Talk:Yasuke

Alaric NAUDÉ denies claims that Yasuke was a samurai

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)

• 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)

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 [1] 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?!? [2] 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 [3]: 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)

Differences between Japanese and English wikis

I find it interesting that Yasuke is not once called a Samurai in the Japanese wiki. It simply states that he was presented (進呈される) (as one would hand over a gift) to Oda Nobunaga who he then served. The second paragraph of even this English page does not make him sound like a samurai but instead more like a parade animal or similar which clashes with the description of him as a samurai. I looked at the previous arbitration discussion and all the sources used are circular and reference back to Lockley's largely fictional book. The exact status seems somewhat ambiguous but this sounds like an elevated slave/servant position than a samurai. Ergzay (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

A new RFC is needed to overturn the old one. You're welcome to try. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

All quotations are circular. All material that is dissenting and does not point back to Lockley is dismissed and rejected. All materials based on actual historical documents are rejected. This entire page is anti-historical cope. 125.179.119.108 (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The arbitration discussion is not a good source of information, as it deals exclusively with user behaviour. If you are interested in the discussions that led to the current consensus on Yasuke's samurai status, I suggest you read the first and second RfCs for detailed source analysis.

There are secondary sources calling Yasuke a samurai that predate Lockley's book or are completely unrelated to it - both WP:NEWSORG (Le Monde 2018) and WP:SCHOLARSHIP (Vaporis, Samurai. An Encyclopedia of Japan's Cultured Warriors, 2019 ). The description of Yasuke as a samurai has been corroborated by experts in the field, some quoted in the article (footnote N° 2), some not because they're self-published, like David Howell's [4] and Dan Sherer's [5] emails in this Google Group, and the tweets from Japanese historians Oka Mihoko and Hirayama Yū, the latter also making it into the news (New York Times).

I'm not familiar with the discussions on ja.wiki, but WP:CIRCULAR prevents us from using their article as a source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

There was also a tweet from Yuichi Goza disagreeing with the identification of Yasuke as a samurai,but for some reason it was ignored in this page.Also should we take into account an google group where half of its is users engaging in ad hominem ? 94.67.17.47 (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

One can take them into account but the article doesn't. No tweets or emails are cited. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I see,perhaps I misunderstood your comment,thanks for the clarification. 94.67.17.47 (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The Japanese wiki has a lot of revisionism and historical inaccuracy and is known for being untrustworthy. A lot of is written by the same ultranationalists who insist that Japan has never committed a war crime. https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/japanese-wikipedia-misinformation-non-english-editions.html 2001:2012:80E:4600:6DCB:3998:3B4:8B48 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Slate is barely credible, or even news for that matter. DarmaniLink (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

That's your opinion and it's wrong. 83.89.99.135 (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Yasuke is a samurai, but I can't say for sure. This is because there is no documentation.

Many Japanese experts are unwilling to say for certain whether he was a samurai or not. The reason why editors of the Japanese Wikipedia do not describe him as a samurai is because there is no documentation. As proof of this, everyone agrees that Yasuke was a retainer. We don't know his position. It is most accurate to say that we don't know. It's not because they're historical revisionists.

The main reason for the current controversy is that people in English-speaking countries are interpreting materials in their own way or using mistranslated information to assert as fact the speculation that Yasuke is a samurai. I don't think it matters whether the person making the assertion is Japanese or not. If there was a primary source that said Yasuke was a samurai, everyone would agree. Even if there wasn't, if there was information that detailed what kind of work he did, we could infer his position. Since there is no such thing, various claims about whether Yasuke is a samurai or not should be a matter of personal opinion, and I don't think wikipedia should be the one to make a definitive statement.

When writing on Wikipedia, it may be unavoidable to use modern interpretations to make it easier for readers to understand, but it is going too far to make definitive statements about things that are unknown.

Some people base their information on the TBS TV program "Hitachi World Mysteries Discovered!", but this program is billed as a "talk and quiz show." It is not an academic program, but a variety show that introduces world history and mysterious events while asking quizzes and the performers answer them. I don't understand the point of using this as an information source.

Some people are over-interpreting Goza's statement. "Yasuke may have been treated like a samurai" is different from "Yasuke is a samurai." Even if Yasuke was treated like a samurai, his actual status is a different matter. Furthermore, Goza is conditional on the truth of certain documents.

