Talk:Yasuke

RfC: Should the view that Yasuke was a samurai be added to the article

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.

---

Should the viewpoint of Lockley (and others), that Yasuke was a samurai, be presented as a significant minority view at or towards the bottom of the Documented life in Japan section? RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes There has been extensive discussion about whether Yasuke was a samurai over the past five or six days but despite this there is still no consensus for any changes relating to the samurai title. While the article should not explicitly state in the article lede that Yasuke was a samurai, there is a significant minority viewpoint that he was (Lockley, Rfi, CNN, Smithsonian, Time) which must be represented in the article; All majority and significant minority views should be covered in an article (WP:RS). As for why the viewpoint should be at or near the bottom of the Documented life in Japan section: 1. The article should not give the viewpoint undue weight through prominence of placement (WP:DUE) and, 2. Placement near the bottom of the section makes the most sense for the flow of the article. RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  As discussed further above, the CNN, Smithsonian, Radio France, and Time sources do not appear to be usable -- they either lack sources themselves (Radio France), or appear to simply be repeating Lockley.

  Should we add any such content, I agree with the suggestion of placing such a mention towards the bottom, as we have been finding no historical source materials that unambiguously state that Yasuke was a samurai. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Third option, as discussed below, I think the best would be a compromise that some consider him a samurai but uncertainty remains.

  Of the sources cited by @Loki, though apparently well liked and often mentioned together, they have some reliability issues, most of all the BBC article citing "historian" Lawrence Winkler. I still think the Lockley book and most sources citing it are also unreliable because it is impossible to draw the line between academic work and embellishments.

  The Lopez-Vera book is the only one I would consider reliable as he does not use Lockley in his references.

  Overall, one of the big problem is that Yasuke's depiction in popular culture muddied the waters and it became something akin to the Mandela effect. Yvan Part (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, as stated elsewhere I agree that it should be represented that while the primary historical documents are inconclusive, there are some scholars who interpert the primary sources to say that Yasuke is a Samurai. Discounting the Lockley entirely, there is still the Lopez-Vera which does state Yasuke was a Samurai. X0n10ox (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, as a majority view. As more time has gone by and more research and discussion has unfolded, I can no longer reasonably assent to the notion that it should be a minority view. Those who are opposed to its inclusion, and those that believe it should be a minority view, have had ample time in the past week to furnish any reliable source that would substantiate their claims. Instead, the most that we have had happen is attempts to define a Samurai by a strict, hereditary caste definition that may not have necessairly been applicable during the Warring States Period coupled with borderline Wikipedia:No original research in terms of interperting the intentions of other sources which do not conclusively state he was or was not a samurai as evidence that he was not a Samurai. Per Wikipedia:!TRUTHFINDERS " This process involves editors who are not making claims that they have found truth, but that they have found someone else who is making claims that they have found truth. If there is more than one set of facts or explanations for the facts in the article, there's a guideline for that where multiple points of view (Wikipedia's term for versions of truth) are included Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project written primarily by amateurs, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source" and Wikipedia:WEIGHT "If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately included" and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion". The absence of any reliable sources contesting the concept of Yasuke as a samurai makes describing it as a minority view point seemingly run afoul of Wikipedia's guidelines for NPOV. A book produced by a scholar which was vetted by an editorial board at a University has asserted that Yasuke was a samurai, along with many other secondary and tertiary sources which make the same assertion. These assertions have been made for over a decade now, and if the aspect of Yasuke being a samurai was controversial or contentious in a serious way, there would be some reliable source which actually contests the claim. The inability of opponents of noting Yasuke as a samurai to produce a single reliable source to substantiate their claim across multiple years of discourse (going back to 2021, even, in the archives) is frankly telling. Either the sources do not exist or the editors who oppose the change have been expending their energy on everything but finding the sources.

  In my personal opinion do I think Yasuke should be considered a samurai? Probably not. Does my personal opinion matter for the contents of a wikipedia article? Absolutely not. I have searched every academic library that I personally have access to to try and find any source to substantiate a view that is strictly opposed to the notion of Yasuke being a samurai and I have found none, as I am sure is the case for many other editors. If it were contrversial, there would be reliable sources that talk about it. If it were contested, there would be reliable sources which contest it.

  The fact of the matter is, there are none. Which means, per Wikipedia:NPOV , the assertion that he is a samurai made by reliable sources must necessairly be represented in Wikipedia's voice until a source stating otherwise is produced. Even claims that Yasuke's depiction in popular culture have muddied the waters cannot be the basis for exclusion because there are, again, no reliable sources substantiating the claim.

  To further continue, arguments about the hereditary nature of samurai and the rigidity of the caste system are fruitless. There are numerous reliable sources which have already commented on the fact that the rigidity of the caste system was not solidified until Hideyoshi's reforms and the Tokugawa government.

  "The moment of crisis for the samurai class was the transition from the medieval to the Tokugawa period....The vassal samurai serving either daimyo or Tokugawa shogun had to accept very different, much more restrictive conditions in exchange for a secure, largely hereditary, status and income.... The samurai were forced to live in castle towns, usually separated from direct control over their land; and their societal role underwent a major transformation from that of independent, high-spirited mounted warriors to that of sedate bureaucrats" (21). (Emphasis my own.)

  "Ability rather than empty authority, performance rather than inherited position were valued in both vassals and masters. Indeed, it was during this period that samurai's standards for measuring honor were the most 'performance-oriented' rather than 'bloodline-oriented'. An institutionalized definition of the merit of absolute loyalty to one's master appeared only in the development of the Tokugawa state, in which the structure of samurai master-follower relationships would be permanently altered" (147) (Emphasis my own.)

  "...Japan's forcible unification, a climate characterized by the foreclosure of opportunities for upward social mobility through military heroism" (204) (Emphasis my own.)

  • Ikegami, Eiko (1997-03-25). The Taming of the Samurai. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-86809-0.

  "Historically, Tokugawa samurai were a legal creation that grew out of the landed warriors of the medieval age; they came to be defined by the Tokugawa shogunate in terms of hereditary status, a right to hold public office, a right to bear arms, and a 'cultural superiority' upheld through educational preferment" (353) (Emphasis my own.)

  "Toyotomi Hideyoshi moved to differentiate warriors (bushi) and farmer (byakusbo) in the interests of peace and stability -- to define a man's status as one or the other, and thus to contain both groups better" (355) (Emphasis my own.)

  • Howland, Douglas R. (2001). "Samurai Status, Class, and Bureaucracy: A Historiographical Essay". The Journal of Asian Studies. 60 (2): 353–380. doi:10.2307/2659697. ISSN 0021-9118

  "At the same time the new system bound farmers to their land. In 1588 Hideyoshi issued a law to disarm the urban and rural population and to fix their places of residence. This was not the first time such a decree had been issued: Nobunaga had ordered the disarmament of the people of Echizen and Kii when he defeated the Ikko-ikki in those areas. Another law of 1590 prohibited movement by individuals between classes. Until then social mobility had been relatively free and unhindered by legal prohibitions..." (97) (Emphasis my own)

  • Kure, Mitsuo (2002-05-15). Samurai. Boston (Mass.): Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8048-3287-8.

  X0n10ox (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  "ample time in the past week"

  Some of us are busy in other parts of our lives. I've barely had time to try to stay abreast of all the threads on this Talk page, let alone respond in full. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Everyone works in their own time. No change to the article is necessairly permanent. However, users on the talk page (not precisely you) have engaged in exhaustive discussion and theorizing about the definition of Samurai, suggesting uncommon usages such as the Bujin middle-ground proposal, and otherwise spending copious amounts of time arguing about Thomas Lockley or delving into essays about the very definition of samurai. Users have repeatedly demanded sources from other editors assertions and have provided none to represent a contending opinion.

  To you specifically, though, you were engaged in this exact same conversation almost in 2022. While I do not presume to know your schedule, presumably, two years is sufficient time to procure a source, is it not? You have made multiple revisions over the years on this page, mostly for the sole purpose of reverting and stopping any mention of Yasuke as a samurai. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, but the mission of editors is not to exclude content. In the two years since you became actively involved on the Yasuke page, and started blocking edits, you haven't once given a reliable source that substantiates the argument that Yasuke was not a Samurai.

  For that matter, some of the prior discussions that are referenced in your blocks are just factually incorrect. Saying that Thomas Lockley isn't academically published is a falsehood, the Journal in 2016 which he is posted in is still an academically rigorous journal. Just because it doesn't allow first-author submissions from scholars outside of its University system doesn't mean the journal isn't overseen by an academic editorial board and doesn't make the journal not academically credible. There are plenty of University's which have similar journals, it is hardly "a collection of treatises populated only by members of his university's faculty". The journal adheres to academic standards, has an editorial board, and is academically rigorous.

  All that was decided in Talk:Yasuke/Archive_1#Lockley_2016,_Lockley_2017,_and_Lockley_2019?, likewise, was that Lockley is popular history. But being a popular history publication is not grounds for dismissal on Wikipedia.

  Then we have Archive_1#Request_for_comment_on_samurai_terminology which has an opposition factored on the grounds that the terminology came from a screenplay thesis. But the same person who opposed it wrote "I am in favor tho of pointing out on the page that some writers/historians have categorized him as samuari, but it has to be clear that it is an opinion and not a fact/consensus among historians The more academic treatments of the topic, such as Cooper and Russell do not use the term samurai, but the terms warrior or retainer"

  The opposition per: the prior RfC does not even contend using Lockley, nor does he suggest against using Lockley, but rather notes that Lockley sometimes uses "warrior" and "samurai" interchangeably, and that Lockley is working from a theory, coupled with "and we can summarize Locksely's theory and evidnece"

  During the previous RfC, your own contribution was "In any description in the article of Yasuke as a "samurai", I strongly feel that that description must include an explanation of how the relevant RS(es) define the term."

  That RfC was started in May, and then in October Eccekevin changes his vote to a blanket "Oppose", and Talk:Yasuke/Archive_1#Was_Yasuke_really_a_kashin? is once again just unsubstantiated conversation without a source, yet you have reverted edits and told people to refer to "Was Yasuke Really A Kashin?" as your justification. I reiterate, not a single source-substantiated statement that Yasuke was not a samurai has been provided in two years of discourse. X0n10ox (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Regarding my past edits to that page that you linked to, if you view the diffs and edit comments, you will see that most of my edits were in regard to content that was not backed up by the references linked for those specific edits. That's a pretty straightforward position to take here at Wikipedia, for any editor on any page.
  • Regarding the Talk:Yasuke/Archive_1#Was_Yasuke_really_a_kashin? thread, I think I only referred to that once, in this edit comment on 25 July 2022: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1100494431
  • Regarding the claim that "not a single source-substantiated statement that Yasuke was not a samurai has been provided in two years of discourse", consider that non-samurai-ness is the assumed default state for anyone in Japanese society of the time. The lack of any mention of "samurai" status for Yasuke in the historical records of the time is a significant omission. Authors that do not mention "samurai" status for Yasuke are implicitly agreeing with that default state of non-samurai-ness: much like anyone not mentioning that a person has two heads is implicitly agreeing with the default state of one-headed-ness for humans in general. Secondary-source authors who mention "samurai" status for Yasuke have not yet, as far as we have seen, backed that up with specific citations to historical primary sources. We could turn your statement around, and say that "not a single source-substantiated statement that Yasuke was a samurai has been provided in two years of discourse".

  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• No. I don't see any valid reason why that should be the case. DemianStratford (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, as majority view. The sourcing here seems to be pretty clear that "Yasuke was a samurai" is not in fact a minority view, it's the majority view. We have lots of reliable sources that say that he was a samurai, including:

• The book by Lockley mentioned several times above.
• Several academic reviews of Lockley's book.
• The book by Lopez-Vera linked in a previous comment.
• The Smithonian magazine.
• Time.
• The BBC.
• Britannica.

In contrast to all this, opponents don't appear to have a single source other than WP:OR readings of primary sources that Yasuke was not a samurai. So therefore, the majority view in both scholarly sources and news sources is that Yasuke was a samurai. So we should say that he's a samurai, not just in a short mention but consistently. Loki (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that it should noted as the majority view. As nearly every published secondary and/or analytical material of primary sources either describe Yasuke as a samurai and/or make no comment on his status. In fact I don’t believe there has been any published material actively making the case that he should not be considered a samurai, I have only seen that position argued by non-published individuals based on their own interpretation of the primary and secondary sources. Theozilla (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Non-samurai-ness is the assumed default state for anyone in Japanese society of the time. The lack of any mention of "samurai" status for Yasuke in primary materials is a significant omission. Authors that do not mention "samurai" status for Yasuke are implicitly agreeing with that default state of non-samurai-ness: much like anyone not mentioning that a person has two heads is implicitly agreeing with the default state of one-headed-ness for humans in general.

