability has guidance on how to handle this type of source. Rotary Engine ^talk 05:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The section in question is here:

In an era racked by political espionage, merciless assassinations and ninja attacks, Yasuke was seen as an asset. Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records.

The problem is, we don't know if this is a conclusion drawn by the author of the article or attributed to Lockley.

There are also speculative claims like this one:

When feudal Japan’s most powerful warlord Nobunaga Oda met Yasuke, a black slave-turned-retainer, in 1581, he believed the man was a god.

However, this one is later elaborated on by (and attributed to) Lockley.

I agree with @Rotary Engine that the article could be used as a source of attributed claims made by Lockley, but not for statements of fact based on the analysis/synthesis of other sources. Judging the CNN article is also made difficult by the fact that it mixes speculative elements, references to pop cultural depictions of Yasuke and doesn't always make it clear what the basis for the individual claims is. SmallMender (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that the article mentions Lockley 20 times (11 times with the verb says, 5 times according to, twice speculates and once each assumes and suspects), I think it's very unlikely that the conclusion is drawn by the author; and not part of the same pattern. Rotary Engine ^talk 08:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Noting that "according to Jesuit records" doesn't seem to reconcile with my recollections of the letters of Frois and Mexia. And, given the small set of primary sources, unless that attribution can be independently verified, I would not support including it in article text. But perhaps my recollection is incorrect; happy to be corrected with reference to a source. Rotary Engine ^talk 17:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the quote as stated now is misleading as it sounds too similar to the quote from the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shinchō Kōki. If we do attribute this claim to Lockley, it should just read something like "According to Lockely, Yasuke also had servants." It shouldn't be included along with the other things that are not from Lockley. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Since I cannot verify that it was directly from Lockley, I've attributed the claim of a stipend, servant, and house to "an article by Emiko Jozuka". Anyone is free to change it if they can think of a better attribution, of course. Brocade River Poems 22:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Mostly a courstesy heads up since I already had changes in the pipeline for this part. The Britanicca article that's basically written by Lockley also mention servants and the attribution to a cnn journalist does not really help the article in my opinion. If the servants part is further contested, feel free to remove it. Yvan Part (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I haven't read the Britannica article by Lockley. I just went off of the discussion about the source that was attached to the claim, and since nobody seemed to know for certain that it was Lockley who made the claim, I didn't feel attributing it to him was correct. If there's a source you're going to use where Lockley makes the claim, all the better. Brocade River Poems 23:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There are a number of stories around Yasuke in Lockley's and in Lopez-Vera's works, but which don't have corresponding appearances in the contemporaneous Jesuit & Japanese sources and which seem apocryphal. These include the skin scrubbing, the intimate dinners with Nobunaga, and perhaps the servants. The closest I can find to servants is a mention in one of the Jesuit letters (Mexia, 8 October 1581) that Nobunaga sent Yasuke around town with his "private man". But is the "his" referring to Yasuke or Nobunaga? My medieval Portuguese is not strong, and interpreting the text isn't helped by a tendency to write long rambling sentences, but, from the context, it is more likely the latter. Rotary Engine ^talk 06:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that is probably Nobunaga´s man. First, because Yasuke was Nobunaga´s man as well (although I am not sure if in the context "his private man" has specific meaning), and second, the verb "sent" implies that Nobunaga commanded both of them. The mention of servants is an unpublished document that has already been discussed. The source for the scrubbing and the dinners in unknown to me. There is the account of his first meeting Nobunaga, where Yasuke has to remove his upper garment. Perhaps the washing is an interpretation. I also wonder about the money that Yasuke received. Lockely said it made him a rich man, however it is not in the Britannica article. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The mention of servants is an unpublished document that has already been discussed. if the document referred to is the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shincho Koki, then it does not include any mention of servants. The additional material in that version covers: stipend, name, sayamaki, residence; but not servants.

As for the money, the Jesuit letter that is the primary source is that of Luis Frois, dated 14 April 1581. Rotary Engine ^talk 13:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it would be nice if the article had the sum listed. It would be nice to contextualize it, but we would probably not be able to find a secondary source for that, or has Lockley done this? I saw an interview where he mentioned the money, but I don’t think he provided context besides to claim that Yasuke was rich. I guessing it was a lot of money for a valet, but not a lot for a Nobunaga. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The sum listed in Frois letter is "dex mil caixas" (10,000 caixas). A caixa in modern Portuguese is a box; but also extents to include ledger, cashier, cash register & payment counter. In Macanese, it also means a small copper coin which is probably closer to the meaning in Frois letter. Japan during the Warring States period used both imported Chinese coins and locally produced coins in copper, silver & gold. See Japanese currency & Mon (currency) for details & references. The buying power varied depending on the quality of the coins, so it is difficult to say how much 10,000 copper coins would be worth. The closest that I've found is a table of shopping item values from the Edo period which indicates a salmon would be worth 250 mon, and a bottle of sake 200 mon. If that's accurate for the earlier Warring States, then 40 fish or 50 bottles. But there's a lot of assumption in that.

Lockley's Britannica article simply mentions "a large sum of money". African Samurai suggests 10 strings of coins weighing 80 pounds; but is not reliable for factual statements. His earlier Japanese translated book has "up to 30kg". Ten thousand mon, at around 3g each, would be 30 kilograms (66 pounds), which accords with Lockley's estimates. Rotary Engine ^talk 19:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Japanese currency, the source I recently added to Koban (coin) might also be of value. It speaks about the periods before and during Tokugawa. I don't know about mon specifically, but various forms of gold, silver and copper were indeed used, presumably in the forms of small sheets (han-kin and han-gin) which were cut and weighed. For weighing the tael or monme unit of weight was used.

Without going into OR, is it possible to judge 10,000 caixas would indeed mean "10000 copper coins" per Portuguese to English translation? SmallMender (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think equating caixa specifically to mon would be OR, but to a copper coin generally might be more acceptable. But, as always, a source would be better. Lockley's chapter in つなぐ世界史2 includes "... 信長は弥助に褒美を与えることにし、甥である津た信澄を通じて、重さ３０kgに及ぶほどの大量の銅貨を贈った。" (emphasis added) which explicitly states "銅貨" (copper coins). Rotary Engine ^talk 21:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that is enough to say 30 kg of copper coins. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be comfortable with "10,000 copper coins". Rotary Engine ^talk 01:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rotary Engine, FWIW I agree with @Tinynanorobots that the "private man" is Nobunaga's, in terms of the context and grammar of the original text. The specific Portuguese wording was excerpted and translated earlier here: Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#c-Eirikr-20240524224800-X0n10ox-20240524024300. Note that this person was described as muito privado / "very private", indicating that this is not "private" in the sense of "belonging to someone, not public" (which doesn't work well with the intensifier muito), but rather "private" in the sense of either "intimate" or "discreet" (as in, someone who was probably very close to Nobunaga, and could be trusted). See also sense 2 here (in Portuguese). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur that Mexia's letter isn't directly supportive of Yasuke having servants of his own; and with your thoughts on the Portuguese. Rotary Engine ^talk 03:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Re-reviewing the Britannica article after the rewrite by Lockley (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yasuke), I see this sentence:

In an unpublished but extant document from about this time, Ōta states that Nobunaga made Yasuke a vassal, giving him a house, servants, a sword, and a stipend.

This is problematic — Ōta's account does not state that Nobunaga either made Yasuke a vassal, nor that Nobunaga gave him servants. See also the relevant Japanese text, translation, and explication, over at Talk:Yasuke/Archive_5#The_relevant_quote_from_the_Sonkeikaku_Bunko_version_of_the_Shinchō_Kōki.

• It is probably reasonable to infer that Nobunaga made Yasuke a vassal (家臣, kashin) on the basis of paying him a stipend (扶持, fuchi). However, the Ōta text does not state that Yasuke was a kashin: Ōta does not use this word to describe Yasuke.
• However, it is just baffling that Lockley claims that Ōta's text states that Nobunaga gave Yasuke servants. There is no mention of this in any primary text, neither Ōta's nor anyone else's, as far as I'm aware. The closest we might get is in Lourenço Mexía's letter, where he states that "agora o fauorece tanto que o mandou por toda a cidade com hum homem ſeu muito priuado pera que todos ſoubeſſem que elle o amaua / now he [Nobunaga] favors him [Yasuke] so much so that he sent him throughout the city with a very private man of his so that everyone would know that he loved him". The "very private man of his" would have been someone in Nobunaga's employ, not a servant of Yasuke. See also the relevant original text, as excerpted and translated here in the archived "The Tono Notation" subsection.

Unless we can find other sources that back this claim that Nobunaga gave Yasuke servants (independent secondary sources that have done their own research, not just sources that quote or paraphrase Lockley as the CNN article does), I think we need to explicitly attribute any such claim to Lockley. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 09:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I would support attributing this specific claim to Lockley as well. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Sources from Twitter

As you had reverted my edit, and I have reverted your revert, I would like to note @Rotary Engine that per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Twitter it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert. Professor Hirayama is a Japanese historian who is widely published in Japan, specifically in the Sengoku period. Per WP:EXPERTSPS I can see of no reason as to why Professor Hirayama's tweet would be considered unreliable as that is an opinion which does not seem to adhere to the policies stated by Wikipedia. Can you elaborate? Brocade River Poems 20:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The relevant text of WP:EXPERTSPS is Self-published material such as ... social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. The starting point is SPS are not acceptable. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. I am happy to accept that Hirayama meets those criteria; but.. the policy text is "may be"; not "are"; the other aspects of WP:RS still need to be taken into account in determining how the source is used; including WP:RSOPINiON. (NOTE: My objection has been that the source is not reliable for unattributed statements of fact; in this regard it would be neither more nor less reliable than an opinion column or monograph). The policy continues to qualify the "may be"... Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. In this instance we already have four other sources which are used as references for that section of article text; the caution required by policy would advise excluding it.

If there is another context in which it is intended that the source be used, then that should be discussed.

As for WP:RSP, it is an information page, explicitly not a policy or guideline. Reviewing the first dozen or so of the RSN discussions of Twitter, I see that the envisaged usage of Twitter is for official company or organisation tweets, and for simple facts about those organisations. The use under discussion here does not meet that.

As far as consensus goes. I would point to WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.; it is not the responsibillity of those who wish to omit the content to achieve a consensus to do so. I would also recommend WP:BRD, a broadly accepted essay on how to handle disputes without edit warring. Rotary Engine ^talk 20:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I misunderstood the intention of if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources to mean that if the information was published in other sources, it would make the WP:EXPERTSPS more acceptable for inclusion, not that it would be grounds for exclusion. I.E, if the expert is saying something others have published, then the expert's self-published statement is more apt for inclusion. As for the establishment of consensus, your statement was that This has already been discussed and your view disagreed with but there is no evidence of that. There was this one statement that Hirayama's twitter was unreliable, this statement clarifying it was a different user who made the statement and saying they weren't endorsing the claim, this post about Twitter in general referring to tweets about people who are mad and not from subject matter experts. In contrast this post clarifies that WP:EXPERTSPS allows for self-published sources by subject matter experts, and this post as well flat out saying that Hirayama's tweet would be reliable per WP:EXPERTSPS. The evidence does not necessairly agree with your statement that This has already been discussed and your view disagreed with. Brocade River Poems 21:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

In addition: I agree Twitter is a poor source. ... 14:34, 30 July 2024, ... I don't think we should be sourcing article content to Tweets. 22:43, 30 July 2024

I note that just because an editor opines that a source can be used, it doesn't mean there's a consensus that it should be used, or that it should be used in a specific manner; particularly where it's a source for which policy urges caution. Rotary Engine ^talk 22:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I missed your previous statement. I ignored the I agree Twitter is a poor source because it was the same opinion already expressed by the user here. Likewise, though, just because an editor opines that a source can't be used, it doesn't mean there's a consensus that it shouldn't be used. Brocade River Poems 23:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I have self-reverted my edit per our discussion and agreement that an RFC should be conducted about changing the state of the article. Cheers. Brocade River Poems 23:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I resent the idea that a statement should be ignored because I said it. I was not the only one to say it. I think it is worth discussing. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I ignored it because your vote does not count twice. I had already considered your dissent in the other comment which I linked. If you read in totality what I wrote, I said I ignored it because it was the same opinion you had already furnished at the linked reply. Brocade River Poems 21:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to include this, we also need to include Goza from Talk:Yasuke#New_Japanese_source(s), including the fact that the quote from the Shinchō Kōki is only in the Sonkeikaku Bunko version. I also feel that Goza's conclusion should be included, especially if we include the fact that he says that the quote implies he is a samurai, in order not to WP:CHERRYPICK his view.

This also brings up the question of other WP:EXPERTSPS sources. For example, do we include López-Vera's line that

You said "purely based on the Japanese sources the answer to the question of whether Yasuke was a samurai is that by any reasonable definition Yasuke was". To this, 1) there are also European sources we should consider, I did read them in their original language, and they point to the opposite direction 2) there is also Ōta Gyūichi's chronicle, the version kept in the Sonkeikaku library, that also seems to say he was a samurai, in the 1581's standards.

(on the one hand, López-Vera used the term "samurai" previously to describe Yasuke. At the same time, it was not a real discussion of the issue, compared to the linked thread. Credit to @BrocadeRiverPoems for that thread. Also note that interesting point he makes about Lockley's book right after, as well as that thread's view of Lockley)

And then we should also include Dan Sherer's view as well? Then we will have an article full of WP:EXPERTSPS, which doesn't sit right with me.

But if we are going to quote an opinion from WP:EXPERTSPS we also need to quote relevant facts from WP:EXPERTSPS, namely that the quote only exists in the Sonkeikaku Bunko version, that part I am certain about. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessary to include every WP:EXPERTSPS, but when individuals on the talk page have previously insisted that we are deliberately ignoring Japanese academics and only relying on western revisionists or whatever have you, it feels prudent to include that a Japanese historian who is an expert on Sengoku Japan has stated that they believe Yasuke is a samurai, just as it is also prudent to incloude Goza's statement that the only evidence that supports this statement is the Sonkeikaku Bunko version and that we should use caution. That gives a source that is in support of, and a support which has expressed caution. Those two sources together demonstrate that there is a contention or debate among Japanese academics as to whether Yasuke was or was not a samurai in terms which are clear and not speculative (i.e, this western author says retainer instead of samurai). Since the source(s) demonstrate a dispute, Wikipedia can likewise demonstrate the disputed status of the claim. If we continue to ignore them because because they were WP:EXPERTSPS then we're right back to "there are sources that say Yasuke was a samurai, and source that don't say he was samurai, but don't say he wasn't" Brocade River Poems 21:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

How would article content "demonstrate the disputed status of the claim"? How would we best reflect the "contention or debate"? Rotary Engine ^talk 21:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It would seemingly be apt that if there is a demonstrable disagreement or contention occuring between Japanese academics about the notion of Yasuke being a samurai that the article should not represent Yasuke as a samurai as a statement of fact. It could be an attributed statement such as "some historians theorize that Yasuke was a samurai", although the exact nature of what the article should represent should probably be decided by a new RfC taking into account the information that has come forth since the previous RfC. If Goza, a subject matter expert, has advised caution on representing Yasuke as a samurai I do not believe that as Wikipedia editors we should simply ignore his statement just because it comes from a WP:EXPERTSPS. Goza acknowledges that the Sonkeikaku Bunko is the basis for the claim that Yasuke is a samurai, but advises caution since that is the sole basis of the statement. Brocade River Poems 21:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's do that then. (NOTE: For the purposes of the tape, this is explicitly not me acquiescing to the use of SPS for factual content; regardless of which viewpoint those SPS support. It is more of a "Let's draft what it might look like; and decide in an RfC." This note itself doesn't need to be replied to in this forum.) Rotary Engine ^talk 22:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I am going to leave that up to someone who knows how to properly begin an RFC. Given the formatting issues pointed out for the previous RFC, I would hate for a repeat. Brocade River Poems 23:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, ideally there should be a new talk page thread about what to put in the new RfC. However, I suggest waiting at least another month before opening a new one, considering the rate at which new WP:EXPERTSPS sources are being published, and taking into account that more reliable publications will take longer to be peer reviewed ect. Otherwise we are likely to be opening RfCs every month. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

In the event of new sources being formally published, I'm not really sure we would need a new RfC every month. In this specific case I believe an RfC would be needed because the contending source is an WP:EXPERTSPS and the previous RfC developed a consensus that the claim to Yasuke as a samurai was generally undisputed by sources. As there is at least a single source now, if an RfC finds that Yasuke's status as a samurai is questionable, any additional sources could freely be added, if I understand correctly. Brocade River Poems 23:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

What if, for example, we open an RfC, and it is found that source is not reliable enough, or that his statement is not clear enough, or there are not enough additional historians agreeing, and then we close it and he or another historian publishes an article in a more reputable journal? Then we would have to open another RfC. Conversely, what if we include that statement, and then he later retracts it or clarifies that he meant something else, eg. that it was only a very slight possibility that he mentioned, and in general he agrees with Lockley? This could be something we discuss in a new pre-RfC proposal discussion. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if someone else wants to make an RfC we can't exactly tell them no. Brocade River Poems 06:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Goza did not dispute that Yasuke was a samurai, and actually implies that if the primary source is indeed legitimate then that it checks out. I would advise against this. Starting a few RfC so soon after the previous one concluded with an overwhelming consensus could be seen as attempting to circumvent the consensus of the RfC.

Particularly when there are still 0 published sources disputing that Yasuke was a samurai. You would likely need to see multiple published reliable sources, and perhaps some tertiary coverage, before considering another one. Symphony Regalia (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

>it feels prudent to include that a Japanese historian who is an expert on Sengoku Japan has stated that they believe Yasuke is a samurai, just as it is also prudent to incloude Goza's statement that the only evidence that supports this statement is the Sonkeikaku Bunko version and that we should use caution. That gives a source that is in support of, and a support which has expressed caution. Those two sources together demonstrate that there is a contention or debate among Japanese academics as to whether Yasuke was or was not a samurai in terms which are clear and not speculative (i.e, this western author says retainer instead of samurai). Since the source(s) demonstrate a dispute, Wikipedia can likewise demonstrate the disputed status of the claim.

I think this would greatly improve the content of the article compared to its current state (without a clear position on how that affects the quality of the sourcing of the article.) I'd support you adding this, if you'd like.

