Talk:Yasuke/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Thomas Lockley's First Papers

It’s been a long time. I had no intention of coming, but I saw something interesting so I brought it. I'll be back soon.

The Story of Yasuke: Nobunaga's African Retainer. 桜文論叢. 2016. 91. 89-127

It was said that Thomas Lockley's paper had been removed from Nihon University's website and could not be viewed, but some Japanese people noticed that the file remained on the server, only the link to the file had disappeared. . It seems that it could be viewed by simply rewriting the URL.
Thomas Lockley claims that this is a thesis, but half of it is an introduction to Japanese history, and the other half is Lockley's speculation and wishful thinking, with almost no academic discussion. There was a story about Naoto in a few sections above, and what he pointed out was true.

https://www.publication.law.nihon-u.ac.jp/pdf/treatise/treatise_91/all.pdf

We read primary documents and we all know that there is only one mention of Yasuke in Ietada's diary, right? Along with Nobunaga was Yasuke, and it is said that he was a large, black man.
However, Thomas Lockley claims that there are two references to Yasuke. The references state that Matsudaira Ietada was jealous of Yasuke's good treatment. Although he states that the references were taken from the Ietada Diary, he does not give any specifics, such as which page he quoted from or which day in the diary he used. This cannot be confirmed.
It states that it cites multiple other documents, but when Naoto investigated, it was reported that some of the cited documents did not include the content. If you don't want to see Naoto's text, please look it up yourself.
Naoto's writing is very aggressive, but please bear with me. I said it before, right? There are some Japanese people who are very angry about this incident. He is a typical example.

https://japanese-with-naoto.com/2024/10/02/did-black-people-own-japnese-slaves/
https://japanese-with-naoto.com/2024/10/09/did-yasuke-wield-nobunagas-sword/

It is probably easier for you than me to check the source material and how accurate the content is.
If multiple contents that are not stated in the original source are found, it would mean that Thomas Lockley's peer-reviewed paper is unreliable and Nihon University's peer review was not working properly.
What bothers me the most is that in this paper, Lockley Thomas completely ignores how to write a paper, such as not writing a page when quoting from a source, or writing a story from his own imagination. How can he teach a class at Nihon University?

By the way, someone mentioned the other day that a book by a Korean scholar examining Thomas Lockley's claims will be published soon. It will be released soon.

https://naude.eu/page-3/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DJ2KJJ9Y Tanukisann (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't comment on the quality of the 'Japanese by Naoto' articles or Thomas Lockley's earlier works, as I haven't looked into them, but I highly doubt that Alaric Naudé's self-published book would be an acceptable source here, as per WP:RS. Guinsardrhineford0079 (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

As everyone says, Alaric NAUDÉ books are self-published. No news sites have responded to this so far. Therefore, it cannot be used as is. I noticed that too when I was told. I thought it would be published by some publisher.

However, you can research the literature and enrich your articles based on the content pointed out in this book. For example, let's look at this information.

The African Samurai claims that the Shincho-kōki was printed ten years after Nobunaga's death, but that is false information.It can be seen that Hoan-Shincho-kōki corresponds to this, and Thomas Lockley cannot distinguish between them. This makes Thomas Lockley's claim even less credible. This book is based on Shincho-kōki, but it is a book for the masses, with many fictional stories added that are not in the original.

Here is a document from 1634. The name of the material is Sōkenkōbukan. Japanese:総見公武鑑

During the Edo period in Japan, encyclopedias of names of people who were subordinates of famous people such as Nobunaga and Hideyoshi were often created.

The documents contain the names of Nobunaga's direct subordinates. Not only famous vassals but also pages are listed, but Yasuke's name is not included. This confirms that Yasuke was not a samurai, or that he was a low-ranking person who did not need to be written as a document.

You may not be very interested in it, but there is the name of Ranmaru Mori, and there is also the name of Shinsuke Mōri, who defeated Yoshimoto Imagawa.

https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1015270/1/45 To the left of this. Continues to right side of page 50.

Incidentally, the same goes for Odabukan, which starts on the left side of page 44 and continues on the right side of page 45. Japanese:織田武鑑

Yasuke's name does not appear in this document either.

These are two different documents, so there is some overlap in content.

Finally, these are included in a book published in 1939. It is housed in the Diet Library of Japan and can be viewed online. Tanukisann (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Naoto makes some errors. He says the missionaries were already banned in Yasuke´s time. I think the first anti-Christian edict was in 1587, after Yasuke´s service had ended. The sources Lockley cites might be useful. Here is a link to a book discussing Yasuke, slavery and samurai https://www.google.de/books/edition/The_Book_of_Bushido/mjUtEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=yasuke+bushido&pg=PT71&printsec=frontcover In general, I am not sure how proving that Lockley is a bad scholar effects the article. He isn’t a trained historian and his first paper isn’t very well written. Most of his theories aren’t in this article. Most of the one in this article are at least linked to the source. The servants bit is still a mystery. So really, Naoto doesn’t help us. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I don't think we should use all of the information written by Naoto or Alaric Naudé. Every piece of information has some correct and some incorrect parts. Of course, you cannot write information that cannot be used as is, but if you check the source of the information, the literature that was the source of the information may be useful. As you say, the first ban on missionaries in Japan was issued in 1987. At that time, forced conversion to Christianity and slave trade were not permitted, but individuals were allowed to convert of their own free will. Spain, which had shown its intention to invade Japan through religion, was oppressed, but the Jesuits were exempt. Tanukisann (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• 1587

Re the Spain, it's ironic that Spain wants to invade Japan through religion despite Portugal being far more active in Japan than Spain ever was. And was discovered her first before Spain84.54.70.44 (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I got the numbers wrong. Not 9 but 5. I feel pathetic myself.

Many people criticize Lockley, but this is mainly due to two reasons. The first is that while he claims to be a researcher of history, he spreads a false history to the world that is based on his own delusions and what he wants to say. The second is that Lockley's claims are the basis for the arguments of people in the West today who make various claims, such as that Yasuke was a samurai. If Thomas Lockley had not claimed that Yasuke was a samurai, and if he had not written that hiring black slaves was popular in Japan, he would probably be living a quiet life by now. However, he would not have achieved his current status as a history expert if he had not written these things.

British David Atkinson makes the following claim.

He agreed with Thomas Lockley's claim that blacks were employed in Kyushu, and argued against those who denied that this was the case, that slaves were brought along the Silk Road. He ignores the fact that the Silk Road was no longer in use at the time.

He says that the samurai system had not yet been fully developed in Japan, so there were no samurai during the Sengoku period, and that Oda Nobunaga was a bushi, not a samurai. He says that Yasuke could not have been a samurai, so such a story is a ridiculous one told by people who are ignorant of history, and so on. He ignores the fact that the position of samurai has existed since the Heian period several hundred years ago.

It is because of people like this that the influence of the false history that has spread is so great that we cannot dispel it unless we work harder, which is why the voices of criticism continue.

Some people overseas claim that there have been black descendants in Japan since ancient times, and that all samurai are of black descent. This is also a ridiculous story. But there is even a paper on it. This has nothing to do with Thomas Lockley, but it has come up as a topic from time to time, as it must be denied. Source1 Source2 Tanukisann (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I just received a message from a kind person, so I'm writing this just in case.

Thomas Lockley himself admits that he wrote the book by prioritizing his own imagination, rather than the sources. 1

Changing the harshness of David Atkinson's comments would mean changing what he meant to say. 2

Or should I have added that David Atkins, addressing those who denied that it was fashionable to hire slaves in Kyushu, demanded that evidence be produced and was criticized by many as proof of the devil? 3 4

Should I have added that they claimed the slaves were transported along the Silk Road? 5

The theory that the ancestors of the samurai were black is confirmed to have been proposed by Alexander Francis Chamberlain of Canada in 1910 and W. E. B. DuBois of the United States in 1915. It is unclear how such a theory came about. 6

Perhaps people don't realize it. Many westerners talk about diversity and DEI, but that it is often at the expense of Asia, where the white and black communities are prioritized to do so. I personally don't want to speak or get involved in ethnic matters, but the problems that started with Yasuke and Assassin's Creed have reached that point.

I guess you want to tell me not to come again, so I'm leaving. Tanukisann (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Has tanukisann retired? What a pity. He was a valuable Japanese who used to come here.

The English version of wikipedia is now being edited by Westerners who don't know anything about the East, who feel like they know the East and create Westernized materials, and then edit articles based on what they have read and feel like they know the East.

The best example of this would be Thomas Lockley.

Some Japanese once came to me and said that Yasuke is not a samurai because he does not have a family name, but did you guys take their opinion seriously?

In the West, the family name is only an identifier, but in the East, it is very significant.

Hideyoshi wanted a high official rank, but of the surnames he had, Kinoshita was of low rank, so he could not receive a high official rank. Hashiba was self-made and has no meaning. Taira is a self-proclaimed name.

Since a family name of high status was required to receive the highest official rank, Hideyoshi adopted a person with a high status family name and received the Fujiwara family name, and was finally able to receive the highest official rank.

The surname is very important, which is why the Japanese are making the point, but did anyone, including the current Britannica article, Atkins and López-Vera, even mention it that much?

To be clear, the current Britannica article has a bad reputation among the Japanese for being false and wrong. 140.227.46.9 (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you should look up Yayōsu. The foreign born samurai without a surname. Tippytoemuppet (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this is veering into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. Which is to say that it is off-topic. Unless this is somehow related to a proposed change in the article, then it is off-topic. The definition of a samurai and the importance of samurai names would be relevant to the Samurai page, if you have a RS on that, please share it there. In English, the word samurai is used very generically. A lot of historians use it to refer to all Japanese warriors. Especially in books for a non-academic audience. I am sorry, I don’t have time to look up all your links. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder.

You guys say that as far as the Naoto text is concerned, it was written by a layman and is useless. It is true that they are not peer-reviewed and cannot be used as a source of information. But not only that, you are denigrating him entirely on the grounds that he is critical of Thomas Lockley.

Alaric Naudé's own publications cannot be used directly per se, but it should be possible to check the secondary sources described in them. However, no one is willing to look at that either, on the grounds that it too is critical of Thomas Lockley.

On the other hand, they are amateurs when it comes to history, they fabricate sources, and they give credence to Thomas Lockley's imaginatively created claims with a mindset that ignores the basics of Japan and China at the time and replaces them with modern Western thinking. You guys do not even make personal attacks against him. That would be a double standard.

Now, since there is no use in just complaining, I will describe the matter that Fujita wrote about his visit to Echizen on May 14, 1581.

The Japanese version of wikipedia has more information.

[37] a b c 藤田 2005, pp. 7–8.

It is said that Yasuke was the first Negro to visit Kyoto. There is no record of another black person being brought to Kyoto after Yasuke was given to Nobunaga. Therefore, Fujita speculates that the black man who accompanied him to Echizen must have been Yasuke and describes him. Therefore, the Japanese version is described as Fujita's assertion, not as official information based on documents. 140.227.46.9 (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I think most people just aren’t going to buy Naude's book, and double-checking the sources would probably require knowledge of Eastern languages and access to documents. I wouldn’t say that Naude's book is unusable. I will wait for a professional review before forming an opinion on that. The main thing that separates him from Lockley, is that Lockley isn’t self-published. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I've read Alaric Naudé's books. He uses linguistics and sociolinguistics to investigate the character of Yasuke.

Although there are parts of him that are criticizing Thomas Lockley, he is only criticizing the fact that when researching Yasuke, he does not have an appropriate distance from the subject of his research, and that he makes up various theories. Alaric Naudé acknowledges the parts where Thomas Lockley did proper research. He does not deny everything.

According to Alaric Naudé, he collected materials in Japanese, which was used in Japan where Yasuke was active, Portuguese, which was used by missionaries, Chinese, which is the central language of East Asia, and Korean, which is located between China and Japan, but the best materials were in Japanese and Portuguese.

The materials in English are Westernized and are almost useless. It's only used to explain the times and world situation. In other words, as long as we collect materials in English, we will not be able to obtain proper information about Yasuke. The insistence on using English materials is probably one of the reasons why many Japanese people who read the article are not satisfied with it.

This book is a self-published work, but it uses a lot of material. There is no way that the current way of editing articles, which relies on English materials without trying to understand Japanese history and common sense, will be able to convince Japanese people who are familiar with history. 153.236.158.180 (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources used to explain the history of the slave trade in Europe and how it was not prevalent in Kyushu, Japan.

• Kollman, P. (2024). Catholic Missions and African Responses I: 1450–1800. In The Palgrave Handbook of Christianity in Africa from Apostolic Times to the Present (pp. 193-205). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
• Da Gama, V. (2009). Em nome de Deus: the journal of the first voyage of Vasco da Gama to India, 1497-1499. In Em nome de Deus: The Journal of the First Voyage of Vasco da Gama to India, 1497-1499. Brill.
• Russell, P. E. (2019). Prince Henry the Navigator. In The European Opportunity (pp. 100-129).
• Routledge. Schwaller, J. F. (2016). Manila-Acapulco Galleon Trade. The Spanish Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia [2 volumes], 95.
• Cartwright, M. (2021). Macau Portuguesa. traduzido em português por Joana Mota. World History Encyclopedia em português, 21.Subrahmanyam, S. (1993). The Portuguese Empire in Asia, 1500-1700: A Political and Economic History. Longman.
• Chan, K. S. (2008). Foreign trade, commercial policies and the political economy of the Song and Ming dynasties of China. Australian Economic History Review, 48(1), 68-90.Sakamaki, S. (1964). Ryukyu and Southeast Asia. The Journal of *Asian Studies, 23(3), 383–389. doi:10.2307/2050757
• Goodman, G. K. (1955). The Dutch Impact on Japan (1640-1853). University of Michigan.
• Fróis, L. (1585). História de Japam.
• Ramesh, S., & Ramesh, S. (2020). The Tokugawa Period (1600–1868): Isolation and Change. China's Economic Rise: Lessons from Japan’s Political Economy, 101-133.
• Naoko, I. (2013). Wei Zhiyan and the Subversion of the Sakoku. Offshore Asia: Maritime Interactions in East Asia before Steamships, 236-58.

153.236.158.180 (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Yasuke's visit to Japan. While he says this is only speculation, he admits that Lockley's Mozambique theory is more likely.

• Fróis, L. (1585). História de Japam

153.236.158.180 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

In the West, names are given based on family ties, but in the East, names indicate status or position.

Furthermore, the source uses the explanation that the name Yasuke is a form similar to that of a low-ranking servant or a childhood name, and not the form of a samurai.

It was also pointed out that his name was not included in the list of Oda's vassals.

• 조진석. (2024). 백제의 한자 수용과 문서 행정 시기. 호서고고학, 38-62.
• 권인한. (2010). The Evolution of Ancient East Asian Writing Systems as Observed through Early Korean and Japanese Wooden Tablets. Korea Journal, 50(2), 124-157.
• 山田健三. (2013). 書記用語 「万葉仮名」 をめぐって. 人文科学論集. 文化コミュニケーション学科編, 47, 15-30.
• Miller, R. A. (1967). The Japanese Language.
• Seeley, C. (1991).A History of Writing in Japan.
• Friday, K. F. (2004). Samurai, warfare and the state in early medieval Japan. Routledge.
• 谷口, 名. (2000). 信長の親衛隊: 戦国覇者の多彩な人材 (中公新書 1453). 中央公論新社.
• 浅井玄卜. (1634). 総見公武鑑.
• 金子哲. (2003). 中世後期民衆のサムライ観: 戦国期の多様な侍と王権の姿: 戦国期の多様な侍と王権の姿. 동북아시아문화학회 국제학술대회 발표자료집, 39-44.
• Loveday, L. (2019). Onomastic Configurations within Japanese Shintoism. Onomastics between Sacred and Profane, 91.
• 신종대. (2018). 무사의 이름체계 연구: 메이지 전후, 무사의 실명 (實名) 과 통칭 (通稱) 을 중심으로: 메이지 전후, 무사의 실명 (實名) 과 통칭 (通稱) 을 중심으로. 동북아 문화연구, 54, 111-127.

153.236.158.180 (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Descriptions of various types of soldiers such as swords, spears, and bows.

Japanese is a difficult language, and there is no way Yasuke will be able to use it in a short time. A commander in command of soldiers requires advanced communication skills, which is impossible to achieve at an entry-level level.

He was not given a sword or a surname. Being given a wakizashi does not prove he was a samurai. If he had been given the position of a samurai rather than a servant, Gyuichi Ota and the Jesuits would have left records, but no such information exists.

In other words, he was probably just a servant who carried a weapon, and was not given the status of a samurai. Sources used in these descriptions.

• Conlan, Thomas (2003). Weapons and Fighting Techniques of the Samurai Warrior, 1200–1877 AD. Amber Books.
• Ota, G., Elisonas, J. S., & Lamers, J. P. (2011). Book I Ōta Izumi No Kami Composed This. And It Records The Life Of Lord Oda Danjō No Jō Nobunaga From Eiroku 11 [1568], The Year Of Earth Senior And The Dragon. In The Chronicle of Lord *Nobunaga (pp. 116-127). Brill
• Yazıcıoğlu, E. T. (1996). A Historical Analysis of Consumer Culture in Japan: Momoyama-Genroku (1573-1703) (Master's thesis, Bilkent Universitesi (Turkey)).
• Wakita Kyūbei (1585–1660), served under the famous warlord Maeda Toshinaga (前田 利長) who lived during the Azuchi-Momoyama period (1573–1600) and the early Edo period (1603–1868)
• Nelson, D. (2021). From Erstwhile Captive to Cultural Erudite: The Career of Korean-Born Samurai, Wakita Kyūbei. In The Power of the Dispersed (pp. 285-310). Brill.
• Tsang, C. R. (2020). War and Faith: Ikkō Ikki in Late Muromachi Japan (Vol. 288). BRILL.
• Inoguchi, T. (1997). The Japanese political system: Its basic continuity in historical perspective. Asian Journal of Political Science, 5(2), 65-77.
• 高橋 寛次 (2024) 弥助問題「本人は芸人のような立場」「日本人の不満は当然」 歴史学者・呉座氏に聞く（上） https://www.sankei.com/article/20240805-2RDCMCMKMNFYFOGXMRGPCIT2NI/

153.236.158.180 (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It is pointed out that the content of the book written by Thomas Lockley is completely different from what is recorded.