We cannot take the lack of sources specifically stating that Yasuke was not a samurai as an indication that he therefore was a samurai, any more than we can take the lack of sources specifically stating that Rameses II did not have two heads as an indication that he therefore did have two heads.

Secondary-source authors who mention "samurai" status for Yasuke have not yet, as far as we have seen, backed that up with specific citations to historical primary sources. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I do also agree that it could be noted as a majority view considering as we've yet to receive any published RSes that explicitly refute the claim that Yasuke is a Samurai. X0n10ox (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. The only argument people who say he isn't a samurai seems to have is that he wasn't a noble and instead merely Nobunaga's swordbearer (which is a very narrow definition for what counts as one). And yet they have no problem calling Toyotomi Hideyoshi a samurai despite him being his sandal-bearer. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. --Hawkatana (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Multiple sources describe Yasuke as a samurai and/or the first Black samurai, as fact, with background references, and the recent coverage of Yasuke in the context of Assassin's Creed relies on these sources to present him as samurai as plain historical fact, not weakening the statement with weasel terms like "according to so-and-so" or "some historians believe". The matter of whether or not Yasuke was provably samurai or not is a matter of academic debate, and no amount of back-of-the-napkin original research on this page can or will settle the matter. As it is a significant viewpoint, WP:NPOV compels that we cover it with due weight. It is not Wikipedia's job to convince readers that one or the other side of a historical ambiguity is correct, we just present all significant viewpoints, and leave it to readers to form their own conclusions. This article should have a (probably separate) section describing the historical view that Yasuke was samurai, along with sources that purport to debunk that claim. This is the normal approach to historical uncertainties. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, per the arguments laid out by LokiTheLiar and Ivanvector. Sock (tock talk) 14:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, but with attribution, argumentation, and criticism, otherwise No.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
• There should probably be some kind of discussion about the "samurai" status, but the definition of the word "samurai" in English seems to be somewhat vague and academic sources discussing Yasuke generally avoid describing him thus. As such, I think something like "many sources have described Yasuke as the first black samurai" is okay, but I would object to describing him as a "samurai" in wikivoice. General interest sources like magazines and Britannica are generally a step-below academic sources in reliability, and there is no reason to view them as authoritaitive with regards to Yasuke's samurai status. Lockley's book also has issues with citations, as discussed in this review, where it is suggested that Lockley embellished some parts of the book.[1] Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I will note, regardless of the Lockley, there is still [2] with the chapter "Black Lives Matter in Japan: The Specter of Race and Racism Haunting Japan" which describes Yasuke as a Samurai on Page 311, and also the Lopez-Vera which refers to Yasuke as a Samurai. Academic sources either (a) Avoid addressing the ambiguity and simply call Yauske a retainer or (b) Call Yasuke a Samurai. There hasn't actually been a single academic source provided that argues against Yasuke being a Samurai, which makes it difficult to present the argument that Yasuke isn't a Samurai as a substantial one. Instead, people are looking at sources that refer to Yasuke as "retainer" and inferring that to mean that Yasuke was not a Samurai. I feel it hard to describe the situaiton with Yasuke as "a debate", as some people have done, when nobody is furnishing any sources showing said debate. The most that has been offered is "these sources don't call him a Samurai", but those same sources also don't call him "not a Samurai". Which, I think, lands us straight into the land of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. We have verifiable sources that do say he was a Samurai, we do not (thus far) have any verifiable soruce that says he was not. X0n10ox (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Michael O. Sharpe is not an expert in Japanese history, and his mention of Yasuke is in the context of the recent Black lives Matter protests in a book about the 2021 Japanese general election. My point is that the word "samurai" is vague in English, and the dispute is therefore to a degree semantic. It's best to describe what role Yasuke served in the least vague way possible, and I think that Lopez-Vera's description of Yasuke as a "kind of bodyguard" [3] is more useful to the reader than the vague term "samurai". Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, they are not an expert in Japanese history, but the point remains that individuals are being published in academically rigorous contexts while referring to Yasuke as a Samurai and nobody is contending it except for editors on a Wikipedia talk page. The Sharpe Quotes Russell 2009, who only refers to Yasuke as being "retained as an attendant" and that Yasuke fought for Nobunaga against Akechi Mitsuhide. Regardless of the context of the article, if academically the editors felt that "Samurai" was an unqualified or incorrect interpertation of the Russell, they wouldn't have allowed it. Misrepresenting the views of a source is considered a form of plaigarism in Academia. My point still remains, if the common view is that Yasuke is a Samurai, and there is no scholarship opposing this, it isn't the place of Wikipedia editors to definitively answer the ambiguities of history. Frankly, the word "Samurai" isn't vague in English, it has a widely agreed upon meaning in English. The problem is that what "Samurai" means in English doesn't strictly adhere to a rigid definition of Samurai that would exclude Yasuke. Per Oxford Reference, "(from Japanese, ‘those who serve’) Warrior retainers of Japan's daimyo (feudal lords). Prominent from the 12th century, they were not a separate class until Hideyoshi limited the right to bear arms to them, after which they became a hereditary caste. Their two swords were their badge. Their conduct was regulated by Bushido (Warrior's Way), a strict code that emphasized the qualities of loyalty, bravery, and endurance. Their training from childhood was spartan. Their ultimate duty when defeated or dishonoured was seppuku, ritual self-disembowelment" .

  It is not, frankly, the job of Wikipedia to redefine what Samurai means in English. X0n10ox (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's worth pointing out that the very word 武士道 (bushidō) likely did not exist in Japanese until around the time of its first written appearance in 1616. See also Bushido#Etymology. There is also criticism that what the English world knows as "bushido" traces back to the English-language writings of Inazo Nitobe, who may have invented much of what he wrote on the subject. See also https://www.tofugu.com/japan/bushido/.

  There is no doubt that honor was a very important concept for the warrior class of Japan. However, the lack of any standardized "bushido" code until the 1600s should call into question the veracity of Oxford Reference's entry quoted above. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  This is not true we have less evidence of Yasuke being a Samurai, otherwise Hideyoshi would've been called a Samurai way before he was officially recognized as one, and that never happened with Yasuke, again the historians that "assert" he was a Samurai are being crass with the use of the words in English because probably they believe these words to be interchangeable. Claiming 'this historian says he was so it must be true' when again, none of the primary sources state he was, would be disingenuous, bias and not correct. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  And once again, until you can provide a substantiative source that contends that Yasuke was not a Samurai, it does not matter what your personal opinion about the Historians in question are. We have been provided with exactly no reliable sources for what is being claimed about Yasuke. Once again, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, "The stance of Wikipedia on such things is to avoid giving undue weight to such minority ideas, and represent instead the current state of understanding of a topic. If there's indeed an accuracy dispute between scholars, it is described without taking part. If there's an almost universally accepted viewpoint and a tiny minority one, the minority opinion may be ignored in favor of the viewpoint held by the majority, and the majority viewpoint will be described as fact."

  What we have is:

  • Primary sources which are inconclusive.
  • Reliable sources which say Yasuke is a Samurai
  • No Reliable Sources (thus far) saying He is Not

  You cannot, then, represent it as fact that the Historians who are saying Yasuke is a Samurai are disputed or contested or that they are flat out wrong, because there are no sources being provided to substantiate the claim. It does not matter if, by our own interpertation of the primary sources, Yasuke is not a Samurai, because we as editors are not allowed to interpert the sources. The primary sources not explicitly stating he was does not equate to stating he was not. Until someone provides Wikipedia:SOURCES that say as much, there is little to no reason to include argumentation that Yasuke was not a Samurai. X0n10ox (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  "Reliable sources which say Yasuke is a Samurai"

  Again lockley is not one, even by your own admission the reviews state "...reader of popular history and historical fiction a glimpse..." Historical fiction, that alone is enough for Lockley to be doubtful about Lockley's veracity, it doesn't matter if 5 historians cited his work, if they're repeating his mistake and lax use of English words is still incorrect, furthermore you keep claiming "majority of historians have this claim" but you only provided Lockley and Lopez-vera which two holding that believe doesn't even make it a "consensus" I'm sticking to the primary sources and none of them state Yasuke as a Samurai, it doesn't have weight to state "Well it doesn't specifically states he wasn't a Samurai" Okay, that is not going to change the fact that he most likely wasn't because your reached conclusions are coming from secondary sources who most likely have this lax and interchangeable use of Japanese words like Bushi/Samurai to mean the 'same thing' which is arguably wrong, otherwise there wouldn't be two different words for it. I wouldn't have a problem with any other title but again, the lack of information and lack of battle history, with only one battle under his belt and lack of historians or writings stating he had experience with swordsmanship is enough to make that claim dubious at best and a straight lie at worst.

  "You cannot, then, represent it as fact that the Historians who are saying Yasuke is a Samurai are disputed or contested or that they are flat out wrong, because there are no sources being provided to substantiate the claim."

  I'm sorry it is a fact and all I need are the primary sources,the primary sources alone are on my side, again not a part of him being called a Samurai, these sources have more weight than any extrapolation like "well he was a retainer and got paid so he probably was a Samurai" which is just flawed. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  It saying it's good for reader of popular history and historical fiction does not make it an unreliable source. See, "Popular history, also called pop history, is a broad genre of historiography that takes a popular approach". Furthermore, the Lopez-Vera still refers to Yasuke as a Samurai. Moreover, there is another review of the Lockley in Booklist. 3/1/2019, Vol. 115 Issue 13, p18-18, by James Pekoll who holds an MA degree in History, which writes "The authors also discuss how this was the age of exploration, in which European traders and missionaries sailed far and wide in search of markets and souls, and Japan provided both. Lockley and Girard deftly survey the cultural and geopolitical aspects of feudal Japan, providing historic facts underlying the popular fictional accounts of this age in everything from comic books to computer games. The authors make excellent use of primary sources, creating an engaging narrative, and use reasoned speculation when discussing Yasuke's later years after those sources end. This fact-checked portrait of a mythologized warrior often featured in manga and anime is an exciting and illuminating tale of action and intrigue"

  Regardless of if the Lockley is Popular History, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history) and for the Lopez-Vera, even if the Lopez-Vera book can be considered Popular History, it's still a reliable source, see: "Popular equivalents of the above published by historians who normally publish in the scholarly mode". Yes, it matters very greatly if the Primary Sources don't explicitly state that Yasuke was not a Samurai, because we are not allowed to infer that the Primary Sources say that he wasn't a Samurai when the sources do not say that.

  If the only academics writing about Yasuke are referring to him ambiguously (i.e, retainer) or outright calling him a Samurai, we cannot contend that the sources claim that Yasuke wasn't a Samurai. That would be making an unsubstantiated claim using our own reading of the Primary Sources. It doesn't matter if editors feel that it is true that the primary sources support a particular meaning or definition, we as editors are not allowed to interpert the primary sources ourselves. We can only go off of what they state, not make an assumption based upon what they don't say.

  "are coming from secondary sources who most likely have this lax and interchangeable use of Japanese words like Bushi/Samurai to mean the 'same thing' which is arguably wrong"

  And until someone can provide a reliable source that makes that argument, it is irrelevant. Furthermore, they aren't my conclusions. They are the conclusions of the sources themselves.

  Saying "it is a fact" doesn't matter on Wikipedia. Regarding the point that all I have are Secondary Sources, Secondary Sources is what is preferred on Wikipedia. You make statements like "otherwise they wouldn't have two words for it", are you aware of how many things have different words with the same meaning in English alone? Or, in Japanese, 点検、検査、見学、視察、調べ、閲覧、検証、検閲、検定、査察、検問、監査、観察. All of those words can mean "inspection". Saying "otherwise they wouldn't have two words" is a false statement when you're trying to argue on the basis of factuality. もののふ and 武士 likewise have basically the exact same meaning.

  Again, "all I need are the primary sources,the primary sources alone are on my side, again not a part of him being called a Samurai, these sources have more weight than any extrapolation like "well he was a retainer and got paid so he probably was a Samurai" which is just flawed."

  This is Wikipedia. We have no side. See: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

  "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources"

  See WP:BIASEDSOURCES "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective"

  WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves"

  By Wikipedia policies, the primary sources do not have more weight for claims which they do not explicitly state.

  Moreover, it is not the job of Wikipedia or its editors to redefine the definition of Samurai in common English usage.