(edit: Also, I don't necessarily agree with the specific point about adding sources only to refute talk page users, because either the non-WP:EXPERTSPS is good enough and we should ignore the talk page users and not add self published sources, or the non-WP:EXPERTSPS is not good enough and the WP:EXPERTSPS was actually necessary, (which seems to me to be the case) in which case there is no reason to distinguish between one WP:EXPERTSPS and another without already deciding that the view of the original source was correct, in which case we should just use that. However, I think this point can be ignored if we agree simply to limit the number of WP:EXPERTSPS to a handful, while making sure to "[represent] fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views," and use the best WP:EXPERTSPS source for each view, for whatever metric we are using for highest quality source.) J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I will not add this information. The current state of the article was determined by an RFC, and if I understand correctly, we would need a new RfC to change the current status. I am fully in support of this, by the by, since new information should be taken into account. Brocade River Poems 21:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Right. We can add the Sonkeikaku Bunko point, however, as it does not go against the RfC. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I (personally) do not see any problem with adding the Sonkeikaku Bunko point. If you want to do so, feel free. I cannot speak for every other editor who might revert the edit, though. Brocade River Poems 22:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, Re: "there are sources that say Yasuke was a samurai, and source that don't say he was samurai, but don't say he wasn't"; a simplification to "there are sources that say Yasuke was a samurai" would reflect the reliable sources. We don't need the second and source that don't say he was samurai, but don't say he wasn't" part - and I don't recall anyone's ever proposed it - other than in straw. Rotary Engine ^talk 22:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

My point was merely that people have been pointing to sources that say he was a retainer in saying that they do not need a source that contests Yasuke's status a samurai to contend that Yasuke wasn't a samurai. I am personally of the mind that having a source that expresses a dissenting opinion that is clear is beneficial, is all. Brocade River Poems 22:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

My two cents:

• I like this edit adding a quote from Hirayama's tweet, which is possible (OK, not mandatory) per WP:EXPERTSPS. I would only shorten the quote per WP:NPS: Historical records about him are quite scarce, but it's certain that he held the status of a "samurai" under Nobunaga should be enough.
• I strongly advise against starting a new RfC until there are reliable sources disputing Yasuke's samurai status.
• In my opinion, Yūichi Goza's article is not such a source [14]. He says (google-translated) that "according to this description [the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shinchō Kōki], Yasuke was clearly treated as a retainer of Nobunaga, i.e. a samurai"; he goes on to say that "the Sonkeikaku Bunko version can be considered a copy with a certain degree of reliability, but it cannot be denied that the description of Yasuke being given a sword and a house may have been added during the copying process". If this primary source were false, then the other available sources (notably the Jesuit's letter referring to Yasuke as a possible future "lord", tono) would not be sufficient to reach a conclusion, and therefore "we should be cautious in concluding that Yasuke was a 'black samurai'". This seems perfectly reasonable, but also a bit obvious: historians know what they know from primary sources, and if the sources are not accurate, their knowledge is bound to be wrong. I doubt that this comment by Yūichi Goza is sufficient to justify attributing to sources ("according to Lockley, López-Vera, Atkins, Hirayama, etc.") a statement that remains uncontroversial.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

For clarities sake, I have not read Yūichi Goza myself. I was told an apparently erroneous summary of what the source said when I wrote what I wrote. If Goza's statements aren't anywhere near as contentious as they were presented to me as, then yes, it stands to reason that the source cannot really be used to represent an argument that Yasuke wasn't a samurai. The basis of my statement was entirely on what I was directed to which read The only basis for the theory that Yasuke was raised to the rank of samurai is the Sonkeikaku Bunko edition of "The Chronicles of Nobunaga," and we should be cautious in concluding that Yasuke was a "black samurai.". In comparison to what you have provided, the quote that I based my prior statements off of seems to be a bit misleading. Brocade River Poems 08:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It's here. The final paragraph is "弥助が武士（侍）に取り立てられたという説の根拠は、尊経閣文庫本『信長公記』のみであり、弥助を「黒人のサムライ」と断定するのには慎重であるべきではないだろうか。", which was probably machine translated to get the "The only basis ..." text. Rotary Engine ^talk 09:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so the the のみであり in this case is what the machine translation is translation as "The only basis". It's a more formal way of address, I'd probably favor sole as the translation myself. So, all together, The sole foundation upon which the theory that Yasuke was taken up as a warrior (samurai) resides in the Sonkeikaku Bunko "Nobunaga Kouki," and we should be cautious about declaring Yasuke to be a black samurai.

What interests me though is he uses [黒人のサムライ] as what he is saying we should be cautious about declaring Yasuke. The reason it interests me is he's using [サムライ] for Samurai there, while earlier he uses 武士（侍）. As others have so aptly pointed to in prior discussions, サムライ is used as an English loanword. While I am not going to take liberty and try to interpret his meaning or intentions, I do think it is interesting that he doesn't use 黒人の武士 or 黒人の侍 in his statement advising caution. From a certain point of view, it could be read that Goza's actually advising caution about declaring him "サムライ" because the foundation of the theory that he was taken up as warrior (samurai) is from the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobunaga Kouki.

There is some interesting stuff, though, like this, ただし、弥助が刀と屋敷を与えられたという記述が、『信長公記』の伝本のうち、尊経閣文庫本にしか確認できない点には、留意する必要がある。 Or basically It must be noted, however, that the only mention of Yasuke being given a sword and a residence can be found in the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobunaga Kouki. Here, he uses しか for only, which if my memory recalls correctly, places an emphasis on the fact that there is nothing but the Sonkeikaku Bunko version. It wouldn't be entirely incorrect, I do not think, to translate it It must be noted, however, that the mention of Yasuke being given a sword and a residence can be found in nothing but the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobounaga Kouki.

All together, though, Goza seems to be explaining what Kaneko's book reveals and the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the text says, explaining how what the Sonkeikaku Bunko version says would make Yasuke greater than just a lesser servant but that nothing but the Sonkeikaku Bunko version describes said special treatment and then says the line about caution in describing Yasuke as 黒人のサムライ, whatever conclusion one wants to draw about the sudden shift to katakana aside. It doesn't really come across as contentious as it seemed after I read the entire thing, though. At least not contentious enough that I would feel comfortable standing by my prior notion that Goza is saying Yasuke isn't a samurai more definitively. He does an admirable job of summarizing the information and arguments and sort of being like "but, you know, it's only this one book that says this". Brocade River Poems 10:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the key point is that he gives reason to suspect that the source is not accurate. It is not simply a case of "historians know what they know from primary sources, and if the sources are not accurate, their knowledge is bound to be wrong" which is a much more broad point that applies to any primary source or even secondary source (ie. a secondary source can also be wrong or misquoted ect.). For example, if there was only one copy of Shincho Koki and it had that line we would not say it might be a copy error, as even though technically true we would have no reason to suspect it. Also, it seems like a strange conclusion to the article if he really meant it the way you are describing it. There is a whole controversy about this issue, and he really feels that he is a samurai, but then writes a conclusion saying "shouldn't we cautious in saying this?" In any case, explaining what he meant would seem like WP:OR. That might hold for explicitly saying he contests Lockley as well (needs thought) but we can quote his exact conclusion without adding synth to it. And we should quote that conclusion if we quote other WP:EXPERTSPS. Also the books from López-Vera and Atkins do not discuss Yasuke's status at any length and do not go into sources. They cannot be used to dismiss an article that is specifically about Yasuke's status and that is actually quoting sources and describing what they mean and what the issues are with them. So it is really 2 (Lockley and Hirayama) against 1. (Also, if you look above in this thread, López-Vera states that the western sources "point to the opposite direction" of Yasuke being a samurai, so it could also be 2 against 1 against 1, if we take López-Vera's line as being another opinion, although I do not suggest we add that to the article). J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the key point is that he gives reason to suspect that the source is not accurate He doesn't really, though. Not exactly. He says what Kaneko's book supposedly says, that the Sonkeikaku Bunko version was supposedly copied in 1719 from a handwritten copy. He also says that Given this provnenance, it cannot be denied that the Sonkeikaku version can be regarded as a reliable copy, but the possibility cannot be denied that the account of Yasuke being given a sword and a private residence may have been added during the transcription process

As for your statement it seems like a strange conclusion to the article if he really meant it the way you are describing it, again, he uses the katakana in his conclusion on what he is cautioning people. Furthermore, his potential theory of the sword and residence being an addition amounts to 222 characters out of a 2,595 character post. He isn't actually suggesting that the source is inaccurate so much as he is saying that we cannot dismiss the possibility (that others have raised) that the information only in the Sonkeikaku Bunko version might have been added in the copying process. Specifically, Goza is pointing to Dr. Kaneko's suspicions, which was 金子氏は、黒人の名前を「弥介」とする一次史料である『家忠日記』天正十年四月十九日条（前掲）に依拠して太田一寛が創作したという見方も不可能ではない、と指摘している（金子拓『織田信長という歴史――「信長記」の彼方へ』勉誠出版）。仮にこの見方に従えば、弥助の名字に関する記載がないという疑問も解消される。

Or Dr. Kaneko notes it is not impossible that Ota created the name "Yasuke" by drawing from "The Diary of Ietada", which is a primary source for the name "Yasuke"...If this view is taken, the question of why there is no mention of Yasuke's surname is also resolved ((I omitted the citations from the translation for brevity)).

Meanwhile, someone in the comments notes that 『織田信長という歴史――「信長記」の彼方へ』を読むと、金子先生は尊経閣文庫本はむしろ最初の原本に近い年代に書かれたものであり、伝わっていない親本があったはずだと指摘されています。 Or, In "The History of Oda Nobunaga: Beyond the 'Nobunaga Ki'", Dr. Kaneko remarks that the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript was written in an earlier period closer to the original, and that there must exist a parent manuscript that has not been handed down

Without access to Dr. Kanenko's book myself, though, I cannot say for certain one way or the other if Goza is reading Dr. Kaneko's assumptions correctly. What I can say, though, is that Goza is not making a staunch statement of opposition to it. And I would thank you not to assign intentions that I clearly stated I did not have in regards to you writing it seems like a strange conclusion to the article if he really meant it the way you are describing it. There is a whole controversy about this issue, and he really feels that he is a samurai, but then writes a conclusion saying "shouldn't we cautious in saying this?" In any case, explaining what he meant would seem like WP:OR. I explicitly stated that As others have so aptly pointed to in prior discussions, サムライ is used as an English loanword. While I am not going to take liberty and try to interpret his meaning or intentions, I do think it is interesting that he doesn't use 黒人の武士 or 黒人の侍 in his statement advising caution, and followed with a hypothetical scenario that someone else could read his decision to use "サムライ" as Goza cautioning against referring to Yasuke as "サムライ", the English loanword of "サムライ". Anticipating the argument others can and will make that Goza's source shouldn't be used to contest Yasuke's status as a 侍 based on the arguments that others can and have made about the "English loanword Samurai" is not tantamount to me conducting WP:OR. Regardless, Goza spends more characters explaining how Yasuke would be a samurai (never using the Katakana) based on the Sonkeikaku Bunko version than he does arguing against the notion, meaning it would be placing undue weight on his caution to represent Goza as contesting wholesale the idea. Brocade River Poems 21:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

>>it seems like a strange conclusion[...]

>I would thank you not to assign intentions that I clearly stated I did not have

My reply was to Gitz, not your post. Note the indentations here:

Gitz: :::::My two cents: (5 indentations)

me: ::::::I think the key point (6 indentations)

you: ::::::For clarities sake (6 indentations)

In fairness, the rendered indentation on screen did not make it clear due to the use of bullet points increasing the apparent indention.

> it cannot be denied that the Sonkeikaku version can be regarded as a reliable copy, but the possibility cannot be denied that the account of Yasuke being given a sword and a private residence may have been added during the transcription process

Sounds like he is saying the book in general is reliable, but there is a possibility of this specific quote may have been added.

>What I can say, though, is that Goza is not making a staunch statement of opposition to it.

I think we might actually agree here but due to the indenting issue it seemed that I disagreed with you more than I did, even though we probably don't agree fully.

>again, he uses the katakana in his conclusion on what he is cautioning people.

Why would that matter? If anything that lends even further to my point. The "samurai" in katakana implies a weaker form of the term meant as colloquial definition (at least that is how it has been explained here previously). Lockley also uses "samurai" is katakana in his 2023 work. (I believe he used the katakana form exclusively, and only in quotes, like 「サムライ」, although I should check this again.)

> Anticipating the argument others can and will make that Goza's source shouldn't be used to contest Yasuke's status as a 侍

My point above is relevant here. Lockley does not either use this term in his more academic works. In fact the title of the 2023 work is "信長の黒人「サムライ」弥助" J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Confirming that Lockley's section on Yasuke in 2023's つなぐ世界史2 uses 「サムライ」/「アフリカ人のサムライ」 in text; not only in the title. Would be interested to see if this is also the case for 2017's 信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍. Rotary Engine ^talk 23:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

My reply was to Gitz, not your post. Note the indentations here:

Ah, my apologies. It seemed like it was a reply to me. I do not know what Lockley uses, but I merely meant in terms of 「サムライ」people on the talk page previously have made the argument that 「サムライ」(Samurai) is different from calling Yasuke a 「侍」(samurai) because the usage of katakana implies an English loanword and therefor uses a looser definition of samurai than what a 「侍」would entail. As for why it matters, Goza states:

歴史上に実在した人物である弥助が主人公として登場し、「伝説の侍」として紹介された。

Yasuke, an actual historical figure, appears as a main character and was introduced as a "legendary samurai".

Here, Goza uses 伝説の侍, with the 「侍」for samurai.

The question he states he is setting out to answer is 「弥助は侍だったか」 which is Was Yasuke a Samurai?, again, in this instance he is using 「侍」for samurai.

And here, he says that この記述に従えば、弥助は明らかに信長の家臣、すなわち武士（侍）として遇されている。 If we follow this account, it is clear that Yasuke was treated as a retainer of Nobunaga, that is, as a warrior (samurai). Here he states per the Sonkeikaku Bunko version, it is clear that Yasuke was treated as a 「武士(侍)」. If we follow the rationale that has been made on the talk page that 「サムライ」(Samurai) is looser or lesser than the Japanese definition of 「侍」(samurai), one can make the argument that Goza's repeated usage of 「侍」in relation to Yasuke, and stating that it was clear by the Sonkeikaku Bunko version that Yasuke was treated as a 「武士(侍)」, that Goza is cautioning against calling him [黒人のサムライ] because of the lesser connotation of the 「サムライ」(Samurai) English loanword meaning. That is all I mean when I say that his choice to use 「サムライ」 exclusively in his cautionary statement is a strange one and that I was predicting potential arguments that could be raised. Brocade River Poems 04:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this misunderstanding comes from lack of familiarity with how historians write. I think both "so-called" and the "scare quotes" have achieved a much stronger meaning in everyday usage than they have in academic works. Not every academic is cautious, but they are supposed to be, and some academic debates are more about how strong a conclusion is. Scholarly works should discuss problems with their own interpretations and own vocabulary. For example, a work on medieval soldiers might start out stating that "soldier" is problematic.

Advising caution is probably technically disputing, but it isn´t a dispute in the way that people tend to think of. There are also two related debates of "which term do we use" and "was Yasuke a samurai?" Neither are actually really important questions. Lockley himself said in an interview the real question, is "what is a samurai?" So I interpret Goza as pointing out a lack of certainty, which is good historical practice. He doesn’t offer a reason why the story about Yasuke was inserted. Although, it could have been inserted and still be true, perhaps taken from another now loss document. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

>Goza is cautioning against calling him [黒人のサムライ] because of the lesser connotation of the 「サムライ」(Samurai) English loanword meaning.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding here, but are you suggesting that he is actually cautioning in the conclusion against calling him [黒人のサムライ] specifically, because he should really be called [黒人の侍]? How would that follow from the previous part of sentence?

>弥助が武士（侍）に取り立てられたという説の根拠は、尊経閣文庫本『信長公記』のみであり、弥助を「黒人のサムライ」と断定するのには慎重であるべきではないだろうか。

>The only basis for the theory that Yasuke was raised to the rank of samurai is the Sonkeikaku Bunko edition of "The Chronicles of Nobunaga," and we should be cautious in concluding that Yasuke was a "black samurai."

Reading it the way you seem to be suggesting, it would mean something like 'the only basis [or sole foundation] for that theory that Yasuke was raised to the rank of samurai is the Sonkeikaku Bunko edition of "The Chronicles of Nobunaga," and we should be cautious in concluding that Yasuke was a "black サムライ," because it is a lesser word, so we should use [黒人の侍] instead'. How does the fact that the sole foundation for the theory that Yasuke was a samurai is from one book mean that we shouldn't use [黒人のサムライ]? It makes much more sense when you read it as 'we should be cautious in concluding that Yasuke was a "black samurai"' in general. Also, you would think he would talk more about the difference in connotation between 侍 and サムライ if his conclusion is about that. Lastly, he does use 侍 in the beginning of the sentence, so he seems to be interchanging the words here. If anything, if we had to explain his usage of these terms, it would be that he is quoting others when he uses 侍 and uses サムライ himself in the conclusion. For example, he is quoting the video game he mentions when he writes 'Yasuke, an actual historical figure, appears as a main character and was introduced as a "legendary 侍"'. The fact that he switches to the lesser form サムライ would then further the point about his contention. Although I'm not sure we can make concrete conclusions from word usage here. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Because the machine translation you are using is giving you The only basis for the theory that Yasuke was raised to the rank of samurai is the Sonkeikaku Bunko edition of "The Chronicles of Nobunaga," and we should be cautious in concluding that Yasuke was a "black samurai."

Which is not precisely the only way to read that. Notably, even in that sentence that you are pointing to, he uses 弥助が武士（侍) in the preceding line. Another way one could conceivably translate the above sentence would be The evidence for the theory that Yasuke was taken up as a bushi (samurai) is based on the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the "Nobunaga Kouki" and so we should take caution in declaring Yasuke[黒人のサムライ]

Again, it's not how I would translate it. As I have stated numerous times, I am just pointing out an argument that I see that others could make based on Goza's word choice. He isn't really quoting others a majority of the time he uses 侍. You are reading only one possible reading of what he wrote because the machine translation you are reading confirms how you want it to be read. I am merely telling you that someone else could look at the Japanese and translate it differently, as I have done so above, and make an argument that is altogether different from what you are seeing from the MTL version. Brocade River Poems 21:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the translation problems mean that we should avoid quotations and instead use paraphrasing. It is probably easier to be certain of the general meaning as opposed to the exact syntax. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I still don't see how translating it as "The evidence for the theory that Yasuke was taken up as a bushi (samurai) is based on the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the "Nobunaga Kouki" and so we should take caution in declaring Yasuke[黒人のサムライ]" implies that the caution is about using サムライ instead of 侍. The argument above is the same even for this translation.

>Notably, even in that sentence that you are pointing to, he uses 弥助が武士（侍) in the preceding line

I pointed that out in my comment above:

>Lastly, he does use 侍 in the beginning of the sentence, so he seems to be interchanging the words here. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree on the general methodology historians use and the fact Goza applies it is actually a good sign. It's less trying to dispute a point and more showing that a certain point is uncertain, but there is supporting evidence.

Regarding the use of [黒人のサムライ], the way I understand it (from the Japanese, not the machine translation) is that the English loanword サムライ might be too broad and/or vague according to Goza, or he is referring to the foreign perspective on Yasuke and hence not only the loanword サムライ, but also the quotation brackets. In either case, direct quotation to Goza might be more appropriate in the article.

Regarding previous interpretations of "only" and "solely", のみ is the more formal equivalent of だけ. Both are fairly neutral. しか emphasizes that something is limiting so "solely" fits better than "only". SmallMender (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A self-published source (and weakly worded one at that, Goza is saying that if the primary source is accurate then the logic checks out) is not enough to demonstrate that there is "contention" or "debate".

In terms reliable published sources that weigh in on the matter, there is a large abundance that state he was a samurai and none that state that he wasn't. Symphony Regalia (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There is not a large abundance. Your tendency to overstate your evidence actually weakens your case. Even if all the sources were of higher quality, they are not all independent and most importantly, quantity doesn’t matter. It is the quality of the sources, and specifically what they say. It would just need one good source to say that it is disputed for the situation to change. That probably isn’t going to happen. However, new sources need to be discussed as they appear. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If anything it is being understated. There is indeed a large abundance of high quality, reliable sources. This has been discussed extensively.

It would just need one good source to say that it is disputed for the situation to change.

No, not necessarily. One source is generally not enough to depict the majority view as disputed. I would recommend reading more into how Wikipedia handles due weight and majority views.