Some argue that this statement should be trusted because it comes from an expert in Japanese studies, but there are also examples of Western experts in Japanese studies saying some surprisingly absurd things. Although the African Samurai has been removed from Wikipedia as being unreliable, there is a place where they are taught as fact: Michigan State University. These are the kind of people who do fact-checking at Britannica.

https://africa.isp.msu.edu/news_article/22285

I know you guys are saying that because you deleted Thomas Lockley's non-Britannica claims, they are irrelevant to the current article, but I don't think so. Because the Britannica article is based on his own research. In other words, it's a shortened version of the African samurai.

Finally, I would like to introduce a topic that is not public and therefore cannot be used in an article: how the historical research of Thomas Lockley, who wrote Britannica, is being evaluated in academia. Many people here probably think that only a few extremists are criticizing Thomas Lockley, and that the majority approve of him. The opposite is true.

The 19th International Japanese Studies Consortium was held online on November 2, 2024. In addition to the host Ochanomizu University, participants included the University of London/SOAS, National Taiwan University, and Beijing Foreign Studies University. Translate part of the presentation abstract. He has been criticized by name by the Japanese Studies Association.

https://www.cf.ocha.ac.jp/ccjs/j/menu/consortia/index.html

https://www.cf.ocha.ac.jp/ccjs/j/menu/consortia/d015258_d/fil/3-5.pdf

鈴木里奈（ロンドン大学・SOAS/教員）

発表要旨：「アサクリ問題」(いわゆる「弥助問題」) CLILとDEIの観点から見えるもの・隠されているもの

Rina Suzuki, Faculty Member, SOAS, University of London

“Asakuri problem” (so-called “Yasuke problem”): What is visible and hidden from the perspective of CLIL and DEI

ロックリー氏は自らを 「歴史家、研究者、英語教師 」と称している。実際、彼は日本大学でCLIL（Content and Language Integrated Learning「内容言語統合型学習」）を用い英語を教えており、「Content」 の部分で歴史を選んでいる。しかし、彼の歴史に対するアプローチは、著書を読む限り、歴史学者が通常使う従来の方法論とは異なっており、疑問が多く残る。にもかかわらず、彼の「弥助」は Ubisoft に取り上げられたのである。

Lockley calls himself a "historian, researcher, and English teacher." In fact, he teaches English at Nihon University using CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning), and chose history as the "content" subject. However, his approach to history, as far as his books are concerned, is different from the traditional methodology that historians usually use, and many questions remain. Nevertheless, his "Yasuke" was picked up by Ubisoft.

この発表では、CLIL からインスピレーションを得たロックリー氏の「歴史コンテンツ」と Ubisoft の DEI ポリシーがいかに混じり合い、この炎上を拡大化させているかを検証する。

This presentation will explore how Lockley's CLIL-inspired "history content" and Ubisoft's DEI policies are intertwining to exacerbate this controversy. 110.131.150.214 (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia article on Yasuke did used to call him a samurai until all this political nonsense started and the editors there whitewashed the page. They also made a massive BLP violation of their article on Thomas Lockley, something that would never be allowed here. In general, I agree with the IP editor above, the Japanese Wikipedia is well known for its highly politicized and slanted discussion of Japanese history and political events related to Japan, often in a way that is biased toward ultra-nationalist viewpoints. At least some of which is even covered on our article here on Japanese Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 03:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The Japanese Wikipedia article on Yasuke did used to call him a samurai until all this political nonsense started and the editors there whitewashed the page.

I do not want to press this too much further, however, that isn't true in any of the pre-2022 diffs I randomly sampled.

m:ja:special:diff/87282428 ー An entire section on "bushi" (武士), the only hits for samurai (侍) come from entertainment.

m:ja:special:diff/74701730 ー in the body of the article it states 「弥助」と名付けて正式な武士の身分に取り立て, "He was named yasuke and given the rank of bushi."

m:ja:special:diff/59727734 ー zero hits for samurai, again described as a bushi

Machine translators do translate 武士 to samurai since bushi hasn't been loan-worded into english the same way as samurai has, perhaps there's a diff you saw that I didn't, or maybe you got mislead by a faulty translation? DarmaniLink (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Are we really going to have to go into the so oft-tread argument on this talk page that bushi does mean samurai? It refers to a samurai warrior who may or may not be in training, but they are still a samurai. It is why our samurai article has both be synonymous terms. Silverseren^C 05:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You are replying to me emotionally. m:ja:武士 are seperate articles m:ja:侍, but you could argue that because bushi isn't well known in english you could translate it to samurai. I did this personally in an english article I translated Saisho Atsushi.