Tracking the history of incorrect entries made on Wikipedia and reprinted on various sites such as Britannica. Sources used in these.

• Luis Frois, S. J. The First European Description of Japan, 1585. Routledge.
• Luis Frois, "Jesuit Annual Report" (耶蘇会の日本年報), May 19, 1581.(Original)
• Ichiko, T. (市古 貞次). (1966). Soga Monogatari (曽我物語). Iwanami Shoten.
• Kagawa, S. (香川 宣阿). (1717). Intoku Taiheiki (『陰徳太平記』)
• Matsudaira, I. (松平 家忠). (1966). Ietada Nikki (『家忠日記』). Tokyo: Daiichi Shobō. Covers his journals for 17-year interval between 1575 and August 1594
• Lockley, T., & Girard, G. (2019). African samurai: The true story of Yasuke, a legendary black warrior in feudal Japan. Hanover Square Press. p. 106-107, p. 113, p. 140

153.236.158.180 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article cites a lot of Japanese sources. Also, the book by Lockley and Girard is not considered a reliable source according to consensus. I don't know what change you are advocating for. There is also very little about the slave trade in this article. It isn't even mentioned that Yasuke might have been a slave. Lockley's arguments are also very pro Japanese. They aren't in the article, though, so it would be off-topic to discuss them here. This page is about improving the article. Thank you for the reading suggestions. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Pop Culture "Inspired By"

There are a couple of instances listed in the Pop Culture references where fictional black samurai are described as inspired by Yasuke. I removed these, but the removal was challenged, so I would like additional opinions. I think the sources cited are just assuming that the creators were inspired by Yasuke, but also that being inspired by Yasuke is too low a standard for being listed in the article.

- Nagoriyuki in Guilty Gear Strive citing Kotaku. The Kotaku article links to wikipedia. So this might be citeogenesis. I don't think Kotaku is reliable for this claim.

-Afro Samurai, in this case the claim is sourced to CNN, a generally reliable source. However, in a human interest story, that is probably not fact checked. Most importantly, the claim contradicts interviews with Takashi Okazaki, where he describes being inspired by hip hop culture. [1]https://web.archive.org/web/20080129091528/http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=16499 Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the sources cited are just assuming that the creators were inspired by Yasuke

This is original research. It is not the role of editors to assume that reliable sources were "just assuming".

The Kotaku article links to wikipedia. So this might be citeogenesis. I don't think Kotaku is reliable for this claim.

The claim in Kotaku about Nagoriyuki is made in the writer's own voice. CNN and Kotaku are both reliable sources by Wikipedia standards.

Most importantly, the claim contradicts interviews with Takashi Okazaki

This does not imply it was his only inspiration. WP:SYNTH is relevant here.

but also that being inspired by Yasuke is too low a standard for being listed in the article

Not at all, especially when these are very notable works. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

CNN says Today, Yasuke’s legacy as the world’s first African samurai is well known in Japan, spawning everything from prize-winning children’s books to a manga series titled “Afro Samurai.” Lockley's article in Britannica also says Yasuke has increasingly become the inspiration for fictional characters in novels, plays, works of art, anime, and manga based upon his life story. These include the protagonist of Okazaki Takashi’s Afro Samurai.

I disagree with Tinytinorobots that being inspired by Yasuke is too low a standard for being listed in the article, and I agree with Symphony Regalia that being inspired by hip hop culture is not inconsistent with being inspired by Yasuke (possibly via the 1968 children's book by Kurusu and Genjirō Mita). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that settles the question regarding Afro Samurai. Although the quote from Britannica seems to imply that there are parallels between the events in Yasuke's life and that of Afro Samurai, which there isn't. (Afro Samurai takes place in the future, and the protagonist is a wandering duellist). Should the claim be attributed to Lockley?

I think the Kotaku article is not reliable and will start a thread at RSN about it. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

If you say that all works with black characters are the roots of Yasuke, then that's wrong. If you name a specific work and say that it's related, then there's a chance that you're right. I think it would be good to discuss the names of the works you want to include.

As for "Kurosuke," there is no problem, since the Japanese libraries have even stated that they are involved.

As for "Kurosuke," there is no problem as both the Japanese library and the author have stated that they are involved.

https://crd.ndl.go.jp/reference/entry/index.php?id=1000239775&page=ref_view 153.235.152.98 (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Some reading

I’ll just leave these right here

• [2]

• [3]
  • (English) [THE REAL YASUKE: HISTORY BEYOND THE SAMURAI MYTH](kindle, Paperback)
  • (Japanese) [弥助: 侍伝説の歴史学的検証](kindle, Paperback)

 Works by a scholar and professor of social (applied) linguistics at Suwon University in Republic of Korea.
 His work is a worthy addition to your reference list.
 As for the source, it would likely correspond to the following.
 * The piece of work itself (the article, book)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoepsilonix (talk • contribs) 08:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC) 

Mileasel (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

And you want to use this as source for the article or what exactly? Trade (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Where in the 13 sentences written about Yasuke is he referred to as a samurai? Mileasel (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:RS before encouraging editors to read 'The Bogus Story of Yasuke & "wokeness" revisionist history'. Guinsardrhineford0079 (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorta weird how two accounts that are three years old with no edits come out of nowhere to edit about this self published book by a lonely redditor. Weird. 12.75.41.48 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's strange that he suddenly turned into this after being silent for several years.

However, his books will be published not only in Japanese but also in English and Korean by the official publisher.

In his last self-published book, he had no production budget, so the text was not proofread properly, but this time, he says that he will use the money he made from self-publishing to hire a professional and make it more solid.

https://x.com/Goryodynasty/status/1850871797136425314 110.131.150.214 (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the English version of his book has been published by an official publisher.

It's a company that specializes in academic books, and all of their books are peer-reviewed by professors and experts.

From today on, the book you derided as self-published and no one wanted to look at is a much more reliable source of information than Thomas Lockley's non-peer-reviewed book.

https://x.com/Goryodynasty/status/1851994356305244506

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1763781100

https://unitedscholarsacademicpress.com/ 140.227.46.9 (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

A few points:

1. https://unitedscholarsacademicpress.com/books

The publisher still lists it as 'under review'

2. The author is not a historian and unlike Lockley (who is attributed to on the page when his claims are made) his field of research is significantly further away from historical research (Linguistics) and again unlike Lockley seems to not even be focused on Japanese linguistics. If the book does get reviewed I would still say that at best the findings should be directly attributed to him. Relm (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Lockley is not a historian. 211.36.141.248 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Badly Translated Quote

The quote following quote seems to be machine translated from Japanese to English. The original is in Portuguese, the Japanese translation made be old.

"A black man whom the visitor [Valignano] sent to Nobunaga went to the house of Nobunaga's son after his death and was fighting for quite a long time, when a vassal of Akechi approached him and said, "Do not be afraid, give me that sword", so he gave him the sword. The vassal asked Akechi what should be done with the black man, and he said, "A black slave is an animal (bestial) and knows nothing, nor is he Japanese, so do not kill him, and place him in the custody at the cathedral of Padre in India"

The most obvious error is the use of India, presumably to translate southern barbarian. However, "black slave" might also be wrong, if it is a translation of "cafre". Does anyone know of a better translation that is available? Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussion around the word 'cafre' a few months ago around july/august, I'd suggest checking for it in the archives. Relm (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If a quote is not reported by a reliable secondary source, we should simply remove it from the article. It is likely to be neither accurate nor significant (WP:V and WP:NPOV). Removing it also makes the article more readable. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It is from the Huffington Post in Japan. Interestingly, the Huffington Post uses "black slave" every time to translate "cafre" however, the Wikipedia article uses black man in all but one instance. I found the letter in the original Portuguese, and it uses India, so that is actually correct (although cathedral might not be). I think that just removing it is probably better. There is already a summary of the events in the article, so it is redundant. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the Honno-ji section contains some misleading sentences. but I only point out one here

"...and not bound by the samurai code of honour." this the-samurai-code-of-honour does not show in the two of the cited sources, it is just someone's imagination.

so I thought showing hos actually stated in the original source(JapaneseToEnglish translated version) was better.

a bit late on commenting below but anyway.

As mentioned, the missionary's letter said "igreja dos padres da India" which would literally translate to "the church of missionarys of India" which thought to mean the Nanban-ji temple, the temple of foreigners at the time basically. sorry for rough explanation. so yes, the word India is not a mistake but was expressed and understood differently in old times perhaps.

and the original text only used word "Cafre" for "Black people" and was translated to Japanese as "黒奴" by Japanese historians for this section of the letter, which pretty much means "black slave" and the cited sources does not seperately use words "black slaves" and "black people" ,it only uses "黒人奴隷" which is "black slave".

so what is discussed here was just how Wiki users modified the source. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The source quote is "Mitsuhide suggested that because Yasuke wasn’t Japanese, his life should be spared; he was not expected to perform seppuku as had Nobutada and the other defeated samurai" which is where bushido came from. Since the exact term isn't used I think it's fine to match the secondary sourcing more explicitly. Also, cafre does not mean "slave". Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Cartas de Evora

https://sleepcratic-republic.hatenablog.com/entry/2024/07/30/225016#%E4%BA%AC%E9%83%BD%E7%99%BA%E3%82%AB%E3%83%AA%E3%83%A8%E3%83%B3%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8ACarrions-report-about-the-honnoji-incident 110.131.150.214 (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to be sure, can you read Portuguese?

If you can, please read the page on the left of this document.

If you see a document that someone has translated and you don't like what you see, you're probably wondering if it's a lie. Just read the original.

https://digitalis-dsp.uc.pt/bg5/UCBG-VT-18-9-17_18/UCBG-VT-18-9-17_18_item1/P744.html 110.131.150.214 (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of this web site of the original manuscript and I have tried reading it.

But to inline with how the wikipedia article should be treated,

this true original manuscript, I think is not really the source to dig into, for it is the primary source plus is very difficult just even to read to anyone as you can see.

We do already have translated version of those texts in Japanese by professionals and I do not really doubt its accuracy for the main grasp of the content.

I do not intend to be offensive in any racial way of course. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work. Bladeandroid (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The two relevant archives which discus Cafre and Kurobo are here:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Yasuke/Archive_5#Another_source_not_yet_mentioned

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#Yasuke_mentioned_by_Portuguese

Additionally, not mentioned in either is this entry in Nippo Jisho: (link)

>Curobô • Cafre. Ou homem negro.

>Curobô • Kafre. Or black man.

This entry on it's own implies that「黒奴」is an accurate translation of "Cafre" however see the other sources in the archives for other relevant sources.

J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

thanks for sharing info.

the words "黒坊","黒奴", and "黒人" are different in its nuance.

the relatively older Japanese translation (by Murakami namingly) had used "黒奴" which had meaning of slave.

the site suggested above : https://sleepcratic-republic.hatenablog.com/entry/2024/07/30/225016#%E4%BA%AC%E9%83%BD%E7%99%BA%E3%82%AB%E3%83%AA%E3%83%A8%E3%83%B3%E5%A0%B1%E5%91%8ACarrions-report-about-the-honnoji-incident

introduces the translation by Matsuda which uses more neutral word of "黒人" which mean black person.

the word "黒坊" is not used in these translations discussed, but i have seen it used in different manuscript.

So how to translate the word "Cafre" of original Portuguese text was up to the translator at the time, and they had their knowledge and reasons. 2001:F74:8C00:2200:C2C9:0:0:1002 (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, thanks for pointing that out. I had found this entry a few months ago after the last discussion about "cafre" and "kokudo" was already archived and I think I mixed up its relevance since it's been a while since I looked at this. I mainly meant to just point to the previous archives that were mentioned. If I remember correctly, this article said that "cafre" in Portuguese mainly referred to Africans in general, and does not necessarily imply "salve." I guess the entry in Nippo Jisho would seem to support that claim, which was perhaps my original intention when I first saw this entry, although I don't really remember anymore. I may try to look at this again later but I likely will not as I just wanted to link to those two archives. Thanks again for pointing that out. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The term Cafre is in India and Southafrica an insult to black people, because it is implied with it a clear connection to slavery, similar to the N-word. I will add, that it is now euphemistically addressed as the K-word in South African English. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kaffir_(racial_term) While there were theoretical and speculative remarks of freed Africans in India, who were still called by this term, who were once slaves in India, it should be highlighted, that in the time of these Portuguese writings by the Jesuits about Yasuke, the Jesuit branch in India was a strong supporter of the Asian slave trade, the Portuguese dominated the slave trade in Asia in these times and they brought the Africans to Asia as slaves and used them in their daily lives in India and their travels.

"Once the slaves arrived in Acapulco, they were categorized as either blacks (negros), also called cafres, or chinos.³"

(³ The word cafre stemmed from the Portuguese cáfer, which in turn derived from the Arabic kāfir for pagan. It was used to refer to black slaves from all parts of Africa.)

https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004346611/BP000055.xml

It is quite an oblivious racial view of the source, written by Jesuit Portuguese about Yasuke, that they name him in not a single instant by a name themself. Even the term Yasuke is only mentioned once as a name given by the Japanese to him and afterward they still call him just by this slave-term. They never use a term for a black person (N-word) for him.

I will add, that this remark about this capture of him is not from a Japanese work, but from the Portuguese Jesuit reports. There were not a lot of sources for this incident, the japanese sources quote the court women, who were not killed, while all retainers from Oda were killed.....apparently not Yasuke, because he is a cafre. --ErikWar19 (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it is hard to tell how much to read into the fact that the Jesuits didn't use his name in the letters. They probably wouldn't have used the name for a white servant, either, especially since the recipient of the letter might not have known Yasuke's name. One should probably read all the letters and look for patterns. It does seem that most experts believe that Yasuke was a slave at some point in his life. Although, the relationship between Jesuits and slavery is complicated. The Jesuits were made legal distinctions between different types of servitude that are sometimes lumped together as slavery in modern literature, and the different Asian cultures had different forms of bondage that influenced the legal aspects of the Asian slave trade as conducted by the Portuguese.

The letter calling Yasuke bestial is in fact from the Jesuits, so we don't know how accurate it is to what Akechi actually said. Historians tend to ignore the "he knew nothing" line and interpret it as Akechi being racist. They defend Akechi by suggesting other reasons to spare Yasuke or call Akechi out for being racist. I am not actually sure if Yasuke being spared relates to any legal code or custom at the time. I know that Japanese both executed enemies, but also took people as slaves during war. Also, some bushi would change sides. I have, however, no idea how the distinction was made. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Actual even Lockley argues in a lot of articles with his direct statements, that Yasuke had to be at some point of his live a slave, he just speculates, that he was freed in India....and didn't supplied any prove of this praxis in India by Portuguese.

His prove is simply to point at his actions in Japan, while claiming, that he has to be freed, to become a samurai for the Japanese. But the Japanese nobles had a different view on European slavery and on Africans in general. So it is more likely, that the Portuguese sources could have seen him as a slave, while the Japanese nobles simply used him as a regular servant, partly unaware about the Portuguese slave-status and norms connected to this matter.

Jesuits talked about the legal ground of slavery in Europa and became later actual opponents against slavery over the decades and centuries, but the actual Jesuits in the colonies had different opinions compared to the Indian and later Macau branch of the Jesuits about this matter, it is still more or less oblivious, that the Jesuits in Asia were strong supporters of the argument to allow slavery, they were involved in the profit of it and a lot of them made cruelties in Southamerica and Asia against slaved Natives and Africans. This is simply the state of the Portuguese colonial slave system at these times.

There were some few examples of Jesuits defending the Natives from Slavery in Southamerica...but even these Jesuits supported often the slavery of Africans as a reason to spare the Natives in America. It is simply dangerous to wish away the biggest European slave seller in this time period in Asia or to make up a "freeing slave" position without actual prove, that Portuguese nobles actual freed African slaves in any significant number in India. We shouldn't presume, that he was freed.

Goa was a main hub of Asian slave trade and Goa was the centrum of the Indian branch of the Jesuits. It was common to have multiple "cafres" as nobility in India and even the poor nobles rented slaves for these services in public. The other servants were Indians, you wouldn't use an expensive white servants in India with these cheaper and easily available options. It was daily live in Portuguese India to use Natives and Africans for these lower services and the delegation to Japan started in India.

Additonal in their arrival in Japan, they talk a lot about the commotion by this specific "carrier, who was a cafre", a carrier of luggage. They presented him to Oda to explain the commotion by their arrival and they gave him into service for Oda as a gift, because he likes curiosities and he served for him in the same capacity, like a servant in India to a Portuguese noble. Carrying weapons etc. But this is partly speculative, original research, because we use the original source and not a reliable second hand source.

It would just fit with the actions of Akechi in this incident, that we have here two sides, the Portuguese side seeing him as a slave, while the Japanese side saw in him a commoner servant.

We have from the Jesuits sources, that he was not killed in this incident, like the actual armed retainer or warriors on the scene, but survived and we know, that barely anyone survived this incident...we have even a statement, clearly seeing him as belonging to the Jesuits. This quote is actual even more interesting, because Akechi send him to the "Indian" branch of the Jesuits, but at this time the Jesuits in Japan were already in a specific Chinese branch and the Jesuits in Japan knew this. I read about the theory, that Akechi probably simply didn't knew about this recent change. Than the source must have adopted the quote accurately with the error.

Some people suggested, that the bestial part by Akechi is an attempt of Akechi to spare Yasuke, because he was not an influential or important figure to him and he saw in him a foreigner, so he send him away to his foreigners, but it remains a glaring issue, that an armed warrior in servitude in any higher rank under Oda would have been killed by Akechi, because he was a loyal follower of the lord. He just killed hundreds of Oda's actual retainers on this day in this incident. Not Yasuke. So there has to be a difference between the way, we portray Yasuke and the way the Portuguese or/and Akechi saw Yasuke. I don't say, that we should change the article for this big problem, but we should probably keep these things in the back of our head, while we look at news articles or books about Yasuke. It will warp our understanding of these sources, if we don't know these perspective differences between Portuguese and Japanese views on Yasuke. We could end up hiding Asian slavery in history. --ErikWar19 (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Alessandro Valignano's title was Visitor of the Mission in India or something like that. Also, I doubt the Jesuit source is an exact quote from Akechi. There probably is enough RS that say that Yasuke was a slave prior to serving Oda, that it would be against NPOV to exclude it. As far as the issue of slavery in Japan. There are some articles on the topic on Academia.com I suggest the work of Romulo Ehalt: https://rg-mpg.academia.edu/R%C3%B4muloEhalt Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Didn't actual knew, that it was par tof his title, thx for the info -- ErikWar19 (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of Lockley, who does not agree with that theory[4].