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

Symphony Regalia (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Lockley's works have already been discredited, which you in the past have used as "concrete evidence/source" in the same tone you're using now. Nocomputersintexas (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Lockley's works are not discredited. That in no way is the consensus reached by the RSN. The consensus of that RSN was that Lockley's pop history book 'African Samurai' is indeed pop history and should be handled accordingly. This means that for much of what the book claims, if there are better sources then those should be cited. Lockley as a scholar has not been discredited in any way. He is still a professor at his institution (something many people lied about on twitter which was posted on the RSN), there are no retractions for any of his work, and any criticism of his pop history novel for being pop history do not invalidate the entire body of his academic work. Wikipedia would hardly have any biographers left to cite if that alone was sufficient to argue that Lockley's work in its entirety is unusable. Relm (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The main problem with ´African Samurai´ is that it is a novel despite being sold as nonfiction. A knowledgable person can determine easily what is which, but even CNN has mistaken the fictional drama as representing historical based fact. You are right though that there are a lot of lies and misconceptions about Lockley floating about. Tinynanorobots (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A knowledgable person can determine easily what is which, but even CNN has mistaken the fictional drama as representing historical based fact.

This is personal analysis and there are no reliable sources stating this. Symphony Regalia (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

You write as if everything is clear and straightforward, that there is no need for interpretation or discussion by editors. How you read something is fact, and how we read it is false. What if two RS disagree? Or the question of how a statement is paraphrased. If Lockley says that Yasuke is a bodyguard, there is the question of what that means. A lot of the news sources repeat Lockley´s idea about Yasuke being seen as divine. One even says Nobunaga believes it, although that contradicts Lockley. However, this theory isn’t in the wiki article. I wonder why. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You are switching between two things, the idea that there is no minority view and two, the idea of what the majority view is. It would take one good source to establish that reliable sources disagree. Counting sources is flawed. Not only are there the aforementioned problems with news media, but older ideas are often more spread out. For example, there are a lot of ideas that have been discredited in mainstream academia, but still exist because they are in older books and those books are still cited by newer books. If a scholar published a theory tomorrow and if it was the academic consensus, there would be still tons of old sources. Source quality is also not binary. Especially for history, books and academic articles are better than news and pop history books. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This not in line with how weight is evaluated. A hypothetical single source disagreeing is not enough to depict the majority review as disputed. Doing so would violate WP:NPOV policy (see the Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views section). Symphony Regalia (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It happens all the time in history, a new discovery or a new interpretation is published, and that changes the majority of views. There isn’t usually a bunch of publications published repeating the new view. News media don’t write articles on every historical topic. They write about what will appeal to the causal reader. A tomb in Jerusalem has family members named Mary, Joseph and Jesus. Viking women invade England. Those type of stories.

Obviously, if a reliable secondary source on Yasuke arguing that he wasn’t a samurai was published tomorrow, it wouldn’t automatically mean that it would be depicted as the majority view. It wouldn’t automatically mean it would be dismissed. If immediately afterwards a second RS claimed that it was then academic consensus, we might be sceptical, but if the same claim was made months later, then maybe the consensus changed. So what people who believe that Yasuke is not a samurai have to do, is search for RS that say so. Or become a Subject-Matter Expert and publish their own article. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There is an excluded middle of those who believe that the evidence is insufficient to make a definite statement either way. A reliable secondary source arguing that Yasuke wasn't a samurai is not a requirement for us to decide that the view that he was should be couched as a viewpoint, not a categorical fact. It is sufficient to show that that view appears in only a minority of sources. Which would seem to be easily demonstrable. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand. It is a problem with history. Most of it is interpretation and best guesses. It doesn’t help when Wikipedia policy is designed more for debates around science than debates about history. I think there has also been too strict in application of certain policies. I have never interpreted an article saying "According to X" as depicting it as a minority view. In fact, this format is very common in academic writing in the field of history.

I don’t see the idea of Yasuke as a samurai as a minority view, however, it is a niche subject that hasn’t received much scholarship. I have a better idea of the strength of the interpretation than I used to. The term samurai seems to be problematic, not only because of its changing meaning over time, but it seems to have a different meaning depending on the language. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding, It would just need one good source to say that it is disputed for the situation to change. If the measure is the viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, then sources which directly contradict the viewpoint or which describe the viewpoint as disputed are not necessary; it would be sufficient to show that the viewpoint appears in a minority of sources only. Rotary Engine ^talk 02:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

But the number of sources isn't that important. What we have now is very few secondary sources about him, I think only one deals with the question of if he is a samurai or not, the others simply use the term retainer or samurai, which can be synonyms. There is no secondary source saying what the academic consensus is, probably because there is no academic debate about the subject. If evidence of a debate is found, then that would have to be reconsidered. Tinynanorobots (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Certainly, per WP:RS/AC, we cannot include article text asserting an academic consensus without a reliable (academic?) source which directly states that such a consensus exists. And I think we should be very cautious about asserting such a consensus on this Talk page. I would agree that the small quantity of secondary sources focused on the subject indicates an absence of study, and subsequently an absence of debate; rather than a consensus. Whether that will change in the future is an unknown. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

To quote the lede of the revised Britannica article: "Due to his favor with Nobunaga and presence at his side in at least one battle, Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people." Why would this not be sufficient to establish a consensus amongst historians by that standard? Relm (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The source, Britannica, is one we would consider generally reliable. Some editors might be inclined to object on the basis of "Lockley", and a tendency to over embellish, but that would be a poor objection. Better would be that "commonly held" and "academic consensus" are not congruent. Personally, I do think that the latter is what Lockley is implying, but (per WP:NOR) we don't include content based on implications. Additional concerns would be the dearth of academic study on the subject, such as would be necessary to establish a consensus. Rotary Engine ^talk 05:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's notable to say that the article, though written by Lockley, was an editorial commission which has a much greater level of scrutiny and review. The quote here says 'commonly held by Historians' and not just 'commonly held'. I don't see why 'academic consensus' and 'commonly held by historians' are not equivalent here. Could you explain how "Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded 'samurai' of foreign birth" and "The academic consensus amongst Japanese historians is that Yasuke was the first Samurai of foreign birth." as to me they seem to mean the exact same thing. Relm (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Because "commonly held" encompasses a broad range, from "almost always" to "often enough". It might mean that the view is held by the majority, but it does not necessarily mean that. It could also mean that it is a view held by a significant minority. We can't assume one or the other.

Per WP:RS/AC A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. The source needs to directly state "all or most scholars". The Britannica article doesn't meet that standard.

Could we reference it for content that "Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded 'samurai' of foreign birth"? Sure; though given that that claim doesn't (yet?) appear in any other reliable sources, it would probably be best attributed. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I agree with your contentions. Relm (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

And again noting that there hasn't been a great deal of published study of Yasuke on which the claim might be based. There aren't any review articles; there aren't really very many academic articles in which Yasuke has more than a passing mention. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree pretty much with what Rotary said. "Academic consensus" is a pretty big claim, and we should require an explicit statement. I have only seen "consensus" used by historians when there was a controversy or the previous majority opinion was overturned. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC itself doesn't state that the source of the consensus needs to be strictly academic so going by the first sentences, I would agree with @Relmcheatham.

The "controversy" aspect is mentioned as "although this has been disputed by some people."

On a personal note and very much OR, it is a pretty significant claim to make and sadly the Britannica article doesn't have inline citations to explain how that conclusion was reached. SmallMender (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

How the britannica article is written is very strange. Normally a position will be described simply as disputed, or it will mention a specific author. "By people" comes across as unprofessional. The argument given against giving this argument weight on wikipedia, is that we don’t know who is meant. If Lockley had just said it was disputed, it would be fair to assume he means disputed by experts. Rather, considering the context happening around Lockley, and that he contrasts this with Japanese experts, indicates he means it is disputed by non-experts.

I think it is important to be balanced when discussing these issues on the talk page. By balance, I don’t mean that each side should be given equal weight, but to realize that there are problems with Lockley´s scholarship, but not to disqualify all his work offhand. Similarly, we must acknowledge that there is not much in the way of primary or secondary sources about Yasuke and other problems. Editors making extreme statements, nor acknowledging legitimate concerns about sources, is getting in the way of fruitful discussion. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to use Hirayama´s tweets, then I think we should use all of them. I am only able to read the first one on twitter directly. There are some news websites that cover the story, but most of them look low quality. If someone could read the other ones and check the translation, they could be helpful. He argues that Yasuke was a low ranking samurai and notes that village samurai were addressed as Tono. The source that has the most tweets has a really clickbait title, so please ignore that, this is just a link that shows the tweets, not an endorsement of the site. https://thatparkplace.com/japanese-historian-claiming-yasuke-was-a-samurai-exposed-as-communist/ Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The lead

I think there are a couple problems with the lead. First, it doesn’t mention that Yasuke was a weapon bearer, which is probably more important than that he was a samurai. Second, in one line it says: "As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend". This implies that all samurai were given a house, a servant and a stipend. That is not something that the sources support, even if it is an indication of a samurai. Lastly, it mentions that he served 15 months as a samurai, but that would imply that we know when he became a samurai. I couldn’t find that in the sources. I am not sure exactly how one became a samurai at this time period. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we have a consensus whether he was a weapon bearer or a tool bearer or how important it was overall so I won't address that right now.

About the second point, it was done by BrocadeRiverPoems with this diff.

For your last point, I pushed a tentative change with this diff, trying not to change the phrasing too much. Reverted for now until someone has a better idea that reconciles Yasuke's time in service of Nobugana and the uncertainty of when he became a samurai. My current idea would be to just strike the "samurai" from the first sentence in the lead and either adding a new sentence mentioning that he became a samurai during his service or leaving the sole samurai mention in the second paragraph, but I'm sure there'll be some objections to either choice. Yvan Part (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I just want to note re: Second, in one line it says: "As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend". that it was done by BrocadeRiverPoems is not true if you were trying to say that I'm responsible for the "As a samurai" line. In the diff, I changed the wording back to what it was before someone else had reverted it to "As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend". As for the "weapon bearer", I believe the consensus reached in discussion is that the sources describe him as sometimes carrying Nobunaga's weapons but that there is no evidence in the RS that he was ever granted the specific role of weapon bearer. Brocade River Poems 04:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

if you were trying to say that I'm responsible for the "As a samurai" line. I was not. I just wanted to say that you had already made the change that removed the problem pointed out by Tinynanorobots. Yvan Part (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I wasn't sure because the wording that it was done by me is slightly ambiguous in the sense that it can either mean I fixed it (which to be fair, I didn't, someone else did), or that I put it in in the first place. Cheers! Brocade River Poems 04:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought the weapon-bearer thing showed up in several sources, but I checked the Britannica article and it isn’t there.

Perhaps the solution to the last issue is to qualify the time period. For example, he served "up to 15 months." I think just removing the word samurai is more elegant, though. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Going back to the problems in the first sentence in the lead, I still can't find a way to be more accurate. Making two sentences, one for being a samurai, one for being in service in Nobugana, either creates more problems or disrupt the flow of the paragraph.

New ideas would be really welcome otherwise removing the samurai mention from the first sentence seems like the best alternative. Yvan Part (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It occurred to me that we have the same problem with retainer as we have with samurai. We don’t know when he became a retainer. It is possible that the money he received was the first payment of his stipend, it also seems that him becoming a retainer is what makes him a samurai. My knowledge is limited, but it seems that there was no ceremony or legal process to make one a samurai. It seems that all samurai either had a fief or a stipend. Even in the Edo period, it seems that new samurai could be made by daimyo or wealthy samurai, if they could afford the stipend. It is possible that he was first a non-samurai retainer and then promoted, and indeed some secondary sources say this. However, considering the short time period, I wonder. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing all mention of status, either samurai or retainer, from the first sentence would deal with most problems. Adding a mention of his samurai status either before or somewhere else in the two sentences would be a problem. If before, it could be read as him being a samurai before coming into service of Nobunaga and anywhere else would be incongruous since the paragraph mostly deals with chronology and his stay in Japan.

Adding: Just noticed that the second sentence "Afterwards, Yasuke was sent back to the Jesuits." is itself pretty incongruous since the Jesuits are never mentioned beforehand. So I propose to also add:

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, Japanese pronunciation: [jasɯ̥ke]) was a man of African origin who came to Japan with Jesuit missionaries and served the Japanese daimyō Oda Nobunaga for a period of 15 months between 1581 and 1582, during the Sengoku period, until Nobunaga's death in the Honnō-ji Incident. Afterwards, Yasuke was sent back to the Jesuits. There are no further records of his life.

Yvan Part (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I like it. Could we change "there are no further records of his life" to "afterwards, he disappeared from historical record"? Otherwise, some readers might think that the preceding sentences are the only records. I wonder if we can combine the two lead paragraphs together. That would also avoid repetition. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure "disappeared" would be the right word. We could just add "There are no further records of his life afterward". I don't really have a problem with the lead being two paragraphs with the first being about chronology and the second being other important details.

I also feel the last sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph are a bit repetitive. Though not that bothered by it myself, if someone else feels the same I might try to come up with something to avoid the repetition. Yvan Part (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree that there any "flow" problems (which are ill-defined) with the first sentence in the lead. And as mentioned in other sections, removing the samurai mention would contradict the spirit of the RfC consensus. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Symphony Regalia No offense but I have yet to see anyone agree with your interpretation the RfC to prevent changes to the article. You are also ignoring the logic problems brought up by this section and once again you're fully reverting with no considerations about what is an improvment for the article or not. Your insistence of bringing back the cnn article when a better source that is the britanicca article exists is also odd.

Adding: You are also not engaging with the content or changes proposed at all beyond what is essentially "It's not needed" or "I don't agree", which is a textbook example of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, something I have warned you about before.Yvan Part (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a clear RfC consensus that Yasuke being considered a samurai is the majority view in reliable sources, that of which wikivoice is used for. WP:NPOV is very clear about this. I think the concern here is that you're attempting to brute force lede changes that directly concern the RfC (removal of the term samurai, removal of wikivoice) without any consensus behind them. Only one editor has given you any input, because this section does not make clear that a change was actually being proposed. I do think it is good that you have mentioned it here, so I've offered some input as well above.

1. Can you explain how removing "samurai" from the lead improves the logic of the article? What is the connection between these two things?

2. CNN and Britannica are used on different lines. There was no justification provided for its removal to begin with.

I am assuming good faith on your behalf (given that you appear to be a WP:SPA created to argue against the inclusion of "samurai"), but I'm not seeing the link between these two things (and I'm all for improving the flow or logic). The removals in question seem like they would make things more difficult to read and more confusing for readers (by also defying how WP:DUE is normally handled). Symphony Regalia (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

"There is a clear RfC consensus that Yasuke being considered a samurai is the majority view in reliable sources"

And the changes proposed do not change that.

"1. Can you explain how removing "samurai" from the lead improves the logic of the article? What is the connection between these two things?"

That I can. I'll just parse the original sentence into small blocks to make the problems more obvious.

Yasuke was a man of African origin. Yes.

Yasuke was a samurai. Yes.

Yasuke served Nobunaga. Yes.

Yasuke served for appoximately 15 months. Yes.

Yasuke served until Nobunaga's death. Yes.

Yasuke served Nobunaga as a samurai. Yes.

Yasuke served as a samurai for approximately 15 months. Unknown.

Yasuke served as a samurai until Nobunaga's death. Unknown.

Which is exactly the problem pointed out by Tinynanorobots at the very top of this section "Lastly, it mentions that he served 15 months as a samurai, but that would imply that we know when he became a samurai. I couldn’t find that in the sources." Even a "served as a samurai for approximately 15 months" would not do justice to the sources and information we have, since it is a complete unknown nor have I seen any WP:RS argue that they know when Yasuke became a samurai, even as an approximation, or for how long he was. Sources do mention that he served Nobunaga for 15 months and that he became a samurai but combining the two pieces of information become a WP:SYNTH problem.

There is also the problem I pointed out just a few replies earlier "Just noticed that the second sentence "Afterwards, Yasuke was sent back to the Jesuits." is itself pretty incongruous since the Jesuits are never mentioned beforehand.", which is why I also added "who came to Japan with Jesuit missionaries" to the first sentence. A change you also reverted.

"2. CNN and Britannica are used on different lines. There was no justification provided for its removal to begin with."

I also can explain that. It was to resolve an issue brought up by multiple editors in the talk page section "Grounds for stating that Yasuke had a servant / servants of his own?" during which they pointed out that the CNN article was apparently the only source mentioning servants but was also not attributing that statement to anyone. BrocadeRiverPoems tried attributing the claim directly to the journalist with this diff which was in my opinion pretty clumsy and seeing that the Britannica article also mentioned servants and was directly attributable to Lockley I made the change which actually offers a justification in the edit sunmmary. Both sources contain the same information presented in the article that needs reference making the Britannica article a better source per WP:HISTRS and WP:TIERS. I have absolutely no problem adding the britannica reference to both sentences if your problem is lack of inline citation.

After a careful reading of WP:DUE I can affirm with some confidence that none of the changes you have reverted with it as a justification actually fall under its premises. WP:UNDUE is only done in contrast with other viewpoints, however, none of the edits introduced or removed viewpoints.

Now, that is the second time you have accused me of being a WP:SPA which is a pretty big misread on my contributions and is very much leaning toward WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSION so I'm going to ask you not to do it again. Yvan Part (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it reads well and I don't think the change you're proposing has direct relation to what you're bringing up (the exact accuracy of the date range). How date ranges are handled in the Yasuke article are generally how they are handled in other articles (WP:2+2=4). If the start and end dates are not completely clear, in my opinion it is fine to qualify it but others may have input on that. Either way, it is easy enough to tweak the language "during the years X and Y"/"for a period between"/etc cetera if you are concerned about exact time ranges.

After a careful reading of WP:DUE I can affirm with some confidence that none of the changes

One of the primary applications of WP:DUE is what goes in the lede, and what goes in the first sentence (notability). MOS:LEAD makes this clear by emphasizing relative weight.

Concerning CNN and Britannica, people being able to check that information comes from a reliable source is essentially what results in a good encyclopedia (WP:V). Having a variety of sources results in a higher quality, more balanced article when a reader wants to check citations. The exception to this would be citation overkill (note: essay), but just one citation or two citations is very far from an excess. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is not the date range of his service to Nobunaga but the general uncertainty of when Yasuke became a samurai during that service. Calculations are not going to help if we don't have a start or end date. And again, it does raise a WP:SYNTH problem to combine two pieces of information to come to a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in WP:RS. You are free to propose changes but nobody has an obligation to do it for you if you have issues with what is currently being discussed.

One of the primary applications of WP:DUE is what goes in the lede

Again, WP:DUE and relative weight only apply when contrasted by other viewpoints, something that is emphasized in every single passage related to it. You cannot give undue weight if no other viewpoints exist in the article. MOS:LEAD does have a passage on notability but WP:MOS is ultimately a guideline which does not take precedence over policies like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, concerns I have mentioned earlier.

Concerning CNN and Britannica

You're not addressing the problems raised about the CNN article. The way it is currently used to support the "house, servants, sword and stipend" passage has a number of issues raised in another talkpage section. You are free to use it in other parts of the article if you think it is better for variety but the concerns raised by other editors that the CNN article in not appropriate for this specific piece of information are legitimate. You are free to argue your point with them directly since I did not actively participate in the debate, merely agreed with the conclusion they came to. Yvan Part (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The problem is not the date range of his service to Nobunaga but the general uncertainty of when Yasuke became a samurai during that service.

I added "approximately" to account for this, but if others think it necessary additional options could be "during the years X and Y"/"for a period between"/etc cetera.

Again, WP:DUE and relative weight only apply when contrasted by other viewpoints

Every line is in every article has weight. Weight is implicit by inclusion; there does not need to be an explicit comparison for Wikipedia's weight policy to apply. This is foundational to how NPOV is evaluated in respect to prominence in reliable sources.

In respect to the lede text, MOS:LEAD makes clear that "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject".

You're not addressing the problems raised about the CNN article. The way it is currently used to support the "house, servants, sword and stipend" passage has a number of issues raised in another talkpage section.