Stating the Japanese wikipedia article called him a samurai is misinformation however. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The Japanese bushi article even notes the term samurai for them. The difference is that the Japanese samurai article is about the class system that started after the Sengoku period. Prior to that, bushi and samurai were equivalent terms. Which the Japanese bushi article points out. So, again, for the purposes of the time period we're talking about, they are synonymous. Silverseren^C 05:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Words change over time. The article wasn't written in that time period. I can tell this isn't going to be productive, so I'm going to voluntarily disengage. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

They change over time is irrelevant. The term is being used to describe him as he was in the sengoku period. Meaning it would have the sengoku definition.

Because he was around during the period when he would receive the title/naming/rank whatever you want to call it.

Its so silly how everyone ignores this. 216.138.9.189 (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The term is being used to describe him as he was in the sengoku period. Meaning it would have the sengoku definition.

Respectfully, him being a warrior (bushi) was inferred (for the record, likely correctly), and contains no explicit historical documents denoting this status. For that reason, the sengoku definition is irrelevant. Please, leave me at peace. I want nothing to do with this topic anymore. DarmaniLink (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really make sense, but I'll point it out anyway.

The only time that Japanese bushi and samurai had almost the same meaning was during the Sengoku period. Before and after that, they were differentiated. 110.131.150.214 (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

So. When he was around and what the word would mean when diacussing him. Because its about the sengoku period. 216.138.9.189 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The Samurai Talk Page has multiple discussions over the years about the difference between Samurai and Bushi. I began researching as the first step to splitting the two terms. However, because how samurai is used in English and other western languages makes this impossible. The reason for the different usage between the Japanese and English wiki, is the different usage between the respective sources. In both English and Japanese, samurai is used informally to refer to persons better described as bushi. However, in English and other western languages, bushi is a lot less common. Only the most academic sources avoid using samurai, although many sources will acknowledge that bushi is more proper. It is telling that the sources published by an academic publisher refer to Yasuke as a bushi. It is modern usage, not historical usage, that is the main factor. This applies to many more "samurai" than Yasuke.

A big part of Lockley's argument that Yasuke was a samurai, is that most samurai aren't referred to as samurai at that time. The only reference we have to Yasuke being given a rank, is the rumour about him being made a "Tono". Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not argue difference between Samurai and Bushi, I do agree that is almost impossible to differenciate them properly.

However, about the rumor about Yasuke, It is just the rumor that the missionary wrote down in one sentence. which does not assure anything of Yasuke's proper status or a rank. 2001:F74:8C00:2200:C2C9:0:0:1002 (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying the rumour is true. I don't even know what it means, but it is an example of how they talked about rank. They didn't say "samurai" or "bushi" or even "fidalgo". It is probably not good to take one example written by foreigners to make an inference about the usage of words. However, the Japanese records also don't use samurai to refer to other individuals. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

well at these times the term samurai was used for nobility, because you got a lot of talks about this form of samurai in the matter of Hideyoshi and Akechi Mitsuhide, who were both not nobility, but a commoner or a ronin. These things were topics between the nobles in their letters and there are quite a lot of modern scholar books about these specific decisions of Nobunaga and about these two figures. No One of these books care about this former slave and foreigner getting the same title like Hideyoshi or Mitsuhide just some years later by the same lord Nobunaga...

Additional we have later a clear and more open term of samurai in the Edo era and this would make some commoners retrospective samurai, if you would judge them on this base. We have this general problem in a lot of topics. the term is not clearly defined, because people didn't cared about definitions, until the state got more organized in the Edo era.

William Adams is for this reason clearly a samurai, because he was made later by an actual ceremony to a samurai and talks about this matter between Japanese nobles proved to us, that he was seen as a samurai by others. We don't have these things with Yasuke.