"Some have said that Yasuke was a slave, and Lockley acknowledges the theory but disagrees. “Personally I don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor,” Lockley said. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

except https://www.youtube.com/shorts/36DFUS7erNI?t=11&feature=share

in this video in an Interview of Lockley with The Black Experience Japan he straight up said, that he was a slave. The full interview is linked in the description.

Additional in a webinar this year, he starts the background-page of Yasuke with the information how many Africans were sold under Portuguese rule in the Indian Ocean trade and highlights, that Yasuke was most likely trafficked in this context by them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45ghXdNX4j8 ErikWar19 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That quote is referring to specifically when Yasuke entered Nobunaga's service. Lockley is in the minority here. Several experts say outright that Yasuke was given to Nobunaga as a gift, or that Nobunaga took him. Ehalt, who specializes in Jesuits and slavery in Japan, thought it possible that Yasuke wasn't a slave but also said that most Africans in Portuguese service were slaves. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Full section regarding the definition of samurai

I think we should add a section regarding the definition of samurai used in the article. I think the footnote "Samurai-academic" can stand as its own section with some modification. Current footnote:

Academic sources on Yasuke's samurai status include: Lockley, Thomas (2024-07-16). "Yasuke". Encyclopedia Britannica. Archived from the original on 16 July 2024. Retrieved 2024-07-17. 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 [...] 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. 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. Atkins, E. Taylor (2023). A History of Popular Culture in Japan: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-350-19592-9. Archived from the original on 26 July 2024. Retrieved 26 July 2024. Impressed with Yasuke's height and strength (which "surpassed that of ten men"), Nobunaga gave him a sword signifying bushi status. Yasuke served as Nobunaga's retainer and conversation partner for the last year of the warlord's life, defending Azuchi castle from the traitorous Akechi forces in 1582, where Nobunaga committed ritual suicide (seppuku). Although there are no known portraits of the "African samurai," there are some pictorial depictions of dark-skinned men (in one of which he is sumo wrestling) from the early Edo period that historians speculate could be Yasuke. López-Vera, Jonathan (2020). A History of the Samurai: Legendary Warriors of Japan. Tokyo; Rutland, VT: Tuttle Publishing. pp. 140–141. ISBN 9784805315354. The name given to this black slave was Yasuke (until recently the reason for this was unknown—investigations carried out in Japan not long ago claim his real name was Yasufe) and from then on he always accompanied Nobunaga as a kind of bodyguard. It is worth pointing out that henceforth he was no longer a slave, since he received a salary for being in the daimyō's service and enjoyed the same comforts as other vassals. He was granted the rank of samurai and occasionally even shared a table with Nobunaga himself, a privilege few of his trusted vassals were afforded.

Blockhaj (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think this is out of scope for this article and any "X term definition" section would undoubtedly result in a lot of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues. It would be highly unusual for an article to have a meta section on that discusses its own sourcing in wikitext. Users who are interested in the sources can check them in the References section.

I will also note that there is a closed RfC on this general topic[5]. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Symphony Regalia since the article uses an unconventional definition of samurai and currently holds that definition to a footnote, id say it is a good idea to just cover it openly for transparency. The samurai debate is also part of the modern history, since that title has only posthumously been applied to the character, and thus has the right to be covered. Blockhaj (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't use an unconventional definition; it doesn't define anything at all. It simply reflects the majority view in reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't for editors to perform WP:SYNTH to arbitrarily define terms.

The footnote isn't a definition, it's a citation bundle. Perhaps you are mistaking the quotations in it for editor explanation. The article also contains other citations on his samurai status (TIME, Smithsonian, CNN, etc). Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke has been criticized in various ways by people who want him to be a samurai, but I think it's not a bad idea to start by defining what a samurai is.

Hirayama received criticism for clearly stating that Yasuke was a samurai, but it quickly died down. The reason he was criticized was because there was no definition of a samurai, and when Hirayama realized this, he created his own definition and redefined a samurai. He appropriated the etymology of the word samurai, which is to stay by the side of the master and watch over him, and defined everything that stays by the side of the master as a samurai. On top of that, it was also effective to clearly reject Thomas Lockley as telling a nonsensical story and state that he had no intention of affirming him.

So, what criteria should we use to define a samurai? This is a difficult question. It was a time when the definition of a samurai was becoming ambiguous, so it is possible that Yasuke, who was a mob character who appeared only briefly in Japan's long history, was a samurai. In the Edo period or the first half of the Muromachi period, he would never have been called a samurai. 153.235.152.98 (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

TIME and CNN are not reliable sources for definitions of historical nomenclature. No historical sources use the term samurai for Yasuke, so giving him this title needs explanation. Afaic, Yasuke was a page/retainer, but this is not covered in the article at all. There is no confirmation that he ever saw combat, just that he visisted battle zones. Blockhaj (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems the general opinion among experts is that being a page/retainer for a daimyo is a samurai position. There are some experts who have expressed a lack of certainty about Yasuke's status, partly because one isn't sure how the term samurai was used in the period. Considering that the meaning of samurai seems to create some confusion, it probably wouldn't hurt to add an explanation to the article. SYNTH wouldn't be a problem because a lot of sources give a definition of samurai and talk about Yasuke. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That is complete tripe. A retainer and a samurai are completely different. Stop pushing Lockley propaganda. Please give your credentials and which experts you are quoting because they certainly arent Japanese. 211.36.141.248 (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is going to end up in original research. The sources on Yasuke don't give their definition of samurai, simply saying that Yasuke qualifies as a "samurai" because he was given a stipend, a house and a sword by his lord, served Nobunaga in a military capacity and was in a relatively close relationship with him as a member of his retinue. The article probably says all there is to say about this: According to historians this was the equivalent to "the bestowing of warrior or 'samurai' rank" during this period. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

which historians? 125.179.119.108 (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ye, afaic that statement is flawed. Looking at it, it would be better to refer to him as an armed retainer or something along those lines (there must be a proper term for this?) in the preamble, whith the question of samurai covered in a segment, going through which authors and historians says what. A samurai is specifically a warrior, afaic similar to a housecarl or knight at the time of question, later on being analog to knights, which is something we cannot confirm Yasuke as from the sources, just speculate.

My idea is simply to use template:quote for the definitions given by the authors which we use as samurai reference atm. Ie like:

What to define Yasuke as is a in terms of role is a contested subject. Author Thomas Lockley, who has written a paper and two books on Yasuke, advocates for calling him a samurai: 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 [...] 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. 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. — Lockley, Thomas (2024-07-16). "Yasuke". Encyclopedia Britannica.

Etc.

--Blockhaj (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

A retainer is a Kosho in this case a servant who helps a samurai, they are not a samurai themselves. It would be more honest to say that his role is debated. (Even though it is only debated in the West, in Japan we DO NOT CONSIDER HIM A SAMURAI) 125.179.119.108 (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of Europe doesnt either, this is mainly a US afrocentric issue, as well as a capitlistic one, as various have released media about Yasuke as a true samurai, take the netflix show, the new assassin's creed etc, which earns on the trope and thus has incitement to keep it as fact etc. There is nothing wrong with the theory alone, but since it is just speculation even from the top sources, it should not be portrayed as the default. Blockhaj (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

completely agree. Unfortunately this page is protected by people paid to keep unhistorical claims alive. To allow neutral or both sides presented will make Ubisoft angry so they wont get paid. 125.179.119.108 (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM Please suggest changes to this article, with sources. This isn't a forum to express nationalistic rage. 12.75.41.91 (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you source any of this comment? If not, you are getting off topic. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. The talk page isn't a place to discuss your feelings. The indenting makes it hard to read, but this is a reply to Blockhaj. 12.75.41.91 (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

To 12.75.41.91. Decorative quotation marks have been dissabled in mainspace for some reason, so maybe it is better to put quotes in italics for readability?

What to define Yasuke as is a in terms of role is a contested subject. Author Thomas Lockley, who has written a paper and two books on Yasuke, advocates for calling him a samurai: 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 [...] 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. 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. — Lockley, Thomas (2024-07-16). "Yasuke". Encyclopedia Britannica.

--Blockhaj (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

A retainer in English is a generic term for a type of employment. Yasuke received a stipend, therefore he was a retainer (that is a bit over simplified). A few Japanese historians have called him a samurai or said that he was treated as a samurai. Some historians, both western and Japanese have said that it isn't certain that he is a samurai. Thomas Conlan has recently pointed out that the meaning of samurai is unclear in this period, and that a clear distinction between samurai and commoners wasn't made till the speratation edict.It has been suggested by one historian, that Yasuke was a lord's attendant. It is similar to a page, but pages are usually younger. However, it was also a job for bushi. If you want to change the article you need reliable sources, not just accusing people holding other opinions of having a COI or being western or afrocentric. Unfounded accusations made lead to sanctions. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Sources, do you have them? If not, try reddit for open ended conversation. 12.75.41.91 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here are some sources:

Japanese Historians on Twitter: [[6]] [[7]]

Japanese and English articles that are unsure if Yasuke is a samurai, but say that he was like one:[[8]][[9]][[10]] Note the first one says: However, the TBS television program "Hitachi World Mysteries Discovered!", which aired on June 8, 2013, featured a special called "Chase the Black Samurai at Honnoji Temple during Nobunaga's Final Moments!", and a special program aired on NHK General TV on May 15 , 2021 was titled "Black Samurai: Yasuke, the African Samurai Who Served Nobunaga." At least in the world of Japanese media, it has become standard to refer to Yasuke by the title of samurai.

There is also evidence of Yasuke being referred to as a samurai prior to Lockley's book.[[11]]

Here is a Youtube video where it is said that Yasuke might be a Kinju (lord's attendant) at the 19 minute mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b3SGQO_Ij4&pp=ygUWYW50aG9ueSBjdW1taW5zIHlhc3VrZQ%3D%3D Here is the YouTube video where Conlan talks about the meaning of samurai (43 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsRByx3d62A

@Blockhaj might find this useful as well. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The thing is that no primary sources describe him as samurai specifically and we lack conclusive details to what his actual employment would have been called, thus any "role" attributed is speculative, and we should strive for a descriptive preamble rather than spewing popular speculations as fact. Retainer is imo preferred over samurai due to its generic definition and harmless meaning, but it is also not ideal, in the same manner as calling Buffalo Bill a warrior.

I sorta like attendant: Yasuke was a man of African origin who was a stipended attendant under feudal lord Oda Nobunaga... But it is also probelamtic as the definition of an attendant is all over the place and doesnt really signify what Yasuke was. Blockhaj (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Replying to Gitz. I think it is premature to dismiss a proposed change as OR, until we have heard it. Of course, a definition of samurai would be difficult, as it is described by vague. Lockley even said in an interview that no one knows exactly what a samurai was during Yasuke's time. Lopez uses the term as a generic word for a Japanese warrior. How the article now is explains it is not ideal. Receiving a house and a sword didn't make Yasuke a samurai. Rather both are seen as clues to his rank. The sword was probably just a gift, but the fact that he owned a sword is indicative of his status as a fighting man. The house also indicates that he has a higher rank than servants that lived in barracks or the house of their masters. Not every samurai was given a sword and a house etc. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If Lockley has stated that "no one knows exactly what a samurai was during Yasuke's time" then his source becomes kinda hypocritical (i mean, it was not really neutral to begin with). You got the source?

If even the "experts" say we can't define a period samurai, then we should not apply that term to someone which is not specifically described as such in historical sources. Blockhaj (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The more i think about it, we should just write:

Yasuke was a man of African origin served under feudal lord Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582, during the Sengoku period, until Nobunaga's death. Inititally given to Nobunaga as a slave, his role under Nobunaga is unknown, but historical sources state that he was granted a sword, a house and a stipend, indicating that he had a higher rank than servants.

Blockhaj (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There are a few issues with this suggestion. One is that there was a RfC to depict Yasuke as a samurai. In order to change consensus, a more convincing argument is needed. Second, wikipedia prefers secondary to primary sources. Most people that we call samurai aren't recorded as samurai by historical documents. This is part of the reason why in academic works and in Japan, these figures are often called bushi or warrior (the sources called academic in the article are written by academics, but are targeted at the public). I have some sources, but I don't have time today to collect them all. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That RfC was literally stated to be a trainwreck and biased. Popular vote, ie factoids, is not what we should strive for in this case. As for historical figures not literally called samurai yet defined as such later, it is less problematic if there are sources indicating that they actually were professional warriors. The same thing with Vikings; if they fit the description, we call em Viking today. With Yasuke, all we have to go on is that he got a sword, house and stipend, served under a warlord like Nobunaga and visited at least one combat zone. That is not enough to make a statement about warrior class.

The RfC should be torn up and reevaluated from a point of neutrality, only from seasoned editors. Blockhaj (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If you are referring to the first RFC can you clarify who and where it was stated to be a trainwreck and biased? It was taken to ANI where the exact opposite view was held by the commenters who looked it over. (link)

The second RFC which attempted to re-litigate that RFC and how it was being employed is the RFC where the close stated it was a mess.

The details contained in the Shincho Koki manuscript, as interpreted by the expert secondary sources Wikipedia is built on, suggest that Yasuke held the status of a Samurai (as defined by those experts) if the manuscript is genuine. Relm (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Once again which experts? Not Japanese experts except for one with extremist views who is related to Lockley. Show Japanese sources! 211.36.141.246 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:NATIONALISM. Whether the scholar is Japanese or not has no bearing on their reliability. The only new dissenting voice being proposed on this talk page (Alaric Naude) is not an expert and not published through a publisher which would lend their claims credence. Several Japanese sources have been discussed on the talk pages (several for and against, though notably the 'against' category did so through offering doubt as to the legitimacy of the manuscript).

If you have reliable sources, Japanese or not, please feel free to post them. Relm (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Let me once again point out a discussion that was somewhere in the archives. Thomas Lockley writes in Britannica that the theory that Yasuke was a samurai is debatable.

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.

However, this article states that Yasuke was a samurai. It doesn't mention the debate. In addition to dissenting opinions, it also excludes the opinion that his position is unclear and cannot be determined. Isn't it cherry-picking that they say they trust Britannica but intentionally leave out the statement that there is room for debate?

You argue that Alaric NAUDÉ is not an expert. He may not be an expert on Japanese history, but he is a PhD in sociology, which is a field that encompasses history, and his books are peer reviewed.

What about Thomas Lockley? Although He wrote about Yasuke in Britannica, he is not an expert. He does not have a PhD in Japanese history, sociology, or any other related field. Why he, an amateur researcher, decided to write as an expert is a mystery in itself. Thomas Lockley, like Alaric Naude, is a language education specialist. They are not specialists in Japanese history. There are differences in whether or not you have a doctorate in education, but this point is the same. And Alaric Naude has a PhD in sociology, which is related to history. Thomas Lockley does not. That should be taken into account.

And errors have been pointed out in the contents of Britannica. Britannica has a lot of reliable information, but it is not infallible. Even Britannica admits that. Britannica's experts, like CNN and others, would make the same mistake if they read only Western sources.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Errors_in_the_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_that_have_been_corrected_in_Wikipedia
110.131.150.214 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to say what I wanted to say most after I sent it. So let me send it one more time.

It is full of mistakes, but if you insist on referring to Britannica, then so be it. I'll accept it as a difference of opinion. Just don't falsify the information in it for your own convenience to push your opinion that Yasuke is a Samurai. 110.131.150.214 (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia policy gives preferences to secondary sources and uses votes to determine consensus. In this case, arguing that Yasuke is not a samurai is an uphill battle. This is in part due to poor behaviour on and off Wikipedia by persons arguing that he is not a samurai. Considering this, one must be extra careful and as always have good sources to back up one's claims. At some point there will be a new RfC, and so then there will be a chance to make your argument. Until then, I suggest looking at other improvements to the article that can be made, but those too will require sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Question.Why an opposing view of Goza got removed despite him being a credible historian ?Seems very suspect. 2A02:587:550E:1800:1953:34AF:6CB6:FCFD (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused- that's not what the RFC said- but you've also just gone ahead and made several sweeping changes without any discussion or reasoning besides your own gut feelings.

Why exactly is that allowed? Is that not literally vandalism of the subject which this article is supposed to be protected against currently? What authority are you acting under that let's you do these things and then criticize others for it? 216.138.9.189 (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Bushi and samurai are not the same.Being Bushi does NOT make a person a samurai 211.36.141.246 (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

That is possibly true, but the terms are often used interchangeably. Lockley believes that in the Sengoku period, no one knows the difference between the samurai and bushi. If only for recognition purposes samurai is used instead of bushi and has been in some cases used to refer to low ranking persons such as komono. This needs to be kept in mind when discussing Yasuke's status. If you wish to discuss the difference between bushi and samurai in detail, we can do that at the Samurai talk page. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I am somewhat flabbergasted that you are quoting Lockley when he isnt a historian and his book is 98% made up. 211.36.141.245 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not quoting Lockley, I am explaining his opinion. When Lockley says that Yasuke is a samurai, he might as well say that Yasuke is a bushi. Also, 98% is too much. 98% of the book isn't about Yasuke. African Samurai still isn't very good, but it copied other people's errors (using outdated pop history) or took primary sources at face value. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

For context, Lockley's pop history book is not considered a reliable source as was consensus of the Thomas Lockley RSN. The consensus there was that any views Lockley expressed in the book could be found in his peer reviewed works that constituted better sources, and that his theories expressed in those should be directly attributed. This is what the current state of the page reflects. Relm (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

in these reviewed works of Lockley, he stated in a section, that he defines every armed commoner working under a lord as a samurai, thereby including Yasuke....and every single ashigaru-farmer under Oda Nobunaga.

The page should reflect, that his theory describes the term samurai more broadly than the general consensus and just for example the English Wikipedia. He simply includes every armed personal under a feudal lord. This has to be reflected somewhere on the page to not use the term misleadingly for readers? -- ErikWar19 (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure that we can frame it exactly like that. I am not sure that his definition is far off. I think Lockley is bad at explaining things, and being precise. There seems to be a disagreement about the meaning of samurai, and several of the authors say that it is used improperly in a generic way, and at the same time use it generically.