I took a look at the section you linked and do not see any issues highlighted aside from the suggestion that it should be attributed on any unique claims, which is pretty normal. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I added "approximately" to account for this

The discussion grows stale if you do not have additional points to raise and are merely repeating what you have already stated. Unless you can demonstrate that the changes are detrimental to the article, have concrete changes to propose that can be evaluated by the community or look for other venues of dispute resolution, you are so far a single voice of opposition.

Every line is in every article has weight. Weight is implicit by inclusion; there does not need to be an explicit comparison for Wikipedia's weight policy to apply.

I will ask you to point out precisely where that interpretation comes from as I am not understanding WP:DUE this way nor have I seen other opinions toward this interpretation.

In respect to the lede text, MOS:LEAD makes clear that "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject".

Again you are not addressing the concerns about WP:OR or WP:SYNTH which both take precedence over WP:MOS guidelines. I can only throw you back to the first point of this reply about the discussion growing stale.

I took a look at the section you linked and do not see any issues highlighted aside from the suggestion that it should be attributed on any unique claims, which is pretty normal.

Again, those are not unique claims since they are shared by both the britannica and CNN articles. However, the CNN article does not attribute the opinion despite looking like an interview of Thomas Lockley yet attributing the claim to the journalist would be silly when it can be implicitly attributed to Lockley by referencing the britannica article that he pretty much wrote in its entirety.

In fact, if we are to argue that there is no competing opinion about the fact that Yasuke received "a sword, house, stipend and servants", attribution would give the false impression that only the person to whom the statement is attributed holds this opinion.

Another possibility would be to separate the claim of "servants" from "sword, house and stipend", but still pose the problem that attributing the statement to the CNN journalist or to Lockley, based on the CNN article, are improper as a non-specialist attribution in the first case or a pretty big assumption in the second, when attributing directly to Lockley with the britannica article does not raise any issues. I can only ask you to join the section dedicated to this discussion if you wish to further argue this point.

I will also ask you to confirm that you do not have issues concerning the addition of "who came to Japan with Jesuit missionaries" to the first sentence or the changes proposed for the last sentence of the first paragraph and first sentence of the second paragraph from "There are no further records of his life. There are few historical documents on Yasuke." to "There are no records of his life afterward. Few historical documents on Yasuke exist." (additional changes proposed by Green Caffeine). Yvan Part (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I've already explained the problems with you using something unrelated (dates) to attempt to bypass RfC consensus and brute force through lede changes that have nothing to do with dates (removal of the term samurai, removal of wikivoice). You have entirely failed to justify this and the "flow" issue you've originally brought up has already been addressed by interim edits.

One or two editors on the talk page does not constitute any meaningful form of consensus, because most people are not aware that a change was proposed, and because many editors understand WP:CONLEVEL.

Per WP:CONLEVEL Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

The RfC consensus on this is the definition of the latter, as it is a mechanism employed to solicit broader community input from uninvolved editors when talk pages are canvassed. That consensus is that Yasuke being considered a samurai is the majority view in reliable sources, that of which wikivoice is used for.

It would be entirely out of step with MOS:LEAD guidelines and WP:WEIGHT to not mention the most notable thing about Yasuke. MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE is clear that the first sentence should establish the main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.) and should include noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held.

I will ask you to point out precisely where that interpretation comes from as I am not understanding WP:DUE

This is potentially problematic as it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of core Wikipedia policy. Per WP:V everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable (short of a few exceptions), and as such every line is in every article has weight. Weight is implicit by inclusion; there does not need to be an explicit comparison of two arbitrary views for Wikipedia's weight policy to apply.

Again you are not addressing the concerns about WP:OR or WP:SYNTH which both take precedence over WP:MOS guidelines.

Date ranges and age generally fall under WP:2+2=4. In the event that someone wants to change it to "for a period between X and Y" or another form of phrasing, or simply not mention the range, they are also free to do so.

Again, those are not unique claims since they are shared by both the britannica and CNN articles.

This is not an issue. It can easily be kept as is, or attributed to either of them. You are correct though that this is off-topic. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You are flailing and entirely missing the point of the discussion. The reality is that removing the samurai term does not change the consensus as Yasuke is still presented as a samurai. Frankly, if you can propose a way to keep samurai in the first sentence while also addressing the issues raised here, I honestly don't care where the samurai term goes.

It would be entirely out of step with MOS:LEAD guidelines and WP:WEIGHT to not mention the most notable thing about Yasuke. MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE is clear that the first sentence

You are still repeating yourself while not addressing issues raised so I will simply send you back to my previous reply.

Date ranges and age generally fall under WP:2+2=4. You seem to be completely misunderstanding the issues raised so I will invite you to take the time to read this whole section from the top though the main issue is entirely presented in the first message by Tinynanorobots.

I will also ask you again to confirm whether you agree or not to the changes proposed in the last paragraph of my last reply. I will consider another lack of reply on this point as a tacit agreement. Yvan Part (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary it seems you are missing the points I am raising, so I will invite you re-read my responses to you again.

I will also ask you to confirm that you do not have issues concerning the addition of "who came to Japan with Jesuit missionaries"

According to MOS:LEAD I don't see a justification for including this in the first sentence. It is already covered in the appropriate section.

or the changes proposed for the last sentence of the first paragraph and first sentence of the second paragraph "There are no further records of his life. There are few historical documents on Yasuke." to "There are no records of his life afterward. Few historical documents on Yasuke exist."

I think the current version makes more sense. "Afterwards, Yasuke was sent back to the Jesuits" could be removed though, or moved to the second paragraph if necessary. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The structure of the lede that you (Yvan) implemented after the above discussion is less redundant and still affirms Yasuke as a samurai. In my opinion it reads better and I voice my preference for it. The only other change I would propose right now is to remove the word "further" from the last sentence. As in, "there are no further records of his life afterward." edit: actually, seems like this last sentence was reverted during symphony regalia's reversion. It should be re-implemented. Green Caffeine (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The main problems with that lede suggestion is that it violates spirit of the RfC which had overwhelming consensus that Yasuke being considered a samurai is the majority view in reliable sources, that of which wikivoice is used for (which WP:NPOV makes clear), and that it violates MOS:LEAD guidelines.

The RfC consensus is quite clear and can be viewed in the archives. The topic Yvan Part has brought up can easily be addressed without the removal of "samurai" or the removal of wikivoice, which appears arbitrary and seems entirely unrelated to what he is talking about.

MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE is clear that the first sentence should establish the main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.) and should include noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held. Symphony Regalia (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Having the rank of samurai is not what makes Yasuke notable, but it makes sense to say in the lead that he is possibly the first foreign born samurai.

I have asked you multiple times if the RfC means that there needs to be a minimum number of mentions of the word samurai, and you ignore that. You seem to be acting as the enforcer of the RfC, but you aren’t making it easy. When asking for feedback before making a change, you don’t participate in the discussion. So other editors, such as myself, go through the trouble of discussing a problem, then make a change, and then revert it. Still, after reverting, you ignore the talk page. Only after you revert is reverted do you come here. However, then you just talk about the RfC is vague and exaggerated terms. This implies that you think that our changes are just sneaky attempts to undermine the RfC. What we all would like you to do is tell us how we can improve the lead without violating the spirit of the RfC. Give us concrete suggestions on how we can change, or at least agree that as long as it says in the lead that Yasuke is a samurai, then you will be satisfied. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I originally replaced CNN with Britannica. I view both sources as essentially being from Lockley. The Britannica source is newer and in many ways more academic. Suggesting another user is a WP:SPA kinda undercuts your claim to assume good faith. Assuming good faith can be difficult, but I think it would help you to understand our points. We have been mostly discussing stylistic changes and exact phrasing. We aren’t trying to go around the RfC, but actually communicate what is said in the most current literature on the topic. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe CNN is fine for helping establish weight and improving the verifiability of the article, and because it is one of the two sources that mentions servants. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

The CNN article is simply parroting Lockley. Jozuka did no independent research of primary sources to arrive at her conclusions. As such, the CNN article is not useful in evaluating the claims that Yasuke had servants. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 09:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Jozuka did no independent research of primary sources to arrive at her conclusions.

This is actually not known (unless you have a source stating this). Any unique claims should be treated as secondary. Though it should be noted that the servant claim is no longer unique.

As such, the CNN article is not useful in evaluating the claims that Yasuke had servants.

I will point out that the purpose of sources is not independent evaluation or to help editors in evaluating claims. Wikipedia simply conveys what is in reliable sources.

The role of tertiary sources is primarily to help establish the weight of claims in secondary sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Jozuka's own self-description on her bio page (https://www.emikojozuka.com/bio) states that she has only "proficient Japanese", as compared to being "fluent in English, French, Spanish, Turkish".

Moreover, the CNN article (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/19/asia/black-samurai-yasuke-africa-japan-intl/index.html) doesn't mention Ōta Gyūichi or the Shinchō Kōki, nor Ietada or his diary, anywhere on the page. The closest we get to her mentioning a primary source without attributing it to Lockley is this sentence:

Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records.

This is problematic, as the Jesuit records do not state that Nobunaga made him a samurai, nor do they state that Nobunaga gave Yasuke any servants. See also the #Grounds_for_stating_that_Yasuke_had_a_servant_/_servants_of_his_own? section, where we discuss the servant claim in particular as an apparent misunderstanding of the 1581 letter by Lourenço Mexía.

Other than Jozuka's unattributed claim here, the only other writer I've seen claiming that Yasuke had servants has been Lockley. Given the structure of the rest of Jozuka's article, relying on quoting or paraphrasing Lockley, this mention of servants must be from Lockley as well.

• "The role of tertiary sources is primarily to help establish the weight of claims in secondary sources."

This CNN article fails in this regard: the article is far from scholarly, and in relying so extensively on one author, the article lends no additional weight at all to the claims therein.

If "establish[ing] the weight of claims in secondary sources" is the only reason for including the CNN article as a source, there is zero value gained by citing it. If the article had instead included the claims and views of multiple authors, it might be more worthwhile. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This is your original research. It is not our job to evaluate the truth of what Jozuka says. It is also not our job to conclude if what she says is reliable or not based on a blurb on another website, that may or not be up to date or even written by her, based on your personal interpretation of what the word "proficient" means. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary to look at language proficiencies of the news article author. It's sufficient to note the nature of the source in the context of our article & content. Or to note that the specific claim is not well supported by the sources referenced for it in the news article, and, consequently, that it is likely made in error. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You are assuming that Jozuka did original resource. How does she have time for that? At most, a fact-checker (probably not Jozuka) called up a historian of Japan, or maybe just a historian to double-check if Lockley´s claims are plausible. She certainly didn’t travel to Japan in order to read unpublished documents. I should note that the CNN article is misleading on the topic of Ninjas. Granted, a historian might make the same mistakes, but not one familiar with Iga and the Shinobi there. Or she is being intentionally sensational. The Smithsonian Magazine cites as one source a Japanese site that promotes tourism. Journalists don’t have that much time for a single article, and these sources might be considered churnalism.

Fact checking and evaluating sources isn't OR, especially on the Talk Page, this is what Talk Pages are for. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You are assuming that Jozuka did original resource. How does she have time for that?

She certainly didn’t travel to Japan in order to read unpublished documents.

Journalists don’t have that much time for a single article

This is not for us to speculate. If she makes any original claims, by Wikipedia policy they are to be attributed to her as her research. Similarly, it is not for editors to evaluate the truth (WP:!TRUTHFINDERS) of claims in reliable sources either. WP:WEIGHT (as an indirect function of verifiability) handles this indirectly; claims in multiple sources naturally have more weight. Hypothetical unique claims generally require attribution.

Evaluating material factors to help establish source weight is fine (note: weight does not imply right or wrong), while "This source is wrong because it contradicts my readings of primary sources, or because I know about this topic and believe it is wrong, or because in my opinion the author clearly didn't go to Japan" is not. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

As an example of journalists not checking their sources, the Time article cites History of Yesterday as a source, treating it as equal with other sources. However, it contains major errors. It calls Valignano an explorer, making it seem like he discovered Japan and claims Yasuke was either abandoned or escaped. Mentions Lockley´s book, so how he got different ideas than Lockley is interesting. Perhaps he speed read the book? https://historyofyesterday.com/how-an-african-slave-became-a-samurai/

The other source cited, Kintaro Publishing is worse. It appears to be AI generated and contains "facts" like Yasuke recieving a fief. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

As previously (and extensively) discussed, an article in CNN Travel is not a high quality source in this context.

That we seem reliant on travel sections of modern news websites to establish WP:WEIGHT for aspects of a historical person speaks strongly to the paucity of sourcing on this article's topic. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The section it is in makes no difference. Per WP:RS:

In general, the most reliable sources are:

• Peer-reviewed journals
• Books published by university presses
• University-level textbooks
• Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses
• Mainstream newspapers

CNN is a major news publication and is a reliable source [15]. In terms of providing tertiary weight, it is a textbook example as it means the secondary claims in them have passed 3rd party fact checking and editorial muster.

That we seem reliant on travel sections of modern news websites to establish WP:WEIGHT for aspects of a historical person speaks strongly to the paucity of sourcing on this article's topic

This is a mischaracterization. It just one adjacent claim in particular, and a major reliable news publication providing tertiary coverage of something does not speak to paucity, it actually suggests the opposite. In any case this is probably off-topic for here. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS is a nice guideline in general. It is quite good in describing generally applicable processes for determining reliable sources; and, in that sense, the list of "most reliable sources" is generally applicable; not always applicable.

WP:RS, at WP:RSCONTEXT, does, however, countenance that the specific nature of the source in both the context of the nature of the article and the specific content for which a source is intended to be used is important in determining reliability. It's guidance in that section is that Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. Additional guidance in the context of historical claims might be found in WP:HISTRS (essay), WP:BESTSOURCES (@WP:NPOV) and WP:SOURCETYPES (@WP:RS).

It is perfectly in keeping with WP:RS for us to examine a given source and determine that, while it might be generally reliable, it is not reliable in the context of specific article content; or that it does not contribute significant weight in the context of specific article content.

It is also perfectly in keeping with WP:RS for us to examine a given source and determine that its claims are inaccurate; and therefore that it is not reliable in the context of those claims. (Note: I have done this for major newspapers when they have clearly erroneously transcribed audio recordings. We simply did not include content based on those transcriptions.)

It is not in keeping with WP:RS for us to simply parrot a claim because it appears in a major news publication, without considering the context; if news publications are not the best sources in that context, and where the claim is poorly founded.

And, it means the secondary claims in them have passed 3rd party fact checking and editorial muster, seems wishful, at best.

Summary: "But it's generally reliable (per WP:RS/WP:RSP)" is not a good response to concerns about reliability in a specific context. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSCONTEXT is applicable here as it is in all situations, and I agree that it is good practice. "This is wrong because it contradicts my conclusions after reading primary source material" or "This is wrong because the author described herself as 'proficient' which I deem as not proficient enough" are not valid reasons to dismiss a reliable source though. Unless a reliable source has contextually done something severe enough to warrant an outright dismissal (dishonesty, conflict of interest), it is generally best to let WP:WEIGHT do its thing on a claim by claim basis. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

New Japanese Source

This interview [16] has a title section that reads 「伝説の侍」に非ず, or "Not a 'Legendary Samurai'", in which Goza is quoted as saying 「また、侍だったとしても『形の上では』ということもあります。例えば江戸時代、相撲好きの大名にはお抱えの力士がいた。形式的には家臣、侍として召し抱えて帯刀を許可していましたが、たとえ戦（いくさ）が起きたとしても、お抱え力士が戦場で戦うようなことはもちろん、想定されていませんでした」, or Moreover, even if he was a samurai, it could be a 'formality,' he said. In the Edo period, for example, a daimyo (feudal lord) who was fond of sumo had a stable of wrestlers. Officially, they were treated as vassals or samurai and permitted to wear swords, however, even if war broke out, it was not expected that the feudal lords would allow such wrestlers to fight on the battlefield.

Brocade River Poems 04:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Another part of the interview reads 「敵を次から次へと斬り倒す、欧米の人がイメージする『サムライ・ウォリアー』のような存在ではなかったはずで、〝伝説の侍〟といった扱われ方には違和感を覚えます。戦ったとしても、部下を指揮するようなことはなく、一戦闘員として働いたんだと思います」 which perhaps represents a more staunch denial from Goza, which is I don't think he was the 'Samurai Warrior' that Westerners imagine him to be, slaying one enemy after another, and I feel uncomfortable with the characterization of him as a 'legendary samurai'. I believe that even if he did fight, he did not lead others, but served as a fighter. and 信長のボディーガード兼芸人というのが実態だったのではないかと思います, which amounts to I suspect that the truth of the matter is that he was Nobunaga's bodyguard and entertainer.

The article has a second part here, of Thomas Lockley's book, Goza writes 「歴史学の研究者というのは、研究する対象と一定の距離感を持つ必要があって、信長を研究していて『信長すごい』ではやはりダメで、信長の限界というものもあったんじゃないか、という引いた目で見る必要があるわけです。坂本龍馬だってそうですね。龍馬の限界や問題点というものも見て研究しないといけない。思い入れが強くなりすぎ、研究対象と一体化して、『全てを肯定していこう』という感じになってしまうと、歴史学の研究にはならなくなってしまいます。この著書を読むと、その距離感を取れていないという印象を持ちました」 or translated Researchers in the field of history need to have a certain sense of detachment from their research subjects, so it is not good to just say "Nobunaga is amazing" when you are studying Nobunaga, but rather it is necessary to look at Nobunaga from a detached perspective, as if there were some limitations to his achievements. It is the same with Ryoma Sakamoto. Ryoma's limitations and problems must also be looked at and studied. If you become too attached to the subject, if you become one with the subject, if your attitude is, "Let's affirm everything," then you will not be able to do historical research at all. This book gives me the impression that the author has not achieved that sense of distance. Brocade River Poems 04:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a good find, thanks for sharing it. As you say, I think this interview is more clear than the earlier article by Goza, and should settle what he meant by that last line.

>The article has a second part here, of Thomas Lockley's book

It is interesting to note that the book he's referring to here is 信長と弥助　本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍, not African Samurai. According to Lockley, the Japanese book was meant to be the more academic of the two. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We should really change the lead to note that him serving as a samurai is in dispute, or attribute it to Lockley, with a note of a dispute by Japanese sources. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Attributing it to Lockley would probably not be the best course of action since the Lopez-Vera source came to the same conclusion about Yasuke being a samurai, and the 2020 Lopez-Vera book in English is a translation of the original book that was published in 2016 in Spanish. Likewise, Professor Yu Hirayama's tweet has also made the news. It is also worth noting that Goza doesn't outright claim or state that Yasuke wasn't a samurai. He says he wasn't the legendary samurai that westerners might be imagining before stating definitively that he believed Yasuke was Nobunaga's bodyguard as well as noting that sometimes people were given samurai status as a formality and that that was likely the case with Yasuke. My key takeaways from Goza's interview are as follows:

• Goza's interview lends to the idea that Samurai status wasn't completely hereditary since Goza says in the Edo Period Daimyo would make their favorite sumo wrestlers samurai
• Samurai seemed to be divided into two cases, those who were actually members of the warrior caste, and those who were made samurai as a sort of gift from the Daimyo. That it specifically was applied to entertainers calls to mind the contemporary habit of 'knighting' actors and other such entertainers
• Goza doesn't definitively state that Yasuke wasn't a samurai, but that Yasuke wasn't the samurai warrior that westerners are imagining him to be. If Yasuke fought, he likely did so as a soldier. Goza believes the more likely scenario is that Yasuke was Nobunaga's bodyguard and someone who entertained Nobunaga. If Nobunaga did make Yasuke a Samurai, it was in the same way that sumo wrestlers were conferred samurai status even though they weren't actually expected to carry out military duties or go fight in war.