  Per Oxford Reference, "(from Japanese, ‘those who serve’) Warrior retainers of Japan's daimyo (feudal lords). Prominent from the 12th century, they were not a separate class until Hideyoshi limited the right to bear arms to them, after which they became a hereditary caste. Their two swords were their badge. Their conduct was regulated by Bushido (Warrior's Way), a strict code that emphasized the qualities of loyalty, bravery, and endurance. Their training from childhood was spartan. Their ultimate duty when defeated or dishonoured was seppuku, ritual self-disembowelment"

  To your point of "you only provided Lockley and Lopez-vera which two holding that believe doesn't even make it a "consensus" "

  There is no evidence in scholarship that the notion of Yasuke being a Samurai is contested. It has been mentioned in academically published sources since at least 2016 that I know of. The only sources provided only refer to Yasuke as (a) a Retainer or (b) a Samurai. There has not been a single reliable source provided that contends or explicitly states that Yasuke was not a Samurai.

  And finally, once again, Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH "material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add information to articles simply because they believe it to be true, nor even if they know it to be true". X0n10ox (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  In Shinchokoki(信長公記), one of three (or five) primary source about Yasuke, all people mentioned as samurai(侍) has family name, but Yasuke has not. So it's difficult to consider Yasuke as samurai(侍). Isn't this primary source? https://ja.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%BF%A1%E9%95%B7%E5%85%AC%E8%A8%98 R.stst (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes but some caveats should be mentioned: The work from Lockley is recognized that his arguments that Yasuke was a samurai are "narrative" and based off of conjectured "research-based assumptions" by his own words,[4] and this needs to be presented if this were to be mentioned in a section at the bottom of the page as a significant minority, since this does not reflect the primary sources given. I cannot speak for Lopez-Vera or other works since I have not been presented their evidence but if they are the same boat as Lockley that needs to be presented as well. If this cannot be met, then it's a No.
• No, and I propose that, due to the lack of primary sources and information on Yasuke to determine with certainty that he is or isn't a samurai, and the apparent issues with the main academic sources contending that Yasuke is a samurai, that it be presented as a theory like the Female Uesugi Kenshin theory and the Shosaku Takagi theory in Separation Edict, this way the contentions by the main sources are made but within the mindset that it is unproven, and also present with criticism of those sources due to the lack of in-text citations, evidence, or documentation to back up the claims as per a scholarly review on Lockley by R.W. Purdy.[5] Hexenakte (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  An alternative proposal is to present it as a theory rather than a view, since it is not substantially proven, like how Uesugi Kenshin has the Female Uesugi Kenshin theory. I would be completely on board with this as an alternative instead. Hexenakte (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would also be okay with creating a Yasuke Samurai Theory section, or its own article, honestly. I will note, though, on the subject of the Lockley interview. In that same interview he states the Japanese book is "factual" and the English one is "narrative", but the Japanese book still describes Yasuke in its title as "Kokujin Samurai", Black Samurai. X0n10ox (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  With none of us currently able to assess the Japanese book's content, I am loath for us to make any claims based solely on the title (beyond the obvious and objectively safe claim that "this other book has this title"). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am not implying we should use a book that none of us wish to acquire, I am merely stating that it isn't entirely true to paint the idea that Lockley only believes Yasuke is a Samurai in his narrative book when the book he touts as factual in the interview also calls Yasuke a Samurai in its title. Obviously the title of the book alone isn't enough to use as a source, but it isn't strictly necessary to potentially misrepresent Lockley's views or intentions on the page in a way that would suggest his conception of Yasuke as a Samurai is strictly for narrative flair in his "narrative" book, when the book he claims was "factual" in the interview still calls Yasuke a Samurai in the title. X0n10ox (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  For the record, yes he did state this, but his research was still based on "research-based assumptions" and while I can only judge based off of the reviews given by Japanese readers on the book, it seems for the most part the same kind of content as far as speculation goes. After all, he also states that he did not write it in Japanese and that it was translated by someone else. That being said, if anyone here does have access to the Japanese version I would love to hear what he has to say in it. Hexenakte (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to note briefly that "research-based assumptions" is being oft repeated online as if it has some sort of negative connontation but almost all academic research uses research-based assumptions. "Theoretical assumptions are the premises on which a theory is based. All theories, projects, beliefs and activities are based on assumptions" Further more, "Assumptions may also be drawn from theories. If a research study is based on a theory, the assumption of the particular theory may become the assumption of that particular research study" and "Research is built upon assumptions since a foundation is needed to move forward. One must assume something to discover something."

  Research-based assumptions and theory-based assumptions are the same thing. X0n10ox (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Which is exactly what I'm saying, it's theoretical and not based on substantial evidence, so we are in agreement. Hexenakte (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  The difference is you are saying "His research was still based on 'research-based assumptions'", which makes it sound as if it is negative. All research is built upon research-based assumptions. Saying that the research is "based on research-based assumptions" is not a grounds to dismiss it.

  Also, per WP:!TRUTHFINDERS "Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project written primarily by amateurs, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia"

  If someone, say Lockley or Lopez-Vera, reads the primary texts and sees that Yasuke was given privileges similar to that of a Samurai, was given a stipend, and was a retainer of Nobunaga, it is not an unreasonable to base his research on the assumption that Yasuke was a Samurai, especially when there are seemingly no published sources saying he was not.

  Per Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability, "The de facto primary criterion for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is truth, not verifiability, i.e. whether reliable sources state it to be true; not whether individual editors think they can verify it themselves. " and "It does not really matter. The distinction being made here is not really between truth and verifiability at all, but between the statements made by reliable sources (which we want to include in the encyclopedia), and the unsupported claims of Wikipedia editors (which we don't)."

  Wikipedia:Verifiability "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it."

  Furthermore, even if it's theoretical, that has no real bearing on whether we can include the work on Wikipedia as a source.

  The view that Yasuke was a Samurai obviously does not run afoul of Wikipedia:Fringe theories because the criteria for fringe theories is "the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". Theorizing that Yasuke (who was given a stipend and privileges similar to a Samurai, was speculated in a primary source that Nobunaga wanted to make him a "tono" a "castle-lord", and who was referred to as retainer of Nobunaga in historical documents and scholarly research) was a Samurai does not significantly depart from the prevailing view of the mainstream.

  In fact, there have still been no reliable sources provided that argue Yasuke was not a Samurai. Until we have any reliable source that argues he was not a Samurai, we as Wikipedia editors cannot state he was not a Samurai, nor can we exclude sources on the basis of we do not like the source's definition of Samurai. The basis of this arguement that has started time and time again was the removal of Samurai from Yasuke's page that has never been substantiated or supported by any attempt to furnish a reliable source that states he was not a Samurai. Frankly, it should have never been removed in 2019 when it was initially removed without any kind of discussion or remark, and it only became contentious during attempts to re-add it, contentions that coincided with the release of Yasuke (TV series).

  It is getting to the point that individuals are arguing for a rigid, strict, hereditary understanding of what a samurai is on Wikipedia seemingly for the sole purpose of excluding Yasuke. That editors opposed to the notion of Yasuke being a samurai have devoted a significant amount of their time to research this strict definition of Samurai and interperting primary sources rather than providing any reliable sources to substantiate their claim is, frankly, confounding to me.

  Even if Lopez-Vera cites himself (which is common in academia anyways), the book "Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los europeos" still refers to Yasuke as a Samurai, and is still published by an academic press, and was overseen by an academic, scholarly editorial board that found no problem with it.

  In "Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los Europeos", Lopez-Vera writes,

  "El nombre que se le dio fue Yasuke (h. 1555-?), y desde ese momento acompañó siempre a Nobunaga como unaespecie de guardaespaldas. Cabe destacar que a partir de entonces dejó de ser un esclavo, puesto que al estar al servicio del daimyō recibió un estipendio como el resto de vasallos, obteniendo así la condición de samurái" (175-176)

  Machine Translated

  "The name he was given was Yasuke (ca. 1555-?), and from then on he always accompanied Nobunaga as a sort of bodyguard. It should be noted that from then on he ceased to be a slave, since being in the service of the daimyō he received a stipend like the rest of the vassals, thus obtaining the status of samurai." X0n10ox (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  It appears that the entirety of Lopez-Vera's argument for Yasuke's samurai-ness is that Yasuke was paid. As has been extensively argued earlier, simply being paid a stipend does not make someone a samurai. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  And yet, there is no argument that Yasuke was not a samurai supported by any substantial source saying this. Again, researchers who are published are allowed to draw their own conclusions based on their understanding of the facts and the history. Wikipedia editors are not. X0n10ox (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

  A separate article would be a bit much since there is so little secondary sources base their claims on and, as far as I know, don't expand on their reasoning much, if at all.

  Still, I am in favor of a compromise such as a new section discussing his status rather than a simple assertion that he is or isn't a samurai. Yvan Part (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Kokujin Samurai wouldn't fit either because I assume the closest thing was Jizamurai but it would work because Yasuke didn't owned any land. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, as majority and only view Considering, despite all of the rampant arguing on this talk page over the past few weeks, not a single source has been presented that argues Yasuke wasn't a samurai, any sources existing that state he was (and we have a number of such sources at this point) is the majority and only view presented. Because there is literally no reliable sources arguing he wasn't. Silverseren^C 21:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, and as a majority view noted in the article lede. natemup (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, he should be described as having been a samurai in the first sentence of the lead and throughout the article, without attribution; at least based on the sources presented so far, it should be the only view on the subject anywhere in the article, with nothing implying that there is any sort of dispute or controversy over it. This is his main point of notability and no one has presented any reason to think that it is in doubt, so he should be described as a samurai unattributed in the article voice throughout the article. If people believe it is under dispute, they must produce high-quality source directly contesting it. There's plenty of sources stating that he was a samurai, of a sufficiently high level of quality and weight that it justifies putting it in the article voice; and, more importantly, with so many sources flatly stating it as fact, you would expect at least some sources to dismiss it or dispute it or describe it as a myth, if it were genuinely controversial. But no such sources seem to exist; a smattering of sources that use "retainer" instead aren't really sufficient when we have so many high-quality sources calling him a samurai directly, since the two terms don't really contradict. Given the amount of coverage his life has gotten it's reasonable to expect at least one high-quality source dismissing this aspect as a myth, if it is actually contested in the way some editors are saying. Without that it feels like WP:OR - people are bringing their own personal definition of "samurai" to the table and judging based on that, which isn't how we determine things. Anyway, some additional sources. Also, given the numerous discussions of Lockley above, see , an academic review of it; while it takes some issues with more minor details, it clearly accepts the basic fact that Yasuke was a samurai; given the much more minor objections it raises, you would expect the review to say something if the central premise were questionable, instead of repeating it as fact. While many of the other sources just mention him in passing, they show that he's been repeatedly referred to as a samurai in academic writing; with it being so widespread, you'd expect someone to have disputed it somewhere in academia if it's genuinely controversial. Note in particular that several sources specifically say that he was promoted to a Samurai, ie. they're not merely presenting it as a narrative or an inference but saying that Nobunaga formally granted him that title. While I'm not a huge fan of tertiary sources, it's worth pointing out that Brittanica matches this. In light of all this, if there are people who want to avoid us calling him a Samurai as an article voice in the lead, they need to present other sources of similar or equivalent weight directly disputing it - "he doesn't match my definition of a samurai tho!" isn't enough to keep it out of the first sentence. For completeness, some additional refs from above so they go into the reflist. I'll also note that one editor, above, has tried to argue against some of these sources because they believe they relied on Lockley, a source that they themselves don't want to accept. But regardless of whether Lockley is reliable, that isn't how WP:RS works; a reliable source is presumed to do its own fact-checking, so if multiple high-quality RSes trust Lockley on a particular point, then they are reliable on that point even if we were to decide that Lockley himself was unreliable. Performing research using sources we couldn't use directly is part of the purpose of an WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I very much agree with this, and would like to emphasize the point that opponents have not come up with a single source that says that Yasuke was not a samurai. The best they have is WP:OR readings of primary sources, and WP:OR readings of scholarly sources that use other words to refer to him. But a source calling Yasuke a "retainer" doesn't make him not a samurai for the same reason that sources calling Ulysses S Grant a "general" don't make him not a president. In order to even entertain that sort of source comparison, we'd need at least one source saying outright he wasn't a samurai. Opponents can't even clear that extremely low bar. Loki (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