Lockley says in Britannica: During this period, the definition of samurai was ambiguous I suggest we put that in a footnote. We could also change the first sentence to:

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a man of African origin who became a bushi or samurai by serving Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582.

I would then use Britannica, Lopez and Vaporis to cite that. Feel free to make suggested changes. The word samurai should be in the lead, out of respect for the consensus. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The article for Samurai suggests that samurai and bushi can be used interchangeably so what is the purpose of such a change? Tippytoemuppet (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Good question. They are often used interchangeably, but depending on the time period, it is incorrect. There also seems to be two opinions on what a samurai is. The conventional definition is that it means a high ranking bushi (such as those with imperial lineage). Recently some scholars have challenged this, pointing out that it refers to servants, and that it could be insulting to call a daimyo or high ranking bushi. It is possible both are correct based on the time. By saying "bushi or samurai" we would be paraphrasing Lockley's "warrior or samurai" and signify the generic usage of the term here. Lockley isn't claiming that Yasuke is a high ranking bushi, and neither is Lopez. Yasuke may be at the low end of a high ranking bushi, but the RS don't say that. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

In the sengoku period it's even more likely that Yasuke would be seen as a samurai as lines were very much blurred regarding the definition during that period.

Before that the word samurai referred to anyone who served the emperor, the imperial family, or the imperial court nobility, even in a non-military capacity.

So even based on that definition, he was a samurai.

So I ask again, what is the purpose of changing the lead to include bushi? Tippytoemuppet (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

He said why. They are often used interchangeably, but depending on the time period, it is incorrect. There also seems to be two opinions on what a samurai is. The conventional definition is that it means a high ranking bushi (such as those with imperial lineage). Recently some scholars have challenged this, pointing out that it refers to servants, and that it could be insulting to call a daimyo or high ranking bushi.

This would resolve the controversy and disambiguate, signifying a generic usage. Not all of our readers are going to be experts on Japanese history, especially on this article which has made its rounds unfortunately into the mainstream. If a lack of clarification is causing issues or misunderstandings, then we as writers have failed to communicate to our readers.

Remember who wikipedia is for. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

No one has heard of 'bushi' it's about 100% unknown to people who aren't experts in Japanese history. It would also confuse me. Samurai is fine there's no reason to add an obscure term redundantly. 89.8.34.143 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As was previously stated, They are often used interchangeably, but depending on the time period, it is incorrect. Right now, there is an issue in interpretation with people believing we are referring to the warrior nobility, as the meaning of the word evolved through history, as well as basically meaning any katana wielding soldier in english as a loan word. Just saying "it's fine" is WP:IJDLI-adjacent. You're not addressing my point about the lack of clarification causing issues and misunderstandings either.

Interestingly, on jawiki m:ja:武士 and m:ja:侍 are different pages but bushi (warrior) and samurai both link to samurai, which covers both. So we already have precedent for referring to a "samurai" in english as both "bushi" and "samurai". DarmaniLink (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but let me say something.

Yasuke is a warrior. It has the same meaning as samurai.

This story itself is puzzling. Was there any documentation that Yasuke became a warrior? Were there any materials with descriptions that would allow you to infer this? There are descriptions that suggest he became a servant, but there is no description of him becoming a warrior or a combatant. 140.227.46.9 (talk) 06:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

He is a military servant. Similar to Batman_(military) or an equerry in modern terms. Probably more like an equerry, because he served such a high ranking man. He is also described as fighting during the Honnō-ji Incident. I don't think historians know what exactly the dividing line between Bushi and lower ranking military servants, or if and how lower ranking military servants fought in battle. That he had a stipend and his own house shows that he was not a low ranking servant. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The statements you have made are false. Bushi were a social class. Also Yasuke was present at Honnō-ji but the record does not mention him fighting at all. House and stipend was common for other servants. Nobunaga gave Sumo wrestlers housing, stipend, wakizashi swords and more gifts than he ever gave Yasuke. Does that make them samurai? This whole page is built on Western assumptions not historic fact. 211.36.141.190 (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

One thing is clear: Yasuke's rank was above Sumo wrestlers but below Matsudaira Ietada. Just like a squire is below a knight. Matsudaira Ietada - knight, Yasuke - squire.84.54.70.120 (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

His name isnt on either of Nobunaga's retainer lists. Squire and retainer are not the same. What you says makea no sense since the Sumo wrestlers had higher payments and higher honours. Calling him a squire is a faux pas, Bushi system and knight system are not the same. 125.179.119.108 (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The same record that says he was at the Honno-ji says he was fought. [[12]]

According to Goza the Sumo wrestlers were also samurai[[13]]. I agree that it is based on assumptions, at least as far as I can tell. Educated guesses. However, that is what wikipedia does, and the assumptions aren't based on solely on western scholarship. I have provided sources, none of the IP users have.

Goza seems to think that the sumo wrestlers were about the same rank as Yasuke. I don't think Yasuke is receiving special treatment here. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The article you quoted says nothing about Goza claiming that Sumo wrestlers are samurai. So I don’t know what you are talking about. Maybe your translation software is strange. The same article does quote Professor Taku Kaneko of the University of Tokyo Historiographical Institute who points out problems with the Maeda verson of the Shinchōkōki . There are 71 versions of Shinchōkōki but only Maeda even mentions sword and stipend plus it is from a later date.

Professor Taku Kaneko has plainly said that Yasuke was not a samurai this was already stated in another post so your claim that sources aren’t being given is false. Professor Taku Kaneko “Yasuke cannot be called a samurai”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59Y-YjN6o7Y

Why are you using Huffington Post which has basically English to Japanese translated articles. Ironically a quote there shows that Professor Midori Fujita of Tohoku University does believe he was a samurai.

"It is not surprising that Mitsuhide would have found it unbearable to kill a servant who, although his skin was a different color, understood a little of the language and was loyal to his master until the end."

Why does the article reference the historical texts in the beginning but give not reference for : ＜巡察師（ヴァリニャーノのこと）が信長に送った黒人奴隷が、信長の死後、息子の家に行き、相当長い間、戦っていたところ、明智の家臣が近づいて「恐れることなくその刀を差し出せ」といったので、刀を渡した。家臣は、この黒人奴隷をどのように処分すべきか明智に尋ねたところ、「黒人奴隷は動物で何も知らず、また日本人でないため殺すのはやめて、インドのパードレ（司祭）の聖堂に置け」と言った＞

The reason is this is not a historical quote. It is based on Lockley. The date of the article also predates finding out all the fabrications by Lockley.

I will report what was said in another post:

Professor Yuichi Kureza , Historian

“By having a black Yasuke close to him, he would attract attention and, in a way, it was a way of showing off Nobunaga's power. So I think the most important purpose was to show him off to everyone. The Jesuit historical documents say that Yasuke was strong and could perform a few tricks. I think in reality he was Nobunaga's bodyguard and entertainer."

https://www.sankei.com/article/20240805-2RDCMCMKMNFYFOGXMRGPCIT2NI/

If editors had any conscience whatsoever they would put the main page stating that he was a retainer, then add a controversy section showing for and against points like the Japanese page does.

Daimon Watanabe, Historian, Director of the Institute of History and Culture

“But, was Yasuke truly a samurai? Based on the available information, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment. While Nobunaga provided him with a residence, a short sword, and a stipend, it is questionable whether these things alone qualify him as a samurai.

Considering the limited information about Yasuke, it seems that Nobunaga enjoyed taking Yasuke along when going out and watching people’s astonishment. Yasuke appears to have been more of a servant, satisfying Nobunaga's curiosity as someone who appreciated new and unusual things.”

So Naude is not the only dissenting voice but three other Japanese professors are too. 112.184.32.144 (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Can yal please log in if ur gonna be this active on Wikipedia? It is annoying AF to keep track of the discussion with these IP-adresses as signatures. If u do not have a account then please create one.--Blockhaj (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Add the original texts about Yasuke to the wiki

Is there any reason the wiki doesn't include the original texts? We should at the very least have images of the documents for readers to reference. Here are all of the original documents that I am aware of, along with some original translations:

February 23, 1581 - Chronicles of Lord Nobunaga [Original Document - Japanese]

April 14, 1581 - Letter from Luis Frois [Original Document - Portuguese] [Japanese Translation]

October 8, 1581 - Letter from Lorenzo Mesia [Original Document - Portuguese] [Japanese Translation]

May 11, 1582 - Matsudaira Ietada's Diary [Original Document - Japanese]

November 5, 1582 - Luis Frois' report to Jesuit Society [Original Document - Portuguese] [Japanese Translation] HexJK (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia largely avoids using primary sources because those require interpretation and analysis, which is not allowed to be done by editors themselves. Hence why Wikipedia primarily uses secondary sources, which themselves do said interpretation and analysis of the primary sources. Silverseren^C 06:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I was misunderstood, my intention isn't for editors to interpret or analyze the documents themselves, only to reference them as they're already mentioned. When discussing the report from Luís Fróis, would it not enhance the article to include a photo of the actual report? All five of these documents are the entire existence of Yasuke, so they are of extreme importance to the wiki, at the very least deserving of their own topic/section.

Even the secondary sources referenced throughout the wiki don't source the original documents, so its impossible for readers to find the original documents to examine themselves. Omitting them just seems incredibly dishonest, especially with all of the uncertainty and controversy revolving around these secondary sources. I'd like to at least get some more eyes on this, and if it is still not considered, we will at least have a record of the original documents being rejected as material for the wiki. HexJK (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to have a look at wikisource? Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

A bibliography of primary sources with links to the original texts and translations would obviously improve the quality of the article. I have made an attempt to create such a bibliography here: Talk:Yasuke/Primary_sources. At the moment it's just a few notes/links. Editors who have the time and inclination can improve it and eventually add it to the article. Right now, and for various reasons, I'm not available to work on it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I do think that having the original source along with the secondary source is preferrable. The translation of missionarys' letter in Portuguese, I understand is a difficult point because it is going from the old Portuguese to Japanese and to English, but the professional Japanese translation is indeed available which is the secondary source and is not so old (1990s), and info we see in English media sources refer to those Japanese translations anyway it seems.

Why do the article only have the original manuscript which is primary source that is not recommended to use and I tried to add some web source which is already cited in other section of the article, and was reverted.

Applying machine-translation from the primary source is not considered the original-research? If not, then one should show the transcribed text for verification purpose? But it will fall into the original research because if the output is awkward, one will try to adjust to better wording and patch-translate only because one does not like the output. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not satisfied with the current translations either. I will look for some English translations. Perhaps we could add footnotes in cases where there are alternate translations? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not think it is the matter of whether you are satisfied with the existing translations or not (or the machine-translation output from the primary source, if the article uses one).

The existing Japanese translations by historians are what should be regarded as the secondary sources for the place of the missionary's letters, not listing the original manuscripts only, especially as long as the officially published English translations from the primary source are not availbale.

Here is one example, about Honnoji incident.

「我等カザにゐた者が一層惧れたところは、明智が悪魔及び偶像の友であり、我等と親しからず、デウスの教を嫌ってゐたのみならず、我等は信長の庇護を受けた者である故、火をカザに放たせ、その部下が聖堂の物を掠奪するであろうことであったが、明智は都の街々に布告を発し、市を焼くことはない故、安堵し、彼が成功したことを喜ぶべく、もし兵士にして害を加ふるものがあれば、これを殺すべしと言った。またビジタドールが信長に贈った黒奴が、信長の死後世子の邸に赴き、相当長い間戦ってゐたところ、明智の家臣が彼に近づいて、恐るることなくその刀を差出せと言ったのでこれを渡した。家臣にこの黒奴をいかに処分すべきか明智に尋ねたところ、黒奴は動物で何も知らず、また日本人でない故、これを殺さず、インドのパードレの聖堂に置けと言った。これによって我等は少しく安心した。」

（村上直次郎訳『イエズス会日本年報 上』雄松堂書店） 2001:F74:8C00:2200:C2C9:0:0:1002 (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The article mentions nothing about the controversy itself

An encyclopedia article should serve as sufficient to bring one up to speed on an issue. Regarding Yasuke, the issue in the real world has been the controversy over his status as Samurai, yet there is no mention of it at all. I can understand wanting to not provide a back door to allowing trolls into the article, but by not mentioning the disagreement at all I think this article fails in it's mission to educate our readers on the subject at hand and how it is being currently perceived by real world people. Currently, a reader wanting to actually know what's actually going on with 'Yasuke' today will be required to go elsewhere. Marcus Markup (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Were one to just rely on this article, one would in no way realize that there is in fact a controversy; a thing anyone wanting to discuss the topic should know. To the degree we do not present the reality of the situation is the degree to which we present a fiction to our readers. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news. That article is mostly about the culture wars and a video game that hasn't come out yet. It does not depict a controversy over Yasuke's status, at least not an academic controversy. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news The controversy over Yasuke is by no means "news" in the way the essays warning us of the issue mean, or intend. It is in fact a "thing" with significance. By ignoring the controversy completely, we in fact present a fiction to our readers.

Let's say that for some strange reason, my boss decides to take me to a meeting where I will be required to be up-to-speed on Yasuke and ready to discuss him. So I go to Wikipedia, naturally... they have the objective facts, and I can rest assured I will be covered. So I read the article, go to the meeting, and get blindsided when I learn that there is actually a controversy! My boss describes what an imbecile I was for trusting "that site" and continues discussing my options regarding unemployment benefits. I edit articles with an eye towards preventing such situations, and towards preventing requrining our readers to go elsewhere to become truly up-to-speed on a subject, but that's not a point of view which is shared by all, of course. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, when a controversy over an academic subject is not present in the actual academic sources, we're in WP:FRINGE territory, which instructs right in the nutshell at the top that an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea.

It's why we mention almost nothing about vaccine conspiracy theories in our article on vaccines. In a source dispute between a bunch of randos mentioned second hand in a newspaper article, and every published source by an academic historian we've been able to find on this topic, the historians win. Loki (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Choosing to interpret "no undue weight" to mean there should be "no mention at all" in this situation is not how I read the policy. Proper weight in this case requires a mention... it is a thing anyone wanting to discuss the subject of Yasuke should know, and I will again object to the encyclopedia pretending that it does not exist, and object to requiring our readers yet again to go elsewhere to ensure that they are properly brought up-to-speed on an issue. Marcus Markup (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your example of the "Vaccine" article, the proper way to deal with the issue of vaccine denial or hesitancy or whatever it is called, is to mention it briefly, because the controversy is in and of itself a thing and would need to be mentioned. Someone wanting to discuss vaccines should know there is a controversy. I would hope the article does not just pretend it does not exist... sunlight is the best disinfectant. The tendency to want to not trust the reader, but instead curate their reality and guide their thoughts to include even preventing them from learning of views outside of the mainstream, only seems to be growing here unfortunately. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem with your hypothetical is that it really is just saying that we should assume there are high stakes for not including information. Really, if your job depends on knowing all there is about a subject, then you shouldn't rely on just one source. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that place limits on what goes into an article. An encyclopedia article isn't supposed to contain everything about a topic, but rather a summary of the most notable aspects. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Marcus. While there is no academic or scholarly controversy about Yasuke, there is an online culture war about him, which is significant because it has been covered by multiple sources. A few weeks ago I added a subsection to the article titled "2024 Controversy over Assassin's Creed Shadows", but I was reverted by Tinynanorobots, then I started a discussion here that didn't reach a consensus for inclusion. I think that's a mistake. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I was not watching the page at the time and I'm sorry I missed your discussion. His status as Samurai is objectively controversial, and was the subject of much coverage including an above-the-fold article in the New York Times. This article is an embarrassment to the encyclopedia and I think it's time to invite the participation of the broader community with a formal RfC. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

We had enough RfCs on his "controversial" (among whom?) status as a samurai. Adding another RfC without any significant new source on the matter would be useless and disruptive. The point I was trying to make is different: I think we should have a subsection on the Assassin's Creed Shadows controversy (such as this one). Most of our readers are on this article because of that controversy, and WP:DUE requires that we provide them with information they might be interested in - "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" - which I think the current article does not do. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Were the prior RfCs about whether to say Yasuke was a Samurai in Wikivoice, or were they about whether on not to mention the controversy at all? Because if there has not been an RfC covering whether to mention it at all, an RfC to bring the larger community in on the issue would not be untoward. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

None of the RfCs asked directly about wikivoice, but that was the outcome of the last two of them, although the term wikivoice wasn't used. The close of the last RfC clearly lays out three points where there is consensus and three where there isn't[14]. This is, I believe, the relevant part: There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate. No scholarly debate was shown to exist, leading most participants to oppose presenting one, and again, several of those !voting yes did not address this question or agreed with those !voting no. Concerns were raised that the sources presenting Yasuke's status as disputed are so vague about it as to make it impossible to include while complying with NPOV and avoiding weasel words.

This means that any "controversy" would have to be depicted as an unscholarly debate. Any coverage would then focus on the reaction to the casting in Assassin's Creed, or the conspiracy theory surrounding Lockley. There isn't really much in the RS about the Lockley conspiracy anyway. I don't think most readers are interested in what chronically online people think about a game that hasn't actually been made yet. It is also more appropriate for the article about the game. The conspiracy about Lockely is also best for the article about Lockley. Of course, putting that in there would be undue and probably violate BLP.