All told, I think Goza's interview is helpful in defining what it meant to be a samurai in the Sengoku period, and what it most likely meant if the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript is correct in the treatment that Yasuke received. Goza does mention the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript again in his interview, and he does mention since the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript is the only version of the Shinchokoki that has the mention of the sword, the house, and the stipend that one cannot dismiss the possibility that it was something added afterward in the copying process. Regardless, assuming the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript is accurate, Goza's belief is that Yasuke's status as a samurai was, essentially, just for show or a formality. Since the Ietada Diary also mentions Yasuke receiving a stipend, it does seem to be the more likely case that Yasuke was a bodyguard and someone who entertained Nobunaga, so Nobunaga gave him the formality of being a samurai. Brocade River Poems 09:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I am all about including Goza's input into the article, but I don't think your addition is too thoughtful, at least you should not just present Goza's opinion in the lead without elaborating in the main article. I think several existing sentences should be revised as well, for example, the "samurai" in who served as a samurai to the Japanese daimyō Oda Nobunaga for a period of 15 months should be reverted to just "retainer", as there is already explanation about how Yasuke qualified as a samurai under Nobunaga in the same lead. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think several existing sentences should be revised as well, for example, the "samurai" in who served as a samurai to the Japanese daimyō Oda Nobunaga for a period of 15 months should be reverted to just "retainer"

I disagree. I think this would go against the spirit of the RfC consensus. Supplementary context is just that, supplementary. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the previous RfC established that Yasuke was qualified as a samurai per sources, but I am not sure if it determined how much weight we should put on such claim, especially in the lead. I also don't think it's fair to reduce Goza's opinion into an explanatory footnotes for Assassin's Creed Shadows, because it was clearly not just for criticizing Ubisoft's handling of Yasuke, but also Lockley's flawed study of Yasuke. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

1. Referring to Yasuke as a "retainer" in the opening line of the lede, which should not be done as we've already had a RfC on this, is a different matter to how much weight should be given to a particular minority view. It doesn't necessarily have to be in the popular culture section, but it's a minority view that doesn't change the status quo and he doesn't have a strong opinion in either direction. He actually concedes that he believes Yasuke may have been a samurai.

2. Lockley's study of Yasuke was not flawed and is supported by several peer-reviews. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed does not mean Lockley's study is flawless and unchallengeable, especially by other qualified historians. Also please explain how addressing Yasuke a "retainer" in the lede is against the previous rfc. All I see is that you don't want to present the idea that Yasuke could be a lesser-samurai or samurai-only-in-name, even blatantly using an essay (CSECTION, non policy/guideline) to dismiss Goza's opinion, reducing it into an unimportant footnote. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Personal interpretations of what peer-reviewed means aren't relevant here. Peer-reviewed works clearly meet our WP:RS standards. And referring to Yasuke as a retainer in the lede was the status quo before the RfC. What is your reasoning for wanting to do so? In the RfC there was overwhelming consensus that Yasuke being a samurai is the majority view in reliable sources. Naturally this should be given due weight in the lede. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of the lede, it already explains why Yasuke qualified as a samurai, so there is no need to repeat that same information in the first paragraph. Samurai is even linked twice in the lede which is overlinked. Ask anyone who is not family with Japanese history, they definitely would not know that a samurai, a loanword, was naturally a retainer of their master. Avoiding to address Yasuke as an Oda retainer is against what is recommended by WP:ONEDOWN. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

No. The last paragraph is a recent addition to the lede (and can easily be placed elsewhere), and there is no arbitrary maximum of "1" on how many times Yasuke can be referred to as a samurai. Explicitly changing the first mention of "samurai" to "retainer", which is what the RfC was considering as the alternative but decided against, indeed contradicts the spirit of the RfC consensus in a very obvious way. Per WP:NPOV the lede must follow due weight.

Ask anyone who is not family with Japanese history, they definitely would not know that a samurai, a loanword, was naturally a retainer of their master.

Not necessarily, and these details are all available in the samurai article for anyone who wants them. It's also worth noting that many reputable dictionaries translate "家臣" as "vassal" as well. In any case these sort of specifics and details can easily be explained in the "life in Japan" section in their natural context with appropriate weight. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. Yasuke is not referred to as either retainer or vassal in the lede or the main article. Some sources cited in the article do use "retainer", besides "samurai", to refer Yasuke, but god forbidden we ever call him anything but samurai to not tarnish his legendary status. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you refrained from saying things like Lockley´s work isn’t flawed, especially when it isn’t relevant. The RfC didn’t have an "overwhelming" consensus. Consensus means total agreement, as there were dissenters, using it in this case is hyperbole. Furthermore, you have stretched the spirit of the RfC to mean whatever you want, and revert things that did not touch it. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I would be more helpful if those refrained from unilaterally asserting that it is. The RfC did indeed have an overwhelming consensus, it was something like 16-2 from uninvolved editors in favor (note: this is in terms of arguments, not votes). Consensus also does not require complete unanimity which is an incorrect interpretation. Lastly, on the contrary, editors overall have been lax with enforcing the RfC despite attempts by vandals to deface the article, attempts by editors to remove mentions of samurai while misusing the minor tag, and so on. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this page about the use of title vs status. There was agreement to change to status, and you undid it, and then only after your revert was reverted, did you take part of the discussion. If there was any vandalism, I haven’t seen it. I purposefully made multiple edits so that if I made mistakes, they could be addressed individually. You undid them all indiscriminately. You don’t take part in any positive discussion, but rather just tell people what they can’t do. I am trying to work with you here, why won’t you work with me? Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that the RfC does not mean that every reference to Yasuke must address him as samurai. But obviously only mentioning samurai once would not be in the spirit of the RfC, so some sort of balance should be found until we open a new RfC, which I still think we should wait a while for.

As an aside, this new interview is a great example of why we should wait a while. Had we opened a new RfC last week, there would a lot of debate about what Goza meant. Now his position seems a bit more clear. I think after a month or so we can take a look at seriously changing the language of the lede again (via an RfC). J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean once in the lead, or in the entire article? I think once in the lead is enough. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Saying a status is hereditary, doesn’t mean that it can’t be granted. All hereditary titles in the UK can be granted. Anthony Cummins has pointed out that servants were expected to fight and protect their lords, also a lot of samurai had non-military and military duties. This isn’t so different from Europe, where servants fought alongside their masters. Yasuke probably was more likely part of a large entourage. A mounted warrior was supposed to have 14 attendants with them in war, and in 1614 an army leader had a bodyguard of over 400 dismounted troops and 130 mounted. So even if the sumo wrestlers turned samurai weren’t soldiers, they were in the reserve. Similarly, some had fiefs to manage. I am not sure if sumo wrestlers were seen as the same as actors, but Yasuke was strong and preformed tricks. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Am I reading the translation wrong? Because Goza never claims that Yasuke wasn't a samurai. He just says he wasn't the type of samurai mythologized in pop culture that was in a bunch of battles and such. Which is something we already knew and wasn't in dispute. It looks like Goza was specifically commenting on the video game usage of Yasuke, which yeah, is a fictional depiction. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the historical samurai position given to Yasuke that this article discusses. The interview linked doesn't seem to really add to the discussion of the particular topic in question. Silverseren^C 03:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said, It is also worth noting that Goza doesn't outright claim or state that Yasuke wasn't a samurai. Rather, Goza contends that Yasuke wasn't a legendary samurai. Beyond that, Goza says that the basis for depicting Yasuke as a samurai comes from a passage that is only found in the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobunaga Chronicle, and that because it only appears on the Sonkeikaku Bunko version we cannot discount the possibility that the passage was added later during the copying process. Goza then goes on to suggest that if Yasuke was made a samurai, he was made such in-form only (which I tend to translate as in-name only), and points to an example of how in the Edo Period daimyo would often grant samurai status to wrestlers whom they favored. Said wrestlers would be on the payroll, be allowed to carry swords, and were officially considered to be vassals of the daimyo, but they weren't expected to actually perform the duties of a samurai (such as leading troops and going to war). Ultimately, Goza's addition to the conversation further demonstrates how becoming a samurai wasn't strictly hereditary if daimyo were conferring samurai status on their favorite sumo wrestlers for funsies. My addition to the article about the controversy was the article about Hirayama saying that Yasuke was a "samurai warrior", while Goza states that Yasuke wasn't a "samurai warrior", but was likely a bodyguard and entertainer for Oda Nobunaga who was made samurai in-name only. Both Hirayama and Goza say, to different degrees, that Yasuke could have been conferred samurai status, but the dispute is that Hirayama seems to argue that Yasuke was a full on proper samurai, while Goza's belief is that Yasuke's samurai status was 'just for show' basically. Brocade River Poems 04:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to add a section going into more detail on the practical meaning of Yasuke as a Samurai? So far most of the disagreement amongst the sources has primarily been more centered on what kind of 'Samurai' Yasuke was rather than objecting to his being a Samurai - even if cautioning that it's primarily based in one primary source. We have the primary text white refers to him as a weapons bearer, we have two sources (Nobuo Ikeda and Thomas Lockley's peer reviewed work) referring to him as a '家臣' (High ranking vassal), Hirayama's explanation, and now Goza's explanation. I think it is clear that these sources do seem to be in dispute on what Yasuke's role amongst Nobunaga's retinue would have been and I think this is worth clarifying somewhere in the article. I think this would add the nuance that I believe many editors desire to see on the page. Even if it later comes to be shown that Yasuke's Samurai status is disputed by non-fringe sources, having this diversity of scholarly views on what his role would have been seems worth including to me. Relm (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I had created a section about the controversial status of Yasuke as a samurai in Japan, it got removed because I called it "Samurai controversy" with the removing editor citing WP:CSECTION as their justification. The contents of said section were shunted off into a footnote, and I do not have the energy or desire to argue about it, as it seems to me if the problem was the naming of the section, that renaming the section would have been a more proper solution. That said, some editors are very quick to revert or excise when they could otherwise fix the mistake. Nevermind the fact that WP:CSECTION says Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title. but further states For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources. The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title (when there are distinct groups of controversies, the section title can be "Controversies", with subsection titles indicating what these are about)(Emphasis my own) Which, given the widespread media attention about the controversy surrounding Yasuke being a samurai, you'd think it would be worth including as a section. Brocade River Poems 04:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Instead of titling the section "controversy", "Yasuke's social status in Japan" would be more appropriate. I am not sure why many editors here are so fixated on emphasizing Yasuke's samurai status. Even the latest edition of Britainnca's Yasuke article admits that Yasuke's samurai status has been disputed, after Lockley has been directly involved in its editing. Also @Symphony Regalia: why "samurai" and "retainer" are mutually exclusive is beyond my understanding. For example, in Hayashi Hidesada's article, he is described as both a samurai and a retainer of Nobunaga in the lede. My point is, there is no controversy to describe Yasuke as Oda's retainer, but the samurai status of Yasuke is a total can of worm, i.e. disputed and possibly not a standard samurai (not because of Yasuke's ethnicity) even by Sengoku period's standard. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, you don't need my or anyone else's permission to go ahead and do that. I (obviously) support the section, I even think referring to as a controversy is acceptable because WP:CSECTION is an essay, not policy. Just be aware that someone will probably end up reverting you. Like I said, it isn't worth my time to fight. Sweeping it away into a footnote, however, definitely feels like it runs afoul of WP:BALANCE to me. Brocade River Poems 05:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I hope you read the original Japanese interview. Goza's answer the question of "whether Yasuke was a samurai or not" was not based on how popular culture depicts Yasuke as a "samurai warrior". For that first question of the first part of the interview specifically[17], Goza stated that "the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of Shincho Koki could be tempered with during copying; Yasuke's samurai status was possibly a formality (ceremonial) only." In the second part of the interview[18], Goza shared his opinion on Lockley's study of Yasuke, expressing that he felt Lockley succumbed to confirmation bias. This again has nothing to do with the depiction of Yasuke in popular culture. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe that Goza was suggesting the Sonkeikaku Bunko version was "tempered". Specifically, Goza's full statement is that among the dozens of manuscripts of the Nobunaga Koki, this is the only one that includes this biography[About Yasuke receiving a sword, house and stipend], and we cannot deny the possibility that it was added later when the manuscript was transcribed. Goza later states even if he was a samurai, it might have been in-form only. Goza doesn't make a definitive statement, he couches his arguments in "possibilities", which is reasonable. He cannot conclude definitively that the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript was modified. Goza is speaking about popular culture later, though. Specifically, the interview question he was asked was 『シャドウズ』の弥助は、立派な甲冑を身に付けて登場します。実際にはどのような立場にいたと考えられますか In "Shadows," Yasuke appears wearing magnificent armor. What position do you think he actually held? and then Goza responds with 「敵を次から次へと斬り倒す、欧米の人がイメージする『サムライ・ウォリアー』のような存在ではなかったはずで、〝伝説の侍〟といった扱われ方には違和感を覚えます。戦ったとしても、部下を指揮するようなことはなく、一戦闘員として働いたんだと思います」 I don't think he was the 'Samurai Warrior' that Westerners imagine him to be, slaying one enemy after another, and I feel uncomfortable with the characterization of him as a 'legendary samurai' and also states in response to what Yasuke's position actually was that Yasuke was likely a bodyguard and an entertainer for Oda Nobunaga.

The statement he specifically uses is サムライ・ウォリアー for samurai warrior. He is directly speaking about Yasuke's depiction in Assassin's Creed Shadows when he says I don't think he was the 'Samurai Warrior' that Westerners imagine him to be. A lot of the questions the interviewer asks Goza after 弥助とは、どのような人物だったのでしょう。ＳＮＳでは、侍だったかどうかが論争になりました are explicitly about popular culture, specifically Assassin's Creed Shadows. Since he is being asked about a video game, it is fair to say that Goza's statements are referring to depictions of Yasuke in popular culture. Shōgun (2024 TV series) even gets cited as a contrasting example to Assassin's Creed Shadows. Brocade River Poems 05:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Goza's opinion on Shincho Koki, I agree with you. Still, I believe the parts of his opinions I brought up should not be diminished or degraded by the fact that this interview was conducted against the backdrop of the Assassin's Creed Shadows controversy. His answers were based on actual studies of historical documents, not modern fiction. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying they should be diminished, I was just pointing out that it's incorrect to say that Goza isn't talking about popular culture when the majority of part one of the interview was him talking about popular culture depictions. Outside of the area you highlight, he was answering questions about popular culture depictions. Basically, the section where Goza is answering the question 弥助とは、どのような人物だったのでしょう。ＳＮＳでは、侍だったかどうかが論争になりました isn't about popular culture, but the rest of the interview is in relation to popular culture. So saying He just says he wasn't the type of samurai mythologized in pop culture that was in a bunch of battles and such isn't technically incorrect, because that's more or less what Goza is saying with 敵を次から次へと斬り倒す、欧米の人がイメージする『サムライ・ウォリアー』のような存在ではなかったはずで、〝伝説の侍〟といった扱われ方には違和感を覚えます。, which I'm not going to translate again verbatim but essentially he's saying that Yasuke wasn't the samurai warrior (in Katakana) that westerner's imagine him, that he wasn't cutting down enemy after enemy, and that Goza feels uncomfortable with Yasuke's portrayal as a legendary samurai(伝説の侍).

Another way for me to word it is that 「弥助に関する史料は、残されているものが少ないので、何とも言いがたい部分はあるんです。人物史が歴史学の本流ではないこともあり、研究対象にされてこなかったわけです。「信長の一代記『信長公記』の伝本の一つ、尊経閣文庫所蔵『信長記』十五冊本には、信長が弥助に刀と屋敷を与えたという記述があり、侍として処遇したことを示しています。ただ、これは何十とある信長公記の写本のうち、この伝本にしか出てこないもので、後世、書写の際に付け加えられた可能性は否定できません」 「また、侍だったとしても『形の上では』ということもあります。例えば江戸時代、相撲好きの大名にはお抱えの力士がいた。形式的には家臣、侍として召し抱えて帯刀を許可していましたが、たとえ戦（いくさ）が起きたとしても、お抱え力士が戦場で戦うようなことはもちろん、想定されていませんでした」 is Goza's commentary on the question about the historical nature of Yasuke. Particularly, he begins his statement with 弥助に関する史料は、残されているものが少ないので、何とも言いがたい部分はあるんです。, which I translate as Since there are few historical documents about Yasuke that exist, it's hard to say with certainty what is true. And the rest is as we already discussed, Goza goes into how the Sonkeikaku Bunko version might have been modified in transcription, and that if Yasuke had been afforded samurai status, it was likely in-form only, Goza explains about the wrestlers being made samurai in the Edo period, and how they were effectively vassals with a stipend and the right to carry swords but that they weren't expected to perform the duties of a samurai i.e, going to war.

Aside from that paragraph, though, Goza is answering questions about Yasuke's depiction in popular media. Brocade River Poems 08:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

>Am I reading the translation wrong? Because Goza never claims that Yasuke wasn't a samurai

I did not say that he did in this article. In the other article he says we should be cautious in saying he was a samurai. So in neither article does he say that he was not a samurai.

>The interview linked doesn't seem to really add to the discussion of the particular topic in question.

The interview also touches on the veracity of 信長と弥助　本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍, which is not something that necessarily needs to go into the article but may be relevant in a future RfC. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Since the opening sentence says "Samurai," I'd like to make a brief comment. From a common Japanese perspective, the opening statement that Yasuke was a "samurai" seems a bit exaggerated and not very appropriate. A "samurai" is a warrior who is willing to commit seppuku if necessary, and a mere retainer is not a "samurai." There are no documents, at least not in Japan, that state that Yasuke had such Japanese ways. It's fine to treat him as a "samurai" in an interesting way in fiction or books that deal with novelties, but it's not accurate to "define" him as a "samurai" in an encyclopedia.--みしまるもも (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Why did you try to add "fiction" to the "In popular culture" section title? You seem like you're an experienced editor, you should know how Wikipedia articles are formatted at this point. Silverseren^C 03:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• I put it in the fiction category because it seemed strange to me to categorize the works of Endo Shusaku, a famous Japanese academic novelist, simply as "popular culture." And, since all the works written there are fiction, I don't think there's any particular problem with that.--みしまるもも (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• In Popular Culture means any usage in popular culture, whether fiction or non-fiction. It's about depictions and usage of a subject. Silverseren^C 03:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your reply, Silverseren. At least in Japan, the literary works of writers such as Endo Shusaku, Mishima Yukio, and Kawabata Yasunari are not called "popular culture."

  みしまるもも (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Notably, the English Wikipedia is not written From a common Japanese perspective, so that is mostly unrelated to this article. A "samurai" is a warrior who is willing to commit seppuku if necessary, and a mere retainer is not a "samurai." And yet, there are plenty of samurai who, during the Sengoku period, did not. For instance, samurai who converted to Christianity would refuse to commit suicide because they believed it to be a sin. Konishi Yukinaga, for instance, famously refused to commit seppuku. The 47 Ronin, much later in history, all also refused to commit seppuku and instead pursued revenge. Also famously during the sengoku period Shimizu Muneharu was himself allowed to commit seppuku in exchange for the rest of the individuals inside his castle being spared. Also from the Sengoku period, Kamiizumi Nobutsuna made quite a career out of not killing himself. In fact Kamiizumi surrendered the castle without a fight, and joined Ujiyasu, Kamiizumi abandoned the Hōjō side, and sent messages to the Uesugi. He became one of Uesugi's generals, and helped the Uesugi drive out the Hōjō forces, Shingen invited him to join the Takeda side after Minowa Castle fell, what is clear is that Kamiizumi became a minor official to the Takeda clan. History is full of examples of samurai low and high in status who ran away from battles, surrendered, and lived to tell the tale. Likewise, most historical records demonstrate that instances of seppuku prior to the Edo period were forced or otherwise coerced. Brocade River Poems 04:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Hi, Brocade River Poems. Even if these examples exist, the essential question is whether there is any connection or commonality between their spirit, conviction, or determination and Yasuke's. Also, when one became a samurai, they would have been given a surname (名字, Myoji) by their lord, but Yasuke does not have a surname. If he had truly been recognized by Nobunaga as a samurai, he would have been given a surname like 三浦按針 (Miura Anjin, William Adams (samurai)). It would be interesting if Yasuke had actually become a samurai, but the reality is that there are no reliable, professional Japanese historical documents that state that Yasuke was a samurai.