YES only if we make it clear that the modern portrayals of Yasuke are mostly fictional, while there's no concrete evidence to identify if he was a samurai or not. The section header should be something like "Modern portrayals". Also, once we have this dedicated section for his fictional portrayals in modern media, we can put every crazy idea that they made Yasuke into a mythical super ninjasamurai liberator in there, while leaving historical articles for academic use like how it supposed to be. Ezio's Assassin (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Majority View, in wikivoice - Until such time as any reliable source can be provided that disputes that he was a samurai, the sources we have state that he was, in fact, a samurai. It should be in the lead, in the 1st sentence, and stated in wikivoice throughout. No dispute of this should be added, even as a minority view, until such time as a reliable source disputing it can be provided. It should not be added as a minority view, but as the majority view. Fieari (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Have you read the entire Talk page? We have at most 5 academic (not pop-culture) secondary sources claiming samurai-ness, of which two or three are in dispute as potentially non-reliable. So far, none of them include inline citations pointing to any historical records. The only sources currently stating that Yasuke was a samurai are problematic. As such, I cannot currently agree with any contention that we (Wikipedia) should state that Yasuke was a samurai, as a matter of plain fact, in wikivoice. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Seconded, the lack of citations and of a consensus held definition for samurai among these 5 sources hurts their credibility, we cannot confirm where they got this information from since they all neglected to cite properly. Hexenakte (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have read the talk page. I have seen multiple cited reliable sources that state he was a samurai. You have not convinced me the sources are problomatic, they have been peer reviewed and published, which is our general standard. I have yet to see a SINGLE reliable source that disputes he was a samurai in any way, shape, or fashion. Provide me with one, even ONE reliable source that disputes he was a samurai, and we can talk further. I'm not interested in your non-policy view that peer reviewed publications are not reliable, I want to see a reliable source in contention with the reliable sources. Fieari (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  First, samurai status at that time was the exception, not the norm. Other authors omitting any mention of Yasuke's samurai-ness are implicitly stating that he was the default state of "not samurai", much like other authors omitting any mention of how many heads Queen Elizabeth had are implicitly stating that she was the default state of "having one head".

  Secondly, I'm not sure why you assume that all the sources are peer-reviewed? Lockley's and Lopez-Vera's works are books, not articles in academic journals. As books, they have been published, granted; but so far as I'm aware, they did not go through any process of peer review. I'm not sure which other sources you might be referring to, that did go through a peer-review process?

  Thirdly, are you not at all concerned that we don't have any clear definition of "samurai"? Or that different authors evaluated here appear to use the term in different and conflicting ways? If we cannot clearly nail down what authors mean when they use the word, how on earth are we supposed to write informatively about what they've said? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just to add, Kaneko and Purdy have reviewed Lockley's work, both of which state multiple problems with Lockley's research, with Purdy stating it was basically creative embellishments and lacked any form of in text citations for his claims, yet they still approve of it, which I do not get. In any academic research field I've been in, that would be completely unacceptable and would be denied, and it reduces my trust in the peer review process because it's so clearly blatant, but that part is just my opinion I guess. Now as for academic sources, Wikipedia policy affirms that content is a factor in reliability, and not just credentials. So far we have seen every proposed academic source fail at the most basic rule, to cite their claims, and that should be enough to have it be considered problematic, much more the fact they don't agree on what a samurai is, they are all contradicting eachother. It's insane really to think about. Hexenakte (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is all Original Research. Please find and cite a reliable source that says anything you've just said. Fieari (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have literally cited Purdy in this thread above if you made the effort to look. I also have made several posts in other threads with detailed analysis on what constitutes a samurai and another detailing Lockley's definition of samurai + comparing it to the other 4 academic sources with plenty of secondary sources. I am sorry that you did not bother to read them because I cannot be asked to cite them over and over when I can just point you to them. I have pointed out OR on my own accord several times on certain statements I did not have a citation for, but was useful for the sake of the discussion, not as a source proposition. Please look at Talk:Yasuke#Samurai_status, Talk:Yasuke#Reaction_of_Thomas_Lockley, Talk:Yasuke#On_the_subject_of_academic_sources then come back with a response when you have finished. I ask that you cease the hostile accusations and to assume we are arguing in good faith because we have been discussing this issue for nearly a month. Hexenakte (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  If I may throw my hat into the ring as a third party.... Multiple people keep bringing up that no sources state that Yasuke wasn't a samurai, but it's highly atypical to expect sources to argue the negative/default condition. The default condition for anybody, even those in Japanese history such as Yasuke, is the state of not being a samurai. Multiple published resources such as the Smithsonian refer to Lockley or whichever of the few sources that say Yasuke was a samurai, but these resources *cannot* be used to argue that the default condition is Yasuke being a samurai, because they either are non-academic resources that are not typically used on Wikipedia, or they are unreliable resources, or they have little to no expertise in the field, or they circle back to the same unverifiable sources. They should not significantly factor into the discussion of what the "default" condition is for Yasuke. I cannot stress enough that the burden of proof is on the positive condition. The few sources arguing the positive condition are unverifiable.

  This is NOT original research. (However, yes, there is original research taking place elsewhere on this Talk page.) This is looking at the sources which is typical for any Wikipedia editing process. We can verify that Yasuke attended to Nobunaga, but claiming he was a samurai by using one of the unverifiable sources is nearly equivalent to espousing legend as verifiable fact. Or espousing modern folk-tale as verifiable fact. Which is not acceptable. When you take a step back, the situation here is not that complicated.

  Lastly, and I will be short here since this paragraph is only a tangent and just my personal unverifiable opinion, I can't help but feel that there are people here fetishizing the status of being a "samurai." I get the vibe that people believe that if Yasuke was not a samurai, then he is somehow less "cool." It's problematic to think this way, to say the least. Green Caffeine (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  i dont know, if i am allowed to voice by opinion, as a "red" user, but i will write here simply to highlight this problem.

  IF we add his samurai status, we would have to add similar status positions of Yasuke with similar plausibility in the same field of subject.

  This includes explicit his potential slave status.

  So i would call it a YES, with a BIG ADDITION to add the contrast, that sources speak about him (even more openly) as a slave and to use most statements to highlight the problem to pinpoint his status in Japan reliable as a samurai or as a slave. So adding the minoirty view, that he may be a samurai makes it necessary to add the majority view, that he was just a servant and probably even a slave, because this is than due --ErikWar19 (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, but not outside of that section. It is undisputed that no primary source found thusfar (I don't believe anyone has made the argument there are more expected to be found) refers to Yasuke as a samurai. Observing this is not original research. It would be demonstrably untrue to use wikivoice to describe Yasuke as definitively a samurai throughout the article. It could be stated in this new section that secondary sources call Yasuke a samurai (with attributions), but it would be misleading to present this as historical fact or to not present sources that refer to him simply as a slave and/or later retainer. 2A02:A457:533:0:8A55:EAA7:71D6:C0FB (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, but not as a "significant minority view". Badly worded RFC: the viewpoint that Yasuke was a samurai is not a "significant minority view", it's the mainstream view, supported by several reliable sources and challanged by no one except a few editors who engage in original research. Since we have several sources that call him a samuray and no source that disputes this view, what we should call him is a no-brainer: a samurai (in wikivoice). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is not the "mainstream view", outside of the popular press. The sources used to make the case that Yasuke was a samurai all have serious issues (no inline citations, academic reviews calling works "fiction", some sources containing outright fabrications), which remain unaddressed. Simply ignoring the very real issues is intellectually lazy at best, dishonest at worst. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  In Japan, since no one really cared about Yasuke, Japanese wikipedia was left alone for like a decade with some false info (wishful imagination) that was wrote by one or two persons. Many people got tricked by this wrong info on Wikipedia all these years, and they spread the wrong info to another people. Cycle of wrong info to amplify the wrong info through Wikipedia.

  Now many Japanese realized that the Wikipedia was one of the origins of wrong info on yasuke, Japanese Wikipedia got rid of false info (wishful imagination). Only the info from historical records are on the Japanese wikipedia right now.

  But still the English Wikipedia is trying to spread the false info (wishful imagination) based on Lockey's book or some media that are basing on Lockley's book.

  桐野作人 Kirino Sakujin (@kirinosakujin) who got asked for an opinion by the translator of Lockley's book said that he didn't do fact-check on Lockley's book.

  Lockley has been claiming that his book got fact-checked by Kirino, but now it is found out that his book had no fact checked by anyone. His book and any media that use his book for any claim lost all credibility.

  Therefore, editors here should not use any secondary sources that use Lockley's book. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Refs

References

Proposed section

Would this wording be OK? Nowhere man (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

There are typographical issues with the proposed section. Moreover, there is a distinct lack of any research arguing against the López-Vera and Lockley. It would probably not be apt to describe it as not being a consensus among scholars when the only scholars who have actively published about it have either (a) stuck to ambiguity or (b) have stated unequivocally that he is a Samurai. There has not been a single source provided thus far that argues against Yasuke being a Samurai. The arguments on this Wikipedia page against describing him as a Samurai come entirely from the editor's own interpertations of primary sources and inferring that other authors that refer to Yasuke only as a "retainer" means that he wasn't a Samurai. Realistically, however, Samurai are still Retainers, even if all Retainers are not Samurai. Until someone publishes something arguing against Yasuke being a Samurai, we do not actually have any substantiated argument against him being a Samurai.

Hence my proposition of something along the lines of

"While historical documents are inconclusive, some scholars assert that Yasuke was a Samurai".

Because it is, ultimately, the most factual and verifiable statement offered thus far. X0n10ox (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

"...against Yasuke being a Samurai. he arguments on this Wikipedia page against describing him as a Samurai come entirely from the editor's own interpertations of primary sources and inferring that other authors that refer to Yasuke only as a "retainer" means that he wasn't a Samurai."

This is just Wikipedia:Assume bad faith, the interpretaion of "Yasuke was a Samurai" is coming entirely from conjectures formed you and the Historians too, as again, no where in the primary sources states as clearly as with Hideyoshi that Yasuke was a Samurai. I'm sorry this wouldn't be right. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not assuming bad faith to state the reality. The editors who are arguing the situation have provided no reliable sources that substantiate the argument which is being made. Yes, the secondary sources are allowed to interpert the primary sources. No matter how crass or incorrect editors might feel they are. I am not conjecturing anything, I am saying "these sources say he was a Samurai". Which is a great deal different from people discussing how, by their reading of the primary sources, Yasuke isn't a Samurai. It does not matter if, by our reading, the primary sources do not "states[sic] as clearly as with Hideyoshi that Yasuke was a Samurai", we are not allowed to conjecture that into meaning that Yasuke was not a Samurai. That is interperting the primary sources, which we are not allowed to do, but which scholars and reliable sources are allowed to do.

See Wikipedia:No Original Research, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources." (Emphasis my own).

The primary sources do not state that Yasuke was not a Samurai, without a published, reliable source interperting that to mean he is not a Samurai, we, as Editors, are not allowed to do so. X0n10ox (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

When you say "no where in the primary sources", you're doing original research. This cannot be an argument in Wikipedia.

Can you please provide at least one secondary source that raises the issue? I wrote the proposed section thinking there were other historians (which I didn't know about) that do. But if two historians state that Yasuke is a Samurai, and literally zero historians raise the possibility that Yasuke wasn't a Samurai but something like a retainer, then the Wikipedia article should say Yasuke is a Samurai. Nowhere man (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I've edited the proposal in light of the fact that there doesn't seem to be a single historian that raises an issue with Yasuke being a Samurai. I'll make another proposal if anyone can point to such an historian. Nowhere man (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Controversy about his status in Japanese society

While two historians of Japanese history, Thomas Lockley and Jonathan López-Vera, have stated that Yasuke was granted the rank of Samurai, some members of the general public refuse this scientific interpretation of the historical sources because those don't explicitly use the term "Samurai".