Additional we have the interpretation of Lockley, who simply calls any soldier with a weapon enlisted by a lord already a samurai in his book and clearly defined this term in this manner and thereby justified the term samurai for Yasuke. This would make any commoner in any army in the sengoku-era to a samurai. every ashigaru- farmer with a spear and a salary of rice get this definition.

I would call this view a modern usage of it. A Japanese with a sword = samurai. You could use this term...in pop culture.

There are other claims, like the salary or him owning a dagger, but a lot of these arguments were at the start of this whole discussion more tried to be framed as retainer salary or a katana sword to the degree, that today the article had to write the actual term of the source in the article to prevent it to be framed as a prove for his samurai title.

(on a sidenote, we know, who died on the Honnō-ji, because Nobunaga was killed surrounded by few retainers of him, who were killed with him and had significant rank themself. There are books about the incident, wikipedia list the books on the article about the incident. On later actions, who are combined to the death of Nobunaga, the later clean-ups of Akechi Mitsuhide, there were some survivors, but the actual survivors are still rare and not people of retainer rank under Oda Nubunaga....Yasuke was not killed, as a foreigner and send to the other foreigners. --ErikWar19 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

A lot of this is more relevant for the Samurai page, If you have sources on a ceremony, I would really appreciate you posting it there. Adams' status as samurai is considered questionable by some, though. I have read the section of Ōta Gyūichi's book(in translation). It lists a lot of people who died either in the incident, or who killed themselves after hearing the news. It mentions that 24 grooms died, and names a few of them, but not all. He also lists 26 names of men who died in Nobunaga's residence, all with two names, so probably considered samurai today. Right after the list it talks about the pages all dying, so maybe these men are the pages. Really though, reading the book it seems like dying was a qualification for being named, and those that survive are left out. We only know Yasuke survived because of the Jesuits.[6]

I am not familiar with the concept of "retainer rank". Retainer has its own meaning in English, but I have seen it used both generically and as a translation of a specific term in the context of Samurai. Yasuke was of high enough rank to sometimes carry Nobunaga's equipment.

I think you are right about the pop culture definition, but historians themselves admit that they use samurai to refer to all military men, and that differs from Japanese usage. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

You accuse Japanese Wiki users of altering the wiki while english wiki users tried to put under the carpet Lockleys dubious behaviour where under pseudonym he altered the Yasuke page back in 2015 citing his still unpublished and not peer reviewed work. 94.67.17.47 (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor has accused the editor of the Japanese Wikipedia article on Thomas Lockley of being a historical revisionist. However, Thomas Lockley has been criticized in Japan to the extent that he has been questioned by the academic community, and there are even claims on social media that the content of that article is still insufficient. Occasionally, Japanese people come to Wikipedia and suggest that the article be revised to say that Yasuke was not a Samurai but a servant or retainer, but the Wikipedia editor refuses. Wikipedia only accepts materials written in English that affirm Samurai. So, who is the historical revisionist? 153.235.150.215 (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The image of Yasuke created by Thomas Lockley's imagination has contaminated all English-language sources such as Britannica and TIME through articles in African Samurai and Wikipedia. Wikipedia has removed African Samurai, but the tainted source remains. Wikipedia defines tainted sources as reliable. Eventually Wikipedia will revert to writing based on African Samurai. Like the ping-pong transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, the relationship will continue to contaminate each other, and will never disappear.

It is unclear whether it will be a month, a year, or when Wikipedia will revert to its African Samurai-based description. 140.227.46.9 (talk) 06:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It's quite ironic your comment about the Japanese Wikipedia since it has been proven and is common knowledge the English Wikipedia has an ultra-liberal bias in many articles. The Spanish Wikipedia has a more neutral comment saying his samurai status is disputed unlike this article who pass it as a historical fact which it doesn't have a single mention of his status as samurai not being accepted by a lot of people incluiding the origin country's term making this article unreliable. Waka Waka (talk) 06:40, 2 December 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[7]. 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 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 [8], 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 [9] 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 [10]:

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)

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)

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)

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[11]. 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 please get talk consensus before making these changes. Ethiopian Epic (talk) 12:59, 4 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)