みしまるもも (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC) add --みしまるもも (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, the essential question is whether there is any connection or commonality between their spirit, convicition, or determination and Yasuke's is irrelevant when thus far the only reliable source (that being Yuichi Goza) who has even slightly contended Yasuke's samurai status has also said that Daimyo gave their favorite wrestlers the status of samurai for funsies and that Nobunaga likely did the same to Yasuke if Yasuke was a samurai. Again, the common perception of samurai in Japan is wholly irrelevant, one cannot cite the common perception of the common Japanse citizen as a source. Also, since you mentioned Adams, I will note that Jan Joosten van Lodensteijn was only ever given the name Yayōsu in Japanese, so. Brocade River Poems 05:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as I concern, not a single qualified Japanese historian has ever used the lack of myoji to contest or dismiss Yasuke's status as a samurai. Not even Daimon Watanabe. Some source like the one published on President.jp recognized such argument exists online, but it is not the argument promoted by any actual historian. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

YaYōsu was a dutch samurai who also didn't have a surname. 143.58.135.208 (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Samurai is a status in Japanese history and culture, so your comment that "the common perception of samurai in Japan is wholly irrelevant" is a blasphemous, belittling, or mocking statement against Japanese history no matter how you look at it. If Yasuke was a real samurai, there would be descriptions like those of Miura Anjin in specialized Japanese historical documents. To be honest, I was shocked at the low level of the English version, which confuses fiction and novels with historical detail and attempts to edit Wikipedia articles with a touch of fantasy. Again, if Yasuke had truly become a samurai, he would have been described as such in a proper professional Japanese historical text, like Miura Anjin. --みしまるもも (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Samurai is a status in Japanese history and culture, so your comment that "the common perception of samurai in Japan is wholly irrelevant" is a blasphemous, belittling, or mocking statement against Japanese history no matter how you look at it No it isn't, it is a policy statement. The common perception of samurai in Japan is wholly irrelevant to the development of this article because it isn't something which can be cited in the article, as I have stated plainly. You have cherry picked my statement which was the common perception of samurai in Japan is wholly irrelevant, one cannot cite the common perception of the common Japanse citizen as a source. Wikipedia is built upon WP:RELIABLESOURCES. We cannot attribute a statement to "the perception of the common Japanese citizen". I would remind you of WP:NOTFORUM bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article with my added emphasis. Brocade River Poems 06:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's a shame that you can only respond in that way without making any reference to the point that "Yasuke doesn't have a family name." I've added to this article in the past, and I love the story of Yasuke, and I also love R&B and hip-hop. So I was interested in the idea that Yasuke might have been active in Japan during the Warring States period, and I wanted to know more about Yasuke, so I read a number of specialized books on Japanese history, but as a result, I found out that he wasn't particularly a samurai. Even though I know he wasn't a samurai, I still love Yasuke, who came to Japan and lived here, where he was loved by Nobunaga. So I don't really understand the intentions of those who have to make Yasuke into a "samurai" even at the expense of ignoring the richness of Japanese history. Please read more specialized Japanese literature. --みしまるもも (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  >I read a number of specialized books on Japanese history

  Do you mean books about Yasuke specifically or books about Japanese history and samurai in general? If the later, it can't be used on Wikipedia as a source about a specific subject unless a historian explicitly makes that connection. For example, your point about being given a surname is interesting, but it can't be cited in the article unless a historian explicitly makes that argument. I guess an exception would be if multiple Japanese historians say "all samurai must have surnames, otherwise they would never have been considered a samurai," but that does not seem to be the case. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Thans, J2UDY7r00CRjH. Yasuke is mentioned in only a few lines in historical documents about Nobunaga. There is no record that could define Yasuke as a samurai, and no Japanese historian defines Yasuke as a samurai. Nobunaga was alive in a time that was not so long ago, so if Yasuke was really a samurai, there should have been some records to that effect, but unfortunately there are none. Stories written by people other than professional historians that mix speculation and imagination are not "reliable sources," so if you refer to books by such people, you should mention the author's name and write something like, "According to XX, Yasuke can be interpreted as a samurai."

  みしまるもも (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  "Not so long ago"? Well, most people consider 1582 "a long ago". Everything happened before 1789 is a long ago.213.230.92.215 (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  • The time when Nobunaga lived was not that long ago when viewed from the perspective of the vast history of Japan. Sorry if that's not quite clear enough.

  みしまるもも (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Yasuke is indeed defined as a samurai by Japanese historians (Yu Hirayama, Mihoko Oka), though it should be noted that the ethnicity of the historian is entirely irrelevant. Your surname argument is demonstrably false. Lastly, the majority view in reliable sources does not need attribution. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Neither Yu Hirayama nor Oka Mihoko are historians with doctorates. Oka Mihoko is a person who makes the unfounded speculation that Yasuke's visual image was "close to the god Hachiman," which is questionable from the standpoint of reliability and therefore does not make her a reliable source in the Japanese wikipedia. In the Japanese wikipedia of the history section, no assertions or definitions are allowed unless the source is a properly academically recognized paper or book. In the English wikipedia, it may be acceptable to write in an "assertive" tone even when it includes speculation and imagination, but at least in the history section of the Japanese wikipedia, anyone who is unable to distinguish between such a fictional world and academic accuracy and continues to edit in an "assertive" tone is subject to violations. If you use such an unreliable source, you must preface it with an objective viewpoint such as "According to XX."

  みしまるもも (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is flying dangerously close to defamatory. Oka Mihoko does indeed have a doctorate, and Hirayama has a master's degree and has published extensively on the Sengoku period. I reiterate, once again, that you continue to fly dangerously close to WP:NATIONALISM by Manipulating or cherry picking what sources say for content to promote or spread a certain national or historical narrative as well as Focusing on the (perceived) ethnic background or identity of editors in talkpage discussions or other edits. Constantly asserting that the Japanese perspective is superior, or that the Japanese Wiki is somehow inherently superior is inappropriate. Likewise, I would remind you that you yourself on two separate occasions asserted that Yasuke was a samurai and submitted it to the article, here and here. Brocade River Poems 01:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Oka Mihoko has a PhD in Human and Environmental Studies ([19]). Hirayama Yu's only source is his self-proclaimed career history, and his doctoral thesis cannot be found on the doctoral thesis website. He may actually have a PhD, but it is unclear at this point. And please do not misrepresent and label me as saying that I am saying this or that about ethnicity, or that the Japanese perspective is superior. I was simply stating the fact that it is not a reliable source written by a real expert, and that the rules in the Japanese version of history are strict, so it is not allowed to edit vague things in a "definitive" tone. Therefore, since there is uncertainty as to whether Yasuke was a "samurai" (if that was clearly written in Japanese historical sources, the debate would not be so heated in the note), I am simply giving frank advice that if you write it like this, "According to XX etc., one interpretation is that Yasuke was a samurai," it would be a peaceful edit that everyone could agree on.

  みしまるもも (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  And 人間・環境学 includes 社会科学 and 人文科学, which I would remind you that history is a part of the humanities. You are tilting at windmills. Your frank advice continues to sidestep your own past actions, and likewise continues to misrepresent information and facts while trying to push your personal opinions as fact. Her dissertation is, in fact, on 近世初期の長崎とマカオ : 日本関係南欧史料の分析から which is Macao and Nagasaki During the Early Modern Period : An Overview of Japan-Related Historical Documents in South Europe. I.E, her dissertation is a history dissertation. Her field of research quite obviously had to do with history. I do not know if you are just hoping people will believe whatever you say because you are Japanese, but you have thus far provided no sources for anything you have said and continued to use this talkpage as a WP:SOAPBOX after you have been told multiple times to provide sources or to stop. Brocade River Poems 04:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  • A doctorate in "Human and Environmental studies" (人間・環境学) and a doctorate in "history" (歴史学) are different. Oka Mihoko's doctorate is not in "history". This is the same as having a doctorate in "literature" (文学) in the same "Humanities" (人文科学) as one who does not hold a doctorate in "history". And to assume that it is a "history" thesis just from the title, and to say that it is no different from a doctorate in history, sounds like a very strange fallacy. Whether she is an expert in "history" is not for you to decide, but for the Japanese academy to decide.

  みしまるもも (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Which would be true if she had a doctorate in humanities, but she has a doctorate in an interdisciplinary field that includes history, and wrote her dissertation on historical documents specifically relating to Southern European interactions with Japan, making her a historian with a doctorate. Her very subject of research involves the Portuegese interaction with Japan, which means her research subject definitively includes documents about Yasuke. Your personal opinion on the matter here is irrelevant and you once again continue to ignore the fact that your history of editing this page involves you asserting that Yasuke was a samurai twice while you are painting academics who are doing so unreliable. Brocade River Poems 21:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, Brocade River Poems. Regardless of your interpretation of Oka Mihoko, it is a fact that she does not have a doctorate in "history," and I was simply stating that fact.

  When I edited this article in the past with "samurai," I did so with a shallow understanding that "samurai" was sometimes used in the titles of fiction, so I apologize for that. I may have also written "家臣" (I remember doing so), but I did so with the meaning of Nobunaga's "retainer" or "servant" or "underling." If there is a reliable source that says that all "家臣" refer to "侍" ("samurai"), then this too was a mistake.

  After that, I saw someone delete the Japanese word "家臣," but I had nothing to do with it and I don't think I had any involvement with it after that (probably). Then, after seeing the primary sources （Chronicle of Nobunaga etc.）and materials that explain it with my own eyes, I thought that "retainer" was appropriate, and I stopped looking at this article itself. みしまるもも (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  I think there is no problem using the Hirayama's comments for one of the opinion by historian, because he offerred advices to some Japanese historical drama so he is unmistakebly historian of Sengoku Era.

  However, there is a problem using Oka's comments. She and her husband are acquinted with Thomas Lockeley and it is clear that her opinion is tend to defend Lockley. She also said the Lockley's works were "Historical Fiction"（歴史読み物） and were not "Academic Research"（学術研究）. Thus, is it not double standard adopting both of Oka's comments and Lockley's works? Pobble1717 (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  The article uses nothing of Lockley's work except the Enyclopedia Brittanica Article that was factchecked by the Encyclopedia Britannica editorial board and his 2017 work in Japanese that is supposedly academic. I sincerely wish people involving themselves in these discussions would stop tilting at windmills over Lockley. Brocade River Poems 21:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Is the Enyclopedia Brittanica Article really fact-checked? It states that Yasuke's height is [1.88 meters], but in the "Ietada Diary" (家忠日記) it says "6 shaku 2 bu" (六尺二分), which is 1.82 meters when converted to meters. And it seems that Lockley is involved in the editing of the Enyclopedia Brittanica Article ([20]).

  みしまるもも (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  As you yourself have stated I've added to this article in the past, I want to let the record show that your most recent contributions to the article prior to this past week were:

  • Inserting that Yasuke was a foreign born samurai
  • Previously adding to the popular culture section, which you recently edited by adding 'fiction' and when called out on it made it to seem like you didn't understand what popular culture meant. (Note that at the time you edited the section, you did not append fiction to it)
  • Inserting the title of Kashin, which as discussed here are quite specifically also samurai.

  Addressing your comment about me ignoring the point of Yasuke not having a surname, I responded that Also, since you mentioned Adams, I will note that Jan Joosten van Lodensteijn was only ever given the name Yayōsu in Japanese. As recently as 3 years ago, you yourself were editing Wikipedia to indicate that Yasuke was a samurai of some form, despite your argument that I am trying to make Yasuke a samurai at the expense of ignoring the richness of Japanese history. Please read more specialized Japanese literature, when it is your own edits that have variously contributed sources to the argument that he was a samurai over the years. While it is true that your understanding of the subject may have changed over time, the reality is that the additions to the article which you sourced said he was a samurai in various forms, while your present unsourced statements about "the common perspective of samurai in Japan" contribute nothing to improving the article either for or against the notion of Yasuke being a samurai. Brocade River Poems 08:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

A "samurai" is a warrior who is willing to commit seppuku if necessary

I've seen this double standard used toward Yasuke before, so I will mention that the majority of Nobunaga's samurai did not commit suicide after he died. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a bigger problem with that. If that is the litmus test, then every samurai who didn’t commit suicide, might not actually be a samurai, because how else can you know if they are willing. Oda Nobunaga probably only committed suicide because he was going to die anyway. There was no way that he was going to survive. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I am indeed saying it is a bad standard to apply to Yasuke. "He didn't commit suicide so he wasn't a samurai" is highly fallacious, and not a standard I've seen applied to anyone else. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Oda Nobunaga probably only committed suicide because he was going to die anyway Frankly, that's why a lot of seppuku historically happened. While the 47 Ronin did eventually commit seppuku, it was given to them as a choice instead of execution because the public respected them for avenging their lord. By this notion, though, the 47 Ronin should have committed seppuku alongside their master when he committed seppuku. Hence my statement that it was usually forced or coerced. In the case of Nobunaga, there was great concern that his head would be taken by Mitsuhide, which was why some in his contingent set fire to the place to destroy the body. Without the head, Mitsuhide couldn't actually prove 100% that Nobunaga was dead. I do not have the source on-hand, but I do remember reading that briefly after the incident those who were against Mitsuhide did pretend that Nobunaga had actually survived briefly for the purpose of rallying against Mitsuhide. Brocade River Poems 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

There are not as many historical documents left from the Warring States period as from the Edo period. It is possible that documents were lost. The status of samurai was also ambiguous during this time period. A lot of Edo period documents are used to interpret the Warring States period, but it is hard to know. The usage of the term samurai may even have varied between regions.

If you have more information, especially on low ranking samurai and other retainers, it might be best to add the information to Wikipedia on the page for that specific topic. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

As a Japanese person, I am writing here using the translation function. First of all, samurai and samurai are words with similar but different meanings. The origin of the word samurai is the word samurai, which refers to people who appeared in the Heian period and whose job was martial arts. This meant to stand by, and the people who did this work as a family business were later called samurai. In other words, a samurai is a status that can be used for military purposes by superiors such as daimyo and shogun. Samurai refers to those who learn martial arts and engage in military affairs. In other words, regardless of hierarchy, everyone is a samurai, whether they are a samurai, a daimyo, or a shogun. Now, what does it take to become a samurai or a samurai? It's a last name. Surnames are family names used by powerful people since ancient times. Although samurai are formally lower in status than the emperor and aristocrats, they are included in the ruling class. In other words, a samurai is a ruler who rules the land with military power, and for that purpose, a surname is necessary. This is the basic content of Japanese history that Japanese people learn. 2400:2412:3EA0:1900:C19D:740F:4099:EAC7 (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The part where there is a story about a daimyo is a story about a busi, not a samurai. 2400:2412:3EA0:1900:C19D:740F:4099:EAC7 (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Your translator translated both words to samurai. 2A02:3036:20A:4E60:D14C:1F80:90CB:2AE0 (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

They did not know that there was a samurai in the busi category. 2400:2412:3EA0:1900:595D:C3AC:7B7D:47A (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, what common people learn about history is often over simplified and shallow. I don’t see why Japan would be any different. In this case, it is possible that the common people learn the rule "Samurai have surnames" but not the exceptions. It is even possible that historians only recently discovered these exceptions to the rule, and therefore it is outdated information. However, more sources on the topic would be appreciated. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this a problem between Wikipedia and us?

We used to believe that what CNN and other media reported was correct, but the media used pop culture as a reference for their articles and treated their authors as experts.

Even if the Japanese media notices this and points out that it is wrong, we are unable to acknowledge it because it would deny our conventional wisdom. 153.234.178.217 (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

At least they didn't ask Japanese researchers of Japanese history for their opinions. That's the root cause. 2400:2412:3EA0:1900:595D:C3AC:7B7D:47A (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This is veering dangerously close to WP:NATIONALIST. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know what you are talking about. If you have a better source on the topic, please share it with us. Thank you. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not concerned with what you or any individual editor personally thinks is the truth, which is a recipe for bias. I would recommend familiarizing yourself with WP:V and WP:!TRUTHFINDERS. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not 153.234.178.217, but I understand what he's trying to say.

Did the people who wrote articles on CNN, BBC, etc. really understand Japan? Did they understand Japanese history?

I think that the American and British media wrote articles based on their own modern standards and wrote articles to satisfy themselves. When I look at the articles they wrote now, I think so.

Most of the history that Lockley claims is fiction or has no evidence. The media swallowed it and wrote articles and conveyed it to the world.

Many people believed that fiction or history without evidence, and conveyed incorrect information to even more people.

Experts point out that "he may or may not have been a samurai. We don't know because there are no documents." However, in this debate, there are still people who insist that "Yasuke is a samurai." Even when their mistakes are pointed out, they insist that "Yasuke is a samurai" because it is the majority opinion.

If Yasuke was a white European instead of a black African, or if the setting was America instead of Japan, they would be more proactive in correcting it.

You say there is bias, but aren't Wikipedians the ones who are actually biased towards Asia?

If this topic was about Europe instead of Asia, would the debate have dragged on for so long?

Assassin's Creed Shadows has created a game with a sloppy worldview, and has been criticized by Japan, China, and Korea. Are Wikipedians prepared to be criticized in the same way? 110.131.150.214 (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed: Shadows has been criticized for its frequent historical inaccuracies and lack of respect for culture.

An online petition is underway at change.org.

This criticism will likely be directed at Wikipedia and Wikipedians as well. 153.234.178.217 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this it？

We cite various rules and say that we are having a correct discussion, but since we do not try to solve the problem, it is no wonder that Japanese people resent Wikipedians, as well as British people, of which Lockley is a citizen, and Americans, who own CNN, etc. 110.131.150.214 (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of misinformation. However, we can not correct it without sources. All the sources we have, and many are Japanese, CNN was removed as a source, lean towards Yasuke being a Samuari. It seems most of the people arguing that Yasuke don’t know what a samurai is. If you have a source besides public opinion in Japan, we want it. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

All the sources we have ... lean towards Yasuke being a Samuari. This seems a little overstated. Certainly there are several sources which describe Yasuke in this way; but the quality of many of those sources is not necessarily strong, and there are at least as many sources which do not describe Yasuke as a samurai. See this diff for examples. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You have a valid point. In my opinion, there is too much reliance on term usage, and a lot of the sources are poor quality. I consider the Britannica article the best source, but it has problems. However, there is evidence through social media, youtube etc. that most historians find the use of the term "samurai" to describe Yasuke uncontroversial. Although a lot of those same sources state that the difference between a non-samurai retainer and a samurai is not known. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources are very strong by RS criteria. The claim is that, among reliable sources and major publications, there are an abundance that describe Yasuke as a samurai and zero that say that he wasn't.