References

Discussion

You call it a minority view. Where exactly are the sources of the supposed majority that say he wasn't a samurai? Omission of commenting on the subject is not the same thing as saying he wasn't a samurai. Silverseren^C 23:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Take your pick of practically any source before Lockley (except for the Rfi article which came before Lockley). They all refer to him as a retainer or by some similar such designation. A source does not have to explicitly state he was not a samurai; Sources which talk about Yasuke necessarily talk about what his position was under Nobunaga, some say retainer, some say samurai, and some say he had another similar position. RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Except, as has been repeatedly pointed out in discussions above, retainer doesn't mean not a samurai. In fact, many of Nobunaga's retainers were samurai. So sources calling him a retainer are not claiming he wasn't a samurai. Do we have any sources actually arguing that he wasn't a samurai? Silverseren^C 23:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Given what we know from other contexts about what constitutes a samurai, with the rights and privileges and responsibilities pertaining thereto, and given also the descriptions of even such highly important people like Toyotomi Hideyoshi as pointedly not a samurai until later in life, the onus seems more like it would be on any sources that positively state that Yasuke was a samurai. Circumstantially, the odds are very much against. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. We already have a number of sources calling him a samurai. Unless you can produce reliable sources claiming otherwise, you can't just use your own opinion on if he was a samurai or not. We report what sources say. Silverseren^C 00:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

That's OR. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 08:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not OR. See my post replying to _dk at Talk:Yasuke#Samurai_status and the additional reply to X0n under that. Hexenakte (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

How is that no OR if you don't cite a secondary source saying what you're saying? Your interpretation of primary sources is one clear definition of OR according to WP. Nowhere man (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Have you read the post? I cited multiple secondary sources. If your confusing it with my initial post in Talk:Yasuke#Establish_a_clear_distinction_between_Bushi_and_Samurai, I have already corrected that in the post I cited. Look for the post that is me replying to _dk. I also talk about the definition of samurai used by Lockley in my post replying to X0n here at the very bottom Talk:Yasuke#Reaction_of_Thomas_Lockley. Hexenakte (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree: retainer doesn't mean not a samurai. Many retainers were samurai, and all samurai were retainers. To draw an analogy (not a perfect 1:1 but it demonstrates my point) to military ranks:

Military officer doesn't mean not a Major. Many military officers throughout history were Majors, and all Majors were military officers. If you have a majority of sources saying a figure was a military officer with a minority saying he was a Major, you would present the figure as a historical military officer, and then mention that some sources say he was a Major. We can not use the minority to interpret the majority.

Yasuke was a retainer, he may have also been a samurai. The majority agree he was a retainer, and a minority agree he was a samurai. It is completely legitimate to call him a retainer whether or not he was a Samurai, and then say that he may also have been a samurai.

As a side note: one would expect that a person writing about a historical figure such as a Major would say that the Major was a Major, rather than using the broader term military officer, as the term Major would be both more specific and a greater honour to hold. The same applies to the retainer-samurai distinction. RomeshKubajali (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources calling him a samurai. They have been presented all over this talk page. Just because not every single source calls him a samurai doesn't then make him not one. For that matter, what reliable secondary sources are there that only refer to Yasuke as a retainer in modern commentary? Silverseren^C 00:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

"We have plenty of sources calling him a samurai."

None of those are primary sources. As for secondary sources, Lockley appears to be the main one, and he himself in his own interview about the book describes it as "narrative" as opposed to "factual".

One of the big problems we've been zeroing in on in this Talk page is that the secondary sources do not appear to be all that reliable. The Lopez-Vera book Historia de los Samurais / History of the Samurai remains a question mark, as none of us here (so far as I know) have yet been able to read it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that I have read the Lopez-Vera, but apparently that isn't good enough. X0n10ox (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, by all means post more then. Fuller context of Lopez-Vera's mentions of Yasuke, with any footnotes and references, would be much appreciated for shining more light into this so-far dim corner. Google Books suggests that Yasuke is only mentioned twice in the whole book, but the limitations of Preview are vexingly narrow (very little context, not even page numbers given). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke is only mentioned in a small blurb in the book, much in the same fashion that other figures are only mentioned briefly. I cannot post the entirety of the entry without running afoul of copyright. Vera does not provide in-text citations throughout the book, but as I mentioned previously, it's cited over 20 times in Spanish. Best I can give you without running afoul of policies is the entire Bibliography. Which I guess as you can see, Lockley isn't on his Bibliography if that was your concern. Yasuke is mentioned on page 109 of my copy, and it is just a blurb about Yasuke in the section about The Unification of Japan, in the same way that Takeda Shingen and Useugi Kenshin are mentioned on page 102 of my copy. The blurb refers to Yasuke as a Samurai, but the section about Yasuke also concludes with "Akechi decided to spare his life, although it seems more out of contempt than mercy; he stated Yasuke was more of an animal than a man, so could not be considered a samurai, and therefore could not be held to account with his life as was expected of a defeated samurai. So, he was given back to the Jesuits and from that moment on history loses track of him, although it is believed he ended up returning home. A certain English sailor—of whom more later—is often credited with being the first Western samurai, but Yasuke got there a few years before him."[Okay Bibliography looked awful I've removed it]

X0n10ox (talk) 02:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I have just now found [6] which should take you directly to the passage about Yasuke in his book. X0n10ox (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

None of those are primary sources.

Exactly, they aren't primary sources. Which is what makes them usable. As I'm sure you're aware, we prioritize using secondary sources for information and minimize the use of primary sources. That's how Wikipedia articles are written. The fact that all the sources calling Yasuke a samurai are secondary sources is perfect, exactly what we require.

From where are you determining the secondary sources aren't reliable? I see things like the BBC, Time, the Smithsonian, and a number of academic publications linked in discussions above. Silverseren^C 00:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

"Exactly, they aren't primary sources. Which is what makes them usable."

If a secondary source says "A = B", and no primary source says that, then the secondary source is not verifiable.

"From where are you determining the secondary sources aren't reliable? I see things like the BBC, Time, the Smithsonian, and a number of academic publications linked in discussions above."

Keep reading, these have already been talked over extensively. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how sources work on Wikipedia, which is concerning. Secondary sources are independent coverage of primary sources and events. Secondary sources are allowed to make whatever interpretations they wish. In fact, that's their purpose and why we prefer them over primary sources, as the secondary sources make the interpretations of primary information that we, as editors, are not supposed to make. Again, the entire point of no original research. Silverseren^C 01:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Lockley characterizes his own book as "narrative". It includes elements not found in any of the historical documents, such as a duel between Yasuke and another samurai. Lockley himself describes how there is very little historical text talking about Yasuke, and from this he and Girard have written a 400+ book. At least one reviewer has also mentioned the apparent embellishments and contradictions, as well as the paucity of references in Lockley's book, and the problems this presents for anyone seeking more detail. There's also WP:AGE MATTERS, suggesting that for historical events, sources written closer to the time of the event may be more reliable. Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources states that "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited." I don't see why that shouldn't apply to books as well as articles.

If Lockley (or any other author) presents Yasuke's samurai-ness as a matter of historical fact, then that fact needs backing in historical documents. Alternatively, if presented as a matter of reasoning, stating the various facts and why they think this means that Yasuke was a samurai, that would be the author presenting their opinion. This appears to be what you're talking about with "make the interpretations of primary information". However, so far as I'm aware, Yasuke is simply described as a samurai, with no backing and no particular reasoning given. This is a problem. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we might be talking past each other. I'm not stating the above in any argument that we should discount Lockley and remove him from the article entirely; nor am I arguing that our article here must say that Yasuke was not a samurai, nor that we must say that he was a samurai. My point is rather that Lockley as a source has issues, which should be accounted for in any use of his book as a reference. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If you want to see Lockley's interview and the issues that are with his book, by all means, I point you to my lengthy post replying to _dk at Talk:Yasuke#Samurai_status where I talk about it and the additional reply under X0n. I also provide a plethora of secondary sources on the appropriate definitions on what constitutes a samurai and its differences from other skilled warriors. Hexenakte (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that providing definitions of what a Samurai is is not the same thing as providing a substantial, reliable source that contends that Yasuke was not a Samurai. While your research on the definition of Samurai is commendable, its applicability to the subject at hand is unclear. X0n10ox (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Lockley is 'historical' fiction. I'm not sure why some people are acting like it's a reliable source. It's like Ken Follett, Maurice Druon, Bernard Cornwell. Except not as good. DemianStratford (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

As you can see Ken Follett is categorized as Historical Fiction while Lockley is not. X0n10ox (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

As a note re: "one would expect that a person writing about a historical figure such as a Major would say that the Major was a Major", there are few historical sources period that mention Yasuke, some of which were heavily censored. For instance, most versions of the Shinchōkōki exclude Yasuke save for the Maeda Clan version of the Shinchōkōki. As for what seems to be the idea that Lockley is somehow responsible for the notion that Yasuke was a Samurai, here is an article from 2013 which predates Lockley's first writing about Yasuke by several years. This article calls him a "samurai in name only" and this documentary predates Lockley, this article calls Yasuke a Samurai in 2014. This place likewise calls him a Samurai. The French Wikipedia calls him a Samurai and links to this article for justification, this [7] says "With great literary and graphic skill, Frédéric Marais tells the true story of Yasuke, the only ever Black samurai", again, this article [8] , this page, this article, this now dead page from 2014, this book published by The History Press calls Yasuke a Samurai. The Chapter "Black Lives Matter in Japan: The Specter of Race and Racism Haunting Japan" in Japan Decides 2021 mentions Yasuke as a Samurai. Are all of those sources I've listed reliable enough to be used on Wikipedia? Probably not, but I am moreso speaking to the fact with most of them that some editors are acting as if the concept of Yasuke being a Samurai is completely unheard of when the only evidence that's being offered that he isn't a Samurai is saying that the primary sources don't explicitly say that he was. In all of this time of people producing material that says Yasuke is a Samurai, surely if it was a contentious issue that is a known falsehood someone would have published something in opposition. If the Lockley is such an unreliable source, would it not be caught in the peer-review process for the books and articles it is cited in? If it were so hotly contested, would scholars have not published something against it which you could find and cite?

And since we're also talking about Lockley once more, I will also add again that Lockley's book was reviewed "Booklist. 3/1/2019, Vol. 115 Issue 13, p18-18", by James Pekoll who holds an MA degree in History, who writes of Lockley's book "The authors also discuss how this was the age of exploration, in which European traders and missionaries sailed far and wide in search of markets and souls, and Japan provided both. Lockley and Girard deftly survey the cultural and geopolitical aspects of feudal Japan, providing historic facts underlying the popular fictional accounts of this age in everything from comic books to computer games. The authors make excellent use of primary sources, creating an engaging narrative, and use reasoned speculation when discussing Yasuke's later years after those sources end. This fact-checked portrait of a mythologized warrior often featured in manga and anime is an exciting and illuminating tale of action and intrigue."

Furthermore, on the article we are currently debating about "Some people in the town thought that Nobunaga might make him as tono ("lord")" with the notation "It is assumed that 'tono' in this case meant a high position among the samurai, as a lord of a castle would be too high of a position". This assumption is provided with no citation for it, but is stating that the prospect of making Yasuke a castle lord would be "too high of a position", so without a citation of some kind this is a wholly unsubstantiated opinion being presented in the article. X0n10ox (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious, does anyone have any more information about the mentioned Maeda Clan version of the Shinchō Kōki?

The JA WP article about the Shinchō Kōki at ja:信長公記 doesn't include any mention of this in the list of versions at ja:信長公記#諸本と刊本 ("Shinchō Kōki#Variant manuscripts and printed books"); for that matter, the name "Maeda" (前田) doesn't appear anywhere on the page. The closest match might be "Machida" (町田), the version also made available at Wikisource (wikisource:ja:信長公記).

Googling just now for "信長公記" + "前田氏" ("Shinchō Kōki" + "Maeda clan") doesn't seem to turn up anything relevant in the first page of hits.

Any leads would be appreciated. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It is, evidently, referring to an early copy of the Shinchō Kōki which is/was in the posession of the 前田育徳会, the Maeda Clan Archives. There is mention of it here, and supposedly it is used in Kaneko Hiraku's book 織田信長権力論, but I don't have access to the book to verify that particular claim. Regardless, though, there are references going a little ways back online about a version held by the 前田育徳会. Likewise, [[9]] mentions it, albeit under a different name. X0n10ox (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to provide you an update. The Japanese Wikipedia article for Yasuke I noticed has:

『『信長公記』の筆者である太田牛一末裔の加賀大田家に伝わった自筆本の写しと推測される写本（尊経閣文庫所蔵）には、この黒人・弥助が私宅と鞘巻（腰刀の一種）を与えられ、時には道具持ちをしていたという記述があるという』

The source which they list for the information Re: the Shinchō Kōki is listed as "織田信長という歴史　『信長記』の彼方へ』、勉誠出版、2009年、311-312頁."