To some degree, published opinions on Yasuke do vary, but to call it a controversy or a debate is misleading. Specialists usually avoid calling people samurai {especially pre-Tokugawa} in academic works, but in works directed for the public, or even non-specialists, it is used quite liberally. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

You say pre-Tokugawa, but how about pre-1550? Isn't "Samurai" has three different era definitions? Pre-1550, 1550-1603, and 1603-present?84.54.71.84 (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I haven't heard that before. I think it is more complicated. Originally, it meant a servant, and is highly contextual. The Samurai-dokoro regulated gokenin, who in turn had their own followers called samurai. Tokugawa officials also looked to the Kamakura era as a precedent, but interpreted it from their own perspective. For example, they saw the Kamakura Shogunate as more powerful over the court than it was. This probably effected usage of the word "samurai". The ambiguity of the meaning of "samurai" didn't end in 1603. The Separation Edict was in 1591, the wearing of two swords was only banned in 1683. I don't remember when the right to use a surname was restricted. It also appears that samurai might have been used informally in period to refer to persons that weren't formally samurai. Varporis lists three possible definitions for samurai, just for the Tokugawa period. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see how a 2024 controversy over a video game representation is relevant to a historical biographical article, outside of the brief mention of said game in the In Popular Culture mentions section (which I'm iffy about including such sections in the first place as it is, per WP:TRIVIA). Silverseren^C 17:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  I feel here that it sort of depends on how much sourcing there is. Obviously it's a thing to some extent because of recent experience on this page, but we can't very well say "there was a controversy because look at this ArbCom case". Loki (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Blockhaj:

1. This edit adding according to some historians is against the RfC consensus: "There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification".
2. This edit adds a "better source needed" tag claiming that E. Taylor Atkins' book History of Pop Culture in Japan is a pop culture source. But E. Taylor Atkins is a professional historian specialising in Japanese history [15] and qualifies as WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
3. This edit adds about 15 months. This is not supported by sources. The issue has already been discussed on this talk page (here): no one knows the length of Yasuke's service under Nobunaga.

However, I agree with this revert of Tinynanorobots's edit: sources say that the gift signifies samurai status (e.g., Lockley: "bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank"); "bushi status" is an original research. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

1. That rfc is not neutral, as we can see in the above discussion. You know as well as anyone that it is biased to call him samurai without qualification and against the principles of Wikipedia. This is not equivelant to something obvious, like saying the moon landing happened. This is contentious and problematic wording. My edit puts the same information in a more neutral light which cannot be considered incorrect or worsening the state of the article.
2. That reference does not give a page and is from an onset not obviously themed after something related to this article. However, since u pointed it out, i will retract that tag.
3. I could have sworn this was in the article body somewhere but seems i was mistaken. My error.

--Blockhaj (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The page number of Atkin's book is in footnote 2. Regarding point 1, That rfc is not neutral is your POV. If you have not already done so, I suggest you read the first and second RfCs, which contain an extensive analysis of the sources. Many editors have given their arguments, and even if you're not convinced, you shouldn't ignore community consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be POV editing in regards to this subject and not following actual references in the article. Please remember that this article is now under CTOP restrictions. Silverseren^C 23:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 Your accusations of POV pushing and OG are unfounded. bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank is close enough in meaning to became a bushi or samurai that it is a paraphrase. Additionally, Vaporis refers to Yasuke as a bushi. Lopez says warrior, samurai and bushi are interchangeable, although bushi is the proper term. Finally, Atkin refers to signifying bushi status. Granted, Atkin refers only to the sword, but I think that bushi status and samurai rank are similar in meaning. In fact, Lockley has said so much in an interview. There are reasons to use the exact language of a source at times, but I believe it is better to use paraphrasing when appropriate. Really, when quoting the exact language, quotation marks need to be used. The goal of my phrasing was to communicate what was meant by samurai, and as already pointed out it reflects Lockley's "warrior and samurai rank" formulation. I suspect he is doing the same, indicating to sceptics that in this case, they are the same thing. I think bushi does this same thing better, because it has the added connotation of class. Laypeople tend to think that "warrior" means someone that fights, however in this context, it is primary a social designation. I am aware of the fact that many people think that Yasuke didn't fight. I have pointed out on this talk page that he did. Fighting is also not what makes him a samurai. Anyway, you should read the sources before jumping to conclusions and making accusations. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

What accusations? Are you referring to this? Then, WP:AE is the place to comment, if you disagree. If instead you are referring to my "bushi status" is an original research, which is the only comment I made that applies to you, I never mentioned POV pushing but I insist on the merit: there's no point in paraphrasing "warrior" as "bushi". We should strive for simplicity, and replacing the English "warrior", as per sources, with the Japanese "bushi" does not achieve that. This is what they call "obscurum per obscurius". Besides, your goal of communicat[ing] what was meant by samurai is exactly what I call original research. We should stick to the sources without adding our own interpretations and explanations.

By the way, what the heck does Yasuke have to do with Abram Petrovich Gannibal?!? [16] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, since Atkin says signifying bushi status, I have no objection to restoring this text, although I suggest that "indicating warrior status" or "marking membership in the warrior class" would be easier to understand. However, I strongly object to this edit [17]: having a man of African origin who became a bushi or samurai in the first sentance is confusing (the conjunction "or" in English is ambiguous - inclusive disjunction or exclusive disjunction?) and I think may be against RfC consensus ("samurai without qualification). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to compromise. I don't agree with your WP:OR argument, but I think that it is more productive at this point to focus on practical results as opposed to the reasoning behind it. It seems as if bushi is the word that you have a problem with, so removing it should satisfy you. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I prefer Blockhaj's edit, because "Yasuke serverd as a samurai to Nobunaga" may be the synthesis of information(WP:SYNTH) of "Some people regards Yasuke as a Samurai" and "Yasuke served to Nobunaga". Each information is based on each sources, but there is no explicit source refering to the combination of these information. The listed souces are "Academic sources on Yasuke's samurai status", not what status Yasuke serverd as.

Similarly, "As a samurai, he was granted a sword, a house and a stipend" may be WP:SYNTH. It may imply "Yasuke was given sword, house, stipend because he was acknowledged as a samurai by Nobunaga".NakajKak (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Blockhaj's edit had problems, but "serving as a samurai" suggests that samurai was a specific role, and not a rank. The sources say rank. I agree with your point about the "as a samurai" The phrase does appear in a CNN article, where it is probably a paraphrase of something Lockley says. The more academic sources phrase it more clearly that these things are indicative of Samurai status. I think that we should follow the more academic sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"serving as a samurai" suggests that samurai was a specific role

Yes, "serve as a saumurai to Oda Nobunaga" sounds like Yasuke was a bodyguard of Nobunaga, or had a specific role like that.

The more academic sources phrase it more clearly that these things are indicative of Samurai status.

I think controversial points arises from combining descriptions of primary and secondary sources, where secondary source analysis is described as a history fact. NakajKak (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Moved to "SYNTH problem" , the edit is no more than recent. NakajKak (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Some Recent Edits

1. This edit was done without consensus. It looks like it was reverted by @Gitz6666 here, but it was restored here. In previous discussions it looks like there is a consensus against things like "suggesting", "signifying", etc.

2. These edits (one and two) add misleading information that I don't think improves the article since Yasuke was not a slave in Japan, and with a quick check some historians think he was not a slave ever.

@Tinynanorobots can you follow WP:ONUS and seek consensus for these edits before re-adding them? Thank you. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Reddit and YouTube have some pretty thorough writeups on this matter, so it isn't like there isn't a general consensus across the internet for these changes. 209.215.92.127 (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ethiopian Epic I actually did discuss that edit with Gitz here[18]. He withdrew his objection and I changed it based on his input.

Regarding Yasuke being a slave, I have never found anyone saying that he was never a slave. Some are silent on the matter, just as some are silent on the matter of Yasuke being a samurai. Lockley believes that Yasuke was free when he started working with the Jesuits, but that he might have been a slave as a child. If you have sources that say that he wasn't a slave, I would like to see them. This was also previously discussed on this page, although it may have been archived. It was pointed out that leaving out the slavery aspect was potentially whitewashing history, and that is why it was included. A lack of academic consensus is not grounds for exclusion. There are only two sources that we have mentioning that Yasuke might be Muslim. So I think compared to that, there is much more support for Yasuke being a slave, prior to being a samurai.

Also, why are you removing the link to William Adams? Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I see thank you, however I checked the archives and the previous discussions says "There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification", and "There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate". So I think using "signifying samurai status" or "indicating status status" would be less in line with that consensus compared to the status quo text of "as a samurai". In light of that I would suggest getting consensus before adding this change.

As for "Lockley believes that Yasuke was free when he started working with the Jesuits, but that he might have been a slave as a child", if this is true then your new text in point nr.2 is not correct. I don't know about the previous discussions but based on the article there was at least a consensus for a long time to not include such a thing, so I think onus applies to it. In particular the "See also: Slavery in Japan" edit is misleading for someone who is notable for being a samurai with a stipend.

I think WP:ONUS applies to it as well, so I would suggest getting talk consensus before making these changes. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I am troubled that you keep implying that I haven't discussed these things on the talk before. I also believe you do not understand how consensus works. When someone makes a change, that is the consensus until someone challenges it. You are wanting to change the status quo.

The two lines you quote from the RfC don't conflict with the status quo. One of them even uses "samurai status".

As for "Lockley believes that Yasuke was free when he started working with the Jesuits, but that he might have been a slave as a child", if this is true then your new text in point nr.2 is not correct

Historians have different opinions. Lockley appears to be in the minority here. However, you mentioned sources before, so if you share them, that would be helpful.

Before he was notable for being a samurai, he was notable for being the first named black man in Japan. A lot of the academic works refer to him as a slave, even some of the news coverage. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not how consensus works. When someone makes a change and that change is challenged, as your changes are being here, you must achieve talk consensus before reinserting them. Please review WP:ONUS.

I think your proposed changes do conflict with the existing consensus, which says it should be presented without qualification and not as an object of debate. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

What you are saying doesn't make sense. Perhaps there is a language issue here. Maybe your native language handles the future differently than English?

The changes don't conflict with the RfC, shortening the amount quoted doesn't strengthen your case. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

For William I wasn't sure if he has any relationship to this person as the time periods didn't overlap and they served in different governments, but I don't have a deep opinion on it. There are 10 notable people listed in the samurai list but it would be unwieldy to link them. Maybe the full list can be linked. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Questionable neutrality

Despite a rude and uncivilized vandal's act of deleting my whole topic here in this talk page; I remain by my point. This page is questionable regarding a impartial article's stance and clearly do not stand neutral regarding the "Kashin (Retainer, aide equiparable to a Euro-medieval Squire) vs Bushi (Samurai, warrior equiparable to a Euro-medieval Knight) debate" among professional historians and academic researchers, who have yet to reach a mutual agreement.

A neutral point would be preferable for the whole article in general. I might have my own academic visions and support certain thesis, but even I do prefer a neutral, impartial, reliable approach from a "Enciclopedia".

Sincerely,

Yours truly;

BrazilianNormalGuy; Brazilian, Historian, Lover, Fighter, Actor, Cosplayer, Athlete, Runner, Comedian, Free, and Young. (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You seem new to Wikipedia. Neutrality(WP:NPOV), is Wikipedia policy. The decisions are made through wp:consensus and based on sources. While one can disagree with the interpretation of the secondary sources, several say that Yasuke was a samurai and are cited in the article. I don't know of any sources referring to Yasuke as a Kashin. If there is a source according to WP:RS. Also, if you are a historian, then you can publish your theory that he was a Kashin, and then ask someone to add it to the article. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

There are several debates on the topic, one of my colleagues used multiple sources while discussing it on a Twitter/X Thread where he carefully went through all we know about Yakuse's life. He multiple sources, and we both concluded that it is unlikely that he'd be a Samurai due to extensive rule of the title. Just as a Knight, being a soldier or warrior does not equals to the Samurai title. While myself believes he served as a Kashin, my colleague is divided between him being not a Keishin, but a Kosho. While I could, it is unlikely a Brazilian's theory would be well-received by the international Wikipedia. While yes, neither me nor my colleague deny that Lord Nobunaga did allow Yasuke to wear typical-Samurai armors, carry a sword, and had the living commodities, it is uncertain. But overall, it is also very unlikely that he'd had received the title due to many factors, one of them being the nature of the title being not of a simple armored warrior, but of a status of elite, if not nobility.

Furthermore, I love the general history of such a complex individual who had such a interesting life, but it saddens me that the wikipedia page raised about him became a war-field due to a videogame. I am totally against the boycot of the videogame, that you surely know which one I refer to, because they have their creative liberty, but to bring media conflicts to serious history fields is such a shame to the science of history.

BrazilianNormalGuy; Brazilian, Historian, Lover, Fighter, Actor, Cosplayer, Athlete, Runner, Comedian, Free, and Young. (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Self-published sources can be used if the author is a subject-matter expert, so even a blog post would count as a reliable source, if written by an expert in Japanese history. As far as samurai being equivalent to being a knight, my impression is that the comparison is often criticized and that samurai is believed to encompass a broader range of warriors than knight. Also, some experts acknowledge the term is often used to refer to all warriors. This is in part because it isn't clear where the cut-off line is, which probably varied from domain to domain. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

My expertice is more around the World Wars 1 and 2, the Napoleonic Wars, and a bit of Ancient Roman History, but fair is fair.

Yes, Samurai are not equal to Knight in all the senses, but I like to use the example of a Knight and Esquire's relationship to compare a Samurai and Keishin/Kosho's relationship.

They serve as aides but are not necessarily the same.

The view of samurai being armored katana-using warriors, although, is something I can tell proudly is a myth. They served mainly as long-range warriors, sometimes horse-mounted, and their weaponry would likely be an bow or an arquebuss (or musket around the XVIII century), but in melee they'd likely use spears and have 2 to 3 swords including but not limited to Wakizashi, Katate-uchi, and Katana, so that difers them from the heavily armored knights that mainly used longswords, halberds, shields, and flails/maces, etc.

But due to my limitations of expertise in the Feudal Japan subject I'd rather abstaining. Although I love general-history and do not limit myself to a single period or country, I do acknowldge my lack of specialization.

Thank you for your input, it would indeed be interesting if a theory linking Yasuke's role to the Keishin or Kosho was to be published.

Sincerely,

Yours truly;

BrazilianNormalGuy; Brazilian, Historian, Lover, Fighter, Actor, Cosplayer, Athlete, Runner, Comedian, Free, and Young. (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh my, I am utterly embarassed, I apologize deeply.

It seems that I wrote Kashin and with incorrect grammar too (dislexya), but it turns out I was thinking of the kashin but due to terminology it was incorrect, and all this time I really was thinking of saying Kosho instead. Seems like I can no longer proud myself for not allowing ADHD to intervene with my professional writings, since it got to me.

Curiously, I see it has no page in the Eng-Wikipedia, but it has one in the Portuguese branch.

BrazilianNormalGuy; Brazilian, Historian, Lover, Fighter, Actor, Cosplayer, Athlete, Runner, Comedian, Free, and Young. (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest reviewing the archive, as the term has come up several times. I distinctly recall Lockley's Peer reviewed paper (not the book) on Yasuke used it, and it was discussed at the Lockley RSN. I believe there was a second source found right after that was discussed here which used the same term. I do not remember the details of the context it is used in, Relm (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You posted a rant accusing editors of the page (none by name) of being 'revisionists' and violated a variety of Wikipedia policies in the process. Wikipedia is not your WP:SOAPBOX, please review that policy. You have been warned several times before about this behaviour and the restrictions placed on the page. Relm (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I will be open for a civilized conversation about it if you list what violations I might've violated. I might be a hot-headed person and come out aggressive sometimes due to my excentric personality but I would never delete someone's topic in the talk-page in such uncivilize manner. Deleting active conversations is a bit rude and unethical, don't you agree?

Sincerely,

Yours truly;

BrazilianNormalGuy; Brazilian, Historian, Lover, Fighter, Actor, Cosplayer, Athlete, Runner, Comedian, Free, and Young. (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I know it seems unusual, but it is allowed to remove other editors comments from the talk page in certain circumstances. I also think that Relm has given you enough information for you to figure out what policies you violated by linking to WP:Soapbox and pointing out the accusations that you made. That goes against WP:Aspersions. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully,

This conversation has been going on in the talk page for months. There is a significant backlog of RSNs, ANIs, RFCs, etc. There is an arb com contentious topic restriction where several users who were active in all of that were topic banned only a few weeks ago (For conduct, not 'revisionism'). This is the context you entered, and when you entered you did so with no regard for all of that and accused several editors of revisionism without evidence and attempted to shame the administrators of Wikipedia. This conduct violates, amongst other things:

Policies/Guidelines:

CT Yasuke Sanctions - which you have since been informed of on your talk page.

WP:NPA

WP:CIVIL (Namely, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH)

WP:SOAPBOX

Essays:

Signs of WP:NOTHERE

Clear lack of regard for prior consensus WP:DICC

If you have a genuine interest in aiding the Wikipedia project, and the Yasuke page in particular. The first step is to understand that Wikipedia is only as good as its sources, which are prioritizing high quality secondary scholarship, and that the page has undergone months of discussion about these sources. In your earlier talk post you cited several falsehoods about the history of the page, and I will clarify some of them here:

1. Wikipedia has listed Yasuke as a samurai for a long time. This predates Thomas Lockley making a wikipedia account, and predates anything he published on the topic. A RSN was held and it was firmly determined that Lockley's peer reviewed work is a reliable source, and that any theory of his that was his alone should be attributed directly to him. The current page reflects this (Encyclopedia Britannica article was an editorial commission which included a high quality fact checking process. It is as good a source as EB can produce.)

2. The article when the controversy happened did link to several sites of dubious quality which largely parroted the narrative of Lockley's pop history rendition of Yasuke's life as the true history rather than a dramatic portrayal driven by speculation. These have since been axed. Many articles on the page mention the netflix series, Lockley, and so on but that is because this is what reignited interest in Yasuke around 2019-2022. These articles are not cited on the basis of uncritically accepting the Netflix show as gospel (else there would be mentions of Yasuke fighting cyborg demons). Likewise no one here is asserting that Assassins Creed is a valid source for history.

3. Pulling rank on history does not work in this instance, especially when it is outside of your specialty. I am also a historian. Several people in the past discussions are as well. What we believe, and how we interpret the sources, does not matter - that is a case of WP:OR. All we can do is attempt to accurately portray what the reliable secondary sources say. In Yasuke's case it may be that within several years there will be leading academics in the field who will publish high quality papers on the matter casting doubt. As it stands, Yasuke conforming to various period appropriate definitions of 'Samurai' is present in the secondary sources. The subject of the second RFC was on how to include dissent from people like Goza who gave some comments in Sankei Shimbun, or how to qualify the Samurai rank with context or otherwise if the dissent should be alluded to. That RFC failed to get a consensus for these things, and my understanding of the page is that it is largely waiting for new sources to be published before another begins. I also imagine it may restart again once the game releases in February.