And this is demonstrably true. I see no need to mince words. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

That is your opinion, what you are stating as fact. I suggest you read WP:TIER1 for a deeper understanding of reliable sources. If new sources appear, we must weigh those against our current sources. Our current sources aren’t so strong that it is unimaginable that they can not be outweighed by one really good source. OR however tells me, that is unlikely to happen. Pretty much the hardest claim about Yasuke to challenge is that he is a samurai. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

To be strictly fair, Lopez-Vera's book is published by Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona, while it's not on the WP List of University Presses, the requirements for a book to be published by their website in English says: In the case of books, they must be guaranteed by an institution which justifies and assumes responsibility for the contents Which means that the content of Lopez-Vera's book is supported by an institution it also says The editorial and publication services deal with publication orders from the different bodies within the University of Barcelona and publish works according to criteria of economy and quality. and also The books published are selected to meet the educational needs of teachers and researchers, and also of members of the public interested in high-level dissemination of knowledge generated by the University of Barcelona. Books can be submitted for publication by the authors themselves, or by research centres or teams and must be accompanied by a publication questionnaire, an index and, if considered necessary, a brief description of the publishing project. The publishing service, in consultation with collection coordinators, agrees to publish originals subjected to a double-blind review process by two external reviewers and economic and commercial reports. It also encourages the creation of new works so that research, teaching and publication projects feed into each other.

So while it's not on the Wikipedia List of University Presses, it's probably just not there because nobody has added it there yet. It's very much a university press, which does put it in the WP:TIER1 category, which was also part of why I replaced the other Lopez-Vera book with it. Brocade River Poems 06:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. It is our criteria for evaluating WP:RS. The current sources are indeed strong.

Our current sources aren’t so strong that it is unimaginable that they can not be outweighed by one really good source.

In terms of weight, no. You would likely need to see multiple published reliable sources, and good tertiary coverage, before you'd have roughly even weight, which is still far from "outweighing". Symphony Regalia (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm Japanese and I'm not good at English. Therefore, I'm using machine translation.

Because this is a long post, I won't cite any sources, but please bear with me.

If there are any web pages that you think might be helpful, such as Wikipedia, I'll let you know where they are.

I would be happy if I could be of some help.

First of all, please do not forget that, as I think everyone has noticed, status was fluid until the class system was fully established by the orders of Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the Edo Shogunate. Therefore, what I am about to write is one answer, but it is not absolute.

In English, the Japanese words "武士" and "侍" are both treated the same, samurai. Please understand that there is a language barrier.

Below, there are some parts where English and Japanese are mixed to make a distinction.

First of all, "武士" means a fighter whose main occupation is fighting. You could call them warriors.

During the Heian period, the emperor and his guards were what we would call aristocrats today, and did not have the power to fight. Therefore, when necessary, we convened specialized organizations to fight on our behalf. That was 武士.

There is a word "武将" which refers to the commander who gives orders when the 武士 form a team to fight.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AD%A6%E5%B0%86

There is a word called "家臣" which refers to the aides of the master carpenter whom the 武将 served. It was a team that only special people, such as military commanders who had achieved great accomplishments or trusted blood relatives, were allowed to join.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AE%B6%E8%87%A3%E5%9B%A3

（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashindan）

Initially, only high-ranking 武士 were called 侍. Among 武士, only those who held the rank of 5th or 6th or higher and had the rank of 侍品, whose job was to guard aristocrats and powerful clans, were called 侍.Even though they were called samurai, they were only in appearance, and because they were aristocrats, some people did not fight themselves, but only gave instructions behind the scenes.Anyone who does not qualify as a 侍 is a 武士.

During the Kamakura and Muromachi periods, those known as gokenin, whose job was to guard the shogun, also came to be considered 侍.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BE%A1%E5%AE%B6%E4%BA%BA

Those whose job was to guard powerful clans, not the shogun, were 武士. There were occasional exceptions, but even in those cases, they were not called samurai unless they held a high rank.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BE%8D

During the Sengoku period, as the authority of the Muromachi shogunate declined and order collapsed, examples of people calling themselves official ranks without going through formal procedures, or calling themselves samurai without permission appeared. In other words, 武士 and 侍 came to mean roughly the same thing.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%87%8E%E4%BC%8F_(%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%8F%B2)

During the Sengoku period, when people who had gained ability found people who were talented or who were their favorites, they would sometimes give them samurai treatment. However, if they were not useful, they would sometimes take it away.

It is wrong to say that a samurai is someone who is willing to die for his master, always commits seppuku when he loses a battle, and continues to fight until the end.

You've seen too much fiction.

In addition to samurai, there were also people called samurai servants. They were servants who helped samurai to be active, and their treatment and treatment differed depending on the organization they belonged to, but in 1591, Toyotomi Hideyoshi established a standard.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%BA%AB%E5%88%86%E7%B5%B1%E5%88%B6%E4%BB%A4

（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_Edict）

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AD%A6%E5%AE%B6%E5%A5%89%E5%85%AC%E4%BA%BA

若党: They were equipped with both a sword and a wakizashi. They were allowed to wear haori. Their work was mostly guarding, but they also transported important luggage and did odd jobs. As a soldier, they were the same rank as ashigaru or slightly higher. There are theories that they were samurai and theories that they were not samurai, so it is not clear.

中間: Not a samurai. They only had one sword, and in some cases they were not allowed to wear a real sword, so they were equipped with a wooden sword. They were not allowed to use surnames. Like farmers and peasants, they worked in silk kimonos. Their work included security and carrying luggage. It was basically a part-time position where I was paid a salary. If a servant became a favorite of his master, his children were allowed to serve him for generations, and in some cases they were allowed to use a surname and carry both a sword and a wakizashi. The work involves doing chores and carrying luggage. They were given more important work than the lower-ranking servants.

小者: Not a samurai. The lowest rank among servants, and treated as an ordinary person. Since there was a shortage of manpower, they were kind of like helping out nearby farmers. The work involves doing chores and carrying luggage.

When you work to carry cargo, it's not just weapons that you carry. Sometimes they carry small items and food necessary for daily life.

↑So far, we have talked about Japanese warriors, samurai, and other.

↓This is where the story of Yasuke comes in.

It is said that ``Yasuke was carrying tools, but it is unclear what kind of tools he carried.

It's not necessarily a weapon.

There has been talk before about what kind of private residence Yasuke was given, but we don't know because there are no documents on that.

For reference, the site of the mansion of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, a powerful member of the Oda family, looks like this.

The mansions of powerful samurai of the Oda family were located between the castle town of Azuchi Castle and the castle, and were of this size because they also served as a defensive wall to protect the castle from enemies.

If it were an ordinary person, it would not have been this size.

https://kojodan.jp/castle/19/memo/1244.html

One criticism of Yasuke is that "Yasuke is not a samurai because he didn't carry both swords and didn't have a surname." This is probably based on the standards created by Toyotomi Hideyoshi.

When Yasuke served Nobunaga, the standards were set before Toyotomi Hideyoshi established them, so it is unclear whether it is appropriate to use these standards.

In particular, Oda Nobunaga gave even Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who was of lowly origins, the opportunity to become a vassal if he saw that he had the ability, and he banished Sakuma Nobumori, who had been his vassal for generations, for doing a poor job. Since Nobunaga often did unusual things that were not often seen in other daimyo families, it would not be strange for him to give special treatment to Yasuke and give him a status. That said, if he had been given a certain level of rank, he would appear in more documents.

The reason why Yasuke does not appear in literature is that his job was to accompany Nobunaga as his bodyguard or conversation partner, and it is assumed that he did not have the status of samurai or samurai, or even if he did, it was a formal status with no real status. However, since there is no literature, this is just a guess. Tanukisann (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. A lot of it fits with what I already know. Unfortunately, without a good source, it can’t be added into the wikipedia article. I also have a question, what do you mean that about the status of samurai? That it was a status with no formal status? As far as I can tell, there is a wide range of ranks that fall under the category of samurai, from poor 3 koku samurai to the Shogun. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. A lot of it fits with what I already know. Unfortunately, without a good source, it can’t be added into the wikipedia article. I also have a question, what do you mean that about the status of samurai? That it was a status with no formal status? As far as I can tell, there is a wide range of ranks that fall under the category of samurai, from poor 3 koku samurai to Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. We apologize if any parts of the translation are difficult to understand.

I'm also sorry that I can't provide a good source.

There are many sources in Japanese, but it's hard to find ones in English.

First of all, there are actually several theories about the origin of the status 武士 and even in Japan, it is not known which is the correct one.

It is said that in the past, peasants took up arms to protect their land, but there were several circumstances that could not be explained by this alone.

The currently leading theory is that officials whose job it was to protect the land and nobles in Kyoto, the capital at the time, learned martial arts for their work, and were then sent to the provinces for work, where they continued to be armed even after their term of office ended.

NHK Broadcasting Course - Japanese History 「The Emergence of the bushi」

Supervisor：本郷和人（Doctor of Letters／Professor, Historiographical Institute, University of Tokyo）

Correspondence learning materials for high school students supervised by experts and broadcast by NHK.

https://www2.nhk.or.jp/kokokoza/watch/?das_id=D0022120048_00000

https://www.nhk.or.jp/kokokoza/nihonshi/contents/resume/resume_0000000567.html

Although it is not suitable as an information source, it is an easy-to-understand column site.

武士の上位階級 侍とは（Upper class of 武士 What is a samurai?）

https://www.touken-world.jp/tips/21046/

Since we're not entirely sure, it's enough to think of 武士 as fighters who fought for their masters, such as aristocrats and powerful families, and who came from families whose family business was fighting. Some of them had weak physical strength and were not good at fighting, so although they were combatants, they were better at office work or negotiators.

They received a salary from their master, and additional allowances depending on the results of their work. No matter what, you must first be recognized by your master.

Their main occupations are farmers and merchants, and they are called to war when their masters need them. When it was over, they received their wages and went home. These part-timers, who were only called in when their master's company was busy, were not 武士.

Their main occupation was as subordinates to their master, and they received a salary on a regular basis. When fighting broke out, they became combatants. When there was no fighting, they performed clerical work and the like. Employees of such a master's company are 武士.

If a person's master and those around him recognize him as a combatant who fights for his master, then that person can be called a 武士. There's no such thing as a license.

As for the status of 侍 the definition changes depending on the era, as I wrote above.

Originally, they were 武士 who protected their lord, and only those who held a certain status as aristocrats were called 侍.

The Kamakura period was a military government centered on the Shogun, and those who protected the Shogun came to be called 侍.

People who held the official ranks mentioned above were also called 侍.

A rule was made and strictly enforced that if a daimyo or powerful clan member wanted an official rank, they first had to request it from the Shogun of the shogunate, who would then consult with the Emperor at the Imperial Court to get permission, and the Shogun would then hand it over to them.

御成敗式目

An easy-to-read version in modern Japanese

Tamagawa University Academic Research Institute Modern Japanese Translation「御成敗式目」Full text

Procedures for official ranks (Articles 39 and 40) - 官位の手続き（３９条・４０条）

https://www.tamagawa.ac.jp/sisetu/kyouken/kamakura/goseibaishikimoku/index.html

During the Muromachi period and the Sengoku period, the imperial court and the shogunate weakened and the shogunate itself was on the verge of disappearing, causing the previous system to collapse.

Feudal lords and powerful clans who wanted official ranks began to contact the imperial court directly, giving large amounts of money or gifts in exchange for receiving one.

Eventually, there were even people who claimed to have official ranks without anyone's permission.

As a result, it became impossible to distinguish whether someone was a 侍 or not based on criteria such as holding a certain official rank or the nature of their job.

This state of confusion continued until the Edo shogunate established rules regarding official ranks.

武家官位

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AD%A6%E5%AE%B6%E5%AE%98%E4%BD%8D

武家諸法度

https://ja.wikisource.org/wiki/%E7%A6%81%E4%B8%AD%E4%B8%A6%E5%85%AC%E5%AE%B6%E8%AB%B8%E6%B3%95%E5%BA%A6

Now, regarding Yasuke's status, first of all, was he hired as a combatant? If he wasn't a fighter, he wasn't a 武士, right? If he wasn't a 武士, he didn't meet the prerequisites for being a 侍, did he?

We know that he was physically fit and strong, but there is no mention of him being employed as a fighter.

"I like your black body because it's unusual. I like it even more because you're strong and strong. I'd like you to stay by my side and talk to me from now on."

If this was the situation, words like entertainer, conversation partner, and friend would be more appropriate than samurai.

It is true that Yasuke was serving Nobunaga. I also receive a salary. However, if there were no plans to use him as a fighter, he probably wasn't a samurai, or was only a formal samurai.

Although they did not hold any official rank, as I wrote earlier, it was not a big problem during the Sengoku period.

There is also a form of salary in which they are given rice instead of land.

If you've been granted land, there will usually be a record of where you own it and how much you own.

One last time. Since we don't really have any data, we can only make predictions about Yasuke. Tanukisann (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Historians tend to think the idea that he received a sword as indication of him being hired as a fighter. Furthermore, Lockley speculates that Yasuke was trained as a fighter before he came to Japan, and was hired as a valet in order to serve a bodyguard function. Entertainer sounds like a juggler or singer. There is little evidence that he was anything like that. Saying that he was Nobunaga´s conversation partner and made formally into a samurai, is basically what Lockley says. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Historians tend to think the idea that he received a sword as indication of him being hired as a fighter. I'm not certain that I've seen it stated as directly as that in any of the secondary sources by historians. But if it is, it might be a good addition to the article text. Would it be possible to provide a couple of sources? Rotary Engine ^talk 07:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe Lockley said somewhere that it indicated Bushi status. Furthermore, Hirayama bases his argument on it. https://twitter-thread.com/t/en-US/1814356500326035650 Apparently, lower servants weren’t allowed to wear it. Anthony Cummins also specifically refers to Yasuke as a "fighting man" in a YouTube video. Cummins also points out that all servants were supposed to protect their master. Cummins may be relying in part of his conclusion on Lockley´s characterization of Yasuke as possible a trained mercenary who was hired as a bodyguard for the Jesuits.

The term "fighter" could be an easily movable goalpost. No historian has suggested that Yasuke´s main role was to fight in battle, although Lockley has suggested that Yasuke was present for at least one. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I do now recall something about Bushi status in Atkins' A History of Popular Culture in Japan; which is sourced to Elisonas & Lamers' translation of the Shincho Koki, and to the Letters of Frois on April 15 & November 5, 1581 (sic?). I'll have a look at both of those to see if the conclusion is attributable to Atkins or the others.

Hirayama's tweet includes 太刀を与えられている、と史料に登場するから。and また、太刀を許されているので、二刀指であり、下人などではない（下人には刀指が認められていない）ことも重要。 With great respect to him, 太刀 tachi, is not found in any of the primary sources; and neither is 二刀指 two sword wielder.

The closest we get is the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shincho Koki's さや巻 sayamaki, which is a short sword. And perhaps Frois' letter of November 5, 1582 describing Yasuke's surrender to Akechi Mitsuhide's men after the Honnoji incident, which has "hum criado de Aquechi se chegou a elle, & lhe pedio a catana, que nao tivesse medo elle lha entregou", which uses catana (katana). This is likely used as a generic term for nihonto, and the text doesn't ascribe ownership of the sword.

The argument in the second sentence, that servants were not allowed to wear swords is predicated on the first sentence, and is also possibly anachronistic, given that the great sword hunts did not begin until 1588 under Toyotomi. Though to be fair, Oda did apparently remove swords from farmers in Echizen province in 1576. There is, however, no indication that he prevented his own men from owning or wearing swords.

And, Hirayama's contention is that this demonstrates that Yasuke was a 「侍」 samurai, not necessarily a warrior.

All of which is a very long way around to saying that this sort of thing is the reason that I'm really not keen on using tweets as references for unattributed statements. Rotary Engine ^talk 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I apologize that the sources I provide are all Japanese pages.

Even in Japan, it is not known when the practice of carrying both a large sword and a small sword began.

Farmers and merchants are not prohibited from equipping both long and short swords.

However, I didn't do it unless it was necessary. The reason is that I am not used to it and it is difficult to walk.

It was during the Edo period that townspeople were prohibited from wearing long swords.

When Toyotomi Hideyoshi ordered the confiscating of swords, not all weapons were confiscated. Some weapons were exempt from collection if there was a reason for it, such as those needed for pest control.

People who were equivalent to samurai servants were also exempt from collection.

In the Edo period, there was no written text or law that required samurai to carry two swords: a long sword and a short sword. There may have been cases where this was made by individual daimyo rather than by the country.

Townspeople were not allowed to carry long swords, but samurai could. As a result, it became a samurai privilege.

https://crd.ndl.go.jp/reference/entry/index.php?page=ref_view&id=1000280015

Q.

I heard that the "Buke Shohatto" states that samurai must carry two swords. I'd like to see that text.

It may not be the main text of the "Buke Shohatto," but a document like a bylaw. It may also be the bylaws of the revised Kan'ei era's samurai laws.

Respondent：National Diet Library of Japan

A.

Regarding the passage you inquired about, "Samurai must carry two swords," and the detailed rules of the "Buke Shohatto," we have searched through various documents, but were unable to find anything relevant.

Yasuke was a person who existed before the Edo period.

Naturally, it is not prohibited to equip two swords. Tanukisann (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Before the sword hunts, peasants were armed like samurai. There is a ninja manual that says that the only way to tell a samurai army from a peasant army is the flags. The two swords seem to have been normal for sword wearers till the Edo period. After that, it was restricted to samurai, but also non-samurai were sometimes granted the right to wear two swords. So it really doesn’t make sense to apply it to the Sengoku period.

Tweets are problematic because it is hard to get most of the context, but they also tend to be spontaneous. In another tweet, Hirayama mentions a short sword. According to Koji Ruien only samurai were allowed to have scabbards with this type of decoration.

Hirayama is using Edo Period documents to support his ideas. The idea of samurai was changing in the Sengoku period, so they might not apply. In a more scholarly context, he would probably have added a bunch of caveats.

Here is Cummin’s video on Yasuke being a samurai, it includes the opinions of other researchers that he asked. He acknowledges that we don’t know if Yasuke could fight, a contrast to other sources that claim Yasuke was trained. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b3SGQO_Ij4 It seems a better source to cite than Twitter. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting that the sword, is described in the SBV version of the Shincho Koki as having decorative or ornamental aspects, and should not necessarily be understood as a purely utilitarian device. Rotary Engine ^talk 08:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Swords tend not to be purely utilitarian. Yasuke´s role as a retainer was probably not purely utilitarian. Servants and attendants were partly there to do work, but they were also ceremonial and served as indicators of the master’s status. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Rotary Engine ^talk 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I wrote a lot of things above, but maybe this is what you wanted to ask?

侍 up to the Muromachi period: Simply put, this is an elite course.

Because they hold a high position, they are entrusted with important tasks and are given good treatment accordingly. If they failed, it was tragic. If someone who is incompetent takes up that position, they will have a hard time.

侍 in the Sengoku period: They were treated no differently from 武士.

To begin with, there was no distinction.Those with higher abilities were treated better.

However, high-ranking officials who were called 侍 under the old standards sometimes received good treatment even after the distinction was abolished. Because they came from aristocratic backgrounds, they were ideal diplomats when negotiating with the nobility.

It's a bit questionable whether Yasuke was a samurai just because he fought in the Honnoji Incident.

Many people were attacking him, trying to kill his lord and his subordinates, including himself. Resisting with a weapon would have been a normal reaction.

For a samurai, giving a sword was a very high reward. However, as Kureza shows, swords were also given to people who were not samurai.

Nobunaga may have given a sword not because the recipient was a samurai, but because, as a samurai, he wanted to give the recipient something as fine as possible.

In addition, surprisingly, Nobunaga seemed to value the act of giving, and tended to carefully select gifts that would please the recipient. This also applied to subordinates.

"Is there anything you want? Don't you like beautiful paintings? Don't you like expensive tableware? What do you want most? If so, I'll give you a weapon."