Which is a book by Hiraku Kaneko, so I had the book wrong in my initial comment. X0n10ox (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

They have not provided any souces contending against Yasuke's status as a Samurai, no. The most that has occurred is dangerously skirting close to violating Wikipedia:OR and variously providing sources which argue for a more restrictive definition of what a Samurai is for the sake of a purity of the concept, but nobody has actually produced any scholarship that conclusively states Yasuke was not a Samurai. Rather, they are working primarily off of their own interpertation of the primary texts as well as the fact that there are other scholars which variously refer to Yasuke as simply being a retainer or an attendant of sorts, rather than explicitly calling Yasuke a Samurai. Since the historical documents are inconclusive in regards to whether he was or he wasn't conferred the status of a Samurai, it seemed reasonable to suggest that rather than Wikipedia stating he is a Samurai, that the article should note that the documents are inconclusive as to whether he was or he was not, but that some scholars contend he was. X0n10ox (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with your concluding statement: the historical record is unclear, some authors say X, some say Y. Objectively, that's the minimal nub of what we can say. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

That is factually all we can say within the confines of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is the most logical solution to the debate about what the article should say regarding Yasuke. The primary sources are inconclusive, without drawing upon our own interpertations, the most we can do is say is "some scholars interpert it this way". X0n10ox (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

No, if you were to put "some scholars interpret it this way" that is providing nothing of substance, is the same as putting "some scholars believe is inconclusive" it's not necessary. Hopefull Innformer (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Could we write: Although historical documents are inconclusive, some scholars describe Yasuke as the first black samurai. Which is a much more significant statement while remaining both verifiable and neutral.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The wording for such a post could be that, yes. Though I am uncertain about the necessity of "first Black Samurai" if we consider the fact that nobody is being described as "the first white Samurai". X0n10ox (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m open to re-wording but according to a number of sources including The Smithsonian that is what makes this significant.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A source noting that he is "the first Black samurai" isn't what makes it significant. Factually, as far as can be gleaned, he is the only Black samurai. The Lopez-Vera, for instance, notes that Yasuke would technically be the first Western Samurai. It would be more appropriate to note Yasuke as "the first African" Samurai, but again, Wikipedia doesn't describe anyone as "The first White Samurai". There are, for instance, [10] sources that refer to William Adams as "the first white Samurai". This [11] source notes Yasuke as "the only African and first non-Japanese samurai" X0n10ox (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

X0n10ox, that thing starts "One day in my Japanese class while studying abroad"--so we cannot accept that as a reliable a source. It's a student paper (well, it's not even a paper) on a website. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not suggesting using it, I am saying that notating he is "the first Black Samurai" isn't the only substantial or significant detail. Lopez-Vera, for instance, writes "A certain English sailor -- of whom more later -- is often credited with being the first Western samurai, but Yasuke got there a few years before him". Saying he is "the first Black Samurai" just seems like an unnecessary addition that doesn't necessairly need to be included in the article just because the author of the Smithsonian includes it in her discussion of the Netflix show. The same Smithsonian which they link also says "Yasuke was the first foreign-born warrior to enter their ranks" X0n10ox (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Potential sources

[12][13][14][15] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Lockley is fiction. He wrote a fictional narrative with some historical content. It's not a reliable source. DemianStratford (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

While it's fine to have this opinion, per the Library of Congress and libraries worldwide, Lockley's book is not classified as fiction. X0n10ox (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't link anything by a Lockley, did I? Fwiw, the first book is by Yoda. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not 100% positive why they commented "Lockley is fiction" here. I checked the sources you've linked and none of them are Lockley. X0n10ox (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

While Lopez-Vera in "Toyotomi Hideyoshi Y Los Europeos" does refer to Yasuke as a Samurai in the passage below,

"lavo, puesto que al estar al servicio del daimyo recibió un estipendio como el resto de vasallos, obteniendo así la condición de samurái. Se sabe que estuvo en el incidente Honno-ji, luchando contra los hombres de Akechi Mitsuhide y que pudo escapar de allí con vida, llegando incluso adonde se alojaba el hijo de Nobunaga. Cuando este fue también atacado, de nuevo luchó como uno más, con la única diferencia de que, cuando se vieron derrotados, él no cometió seppuku como muchos de sus compañeros, sino que se rindió ante el enemigo. Akechi decidió entonces perdonarle la vida, aunque parece que no por misericordia, sino por desprecio, afirmando que Yasuke era más un animal que un hombre, por lo que no se le podía considerar un samurái y, por tanto, no tenía una responsabilidad que tuviese que pagar con su vida, como se esperaba de un guerrero al ser derrotado. Así, fue devuelto a los jesuitas, y a partir de ese momento la historia lo pierde la pista, aunque se cree que acabó volviendo a su tierra"

The citation Lopez-Vera provides is his own book, "López-Vera, Jonathan. Historia de los samuráis. Gijón: Satori Ediciones, 2016." X0n10ox (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Reaction of Thomas Lockley

Just stumbled across his Instagram account, here is his reaction about the whole drama and whether Yasuke was a samurai or not (spoiler: he doesn't seem to be sure): [16][17]. Thibaut (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's less of a case of he doesn't seem to be sure, so much as it is a case of he says essentially what myself and others have noted on this talk page. During the Sengoku Jidai there was a breakdown of social norms and an extreme weakening of the government. As the Oxford Reference for Samurai notes, "Prominent from the 12th century, they were not a separate class until Hideyoshi limited the right to bear arms to them, after which they became a hereditary caste". Which Lockley also concurs with when he says that they weren't really codified into a class until Hideyoshi and Ieyasu. Lockely says, paraphrasing because he talked fast, "Lots of people would have been classed as Samurai or said they were Samurai during Yasuke's time so there's no reason we can't say that either. Was he a Samurai? We can't say. Lots of people at his time would have said he was a Samurai, but the most important part is that no serious Japanese historian says he was not a Samurai".

That said, I don't really know how much stock to put into an Instagram video by the author (I don't think it's a reliable source, anyways), but it does clarify his motivations regarding calling Yasuke a Samurai. In essence, it seems to boil down to "No historians have said he was not, and because things were murky during the Sengoku Jidai, it's safe to infer that he was a Samurai".

Beyond that, Lockley is (mostly) just using the controversy caused by the game to...well, advertise his book. X0n10ox (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not to safe to infer he is a Samurai. I am not sure if you realize this but the burden of proof lies with those claiming he is a samurai, not those who deny it. We do not have to explicitly state that he is not a samurai, but we absolutely cannot say that he was a samurai, since there is no substantial evidence proving it and by Lockley's own admittance. I am completely fine with keeping both claims as asserted facts out of the article, whether he is or isn't.

And the claim from Oxford is blatantly wrong, I would not be using that as a claim, but I already made my argument and provided sources about it already so I'm not going to continue to repeat myself on the matter. I will likely end up bringing that argument to Talk:Samurai in the future when I muster time for it. Hexenakte (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The burden of proof has been met, by all the reliable sources saying he was a samurai. The burden of proof is now on you to provide reliable sources actually arguing the opposite. Do you have a single reliable source arguing that Yasuke was not a samurai, Hexenakte? Silverseren^C 20:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken, it's already been discussed throughout the page that sources like Lockley and Lopez-Vera have not been able to support their claims with substantial evidence and that it's mostly based on conjecture, in Lockley's case, by his own admittance, and by Lopez-Vera's case, a lack of citation or evidence proving it (it's just a blurb in his academic source). I encourage you to look at my post replying to _dk Talk:Yasuke#Samurai_status where I talk about it in detail with evidence, and also to please watch his full interview so you aren't just taking my word, but I did timestamp the points of interest for your convenience. So no, the burden of proof has not been met, if anything, they are pushing a theory because it has not been proven and that it is a clear discrepancy due to its inability to match the historical descriptions made in the primary sources. While I did make a huge point about why he would not be able to fit the proper definition of a samurai during this time period (I make a big deal about nobility ties and supported it with a plethora of evidence, including academic), I am not going to argue for the sake of WP:NPOV and the lack of secondary sources explicitly stating that Yasuke as a named individual wasn't a samurai (it would be kind of odd to make an entire academic source based off of that one negative claim, but the point is made regardless for the sake of the policy), but it absolutely cannot be proven with absolute certainty that he was a samurai, and I will stand by that point.

Now if it is accepted that academic source(s) providing the clear definitions or conditions of what made a samurai during the Sengoku period would be able to fit that academic omission from the opposition, I would gladly look for them, because that's the closest that you would be able to get to a definitive answer, otherwise we can't really name Yasuke as an explicit example of that due to the lack of primary sources on him and his relevancy and impact during his service in the Oda clan. That being said, why would Yasuke be the sole subject of an academic source if it were not in support of him being a samurai, especially with so little information about him? I'm not saying it is impossible or it hasn't been done, but it would be really unusual where it could instead be focused on an overall focus on what made someone a samurai instead. Hexenakte (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That's fine for that to be your opinion, and while I commend you for doing research, most of the the resources you provided for that research aren't actually reliable per: Wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Of the sources you provided for your information regarding Samurai,

• https://samurai-archives.com/wiki/Court_Ranks | Not a reliable source, and also blatantly says on the mainpage that we cannot use it "Do not copy information from here to Wikipedia or any other webpage - this Wiki is not intended for use on Wikipedia or any other websites without the expressed permission of the owner of this website, or proper paraphrasing, quoting, and full citation"
• https://www.reddit.com/r/Samurai/comments/17hoanp/comment/k6rp4j4/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button | Reddit posts are not reliable sources
• 1, 2, 3, and 4, all come from "Japanese Wiki", which states it is "Generated from the Japanese-English Bilingual Corpus of Wikipedia's Kyoto Articles." And per the Wikipedia Reliable Source Guidelines, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
• http://www.unterstein.net/or/docs/JapanRanks.pdf| It would be preferable to obtain and reference the document which "Unterstein.net" is apparently referencing, which is The Princeton Companion to Classical Japanese Literature

"It is not to safe to infer he is a Samurai. I am not sure if you realize this but the burden of proof lies with those claiming he is a samurai, not those who deny it."

Factually speaking, as editors of Wikipedia, we are not making any claims, we are merely representing what is known and claimed by other scholars. You might think it is not safe to infer he is a Samurai, and you can say "the burden of proof lies with those claiming he is a Samurai, not those who deny it" but the problem is that the category of "those who deny it" seems to not be represented in any sort of publication, if they even exist. Wikipedia editors arguing with one another in a talk board about ambiguous historical documents an opposition does not make. I am, once again, stating that if there are any reliable sources that argue that Yasuke is not a Samurai, to please furnish them, otherwise "Yasuke wasn't a Samurai" is factually not a viewpoint we should be trying to represent on Wikipedia. We do however have sources that list Yasuke as a Samurai, which means that the view that Yasuke was a Samurai is something that can and should be represented on Wikipedia.

As for "And the claim from Oxford is blatantly wrong, I would not be using that as a claim"

Per A Dictionary of World History (3 ed.) by Oxford University Press,

"Warrior retainers of Japan’s daimyo (feudal lords). Prominent from the 12th century, they were not a separate class until Hideyoshi limited the right to bear arms to them, after which they became a hereditary caste. Their two swords were their badge. Their conduct was regulated by Bushido (Warrior’s Way), a strict code that emphasized the qualities of loyalty, bravery, and endurance. Their training from childhood was spartan. Their ultimate duty when defeated or dishonoured was seppuku, ritual self-disembowelment."

But if you do not think a dictionary is a suitable source for the English definition of Samurai on an English encyclopedia, I can provide you other sources that support the statements made regarding the hereditary caste system.

"The moment of crisis for the samurai class was the transition from the medieval to the Tokugawa period. The distinctive of nature of the samurai's cultural transformation was closely related to the course of early modern state-making in Japan. The vassal samurai serving either daimyo or Tokugawa shogun had to accept very different, much more restrictive conditions in exchange for a secure, largely hereditary, status and income. A Tokugawa samurai was formally considered advanced to full samurai status only when he was incorporated within his lord's house as a kachu (literally, "house insider"). The samurai were forced to live in castle towns, usually separated from direct control over their land; and their societal role underwent a major transformation from that of independent, high-spirited mounted warriors to that of sedate bureaucrats" (21). (Emphasis my own.)

"Ability rather than empty authority, performance rather than inherited position were valued in both vassals and masters. Indeed, it was during this period that samurai's standards for measuring honor were the most 'performance-oriented' rather than 'bloodline-oriented'. An institutionalized definition of the merit of absolute loyalty to one's master appeared only in the development of the Tokugawa state, in which the structure of samurai master-follower relationships would be permanently altered" (147) (Emphasis my own.)

"Japan's forcible unification, a climate characterized by the foreclosure of opportunities for upward social mobility through military heroism" (204) (Emphasis my own.)

All of the above are from:

• Ikegami, Eiko (1997-03-25). The Taming of the Samurai. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-86809-0.