In short, if you want to contribute to the process you can not ignore everything that precedes you on this talk page and you should attempt to understand and follow Wikipedia's policies and why the page is where it is today rather than make general accusations towards editors. Relm (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

4. I'm going to elaborate a bit on 'Kashin' (家臣) as it intersects with my specialty. This term and my discussion of it here is in ignorance of the specific definition in Japanese as I am not nearly as capable at Japanese as I am with Chinese where the word originates (as Jiachen). The word in the Chinese context referred to lower nobility in direct service of officials or powerful individuals. This is why the word has the connotation of 'vassal'/'retainer' both, since it signified the political structure at the time where both terms were applicable together in reference to the same indiviudal. This version of the word in no way can be misconstrued to mean 'squire'. A squire served a knight, a knight served a lord, a lord had a retinue. Jiachen refers to those of high status (namely, not just any servent) in that retinue in direct service of a high ranking noble or official. I can not assert that Kashin follows this same definition, even if I believe that it wouldn't have changed given what I do know (especially since the way Yasuke is described seems to fit with the definition I gave). I can not make this assertion or advocate based on my own knowledge of its connection to what I do know - this would violate WP:OR. I wrote this addendum for two primary reasons.

a) It was the main thrust of your argument against the factual quality of the page, and another editor seemed to want to pursue it a bit.

b) To show why OR is insufficient.

c) To give an example of why this term is insufficient for understanding the nuance within which it was employed to refer to Yasuke. There are still ongoing discussions over how to represent the nuance of what constituted a Samurai in the period. Relm (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I walked on that one. I was using the wrong term. I meant Kosho which weirdly enough has no pages in the English Wikipedia, but it has pages in a few languages such as the Portuguese branch but for simplification does mentions it acted as a "escudeiro", which is the portuguese word for "squire" but could be really anyone serving at similar roles.

BrazilianNormalGuy; Brazilian, Historian, Lover, Fighter, Actor, Cosplayer, Athlete, Runner, Comedian, Free, and Young. (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Depending on the time period, squire could indicate either a man-of-arms of high status, but below that of a knight, or it could be ambiguous as to status. Kosho is sometimes translated as squire, but more often as page. One problem with Japanese history is that in the past it was argued that it was like Western feudalism, and that has biased historians. I think that Kosho were considered of samurai or bushi class. So arguing that Yasuke was not a samurai because he was a Kosho seems like splitting hairs. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is caused by the use of the word "samurai" in the article, but the cause of this is actually quite simple. The cause of this is not a matter of neutrality.

In Japanese there are various words such as samurai(侍), bushi(武士), mononofu(武士), and musya(武者).

• A samurai is a person who has a master, who primarily serves a samurai family, and who is primarily active as a fighter, and has existed since the Heian period, but the definition has changed over time. It has the meaning of both the position of following a high-ranking master and the role of a combatant.
• A bushi is someone who mainly acts as a fighter. The term has a strong connotation of a fighter role, and does not have much of a connotation of serving someone of higher rank.
• Mononofu is another word for bushi
• Musya means someone wearing a helmet or armor. It refers to someone wearing equipment, so they don't necessarily have to be combatants.

If you were to express these words in English, they would all be "samurai." English is inadequate to express the variety of Japanese expressions.

Although the English language lacks expressiveness, it can at least tell the difference between a knight and a soldier. It's highly likely that Yasuke is not expected to play an active role as a commander. Goza said the same thing, right? In English, it is most likely not a knight, but rather a soldier. But no one can confirm that.

That's why it's safer to use a different word than samurai. Using a more clear word rather than a word with many meanings is more effective in conveying the meaning properly. The unmistakable words would be retainer or servant.

Remember the title your favorite Thomas Lockley used for his peer-reviewed paper? In page, it starts at page 89; in PDF, it starts at page 103, depending on the environment.

"The Story of Yasuke: Nobunaga's African Retainer."[19] 110.131.150.214 (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, like I mentioned, it is weird that the English branch of Wikipeia completely lacks the Kosho, while a few languages like the Portuguese branch have one for it. Like mentioned previously, it is described in the Portuguese page as basically a "escudeiro" to a samurai. Escudeiro translates not only to "shielder" but also to squire and is the Portuguese's equal of a squire, indeed. Escudeiro could also be used to describe similar uties to those of a squire.

So all that I have for working here is that Yasuke is closer to being a Kosho than a samurai, since he did serve a Lord but from all that we know, said Lord really liked him and gifted him with commodoties of a samurai, such as allowing him to carry a sword, to wear the samurai armor, and so on. But from what I've discussed with colleagues, Yasuke never took typical samurai roles nor was really entitled to the title. So he would be closer to a kosho. By all means, Yasuke was indeed a musya since he wore the samurai armor.

But I wanted to clarify why I mentioned squire when the closest that I got to work here on the kosho is the Portuguese's summary of the title as a escudeiro.

Observation: The word per se is not mentioned anywhere on the Portuguese, witth it's translation being literally "A noble's follower/aide" from what I read, but what it describes a Kosho has is similar to the escudeiro's duties and a proper translation to the Portuguese language which then cross-translates to English as Squire.

Ah, sleep depraviation, I might have been quite confusing, my sincere apologies.

Sincerely,

Yours truly;

BrazilianNormalGuy; Brazilian, Historian, Lover, Fighter, Actor, Cosplayer, Athlete, Runner, Comedian, Free, and Young. (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I have brought these documents with me. This material may be useful for your opinion.

buke mēmokumyō(武家名目抄)[20]

This is a collection of materials related to samurai, compiling events and customs from 887 to around 1603, ordered by the Edo shogunate. It was completed around 1860. Let's abbreviate it and translate it into modern language.

There is an argument that Yasuke was a samurai because he was entrusted with the important task of holding his master's sword, but it is written that he was actually of a lower social status.

太刀持ちには2通りがある。常に言えるのは主人の太刀を持って、側で仕える者をいう。また出陣中においては、主人の太刀をいつでも使えるように準備している者を指す。薙刀持ち、槍持ちも同じように2通りある。

室町殿（室町幕府将軍）が外出する時の太刀持ちは格別の立場の侍だ。各大名家では格別というものではなく、普通の役目だ。出陣中にはこの限りではない。

織田家で兵を指揮する立場の人は、下級身分の人に持たせていた。

There are two types of people who carry the master's sword. What can always be said is that it refers to someone who holds his master's sword and serves at his side. Also, during battle, it refers to a person who keeps his master's sword ready to be used at any time. There are likewise two types of people who carry naginata and spears.

When Muromachi-dono (Muromachi shogunate shogun) goes out, the person who carries the sword is a samurai in a special position. In the daimyo families, this was not a special role, but a normal one. This does not apply during battle.

In the Oda clan, those in command of soldiers had someone of lower rank carry their swords.

Koshō were mainly young samurai who guarded their master and ran various errands for him, similar to a modern-day secretary. If their master is in danger, their role is to protect them, even if it means sacrificing their own lives. Koshō must have a wide range of knowledge about both military and domestic affairs, first-rate etiquette, and martial arts skills. If you are going to translate it, I think Japanese would be best.[21]

Sometimes they also served as sexual partners for their masters. Although it was sex between two men, they accompanied each other in peacetime and on the battlefield, and were a community of destiny who would risk their lives if danger approached, so it was not uncommon for them to confirm their trust in each other with their hearts and bodies. But, Yasuke is too old to have been a sexual object. 110.131.150.214 (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Touché.

So, perhaps Yasuke was indeed a Koshō, perhaps somehow Lord Nobunaga did manage to use his position to title Yasuke as an honorary samurai, but in the end, we can only theorize as much due to the limited physical and written evidence.

I do stand corrected. My apologies, my fellow Wikipedian.

Sincerely,

Yours truly;

BrazilianNormalGuy; Brazilian, Historian, Lover, Fighter, Actor, Cosplayer, Athlete, Runner, Comedian, Free, and Young. (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I have heard that Yasuke might have been a Kinju or Kinshu. I forget which one, but it means lord's attendant and were of the warrior class and has similar duties as a Kosho. I don't think the concept of an "honourary samurai" makes sense. As far as I can tell, samurai wasn't title or legal class. Records don't really refer to individuals as samurai. It is possibly applying a later idea retroactively. He did receive a lot of money though and his own residence and got to be in the same room as Nobunaga. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

residence is a nice sounding word, for getting your own room at court. additional, could you show me the source for the actual amount of received money? I just know of the used term of the "stipend", that is not equal to the term used for the salary of retainers (俸禄 houroku). And a regular servant would have been in the same room as Nobunaga as well, explicit as an exotic gift to actual show this gift to other visitors.

And once again, we dont have a clear term of samurai, but this doesn't excuse to use the term for every armed individual in Japan. bushi is for example connected to the idea of bushido and i would expect Yasuke to not have any understanding of this Japanese teaching over his time in Japan. You had to come from a buke, from a military family to be a bushi, warrior. Japan in his feudal time was...feudal. Estates were more or less a thing in Japan. It dissolved over these civilwar-like times, but in the Edo-era was made even more strictly. We speak about a society of noble lords, that had negative opinions about commoners and ronin even after decades of combat and army leading under Oda Nobunaga becoming official "noble samurai". This is meant with honorary samurai as a concept.

There are modern historic books about Hideyoshi becoming a samurai and the implications of these decisions by Oda. We don't have sources of Japanese nobles at these times talking about this title as a samurai comparable to a less controversial decision of Hideyoshi by the same lord Oda some few years ago. We don't have historians talk about this controversial unique decision of Oda in this specific context of making non-traditional people to noble samurai....and the sources, who will call Yasuke a samurai include in their own peer-read papers, that they define samurai significant broader than the general view of samurai, making common farmers by armament to samurai and they hide behind the argument, that the term is loosely defined for this specific short time-period, thereby just revealing, that it is THEIR opinion, that he should be called a samurai. They don't just call him a samurai, they call it their opinion, to call him like this without actual prove for the correctness of this term. they just call it plausible FOR THEM. I just point at this small detail, because it is easily missed.

--ErikWar19 (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't speak Japanese, but I am pretty sure the word used for residence means a house. I am not qualified to say if Yasuke having a house meant that he was a samurai. But he had a rank where he got a house. The context where the stipend, house and sword are mentioned suggest that the main purpose is to talk about how generous and great Nobunaga is. Just a room in a castle doesn't seem worth mentioning. I also don't know much about Japanese court protocol. I do know that there were some restrictions and that apparently Nobunaga's son and heir couldn't speak directly to him. I also know that in Europe the servants of rulers were often young noblemen. This included duties like helping the ruler dress and waiting on tables. So I wouldn't assume there is a clear divide between servant and retainers with high social rank.

And once again, we dont have a clear term of samurai, but this doesn't excuse to use the term for every armed individual in Japan.

I am not defending common practice, just describing it.

As far as the money that he received. The Jesuit sources mention 10,000 copper coins were given to Yasuke by Nobunaga's nephew. A theory is that the nephew gave the money on behalf of his uncle, because of the difference in rank. The Japanese sources don't mention the coins, but do mention the stipend. I thought the wikiarticle cited the original source, but it looks like the sources have been changed. On reddit, a historian provided an estimate of the worth. Going from memory, it was the cash equivalent of 60-100 koku income.

I don't know if samurai is the right term. It is the term a fair amount of sources use, and the one that the RfC says should be used. It is also consistent with common usage in reference to other historical figures. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I found the original text. It is in old-fashioned Portuguese, perhaps @BrazilianNormalGuy can read it. The two sources in the article don't mention the amount of money. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

the original text exists as download or online text here for free https://purl.pt/15229

It has the benefit, that ONE of both PDFs has the option to use the search function for certain terms to find the exact part in the books....some words are tricky, i would recommend to search for the portuguese term of copper or the name of the son to find the specific quote about the actual salary. Than you can translate it with google translate and DeepL-translate, in difficult sections word for word to be sure about the correct translation. But i will add, these translations are for us, not for the article, to understand the reality and sources behind the statements in articles.

I am interested about this section, because in India it was common to pay for rented slave-servants, so a transaction about Yasuke by Nobunaga to the Jesuits would be more likely the fee to use this gift, Yasuke, more in line with the Portuguese view of an African servant by nobility like Nobunaga. (of course it would only tell us the view of Yasuke by the Portuguese) These servants were treated with respect, but simply as "servant boys" responsible for the carrying of weaponry and similar military duties of nobility. They were often used by Portuguese and Spanish nobility as slaves, explicit in colonies, in India at these times every nobleman had african slaves as servants. They became popular in other states of Europa some decades later. Popular still only means 60 cases in 50 years in whole UK and only by some few nobles. But i will highlight, that these servants didn't had an actual social rank in the UK, because of the lack of slavery in western European states outside of Spanish and Portuguese forms. A lot of these servants were later after years and decades of servitude treated like regular veterans or regular household-servants in the estate of the nobleman. they owned property and had families. BUT they were never official "freed" from slavery, there were just no implications by their outdated social rank. Ignored, but remained.

Yasuke is similar, that he came from a Iberian background, most likely connected to slavery into servitude for a nobility in a society without a clear understanding of the Iberian slavery background of the servant. Yasuke is thereby never fully understood with terms of Japanese origin, because his original social background was different and his new social background didn't had the social tools to liberate him from his slavery. It would be better to highlight this attempt to get a certain social rank in Japan with the reality, that he was sent back to the missionaries before acquiring a social rank on Odas court to a degree, that other nobles saw him as a permanent part of Oda's household. He was not send back to his Japanese household, he was called a foreigner, not even killed and send away.

Additional the servitude of noblemen under other nobles came to a clear end in Europa by the age of the noblemen, because these serving young nobleman were pupils under these rulers, learning close to the power of the ruler, seeing his actions and behaviour etc. This came to a drastic end by the coming of age. Some positions in court involved servitude, but it was explained with religious motives, it was seen as a honour and a symbol of trust and these positions had specific names and roles and were only temporary....and you will find similar specific names in Japanese households too. historians talk a lot about the household of Oda Nobunaga and other lords in these times and their structural functions and specific terms for specific positions in a household. Yasuke is not used with similar terminology.There was a big difference between a servant Hideyoshi and later him becoming the actual retainer of Oda in later years.

He have an example of a servant becoming a retainer and samurai under Oda Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Yasuke is not called, nor treated similar and didn't accomplished similar things to him. Just one oblivious difference, hideyoshi had tons of different names and titles by his raise of social stand and positions in a household of a nobleman. Yasuke was only Yasuke. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. The relevant quote is translated as "Nobunánga's nephew, who is now the captain of Ozáca, gave him ten thousand boxes, he was very happy to see him, & we have a good time with his views" All the secondary sources say that Yasuke was the recipient of the money.

I don't know where you are getting all this information. It is impossible for me to tell if it is based on something you read, or just how you assume things work. In Germany, some Kammermohrs were slaves, other not. Both were paid. Also in Germany, Gesinde also referred both to servants like maid and footmen as well as adult courtiers. In fact the Reisige Hofgesinde was the mounted bodyguard of the ruler of Saxony and consisted of noblemen and even a Danish prince. These courtiers had offices like Oberkuchenmeister, that is, being in charge of the kitchen. I don't want to assume that Japan is like Europe, but in the Edo period bushi were still considered warriors and wore two swords, but often had non-military duties. So when I read that Yasuke sometimes carried Nobunaga's equipment and was considered like a bodyguard, that makes sense to me. I don't think he was as high ranked as Oberkuchenmeister, rather was one of a rather large team of persons that attended Nobunaga. However, I suspect not much is known about this. You could compare Yasuke to other persons who did the same or similar job. The legal status of Yasuke is unknown. Samurai isn't, as far as I can tell, a legal status at this time. His social status was probably unique.

I believe there is a debate about the status of Hideyoshi's father. I have seen him called a peasant, ashigaru or even samurai. I haven't found an explanation of the debate, though. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent Edit by KeiTakahashi999

@KeiTakahashi999 I would like to ask that you self revert your recent reversion until it can be discussed on the talk page. The topic is under one revert rule sanctions which you can learn more about at WP:1RR.

I agree that the wording specifically is not ideal, but the article does support the purpose that it seems to be there for. The point is that the article suggests that there were other Africans who had come to Japan, and thus the depiction of an African man in Japan does not necessarily mean that it is Yasuke. I think this information is pertinent to the theory as it is proposed by Lockley. You likewise point out a contradiction that I do not believe is actually a contradiction. It can simultaneously be true that Africans were rare in Japan to cause a spectacle, while it also being true that several Africans accompanied Portuguese as servants and slaves when they visited Japan. The scale for the latter is 'at least a few' while the former scale is relative to an entire nation's populace.

Would you accept a rewriting which is closer to the original Ando article? Perhaps stating the context that the Portuguese missionaries "often" visited with African servants/slaves.

Alternatively, since the segment you quoted is about the Kano Naizen piece which is also on the page, it could instead be moved there to provide context for that artwork by mentioning it. Below is the relevant quote: 戦国時代からヨーロッパの宣教師が日本に布教活動に訪れることになった際、黒人の従者を連れていることも多かった。狩野内膳が描いた南蛮屏風にも、そうした描写が残っている Relm (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the section is talking about Africans being common aboard Portuguese ships. It was confusing because it talks about global trade in one line and then goes to Portuguese visitors to Japan in the next. It is not saying that Japanese bought a lot of slaves. I read an estimate that there were hundreds of Africans in Japan, but I am not sure exactly what time period. Yasuke is the first recorded African. They would have mostly been in Nagasaki or similar places. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The cited source, Ando's article on Huffington Post Japan [22], is relatively weak, as Ando is not a historian and HuffPost is not an academic outlet. Most importantly, Ando's claim that "During the Sengoku period, European missionaries often came to Japan to spread their faith, often accompanied by black attendants" (DeepL translation) does not directly support the article's statement that none of these theories are supported by firm historical evidence. Therefore, it is not possible to determine with certainty whether any of these works depicts Yasuke. Using Ando's sentence to reinforce the claim about the uncertainties surrounding possible depictions of Yasuke constitutes WP:SYNTH. I agree that removing the sentence is the better option. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it as supporting Lockley's claim, but it does seem out of place where it is. The line isn't so much about art, but about other Africans in Japan. This could probably fit in else where in the article better, and there are better sources for it. There are academic sources in English that discuss Yasuke in the context of Africans in Japan. Here is a good source by Leupp [23] It is written in 2003. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This is what Fujita Midori writes in his chapter in a 2021 Routledge book [24]:

An African stood on Japanese soil for the first time in 1546—only a few years after the Portuguese had “discovered” Japan.1 Occasional references in Jesuit and Japanese records attest to the subsequent arrivals of Africans, with Nanban (“Southern Barbarian”) screens, other pictures, and handcrafted items clearly providing additional pictorial evidence.2 Perhaps the best known of the African arrivals, possibly from Mozambique, was a man dubbed “Yasuke” who was given as tribute to Oda Nobunaga by the Jesuits in 1581

This seems at odds with Ando's claim that black people in Japan at the time were not uncommon.