If such an exchange had taken place, it would not be strange for him to give a weapon. Since Yasuke was a foreigner and not a Japanese person, it is difficult to judge the value of other items, and he may have simply wanted a weapon with a beautiful blade.

There is an episode about how much Nobunaga valued presents. A famous letter was written to Hideyoshi's wife. It is said to be handwritten by the author, but since it is a personal letter, there is no documentary evidence to support it.

Nobunaga listened in silence to Hideyoshi's wife's complaints about Hideyoshi's infidelity, and later mediated the couple's quarrel in a letter.

The letter begins with the following words:

It begins with this opening:

"Thank you for following my orders and coming to Azuchi. The gifts you brought are all so wonderful that I cannot express them in words. I wanted to give you something in return, but they were all so wonderful that I didn't know what to give you, so I think I'll give them to you the next time I come."

Letter from Oda Nobunaga to One Private collection (not on permanent display as it is privately owned. Nationally designated important art treasure)

https://www.tokugawa-art-museum.jp/en/exhibits/planned/2016/0714/post-12/

http://www.asahi.com/area/aichi/articles/MTW20160810241310002.html

That said, this is just my own speculation.

It is understandable that Rock Lee claims that Yasuke is a samurai because Nobunaga gave him the sword.

What was given to him was a 「のし付の鞘巻き」. Noshi is a luxurious item decorated with gold and silver, and is meant to look gorgeous in public. It was meant to look good rather than be practical.

From this we can infer that he was in a special position or was particularly liked.

Whether this was as a proper warrior or just for formality is unclear.

Saya-maki means short sword.

If you switch from English to Japanese on Wikipedia, the word will appear.

At the time, even farmers and merchants sometimes carried them for self-defense. Of course, they were not decorated with ornaments, as they were more practical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tant%C5%8D

A while ago, Rotary Engine asked me if there were cases where Nobunaga gave swords to subordinates he was making into samurai. Yes, there were.

It is recorded in "Nobunaga Koki."

On September 16, 1578 (August 15, Tensho 6), Nobunaga held a sumo tournament and appointed those whose achievements were recognized as subordinates.

On that occasion, he gave rewards.

A sword with a noshi attached, a wakizashi, a set of clothing, 100 koku of land, a private residence, etc.

On this occasion, Nobunaga gave not only a wakizashi but also a tachi sword.

It is a little different from Yasuke who only had a wakizashi, but it may be useful to know that there was an example of this.

（【巻十一（十）小相撲之事　寅八月十五日　のし付之太刀脇差衆御服かみ下御領中百石宛私宅等）

https://ja.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%BF%A1%E9%95%B7%E5%85%AC%E8%A8%98 Tanukisann (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hirayama says that Yasuke was given a tachi with a noshi attached. It seems if he was given only a wakizashi, it would strengthen the case that he was a porter. I am not sure if porters were armed, but if sandal bearers count as porters, then they were armed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Per my comment above, which I was composing simultaneously to your comment here, tachi is not in the primary sources. Hirayama appears mistaken. Rotary Engine ^talk 11:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think so too.

Mr. Hirayama may not know the difference between tanto and tachi, or he may not have read the original text. Tanukisann (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I know that in Europe, a lot of historians don’t know much about the weapons in their period. It matters what kind of historian they are and what kind of resources they are using. Although, weapon terminology can change. This is why context matters in regard to Reliable Sources, and not just how many reliable sources agree. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Mr. Hirayama is thinking about Sayamaki-no-Tachi instead of Sayamaki?

On other days it says tachi, but on other days it omits it?

Sayamaki（鞘巻）

There are various names for small swords, such as wakizashi（脇差）, koshigatana（腰刀）, and chisa-gatana（小さ刀）. One of those.

A small knife wrapped with plant vines to prevent it from slipping or to create a pattern.During the Edo period, actual rolling became less common, and instead patterns that looked like rolling began to be added.

A small sword with no wrapping pattern or tsuba is called an aikuchi（匕首，合口）.

Sayamaki-no-Tachi（鞘巻太刀、鞘巻之太刀）

The name of the decoration on a Japanese sword.

Like sayamaki, it comes from the fact that it has something wrapped around it or has a pattern that looks like something is wrapped around it.

A sword wrapped in thread is called Itomaki Tachi（糸巻太刀）, and a sword wrapped in leather is called Leather Winding Tachi（革巻太刀）.

https://www.city.yurihonjo.lg.jp/1001503/1002098/1002113/1002128/1003574.html Tanukisann (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed Shadows has created a game with a sloppy worldview, and has been criticized by Japan, China, and Korea. Are Wikipedians prepared to be criticized in the same way?

I would like to remind you to refrain from stating your personal opinion as fact. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Tricks or Good Manners?

The article says that Yasuke preformed tricks. I have noticed other sources say that he had good manners or temperament. Is it possible there is a translation error? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oka Mihoko points out that existing published translation is in error and that she would translate the relevant passage as "very powerful in strength and talented." (非常に力があり、資質に優れている) [21][22] _dk (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

There's almost certainly translation errors for a number of aspects. I'm currently looking at the various descriptions of Yasuke's meeting with Nobunaga and seeing examples of this.

e.g. Frois, in his letter dated 14 April 1581, uses the words "estranha festa" (strange party) to describe Yasuke disrobing to prove that his skin colour was natural. Solier renders this as "grand feste" (great feast), and begins to separate the words from the disrobing. Lockley in Tsunagu Sekai Shi 2 has 盛大な宴。(grand banquet); in Britannica, more simply, "a banquet", and in "African Samurai" has around 12 pages (e-book) describing the party, conversations & actions of the participants.

The key divergence appears to be in the translation from Frois' Portuguese to Solier's French.

For completeness: Lopez-Vera in both Toyotomi Hideyoshi y Los Europeos and History of the Samurai, and Ota Gyuichi in both the standard & Sonkeikaku Bunko (SBV) versions of the Shincho Koki do not include mention of a party or banquet.

The "good manners or temperament", I recall also being potentially better translated as "in good health", which is how Lopez-Vera's THyLE renders it: "aparencia sana"; sourcing this to Ota Gyuichi's Shincho Koki. The equivalent section in Elisonas & Lamers' translation of that work is rendered as "looked robust and had a good demeanor". The SBV version in Japanese has 彼男器量すくやかにて, (good looks, fine appearance) but Kaneko's book indicates that 器量 is an SBV unique addition; so the other versions would have 彼男すくやかにて, which is more in line with "healthy appearance". And that, in line with comments of Oka, mentioned above, seems a far better translation than alternatives which emphasise beauty or temperament.

I will try to find similar translation chains for the tricks. Rotary Engine ^talk 00:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I found another source that mentions Yasuke. It approaches the subject from the viewpoint of Jesuits and race. They believe he arrived as a slave and translate the "estranha festa" as a strange celebration. The author, Liam Matthew Brockley, specializes in Portuguese and religious history. [23]https://www.google.de/books/edition/Jesuits_and_Race/RlfSEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=jesuits+japan+armed+attendants&pg=PA82&printsec=frontcover Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's reliability has been damaged because of this Yasuke case

It's been months, and this article still have so many false information on it, referring to him as a samurai without any reliable source, Thomas Lockley is still cited after he was exposed to use his own Wiki account to edit articles citing his own fictional books. Debates on talk pages are going nowhere and the admins seem to care more about political correctness than trying to keep Wikipedia clean and neutral. If this is what this website supposed to be then I'm out. Feel free to continue helping them rewrite history. I don't care anymore and please delete my account. Ezio's Assassin (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Political correctness? Your recent history with this article seems to be based around complaining that it offends your sensibilities. And your complaints seem centered around information that’s been in the article since 2005. If Yasuke being referred to as a samurai was seen as relatively inoffensive then, why is it such a terrible crime now? The actual historians don't seem to mind. The real problem with the article seem to be that the pop culture section is in list format. Why not fix that?

I’m also confused as to why Thomas Lockley’s involvement is in any way contentious. From what I can see, Yasuke was being referred to as a samurai long before he came into the picture. Furthermore, the last time I was active on Wikipedia, experts and popular authors were encouraged to contribute their materials. The only hang-ups were when they edited their own wiki page, used the wiki to publish original research without citation, or gave their own contribution too much weight. Am I misunderstanding, or has this changed recently?

Also, saying “I quit” on Wikipedia is a very weird flex to make. I stopped being active on the site years ago; nobody cared. Why make a scene of it? Your drama is just going to get lost in the archives after all. Dragon Helm (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I've never heard of Thomas Lockley, Yasuke was always portrayed as a samurai long before whenever you think this Thomas entered the scene. Suredeath (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

source? ErikWar19 (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke in Echizen Province

The article says that Yasuke visited the Echizen Province with Jesuits, however this is supposed to have happened three days after it says he was with Nobunaga. The year isn’t given, did Yasuke visit the Echizen Province with the Jesuits after being given to Nobunaga, or before? Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur that there's an apparent discrepancy. If he was Nobunaga's man at the time, then why was he traveling with the Jesuits. The source we reference for the Echizen visit with the Jesuits is Fujita Midori's "アフリカ「発見」: 日本におけるアフリカ像の変遷". Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of this book and there's no preview or ebook version available on Google Books. Will have a look for alternative sources which might clarify the timing of events. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1041119/1/105

Naojiro Murakami「Jesuit Society of Japan Annual Report」May 19, 1581 Report of Luis Frois（村上直次郎「耶蘇会の日本年報」一五八一年五月十九日 ルイスフロイスの報告）

A rough translation of the situation just before the problem description

"From Azuchi we went to Nagahama, where Tōkichirō's castle is located. Luis Frois had never been there before, so between three and four thousand people came to watch, some walking in front, some walking behind, some laughing, some shouting abuse. Some people came running out of their houses when they heard the commotion.This situation continued so much that our guide chose the wrong house to stay in."

Problem Area

On arriving at the house, the owner closed the gate to prevent the crowd from entering, but three or four times they broke it down and entered the house to see the negro who accompanied them.（其家に着いて、主人は群集の入ることを防ぐ爲め戸を閉ぢたが、三、四回之を破って家に入り、同伴した黒奴を見んとした。）

Just because it says someone is black doesn't mean that they are Yasuke.

Maybe it's someone else. Tanukisann (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Briefly explain the back part

Soon after, Oda Nobuhide, Nobunaga's son whom Tōkichirō had adopted, sent people to check with the people around to see what they were doing and where they planned to go. Nobuhide Oda also wanted to meet me, so he came to the house where I was staying with his cavalry warriors, and I told him that I was going to Echizen with permission from Nobunaga, his father.

He left after a while, but now Tokichiro's nephew came and politely greeted him.

It seems that he traveled to Echizen to visit Shibata Katsuie and Takayama Hida no Kami (father of Takayama Ukon, a Christian with a baptismal name) on the occasion of Pentecost, and preached to the believers while keeping records of his journey. Tanukisann (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This section runs from frames 105 to 111.

The stories about black people are not about events in Echizen, but about Nagahama, where they stayed overnight on the way.

The large number of people had gathered to see the missionary group, including Lewis (and were intrigued when they saw that there were black people among them).

As you read further, you will find a statement that says, ``There would be no end to writing about what happened.Japanese people love unusual things, and we were something unusual in Japan.

Black people only appear in the scene in Nagahama mentioned earlier.The word "Yasuke" does not appear even once. Tanukisann (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tanukisann Thank you. I think we have a partial answer. Based on Frois letter of May 19, 1581, the Jesuits' trip to Echizen is prior to that date. Ietada's diary entry is apparently 11 May 1582.

But that opens up another question, if Yasuke was given to Nobunaga on the 23rd of the second month per Ota Gyuichi in the BSV Shincho Koki (which seems to convert to March 27, 1581), then what was he doing traveling with Frois in May? Frois also describes the meeting between the black man and Nobunaga in his letter of 14 April 1581, so it cannot be later than that. Even accounting for different calendar systems, the date of the meeting described by Ota and Frois doesn't seem like it can be reconciled with the Echizen trip. Did Nobunaga ask Valignano to give Yasuke to him on a later date? If so, then why does the BSV Shincho Koki describe the sword, stipend & residence on the date that it does? Or was there more than one black man in Japan at the time?

And how does this affect our article content? The easiest answer to this last question is probably in-text attribution. Rotary Engine ^talk 06:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I can say is that it does not say that Yasuke went to Echizen.

Alessandro Valignano and his attendant Yasuke met with Nobunaga on March 27, 1581 (February 23, Tensho 9).

Luis Frois left Azuchi on May 14, 1581 (April 12, Tensho 9).He arrived in Nagahama that afternoon. That was the same day that a large crowd gathered.

He arrived in Echizen on May 16, 1581 (April 14, Tensho 9).

The report was dated May 19, 1581 (April 17, Tensho 9).

Upon review, the next section contains a report dated May 29 (April 27, Tensho 9).

After conquering the Takeda, Yasuke was seen with Nobunaga's party on the way back to Azuchi on May 11, 1582 (April 19, Tensho 10).

Possible scenarios

A: Luis said he was going to Echizen, so Yasuke got Nobunaga's permission and accompanied him.

B: Nobunaga had never seen a black person, but there were several black people among the missionaries' followers. After considering who to introduce to Nobunaga, only Yasuke, who could speak some Japanese, was chosen to meet Nobunaga.

C: Since Yasuke was gone, a new person was called in.

～

By the way, I would like to report that I found the following statement further on.

I think there are some Japanese words that I have seen somewhere before. Yes, it's the Honnoji Incident.

There is no mention of Yasuke performing the beheading of Nobunaga or of Nobunaga telling him to hide his head.It does not say that he reported on Akechi Mitsuhide's betrayal.

https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1041119/1/161

https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1041119/1/163

https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1041119/1/164 Tanukisann (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

There were certainly more than one black person in service with the Jesuits. The book about unfree persons and the Jesuits discusses this. Because I was unable to confirm the Japanese source for the article, and it seems an obvious mistake, I removed the sentence.

About Nobunaga´s head. Lockley made it clear in an interview that we don’t know who beheaded Nobunaga, however his personal opinion was that Nobunaga was decapitated by his page, and Yasuke decapitated the page. Lockley´s reason for the latter is that Yasuke was the only one left. The records do say that Yasuke went from Nobunaga to Nobutada, after the former’s death. I think there is another record that says that Nobutada received news of the attack from messengers. If Yasuke is one of these messengers is unclear. If messengers were sent at the beginning of the attack, then Nobutada might have already heard of the attack. Especially since Lockley says the two buildings were ten minutes apart, then Nobutada might have already heard the fighting. If the only source is the HuffPost, then it might be a conclusion made by the journalist jumping to conclusions, and not a historian who has examined the different accounts of the battle. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we should double-check, if possible, Fujita´s book. I think in this case, we can also interpret the incidence's absence from other lists as it being a minority position, and on that basis and the basis of it being unlikely to be Yasuke, remove the line. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Weapon-bearer

Does anyone know about this weapon bearer thing? This is Yasuke´s only explicitly named duty as a samurai. I haven’t been able to find out any information on this position. Literature I found about different bearers lists them as Monomachi, but none are called weapon-bearer. There are spear-bearers, and if weapons here means defensive weapons, there is also a helmet-bearer. Some sources refer to Yasuke as a sword-bearer, which seems to have been the job of a page. I think this is more important than if he is a samurai, because a samurai is such a wide category, and some authors claim it applies to people Chogen etc. However, weapon bearer is an explicit job. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The "weapon-bearer" to my understanding comes from an interpretation of a primary source (carried out by an already included secondary source?) of the sentence in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuke#cite_note-34

Is it monomachi or monomochi as in 物持ち? The position of weapon-bearer would be dougumochi as in here: https://kotobank.jp/word/%E9%81%93%E5%85%B7%E6%8C%81-580033 SmallMender (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

(Wading back in...)

There is a primary-source quotation from the Sonkeikaku version of the Shinchō Kōki that modern authors have apparently used as grounds for calling Yasuke "weapon-bearer", even though the source text itself doesn't use the specific title 道具持ち (dōgu-mochi). The primary-source text was discussed earlier here: Talk:Yasuke/Archive_4#c-Eirikr-20240725001500-J2UDY7r00CRjH-20240722082300.

@SmallMender, #cite_note_34 doesn't seem to exist as an anchor on the page. If you mean the cite note currently visibly numbered 34, that's the Yahoo! Japan article 【戦国こぼれ話】織田信長が登用した黒人武将・弥助とは、いったい何者なのか. This contains various problems, such as this bit:

信長は弥助を武士として身辺に置き、将来的には城持ちにまで引き立てようとしたという。
Nobunaga kept Yasuke nearby as a bushi [warrior], and was apparently going to promote him in the future to castle-owner.

This is an apparent misunderstanding / misattribution of an episode related in Lourenço Mexía's letter, as excerpted and translated earlier here: Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#c-Eirikr-20240524224800-X0n10ox-20240524024300. In that letter, Mexía described the gossip around town, that Nobunaga might make Yasuke a tono. But again, this was gossip from around town -- not anything that Mexía attributed to Nobunaga himself.

However, I don't see any other instances of 持ち in the Yahoo! Japan article, nor of the word 道具...? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, it seems like the sources were moved around. I should've used a permanent link. The source I had in mind is this one:

Kaneko, Hiraku (2009). 織田信長という歴史 － 「信長記」の彼方へ [The History of Oda Nobunaga: Beyond the Shinchōki] (in Japanese). Iwanami Shoten. p. 311. ISBN 978-4-585-05420-7.

It is currently used as an in-line citation for the quote from Shinchō Kōki of the Sonkeikaku Bunko (尊経閣文庫). SmallMender (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@SmallMender — ah, yes, in that case, please review my earlier post here (now archived) regarding the specific wording, particularly note 4. In a nutshell: Ōta himself would have known the title 道具持ち (dōgu-mochi, "tool/weapon-bearer"), so his decision to instead describe Yasuke using roundabout wording (「依時御道具なともたされられ候」 / "sometimes he was allowed to / was made to hold/carry the [master's] tools and other items") tells us that Yasuke did not have the "weapon-bearer" title.

As an alternative perspective, since this is apparently the text that appears only in the Sonkeikaku version, and this was possibly added by Ōta Gyūichi's fourth-generation descendant Ōta Yazaemon Kazuhiro (per Professor Kaneko's book), this wording could be understood as an even stronger indication that Yasuke was not acting in any official "weapon-bearer" capacity. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

If Kaneko is specifically saying the text about Yasuke is possibly added later, that should be put in the article. Do you know if dōgu-mochi is generic, or if it has connotations of a specific weapon. It seems some think it means sword and others think it means spear. Some of the few sources I found on google books are about castle towns. Unfortunately, they only allow snippets, so I can’t say what they say about the role, but maybe it is a position for daimyos, or just another name for a spear carrier. One of the few sources I found with the term uses it to describe Yasuke, calling him a porter of Nobunaga´s straight headed yari spear as well as a shikan samurai. https://www.google.de/books/edition/Samurai_Road/0jvJDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=d%C5%8Dgu-mochi&pg=PT197&printsec=frontcover Despite the few secondary sources on Yasuke, there seems some disagreement about him. It shows how much is interpretation and how it is communicated with confidence. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is one of my sources: Warfare in Japan[24] There are other sources that list the followers of a mounted samurai that are similar. Neither a sword bearer nor an equipment bearer is listed among them. Interestingly, the author puts "allows" in quotes suggesting perhaps that saying X was allowed to carrier his master's Y, might have been a typical phrasing. https://www.google.de/books/edition/An_Unabridged_Japanese_English_Dictionar/4WwuAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=d%C5%8Dgu-mochi&pg=PA177&printsec=frontcover This Dictionary says Dogumochi means Yarimochi. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)