"Historically, Tokugawa samurai were a legal creation that grew out of the landed warriors of the medieval age; they came to be defined by the Tokugawa shogunate in terms of hereditary status, a right to hold public office, a right to bear arms, and a 'cultural superiority' upheld through educational preferment" (353) (Emphasis my own.)

"Toyotomi Hideyoshi moved to differentiate warriors (bushi) and farmer (byakusbo) in the interests of peace and stability -- to define a man's status as one or the other, and thus to contain both groups better" (355) (Emphasis my own.)

Above from

• Howland, Douglas R. (2001). "Samurai Status, Class, and Bureaucracy: A Historiographical Essay". The Journal of Asian Studies. 60 (2): 353–380. doi:10.2307/2659697. ISSN 0021-9118.

"At the same time the new system bound farmers to their land. In 1588 Hideyoshi issued a law to disarm the urban and rural population and to fix their places of residence. This was not the first time such a decree had been issued: Nobunaga had ordered the disarmament of the people of Echizen and Kii when he defeated the Ikko-ikki in those areas. Another law of 1590 prohibited movement by individuals between classes. Until then social mobility had been relatively free and unhindered by legal prohibitions..." (97) (Emphasis my own)

Above from

• Kure, Mitsuo (2002-05-15). Samurai. Boston (Mass.): Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8048-3287-8.

"Hideyoshi was the ultimate gekokujō samurai success story. Born a peasant, he worked as sandal-bearer and made his way up through the samurai ranks to become a daimyō. His metamorphosis was made complete in 1591 when he assumed the title of Taikō, or chancellor. As a genin, Hideyoshi did not have the royal lineage to become Shōgun, and his social policies ensured that no other genin could rise through the ranks as he had done. At the heart of Hideyoshi’s unification of Japan was the separation of warriors and peasants. In effect, this abolished the very concept of gekokujō." (111)

"Hideyoshi’s next law, commonly known as the ‘Separation Edict’, built upon the first by classifying three orders – samurai, peasants and townsmen (merchants and artisans) – and making movement between them illegal." (112)

"The result of Hideyoshi’s edicts, his land survey and various other ordinances was a feudal system based on kokudaka assessment. Provincial daimyō submitted to Hideyoshi’s regime as his vassals, which replaced the earlier alliance-led relationship they had enjoyed with Nobunaga. Now Japan had a four-tiered class system that positioned the samurai firmly at the top" (115)

• Hubbard, Ben (2015-10-29). The Samurai Warrior. Amber Books Ltd. ISBN 1-78274-194-1.

As you can see from the above sourced and cited sources, the Oxford Reference and World Dictionary of History definition of what a Samurai was can hardly be factually declared as "blatantly wrong". As an additonal note, you are mistaking what I wrote as my opinion. I was saying that Lockley, in the linked video, is saying that it is safe to infer that Yasuke is a Samurai because no Japanese historians have said that he was not. X0n10ox (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

1) I was not suggesting or proposing any of the sources I used for my argument, they were there to demonstrate I had not gotten my information from OR and for convenience of understanding the argument I was making, I know there are plenty of academic sources out there that would describe exactly what I described but I would not be able to get them all within a timely manner and focused on those I had at hand, as I stated that I would bring this to Talk:Samurai in the future when I can muster time for it, because then I would be proposing reliable, academic sources at that time. I am already well familiar with the topic which is why I made little reliance on secondary sources prior, but even then I wanted to demonstrate that I was not making up what I was saying.

2) You seem to believe that it is necessary for an explicit mention of Yasuke not being stated as a samurai within a reliable secondary source to decide whether it is contentious or not when that is extremely unreasonable to ask for. For one, the topic is contentious, not just by those here but by other scholars such as R.W. Purdy who was already mentioned. But even in the lack of a scholarly contention, it cannot be reasonably asked that it has to be from academia to make it contentious, especially in the case where the main academic sources stating that he is a samurai are using conjecture-based arguments and are insufficiently providing citations and evidence for their claims.

See:

WP:SOURCE ("The work itself...[and] the creator of the work...can affect reliability.") Lockley lacks the reputation especially since this is his first work and that his second book[18] released just two days ago[19];

WP:EXCEPTIONAL ("Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include...Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously [defended.]") Lockley has made it very conflicting when he came out and stated that he cannot say for sure whether Yasuke is a samurai or not in both these clips when he presented it as a certainty in his interview. I do not care if he says "no serious Japanese historian says he was not a Samurai" when he is unable to present himself as serious, this hurts his credibility as an academic source; and

WP:QS ("Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be...relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion.") I saw what you said about Purdy's review of Lockley in Talk:Yasuke#Is_Lockley_WP:QUESTIONABLE?, and I do not know how you got the idea where it was not full of contentions based off of a singular word "seem", when he repeatedly states that there are no direct citations or evidence throughout his review. What he said is as clear as day, that Lockley lacks the citations to back up his claims, so as far as I know that makes Lockley's work questionable. If you got more statements by Purdy that showcases that he doesn't contend against Lockley I would be open to hear them, but that "seem" as a standalone example does not work. He goes on to say this right after that statement:[20]

The lack of citations is not just a question of proof. Citations help the reader know the background of the evidence. Since most of the primary sources are presumably letters by Frois, bibliographic references could explain when and to whom he wrote and whether he was an eye witness, putting these events in better context. Citations also serve as stepping stones for further research. Lockley and Girard have scoured Japanese and Jesuit sources, but, unfortunately, the lack of detailed citations means that much of their effort ends with this volume. Scholars researching related topics such as Oda Nobunaga, Akechi Mitsuhide, or the Jesuit role in the Asian slave trade will not find this work as helpful as it might have been. Perhaps the most important reason for citing, however, is to confirm events and resolve contradictions. Soon after they met, Nobunaga ordered Yasuke to scrub his skin to make sure his black skin was not stained or dyed (149–50). While this may be an imaginable reaction for Nobunaga, it needs confirmation through reliable sources. African Samurai also places Yasuke in the thick of things during the fateful attack at Honno-ji Temple. He not only hands Nobunaga a sword, but, once Nobunaga realizes all is lost, he follows the warlord and the beautiful Mori Ranmaru, Nobunaga’s samurai lover—a relationship presented as fact by the authors and not a romantic speculation—into an inner room where Yasuke assists in their ritual suicides. Other accounts of Nobunaga’s death, however, such as Ota Gyuichi, the Japanese author of the primary source listed in the “Selected Readings” that gives the account of Yasuke’s first arrival in Kyoto, describes Nobunaga committing ritual suicide alone. Yasuke was then returned to the Jesuits and Frois, who may be the source of this version, but there is no citation. Although African Samurai might tell a good story, it needs documentation. (Emphasis mine)

This certainly reads like a contention, so I am unsure how it could be understood otherwise. And also, you're going to have a hard time finding an academic source specifically pertaining to the question of Yasuke being a samurai and stating that he is not, it would be far easier to discuss what constituted a samurai back then to counter this argument. And as I already said, we do not have to explicitly state that Yasuke was not a samurai in the article, we just cannot say that he is, both arguments should be left out as an assertive fact until substantial evidence is provided for either claim, otherwise, present it as a theory.

3) As for the sources provided to support Oxford's definition, let me just say this: I think you are misunderstanding the argument I was making. I never contended that there was no social mobility during the Sengoku period nor prior. What I did contend was that the class simply did not exist, or that there weren't hereditary roles of samurai alongside this period. I have made it absolutely clear that the feudal rules of nobility were followed throughout the entire period with multiple examples, including Hideyoshi. Yes, it allowed peasants like Hideyoshi to rise to the top, but he didn't do it without utilizing marriage, adoption, and imperial proclamations by the Emperor to get to that point. I'm emphasizing the de jure Ritsuryo system that was in place and preserved in structure for centuries even when it couldn't be fully enforced, which I feel often gets ignored. There were hereditary lineages during this period, and there were outsiders who rose through their efforts in the period as reward; but they still had to go through the de jure classifications to do that; marriage, adoption, and imperial proclamation are the main ways to go about that. This would of course end with the Tokugawa who limited it to hereditary and shogunal proclamation/decree and established their own rules (See William Adams (pilot), and I may have been wrong earlier about William Adams since hatamoto were considered to have samurai status (and therefore could have an audience with the shogun), as being distinct from gokenin who were considered kachi, but that is a completely different discussion for another day, I rather not make a definite claim right now).

I do not think any of your listed sources necessarily conflict with my arguments, in fact they prove my point, with Ben Hubbard even stating that "Hideyoshi did not have the royal lineage to become Shōgun," however one thing that needs to be mentioned, he did have the royal lineage to become Kampaku through his adoption by Konoe Sakihisa (I already stated and cited this in my _dk post). Although I am unsure if he must have Minamoto lineage to become Shogun - when the Fujiwara had way more privileges overall - all 3 shogunates were dominated by the Minamoto, with the Fujiwara dominating the Imperial Court, so I cannot really argue against that part without further research on my part.

Also I must say in regards to the Separation Edict, it would not be completely be correct to say that it stopped all social mobility, which I already explained was supported by Shosaku Takagi (Shosaku Takagi, 日本近世国家史の硏究 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1990)), that it only truly limited peasants, but not necessarily warriors deserting from the Korean invasion effort. So it would be fair to say it truly started with the Edo period when it was codified.

Overall, it does not support Oxford's definition that a samurai social class did not exist prior to Hideyoshi, so of course it is blatantly wrong and I stand by that.

And 4) I want to apologize for assuming that you were inferring that Yasuke was a samurai, that was a misunderstanding on my part, but the argument I was originally making still stands. If you aren't making any claims, then I won't be directing it towards you, but rather the claims being made by Lockley and other related academic sources. Hexenakte (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"You seem to believe that it is necessary for an explicit mention of Yasuke not being stated as a samurai within a reliable secondary source to decide whether it is contentious or not when that is extremely unreasonable to ask for"

It's not my belief, it's essentially one of the only non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia, you're new here though, so I understand if things seem really weird with the way Wikipedia works. Moving on to the rest of your points:

R.W. Purdy's critique of a single Lockley book for not using in-text citations is not tantamount to making the entire concept that Yasuke was a samurai a contentious one. Least of all when there are two other reviews that praise Lockley's book, with one of those reviews being by a historian who explicitly praises Lockley's book as being well-researched and fact-checked.

In regard to "the case where the main academic sources stating that he is a samurai are using conjecture-based arguments and are insufficiently providing citations and evidence for their claims", that isn't even the case anymore. You're still arguing with the Lockley and nothing else. If anyone can rightly be described as "the main academic source" stating he's a Samurai anymore, it's Jonathan Lopez-Vera. Lopez-Vera's dissertation "Toyotomi Hideyoshi y Europa" was published by a University Press, overseen by a scholarly editorial board, and was published with no problem with him noting that Yasuke was a Samurai. Lopez-Vera's other book, Historia de los samuráis likewise clears the bar for Wikipedia's requirements for reliable scholarship and it was first published in 2016, which pre-dates or occurs simultaneously with Lockley's own research.

That makes two scholars at a relatively similar time, neither of which cites the other, coming to the same conclusion about Yasuke, both of whom succeed in getting published.

On to your claims about Lockley:

You write, "WP:SOURCE ("The work itself...[and] the creator of the work...can affect reliability.") Lockley lacks the reputation especially since this is his first work and that his second book[46] released just two days ago[47];"

The amount of books a creator has published is not a valid indication of the reliability of him as a source, many academics publish in scholarly journals, for instance. Furthermore, you miss the section below what you are citing that says:

"If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:

• University-level textbooks
• Books published by respected publishing houses"

At last check, Harper Collins was still a respected publishing house. Hannover Square Press is an imprint of Harper Collins.