Lockley in Britannica says although authenticating these pieces as genuine portraiture has not yet proved possible. The article, in its current state, argues that it is unlikely that the inkstone box and other contemporary images depict Yasuke:

none of these theories are supported by firm historical evidence. Therefore, it is not possible to determine with certainty whether any of these works depicts Yasuke. It was not uncommon for individual Africans to be brought to Japan as attendants of Jesuit missionaries

This interpretation constitutes WP:SYNTH as it is not directly supported by the cited sources (Lockley and Ando). All we can legitimately state is that these are hypotheses that have not been conclusively proven by historical evidence. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean, the line sourced to Lockley doesn't reflect what Lockley is saying. The main problem with the second line is placement. It could be used somewhere else in the article, but here it is a poor fit. @Relmcheatham has already suggested moving it. I am ok with deleting it, if a better spot isn't found.

What exactly Lockley is saying is unclear. By authentic, does he mean that the artworks might be forgeries? From the context, it seems there is uncertainty if the artworks are meant to depict Yasuke (whether or not they had ever seen Yasuke). I have been unable to find other sources that talk about the artworks. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think it would be alright to remove both "Therefore, it is not possible to determine with certainty whether any of these works depicts Yasuke" etc and the accompanying "It was not uncommon for individual Africans to be brought to Japan as attendants of Jesuit missionaries" since the latter is just context for the former. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I see your point, which is why I am more in favor of the segment about the Kano Naizen piece could instead be moved to that section to provide context for that artwork if it is used. Relm (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I apologize that I have not logged in for some time. now I see that my edit had risen discussion, and that it has settled which I see the output in the article. I do not have much to say for it is placed relatively better in Nanban Byoubu section.

but I think it should use better source than this poorly written web article for saying something that sounds too general like "It was not uncommon for individual Africans to be brought to Japan as attendants of Jesuit missionaries." which lacks too much of the context. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Quotes

The quotes here are in a foreign language, but don't contain the original language. This should be added according to MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Many sources are using the book by Thomas Lockley

Most of the sources are using the book by Thomas Lockley as foundation for their claims, yet that book has no evidence for anything. The book is full of author assumptions and unverified claims and reads like a book of fiction. It is ridiculous to have a chain of fictional evidence to justify truth. 174.63.139.101 (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

We have discussed Lockley's book at length, and held a RSN for it. That RSN result was that the pop history book was unsuitable for the page and that any of Lockley's claims had a better source in his peer reviewed work. The current page reflects this. The RSN likewise concluded that Lockley is a valid academic. Many of the instances where articles that uncritically parroted that book have been replaced with far better sources for the claims. I will now go through the ones I know of that mention Lockley's book on the page:

The Foreign Policy article mentions Lockley's book, but is primarily about the Japanese media depictions of Yasuke prior to the last few years. It is only cited to note the existence of a book from the 70s.

The 2019 CNN travel article mentions the book, but all the material in the article is actually directly quoting an interview with Lockley conducted as a subject matter expert, not just parroting the book. Despite being a quality source, it is exclusively used as a citation for the claim that Yasuke recieved a servant (something that is in his peer reviewed article, and which even Daimon Watanabe has published.) - and that claim is directly attributed to Lockley in the text.

The Smithsonian Magazine piece is another example of an interview with Lockley that mentions the book but does not use it as a source.

The Time article is the exact same.

The Tokyo Weekender combines an interview with Lockley, with a discussion of where he disagrees with other scholars. The section the article is cited for is not actually cited to Lockley. While writing this I edited the citation to this on the page as the source used does not actually support the text that Yasuke was a bodyguard to Oda, as the source only says that Yasuke was a bodyguard to Valignano.

Not about the Lockley Book, but I'll also note as a curiosity that I don't think has been mentioned that the two Daimon Watanabe articles from Yahoo JP seem to contradict each other. The older one from 2021 outright refers to Yasuke as a "Black Samurai" (quotations used in source in a similar manner as Lockley and others who use quotations when using this form of referring to Samurai) without qualification. His 2024 article written in response to the controversy paints a more uncertain picture.

If you are aware of any other sources you are concerned about, I would suggest naming them specifically. This makes it significantly easier for other editors to look at it and correct things that should be corrected. If you instead believe that Lockley himself is not a reliable source as an academic, I would suggest taking it to WP:RSN with why - but only after you've read the many month long discussions here and the previous Lockley RSN which you can find in the archive. Relm (talk) 13:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Describing Yasuke as samurai is not due to the influence of Thomas Lockley. because it was written before he was active.

That is understandable. But if the reader misunderstands because of this word, shouldn't it be corrected? If a westerner sees the word samurai, they will think of a warrior of high standing, someone who commanded the respect of many.

Shouldn't we think from the reader's point of view and make sure the content is correct? That's why I think we should use the words "servant" or "retainer" instead of "samurai." 110.131.150.214 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read either of Watanabe's articles, but if he also said that Yasuke received servant(s), then it would be better to cite him, than to cite Lockley two times. As far as contradicting himself, the CNN article contradicts Lockley, mostly in sections that are probably sourced to Lockley or his book, but not directly attributed to Lockley. The contradictions are probably misunderstandings. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Mr.Watanabe Daimon, he has been cited in the article for this 2021 web news [25]https://news.yahoo.co.jp/expert/articles/d194e53c49a9b820a56755a998831cd6ec13f430

and upon the emergence of Yasuke controversy, he again is picked up in the news source in July 2024:

https://news.yahoo.co.jp/expert/articles/e84f4104880e6f0c3c064ed37b6a954cdbc2192e

You can see that he has changed what he said favourably about Yasuke to more uncertain and neutral position.

Moreover he later posted a few YouTube videos regarding this matter and I recommend editors here to watch each of it with translation caption on. It is really rare that the professional historian like him talks about this matter.

[26]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXELNCQtQzg

[27]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mti3F_iFGPc

I found at least 2 videos.

I almost forgot to mention, Mr.Watanabe never mentioned Yasuke having servants. As far as I know it is the statement only mentioned by Thomas Lockley and is highly probable he mis-understood the missionary letter saying that Nobunaga had Yasuke walk around the city of Kyoto "with a pivate attendant of Nobunaga". KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The servant thing is strange. Only Lockley mentions it and it is accompanied by inconsistencies. In the CNN article, it is attributed to Jesuit sources, but the source is attributed to Ota. Perhaps Lockley got confused because he got use to repeating it as part of the "Stipend, house, sword" line. I am not sure what it adds to the article. I guess it is supposed to be evidence of his being a samurai, but certainly other non samurai had servants. Lockley even says that in Japan slaves could have slaves. It would be interesting to know that Nobunaga granted servants as gifts. However, the other mentions of Nobunaga rewarding people (such as the sumo wrestlers) don't mention servants. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"served as a samurai"; SYNTH problem

(move from Recent edits)

If there is no objection to "(Yasuke) served as a samurai to Oda Nobunaga" is WP:SYNTH(Original reseach), anyone can re-reverted to separate "Yasuke serverd to Oda Nobunaga" and "Some people think Yasuke as samurai".(I'm new one to Eng Wikipedia, and cannot edit the article by myself)

SYNTH problem in the lead is also pointed out by Yvan Part, in Archive 7:The lead. NakajKak (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

SYNTH Example from Britannica by Thomas Lockley

According to WP:SYNTH,

do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source

The following 2 parts, "Yasuke served to Nobunaga" and "historian thinks Yasuke as Samurai" are described indipendently in the article.

Yasuke (born c. 1555, Eastern Africa) was a valet and bodyguard of the Jesuit missionary Alessandro Valignano who rose to become a member of the inner circle of the warlord Oda Nobunaga

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

We shouldn't combine them and state "Yasuke serverd as samruai to Oda Nobunaga", implying Yasuke was given some role like a bodyguard of Nobunaga. NakajKak (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Changed topic title "SYNTH problem" to '"served as a samurai"; SYNTH problem'NakajKak (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The Oda Nobunaga part is documented well so I don't think it's SYNTH. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

We had two RFCs, two RSNs, and two (ANIs on the matter of those RFCs). The outcome of all of that is that the reliable secondary sources refer to Yasuke as a Samurai to Oda Nobunaga. It is not synthesis to combine his status with his serving under Nobunaga. You would need to start a new RFC in order to change it. Relm (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how you interpret Rfcs, but any Rfc cannot override Wikipedia policis. Please clarify which part you oppoese I (and/or Tinynanorobots) stated in Recent Edits. NakajKak (talk) 04:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I am saying that the RFC consensus is that the secondary sources refer to Yasuke as a Samurai who served Oda Nobunaga. This is not synthesis. These two statements are connected in the sources. The page currently lists several citations with relevant quotes that directly connect these two things.

Please clarify in what way this is a WP:SYNTH issue to you. The sources seem very clear on this matter. Relm (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Have you read "Recent edits"?

The listed souces are "Academic sources on Yasuke's samurai status", not what status Yasuke serverd as.

"serving as a samurai" suggests that samurai was a specific role, and not a rank. The sources say rank.

NakajKak (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It may be the language barrier but I fail to understand the distinction you are trying to draw, or how it relates to your proposed edit. Relm (talk) 07:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I wrote Britanica example. Even Thomas Lockley states "Yasuke served to Nobunaga" part and "historian thinks Yasuke as a samurai" parts independently. My proposal is just separating them. NakajKak (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This is still not a case of Synthesis. The Britannica lede, for example states:

"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."

(The 'some people' issue was heavily discussed at the time the EB article was revised. I am just including it give the full quote)

It then goes on to state:

"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. 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. This is where the claim that Yasuke was a samurai originates."

In the example you give, the two are explicitly connected in the lede and body both. They are directly correlated and not separate. Thus, I object very strongly to this being considered synthesis. Relm (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

You confuse "connection(in editorial synthesis)" and "logical connection".

Assume one source states,

A is B, therefore C is D

"therefore" here is connecting word which connects 2 different parts, "A is B" and "C is D". SYNTH policy simply states "do not combine different parts". Whether "A is B" and "C id D" are logically connected doesn't matter. NakajKak (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I bolded the parts which show that it is not an A/B C/D situation and more aptly a case of the source saying that "Due to A, B."

"Due to [his favor with Nobunaga]... [Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth]"

[Nobunaga made Yasuke a vassal, giving him a house, servants, a sword, and a stipend]... [historians think that this would contemporaneously have been seen as the bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank. This is where the claim that Yasuke was a samurai originates.]

It is patently not synthesis. Anything further on my end would constitute bludgeoning. Please review WP:NOTSYNTH. Relm (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Would "who became a samurai by serving Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582" be better? It is similar to the version that I had before, but without "bushi" which was controversial. If you have another suggestion, please share it with us. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this might fall under WP:NOTSYNTH. It is confusing, because sometimes people insist that something they don't like is SYNTH because it isn't exactly like the source, but other times things are not synth. Pretty much everything on wikipedia is synthesis, in the real world sense of the word. My concern about the current phrasing is that a layperson might think that samurai is a job in this context, when it is a rank or status. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

SYNTH and composing sentences based on sources are totally different . Even if judging SYNTH editing is hard, there exists the guidline.

My point was cleared by talks between Relm. Sources have the same logic;

Yasuke served to Nobunaga and/or Nobunaga game him sword, house, etc.

Therfore (or "this imply", "due to", whatever) the authors of secondary sources think Yasuke as a samurai.

According to WP:NOR, we have to source(s) which directly support the discription, and cannot combine different parts of even one source. If logically connected parts could be "one part" as Relm implied, one paragraph, one chapter, and even one book can be "one part".

After all, we cannot find any sources directly supports "Yasuke served as a samurai" now. The former discription of the logic is based on historic records. The latar is the authors' viewpoints. Reasonable secondary sources would write discriptions based on historic records and their viewpoints separatly as readers can distinguish them. Then which do "Yasuke served as a samurai" belong to? NakajKak (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I showed the portions where the samurai status is directly attributed to his service to Nobunaga. As I recall your original edit - and several of your statements here - have been attempting to state that the synthesis would be resolved by replacing the word samurai. This does not fit with what you are now claiming to be synthesis. What you are now claiming to be synthesis is part of the same analysis by Lockley. He is drawing an inference from what is stated in the primary source - and what you are suggesting is that we ignore the inference solely because it is scholarship and not just restating the primary source record. Historical research is not just repeating what sources say, there is a substantial amount of inferences that are made from what the sources say.

I've attempted to make my points clear, and it would ere dangerously close to bludgeoning for me to continue. If this is still insufficient, then I suggest escalating it to WP:DRN or WP:NORN - whichever suits your objection best. This will allow for uninvolved editors to give their view of the matter. Relm (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You are threating me. This is no longer discussion. NakajKak (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not threatening you. I am saying that I still disagree with you after all of our discussion. My post above is merely informing you of how to proceed if you still disagree with me. Instead of weeks of repeating our same points (see WP:BLUDGEON for why that's bad and I want to avoid it) - I am informing you of the best places to seek other editors opinions on our dispute.

Nothing you have done (and hopefully nothing I have done) warrants going to WP:ANI which is the common threat people do make on Wiki. Bludgeoning can sometimes end up there, but I am assuming you have a genuine interest in the subject matter and not actively trying to disrupt the page, so there is no need to be litigious or to bite-the-newcomer (WP:NOBITING). Relm (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing that can be considered a threat. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Alaric NAUDÉ denies claims that Yasuke was a samurai

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The book has already been introduced, but I will introduce it again.

THE REAL YASUKE: HISTORY BEYOND THE SAMURAI MYTH
United Scholars Academic Press 2024年 ISBN 9781763781108
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1763781100/
https://unitedscholarsacademicpress.com/

This book was published by a scholar who specializes in linguistics and sociology. Everyone here understands this book as a book that denies the claims of Thomas Lockley, but in fact it uses sociology to introduce the history of Asian culture and explore what kind of person he was. There are multiple versions of the Shinchō Kōki, but there is only one description that states he was given a sword and other items. When examining the content of this description, it is highly likely that it was added later, and when analyzing the name Yasuke, it is difficult to imagine him as a warrior, and other analysis has been done from a linguistic standpoint.

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a man of African origin who served as a samurai[2][3][4] to feudal lord Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582, during the Sengoku period, until Nobunaga's death.
This article has the above sentence. There were many opinions that it was impossible to determine whether Yasuke was a samurai or not, but there were no experts who clearly expressed the opposing opinion that Yasuke was not a samurai, so this was the description. Since some experts have come out with opposing opinions, I suggest changing the statement to say there is an objection, like Britannica.

This book was originally self-published, so no one here has paid any attention to it. However, it has recently been republished by an academic publisher that specializes in minor academic works. The content has not changed much except for proofreading. The books from this publisher are peer-reviewed by experts and professors, so they meet the criteria of being a reliable source of information. The book has been republished first in English, with Japanese and Korean versions coming soon.

There are two reasons why the book is currently under review on the official website. First, it has only been released for a few days, and the website has not yet been updated. The second reason is that the Japanese and Korean versions are currently being edited, and these have not yet been published. Only the English version has been published.
There is no dispute that if one writes about this book, the research results and claims should be directly attributed to the author. However, at one point it was claimed that there were no experts who denied that he was a samurai, so I would like to strongly emphasize that now an expert has emerged who clearly denies it.

However, I don't think that's very fair. I think that not only NAUDÉ, but also E. Taylor Atkins, and Jonathan Lopez-Vera should be attributed to their personal opinions. As we all know, there is no document that clearly states that Yasuke was a samurai. If you trace the sources of the book by E. Taylor Atkins and Jonathan Lopez-Vera, you will find sources in Japanese and Portuguese, and you will find that they use the same material as NAUDÉ. Attributing NAUDÉ's writings to personal opinions and accepting E. Taylor Atkins and Jonathan Lopez-Vera as authoritative documents can be called discrimination against Asians. It is not clear from historical materials whether Yasuke was a samurai or not, and there are no documents that suggest this, so all of this is just a historian's personal speculation.

The comment that Japanese is not included in NAUDÉ's language studies is the opinion of someone who has not read the book. It just seems like people who want to reject this book are desperately looking for a reason. This book explains the structure of Japanese names. It is also a bit wrong to say that he is not a historian. Sociology encompasses history. In linguistic studies, words often change due to interactions with surrounding countries and people. History is closely related to linguistics. His research expertise is East Asia, including Japan.
Having to read the Japanese text to confirm the sources is no reason to reject this book. It's simple. The best sources on Yasuke are Japan, where Yasuke was active, and Portugal, who brought him to Japan. If you want to learn American history, you read books about America and the British, who colonized America, right? Even though the history of America and China begins after the War of Independence, it's like looking for primary sources in China about how Britain made America a colony. It is possible to find secondary sources in China, but the content may change depending on the author's interpretation. As mentioned earlier, NAUDÉ uses the same sources as E. Taylor Atkins and Jonathan Lopez-Vera. Or do they want to lead people to believe that Yasuke was a samurai, and therefore only include material that supports this claim, eliminating any opposing views?

The reason there is a story about the slave trade in books about Yasuke is because it is written in African Samurai. The reason why there is a story that the origin of the samurai is not black is because there is a community that claims that the origin of the samurai is black, and they are taking advantage of the debate about whether or not Yasuke is a samurai. Without these circumstances, it would never have been written.

There are books that analyze Japanese history from the perspective of historians, but there are not many that analyze it from the perspective of linguistics or sociology. Not only can it be used to update articles, but it is also very interesting and should definitely be read.

Finally, as to why NAUDÉ goes out of its way to deny African Samurai. There are two main reasons. The first is that many people are still being deceived by this book, which is full of lies and mistakes. The second is that Thomas Lockley has registered both the Japanese and English versions as academic books, not novels. Having published it as an academic book and paper, he must be able to accept not only positive but also negative opinions. Thomas Lockley should not delete his social media accounts and run away just because he has received criticism.
https://researchmap.jp/7000004775/books_etc/15345312?lang=en
https://researchmap.jp/7000004775/books_etc/15345311?lang=en 140.227.46.9 (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

An introduction to the book's content and the claim that Yasuke is not a samurai.

• In China, Korea, and Japan, names are written in kanji. In Japan, people have family names and given names. In Japan, other names include childhood names, real name, and nicknames. As for Yasuke, the structure of his name is either that of a low-ranking person, or it is just a childhood name. It is unlikely that he had a position as a samurai. Yasuke's name does not appear in any documents listing the names of Oda clan vassals.
• Homosexual relations with younger male partners, known as shudo, were common among Japanese warriors at the time, and it is unclear whether Yasuke was involved with Nobunaga.
• Yasuke was given a wakizashi, not a katana. At the time, a wakizashi was a weapon for self-defense that anyone could carry, so this does not make him a samurai. The content has been exaggerated in order to apply modern thinking. It was not uncommon for Nobunaga to give weapons; he did give weapons to sumo wrestlers he liked.
• When a person of low rank achieved great things and was promoted to the rank of samurai, he was often given a new name. If he did not have a surname appropriate to his rank, he was given one. Yasuke wasn't like that.
• Yasuke's language skills are not enough to function as a samurai. It is reasonable to think that by holding Nobunaga's weapon and sitting next to him, he was used to create an atmosphere and give him authority.
• The English Wikipedia was the first to state that Yasuke was 188cm tall. Other sites such as Britannica reprinted it one after another. The information was fed back to each other, and this became an established theory. The original height is 182cm. In 2017, the English Wikipedia was updated to correct some of the errors, but the major mistakes remained. It was corrected again in 2024, but Britannica and other sources still have the mistake, and academic papers state that Yasuke's height is 188cm. Some people use the story that Yasuke becomes a lord as the basis for the samurai. It is written in Britannica as well. If you read the part before the description in the missionary letter that is the source of the content, you will understand the situation. It is a townspeople's rumor. Various sources, including English Wikipedia and Britannica, are affected by translation errors and feedback loops of incorrect information.
• The description states that he was 182cm tall, but the exact same phrase appears in various other documents. It is used in Soga Monogatari, Intoku Taiheiki, etc. What they have in common is the expression "big." Ietada probably did not measure his height, but rather used this number to mean "big."
• Word changes are very important. In the Shinchō Kōki, it says that Yasuke was given a sword and other items, but Yasuke is written as "Kurobo." In other books, it is written as "Kurobozu". Kurobozu means a black monk or a black attendant. Kurobo is thought to be a variation of the word "Kurobozu". When words change, there is a process in which a word is first accepted and spreads, and then part of that word changes, and that is accepted and spreads again. This means that this description of Kurobo was probably written after the word changed and spread.
• Thomas Lockley states that Shinchō Kōki was published 10 years later, but it is another book based on Shinchō Kōki with many adaptations. This means that he is writing a book without distinguishing between the original and another book. Currently, the English-speaking world believes that the false history written by Thomas Lockley and the content staged to deify Yasuke are the truth.
• The main reason is that although the content of this book is fiction, it is classified as non-fiction. Additionally, the content was convenient for some thinkers and activists involved in the DEI movement.
• In the Honnoji Incident, Akechi Mitsuhide killed the other samurai, but captured Yasuke alive. He then released Yasuke. This shows that none of the Oda samurai recognized Yasuke as a samurai, and only recognized him as a rare person who often sat near Nobunaga. There is no record that Yasuke fought bravely alongside Nobunaga in this battle. Yasuke soon surrendered to Akechi Mitsuhide. Considering the honor of a samurai, he would have considered committing seppuku, but he did not do so, and he himself probably had no such consciousness. There is no evidence that Yasuke fled with Nobunaga's head.

140.227.46.9 (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

United Scholars Academic Press appears to be a form of pay to publish outfit, with a ton of the usual types of buzzwords on their website. Naudé themselves appears to be a sociolinguistics professor who researches "how to listen" or however one would define the description here on their focus. Nothing to do with history, Japan, or anything remotely related to this topic. Another example of what they've published is this, which...well, I think it speaks for itself. I'm also not sure what theology has to do with their degree or background, but there you go. Silverseren^C 06:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

And, before you reply, yes, I read what you wrote about how somehow his background is relevant. I just disagree completely since you've given no actual evidence of said relevance. Silverseren^C 06:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think your accusations are justified. The book seems mostly to have been ignored by other editors. It is not usual for editors to buy and read a book just based on the suggestion of another editor. This particular book doesn't look very good. It seems to have been written relatively fast, and is still self-published. Now there seems to be questions about the publisher. That is an interesting point about Yasuke's height, but the other points either aren't new and a lot of them have been addressed by experts. There is also a lot of uncertainty that goes unacknowledged. For example, do we really know that all the samurai were killed at the Honnoji Incident? We only know that Yasuke was there and survived thanks to Jesuit sources. So there could have been other prisoners. Also, there is a lot of uncertainty about what "samurai" meant at the time. Newer scholarship has questioned the idea that it was limited to high ranking individuals. Since less information is known about lower ranking individuals, it is difficult to make definite statements. The Warring States period is usually interpreted with through the lens of the early Edo period. So there are valid reasons to not be interested in Naude's book. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Who said that all the samurai were killed in the Honnoji Incident? It's true that many were killed, but who said that not a single one was left behind? If I remember correctly, no one said that. For example, by chance, Oda Nagamasu fled to a place where no pursuers or fires came, and he escaped safely. For this reason, he was treated as a bad person by the people of the time.

The women and royalty who were in Honnoji and Nijo Palace also managed to escape. Although they were not samurai.

https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1912983/1/28

https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1920322/1/186

https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1041119/1/164

People say it's strange to go out of your way to buy a book, but someone bought a book just for the discussion in this article, right? Kaneko's book. It's not me. I think you're different too. Maybe if you search the archives you'll find it.

Who is ignoring the fact that it has been covered by experts? Why is it that the article states that Yasuke is a samurai based on the writings of E. Taylor Atkins and Jonathan López-Vera, ignoring the opinion that it is not known whether Yasuke is a samurai or not? Oh, you guys also use sources like the Smithsonian. After all, these were written by Westerners who did not know the history of Asia. There is a common thread. You accept books written by Americans and Europeans and opinions that claim Yasuke is a samurai, and reject books written by Asians and opinions that do not recognize Yasuke as a samurai. You may be doing it unconsciously, but you are doing it.

This fuss is actually making Japanese people really angry. The amount of history from this period in Japan is extraordinary, and even if you're not an expert, there are a staggering number of people who are knowledgeable about it. Despite being an amateur, there is a person who found nearly 10 mistakes in the current Britannica article about Yasuke, which you all say is accurate and trustworthy, and sent feedback to the management. Japanese people believe that the Britannica article is also full of mistakes and cannot be trusted at all. As a test, look at the English version of Thomas Lockley's article, then switch to the Japanese version and see what happens.

By the way, the Japanese Wikipedia entry for Yasuke has been thoroughly reworked and is now accurate.

Wikipedia was founded by Larry and was intended to spread truth. But he eventually left it, overrun by activists. Wikipedia editors are obsessed with the mythical Yasuke and have no interest in the historical Yasuke. Therefore, they use every excuse to ignore historical evidence. It is unpleasant that people who are neither historians nor linguists can hijack the true history.

by Alaric NAUDÉ

https://x.com/Goryodynasty/status/1853954111194140718
110.131.150.214 (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you guys don't realize what's wrong with the current Britannica. The person who found it has published it, so I'll let you know. He said, "Britannica makes an obvious mistake and doesn't correct it even if I point it out with sources, so I don't think there's anyone at Britannica who can check it, and there's no one who can correct it." Would you all like to help with feedback? Or maybe study basic Japanese history in order to discuss editing here?

A few additional documents are thought to pertain to Yasuke, such as a letter from Mozambique discovered in 2021 by Oka Mihoko, a professor at the University of Tokyo, but, as the subjects are not directly named, it is possible that they refer to other people.

→false

Oka Mihoko is an associate professor, not a professor. site

Yasuke (born c. 1555, Eastern Africa) was a valet and bodyguard of the Jesuit missionary Alessandro Valignano who rose to become a member of the inner circle of the warlord Oda Nobunaga, Japan’s first “great unifier.”

→false

What we can confirm from historical documents is that he was not an aide, but a servant.

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.

→false

Yasuke's status is generally considered to be that of a servant, or it is impossible to determine due to the lack of information, and only a minority think that he is a samurai.

Yasuke was born in Africa, possibly among the Dinka people of what is now South Sudan based on contemporaneous physical descriptions by Ōta and Matsudaira, though some secondary sources from the 17th century suggest the vicinity of modern-day Mozambique.

→Inappropriate

It's just Thomas Lockley's imagination, and it's not something that would be written in an encyclopedia. A location near Mozambique is certainly a possibility, but it remains speculation. Also, the reliability of this information source is relatively low. The name of the document should be listed and the authenticity should be left to the reader.

The researcher Thomas Lockley (the author of this article) speculates that they may have seen him as a form of divine visitor due to the fact that the Buddha and other holy figures were often portrayed as black-skinned in Japan at this time.

→false

In documents from that time, Yasuke is likened to a cow. Thomas Lockley claims in his writings that Nobunaga saw the statue at Kiyomizu-dera, but Kiyomizu-dera at the time was destroyed by fire.

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.

→Inappropriate

Although it is described as an existing document that has not been published, it is not completely private. It should clearly state the name of the document and state that it is available to those with permission. site

→false

This is clearly a mistake. The documents say he was given three things: a house, a short sword, and a stipend, but no servants. Also, it says he was given a short sword, not a sword. There is only one document that says he was given these, and it is unsubstantiated.

Mexia even reported rumors that Yasuke would be made tonō, or lord, which has been interpreted as meaning that he might have been in line for the bestowal of a fief.

→false

It is an expanded interpretation of Thomas Lockley. This is just a rumor among the townspeople.

He recorded Yasuke’s name and height (6 shaku 2 sun, approximately 6 feet 2 inches [1.88 meters]) and furthermore confirmed that Yasuke had been granted a stipend.

→false

It states that his height was 6 shaku 2 sun (1.88 meters), but this is a mistranslation. It is 6 shaku 2 bu (1.82 meters). This shows that Thomas Lockley either did not see the original text or could not read it. The experts who have read the original text are not wrong.

On the eve of the Honnō-ji Incident of June 21, 1582, Nobunaga was traveling to another major front against the Mori clan in what is now Okayama prefecture with about 30 close followers, one of whom was Yasuke.

→Inappropriate

There are sources that say there were 30 people who accompanied Nobunaga, but there are also documents that say there were up to 100 people. It should be stated that there is a range. It is also good not to give a specific number, but to say that it was a small number.

Early the next morning, the group woke to the smell of smoke and gunshots.

→false

According to a missionary's letter, Nobunaga was washing his face, unaware of the commotion, when he was attacked with a bow and arrow and realized what was going on.

Nobunaga and his entourage, including Yasuke, fought bravely, but when the temple was engulfed in flames, Nobunaga had no choice but to perform seppuku.

→false

Yasuke and the remaining Oda men fought to the last, but their efforts were in vain as they were mercilessly bombarded with volleys of fire from the roof of an adjacent residence.

→false

There is no record that Nobunaga and Yasuke fought together. There is no record that Nobutada and Yasuke fought together. Yasuke headed for Nobutada's location, but it is unclear whether he reached there or was stopped nearby. 110.131.150.214 (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia was founded by Larry" are you sure? It was founded by Jimbo. Get your facts right.84.54.70.120 (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It was cofounded by Larry Sanger. I'm wondering how much Ubisoft is paying editors to keep the Yasuke was a samurai façade going? Seems like a well paid gig as it must be a 24hour job to keep any view other than the "he was a samurai" view that didnt exist before Lockley (and has no record in Japan whatsoever) Also really want to know what the qualifications of the editors here are that are gatekeeping. People like you are the reason nobody trusts wikipedia anymore. 112.184.32.144 (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting situation. Many of the Japanese people who are discussing this are not saying that the statement that Yasuke was a samurai should be deleted because he was not a samurai. They are not denying the possibility that Yasuke was a samurai, but are saying that it is unclear whether Yasuke was a samurai or not. Those who make this claim have actually read and verified the primary and secondary sources from that time before making their case. Even if they are not good at English or Portuguese, they read using various methods such as machine translation.

Most editors who can read Japanese have left, so most of the remaining editors who claim that Yasuke was a samurai are Westerners who cannot read the primary and secondary sources written in Japanese or Portuguese at the time. Because they are unaware of the Japanese customs of the time, they get someone to translate the primary and secondary sources, read the materials arranged in a Western style to make them easier to understand, and finally understand the content and claim that Yasuke was a samurai. It rejects languages other than English and does not try to use machine translation or the like. They also only read materials written by Americans and Europeans, and not by Asians. They refuse to accept the Britannica description, which is open to debate, because they cannot find anyone who denies that Yasuke was not a samurai, and even if someone does appear, they give various reasons to move the goalposts and never accept the description.

It is rare that such a decisive difference can be made simply by being able to read the documents from that time or not, or by having the willingness to try to understand them even by using machine translation. Some of you made the comment that in English, unlike in Japan, the word "samurai" has many different meanings, so don't complain about it. That is a statement made by someone who does not understand the meaning of the word. Just because a soldier served in the British army does not mean that all of those soldiers were given the rank of knight. Given that the word "samurai" sometimes implies nobility, we should be more careful in using it. The problem is that it is used casually in games and fictional senses without considering the historical context. When you continue to receive criticism based on evidence according to history and literature, you guys either shift the point of view or justify it by coming up with convenient media articles. Double standards and cherry-picking are repeated.

I don't think anyone would complain about the description that Yasuke was a retainer of Oda Nobunaga. This is clear from the fact that no one in Japan criticizes Yasuke becoming Nobunaga's retainer in Thomas Lockley's Britannica account. We don't know what level of status he was. Please change "African origin who served as a samurai" to "African origin who served as a retainer."

Next, state that there is too little material on Yasuke for most experts to determine whether Yasuke was a samurai or not, and cite Thomas Lockley, E. Taylor Atkins, and Jonathan Lopez Vera as examples of people who claim that Yasuke was a samurai. And cite Alaric Naudet as an example of those who claim that Yasuke was not a samurai. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether Yasuke was a samurai or not. This should be enough to resolve the current controversy.

English Wikipedia is run by America First, and is a world of English-speaking white people, so it's a different story if you want Asian yellow monkeys to leave.

The Japanese version of Wikipedia does not say that there is a debate as to whether or not he is a samurai, but I think that is fine. The Japanese version only writes what is found in reliable documents, and almost eliminates the speculations of scholars. In this case, a reliable source does not mean a media outlet such as CNN, as defined by Wikipedia, but a document that is recognized as historical. Britannica is also excluded. This is a rigorous description, with most of the content written only from primary and secondary sources of the time. It was so thorough that it was not written under the name Matsudaira Ietada, which was only used in formal occasions, but instead written as Matsudaira Tonomonosuke, which was the common name at the time. The volume of content could easily fit on a single A4 page, but this is all we know about Yasuke. 153.235.152.98 (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up ethnicity? 181.14.137.165 (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Because our culture is always taken over by people who dont understand it because they are anti Asian. 211.36.141.248 (talk) 11:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Who specifically are you accusing of being anti-Asian? 12.75.41.91 (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

the main moderators on this page that dont even speak Japanese but keep using Lockley as a source and also people who base their work on Lockleys work. I just want to know how much they are getting paid by Ubisoft to do it 211.36.141.246 (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

You can report them at WP:ANI, editors can not accept money for edits. Be careful, if you don't provide evidence you will get blocked. You should stop posting accusations here, because this is a place to suggest edits to this article, not a forum to discuss Yasuke or editors. Continuing to whine without evidence here will be seen as disruptive, and may also lead to a block. 12.75.41.91 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This is insane, in an effort to discredit the academic publications, mainstream news media, and common cultural depictions, you decided to introduce a self published article Suredeath (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It is really strange that highly respected Japanese academics agree with Naude's assertions.

Daimon Watanabe, Historian, Director of the Institute of History and Culture

“But, was Yasuke truly a samurai? Based on the available information, it is difficult to make a definitive judgment. While Nobunaga provided him with a residence, a short sword, and a stipend, it is questionable whether these things alone qualify him as a samurai.

Considering the limited information about Yasuke, it seems that Nobunaga enjoyed taking Yasuke along when going out and watching people’s astonishment. Yasuke appears to have been more of a servant, satisfying Nobunaga's curiosity as someone who appreciated new and unusual things.”

https://news.yahoo.co.jp/expert/articles/e84f4104880e6f0c3c064ed37b6a954cdbc2192e

Professor Taku Kaneko, University of Tokyo, Historiographical Institute,

“Yasuke cannot be called a samurai”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59Y-YjN6o7Y

Professor Yuichi Kureza , Historian

“By having a black Yasuke close to him, he would attract attention and, in a way, it was a way of showing off Nobunaga's power. So I think the most important purpose was to show him off to everyone. The Jesuit historical documents say that Yasuke was strong and could perform a few tricks. I think in reality he was Nobunaga's bodyguard and entertainer."

https://www.sankei.com/article/20240805-2RDCMCMKMNFYFOGXMRGPCIT2NI/

If editors had any conscience whatsoever they would put the main page stating that he was a retainer, then add a controversy section showing for and against points like the Japanese page does. 125.179.119.108 (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

waiting for someone to address previous post 125.179.119.108 (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The source you provided was rejected as low quality and unreliable. If you think the consensus here is wrong, you can go to WP:RSN and see what the larger community thinks of the source. 12.75.41.79 (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where you copied and pasted these from, but I check the links you provided, none of them particularly denied Yasuke was a samurai. Their points were there are different definitions and gaps in information. Suredeath (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The first and third certainly seem to deny that he was a samurai, albeit qualified with "probably" and "I think" respectively.

"They're just saying there are gaps in information" seems like a pretty disingenuous—or highly motivated—way to interpret the statements made in those two, at least. (I didn't bother to watch the YT.)

Himaldrmann (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Here from the RSN discussion, per my comments there I would oppose using this a source in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.