As for the amount of books Lockley has published, the complete list is:

• A Gentleman from Japan: The Untold Story of an Incredible Journey from Asia to Queen Elizabeth’s Court Hardcover – May 21, 2024
• The Women Who Built Japanese History 東京書籍, Mar 30, 2022
• Japanese Culture and History Tokyo Shoseki, Aug 1, 2019
• 英語で読む外国人がほんとうに知りたい日本文化と歴史 東京書籍, Jul 24, 2019 (ISBN: 4487812887)
• African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan Hanover Square Press (Harper Collins), May 2, 2019 (ISBN: 9781335141026)
• 信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍 ロックリー トーマス (Original Author(s): ロックリー トーマス) 太田出版, Jan 25, 2017 (ISBN: 9784778315566)

It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to cast aspersions on the authors of reliable sources. As for Lockley's Reputation, I reiterate from a prior comment I made Lockley's book has been at multiple academic talks and is in Academic Libraries and in professional development reading groups, some of which are at highly reputable and respectable institutions such as Berkley. Lockley's book was reviewed by John Rodzvilla of Emerson College in "Library Journal. Mar 2019, Vol. 144 Issue 2, p128-128", with Rodzvilla writing:

"Lockley (Nihon Univ., Sch. of Law, Tokyo) and Girard (Cain’s Blood) use primary sources to piece together Yasuke’s immersion into Japanese culture with a novelistic history that takes place at the height of one of Japan’s most important cultural and political moments. While the authors may take some liberties with Yasuke’s narrative, they do so with attention to their source material and the culture of the time. The story involves several figures alongside Yasuke, including samurai, ninjas, and Catholic missionaries. VERDICT With fast-paced, action-packed writing, Lockley and Girard offer a new and important biography and an incredibly moving study of medieval Japan and solid perspective on its unification. Highly recommended"

And again, in "Library Journal. Winter 2019, Vol. 144 Issue 12, p80-80" as an "Essential Title in Social Studies".

"WP:EXCEPTIONAL ("Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include...Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously [defended.]") Lockley has made it very conflicting when he came out and stated that he cannot say for sure whether Yasuke is a samurai or not in both these clips when he presented it as a certainty in his interview."

The claim isn't exceptional, though, is it? Lockley's instagram video is not really conflicting. His statement was, "[w]as he a samurai? What was a samurai at this period? We cannot say, and therefor, it is very difficult to say whether he was a samurai or not because nobody was a samurai or not at the time. The caste and the code of samurai was only really dealt with 10-20 years later with Hideyoshi and then Ieyasu, Tokugawa Ieyasu, who came after Nobunaga. A lot of people would have been classed as samurai, or said they were samurai in Yasuke's time, there's no reason to say we can't say that either. Was he a samurai? We can't say. But, pretty much, he probably was called a samurai by the people of his time. And this is the biggest thing, no Japanese historian has ever said he is not a samurai, no serious historian has ever said that. If it's good enough for the Japanese historians, it's good enough for me."

His statement is not really specific to Yasuke. His statement of "We can't say" is generalized from the beginning because defining what was a samurai in the Sengoku Jidai is extremely difficult due to the complete breakdown of social order during what was effectively a hundred years of civil war. Per this source used on the samurai page of Wikpedia, the Sengoku Jidai caused a breakdown of what a "samurai" was and it became interchangeable with bushi.

The second instagram video, Lockley says "we can say Yasuke was a warrior and he fought with Nobunaga, it's documented" and "He didn't just do things, he became close to some of the most important people in the land. He's the only African that we have documents from to prove that he became a member of the higher echeleon of Japanese society"

None of that dismisses or walks back from his claim about Yasuke being a samurai, rather, Lockley is elaborating on his rationale for why he believes Yasuke is a samurai. Because things are muddled, and because no historians have said that Yasuke wasn't a samurai, because there are sources that call him a retainer, because there are sources speculating Nobunaga would make him a "tono", and because Yasuke was afforded privileges that were usually reserved for a samurai, Lockley's research has lead him to say that Yasuke was a samurai. It's the same as Lopez-Vera reading the primary sources, seeing what is established, and saying that Yasuke was a samurai. You do not need to point to a specific exact mention in a historical document that explicitly says "Yasuke, the African Samurai" to be able to look at the available evidence and reach a conclusion. It is then up to academics to refute the claim of Yasuke being a Samurai, or contest it, if they so choose. It is not up to editors on a wikipedia talk page. If there are no sources contending the claim that Yasuke is a samurai after literal decades of things saying Yasuke is a samurai, it's probably a safe bet that it isn't a hotly debated or contentious claim.

The Lopez-Vera History of the Samurai which states Yasuke is a samurai, meanwhile, has been cited 20 times in its original spanish and 3 times in English, it calls Yasuke a Samurai.

Just some varied sources, all of which have content that says that Yasuke was a Samurai (I am not going to re-argue and elaborate each source again), in no order of signifiance and resources simply demonstrating that the claim that Yasuke is a Samurai is far from "Exceptional" (Not all of the sources are reliable, nor am I trying to contend that they are liable, I am making a point to how widespread the claim is) :

[21] [22][23] [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]

There are 37 different sources that I was able to located before I got bored of looking through them which indicate Yasuke was a Samurai or say Yasuke was a samurai in some capacity. Per Wikipedia:Exceptional, this certainly doesn't seem to meet the criteria of "important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources".

This webpage that accompanies the academically published book A History of Popular Culture in Japan, From the Seventeenth Century to the Present calls Yasuke a samurai.

This documentary which has highly reputable historian Hiraku Kaneko as consultant is about Yasuke being a samurai, also. I kind of feel like a very reputable scholar of Japanese history such as Hiraku Kaneko would have, I don't know, published something if he believed calling Yasuke a samurai was incorrect. Instead he's the consultant on an entire documentary about the subject.

The criteria for exceptional lists:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources

The claim is, quite obviously, covered by multiple mainstream sources.

• Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest

There are no self-published sources involved, and the only ones making claims based "purely" by primary sources are, well, the people arguing against Yasuke being a samurai.

• Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended

Doesn't even come close to applicable.

• Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

The claim that Yasuke is a samurai does not contradict the prevailing view within the relevant community nor does it significantly alter mainstream assumptions. If it contradicted the "prevailing view", you would be able to produce reliable sources that show this. Some authors only describing Yasuke as a retainer, and some authors describing Yasuke as a samurai does not contradict each other, because samurai are retainers. Scholars examining primary sources are allowed to make inferences based on their interpertation of the sources, our task is to document what is published in reliable sources, not to try and interpert the primary sources ourselves.

Regarding your claim "WP:QS ("Such sources include websites and publications expressing views widely considered by other sources to be...relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion.")"

The key note here is "widely considered by other sources"

Even if we take the position that Purdy is being severely critical of Lockley's book, Purdy is one source. Furthermore, Purdy's entire line of criticism is stipulated with the preface that it is unfair. Purdy's criticism regarding the in-text citation is, as he confesses, unfair for a book of popular history, because books of popular history usually do not include in-text citations. In the end, he still recommends the book for its intended audience. Academics are not the target audience of the book, and the majority of Purdy's criticism regarding citations is about how much more useful it would be to scholars and academics if there were citations. Being a book of popular history does not exclude it from being a reliable source.

There is another review of the Lockley in Booklist. 3/1/2019, Vol. 115 Issue 13, p18-18, by James Pekoll who holds an MA degree in History, which states:

"The authors also discuss how this was the age of exploration, in which European traders and missionaries sailed far and wide in search of markets and souls, and Japan provided both. Lockley and Girard deftly survey the cultural and geopolitical aspects of feudal Japan, providing historic facts underlying the popular fictional accounts of this age in everything from comic books to computer games. The authors make excellent use of primary sources, creating an engaging narrative, and use reasoned speculation when discussing Yasuke's later years after those sources end. This fact-checked portrait of a mythologized warrior often featured in manga and anime is an exciting and illuminating tale of action and intrigue"

Well, "What he said is as clear as day" is obviously up for contention because the operative word "seem" would not be present in the text if Purdy were outright saying that Lockley made everything up. Purdy's entire review is 1,445 words long. His criticism regarding in-text citations which is more a note on how helpful in-text citations are is approximately 474 words long. Approximately 32% of the review talks about citations, in a section which Purdy explicitly states is both unfair and not a question of the veracity of the scholarship. That is hardly the damning indictment you are making it out to be. Stating that "citations helps scholars research more" and that "citations helps separate reality from narrative" and that "citations help prove facts" cannot at all be reasonably constructed to mean that Purdy contends with the issue of depicting Yasuke as a samurai. Least of all when it is prefaced with the fact that the criticism is unfair and that it "is not necessarily a question a[sic] veracity of the scholarship".

Veracity, "conformity to facts; accuracy."

"you're going to have a hard time finding an academic source specifically pertaining to the question of Yasuke being a samurai and stating that he is not, it would be far easier to discuss what constituted a samurai back then to counter this argument"

That isn't how Wikipedia works, that's the problem. You cannot represent a claim on Wikipedia that is not substantiated by reliable sources. The primary sources do not say that Yasuke was a samurai, they do not say he was not a samurai. We are not allowed to conduct original research in a desperate attempt to argue with the scholarship. The mission of a Wikipedia editor is not to argue with or disprove claims made by secondary sources. If you are approaching this with the mindset that Yasuke absolutely isn't a samurai, and that you need to disprove that, I invite you to invest your time into research and get yourself academically published, because Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Please see Wikipedia:5P2, "we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia."

There are no reliable sources being furnished to contend that Yasuke is not a samurai, (Personal attack removed)

"And as I already said, we do not have to explicitly state that Yasuke was not a samurai in the article, we just cannot say that he is"

No, we, the editors, cannot say he is. The reliable sources say he is. A concept that has been explained multiple times on this talk page alone and one which is still apparently being argued about. Per Wikipedia:NPOV, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight" (emphasis mine)

The problem with the statement "Overall, it does not support Oxford's definition that a samurai social class did not exist prior to Hideyoshi, so of course it is blatantly wrong and I stand by that" is that there wasn't a separate, codified samurai social class prior to Hideyoshi. Under Ritsuryō there was no specific class that consisted only of hereditary military families. Yes, there were noble families that would become codified as samurai, but under Ritsuryō they were still just classified as government officials. Following Hideyoshi and Tokugawa's reforms modeled off of the four occupations in China, the Samurai came to represent a rigid class synonymous with the Chinese "Shi", or military class. . As for the Shosaku Takagi, his view is already represented as a theory on Wikipedia. But this isn't the place to get into a debate about the theory of Shosaku Takagi. Fair points on the Korean invasion, that said, the definition given by Oxford says "they were not a separate class until Hideyoshi limited the right to bear arms to them". If it only applied to peasants, and not soldiers deserting the invasion, that doesn't entirely change the fact that the class of people who were allowed to carry weapons as a professional military caste didn't become hereditary until Hideyoshi cracked down on the peasants and stopped them from being able to bear arms or engage in upward mobility.

No hard feelings on the case of mistaken identity. That said, as editors, it is not strictly in our purview to argue with reliable sources, either. X0n10ox (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"The Lopez-Vera History of the Samurai which states Yasuke is a samurai, meanwhile, has been cited 20 times in its original spanish and 3 times in English, it calls Yasuke a Samurai."

It appears that Yasuke is not mentioned very much in the book; if Google Books search is anything to go by, there might only be two instances of his name in the entire work. As such, I must ask: How many of these 20+ citations have anything to do with Yasuke? Searching the page of hits for the citations finds zero instances of the name "Yasuke".

"There are 37 different sources that I was able to located before I got bored of looking through them which indicate Yasuke was a Samurai or say Yasuke was a samurai in some capacity."

A lot of those are not worth much as any kind of reference for our purposes: https://www.gq.com.au/entertainment/film-tv/lakeith-stanfield-and-flying-lotus-are-teaming-up-on-an-anime-for-netflix/news-story/e21224cf12444d2c834ef4c13d1d6766 makes it clear right in the URL that this is hardly an academic source. Many of the others are also about movies, anime, and other media, and are clearly commercial / pop-culture publications. Simply the number of sites online stating that Yasuke was a samurai is not a useful metric. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, as I stated when I listed the sources. It isn't a matter of whether they're reliable, it was intended to show that calling Yasuke a samurai has mainstream coverage. When the contention is that saying Yasuke is a samurai is an 'exceptional claim' when one of the criteria for an 'exceptional claim' is that the statements goes against the mainstream, yes, the number of "clearly commercial / pop-culture publications" stating he is a samurai is an important metric. If I say "the sky is pink and the grass is purple", that is an exceptional claim that is not covered by mainstream coverage. X0n10ox (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

As a disclaimer I will be repeating some things so it is under the assumption that it is cited by my previous posts to save time.

When I said, "you're going to have a hard time finding an academic source specifically pertaining to the question of Yasuke being a samurai and stating that he is not, it would be far easier to discuss what constituted a samurai back then to counter this argument", it was obviously under the assumption that I was talking about pertaining specifically to academic sources, not original research, I thought we had been past this part. But it's an extremely valid point to make when Yasuke's impact, notability, and visible lack of records show that it is very difficult to write an entire paper on the subject of Yasuke without employing a lot of creative liberties as Lockley had done, and it wouldn't be very academic as a result of it. That's why I suggested we move towards the contending of a definition of a samurai pertaining to the Sengoku period specifically by an academic source in order to settle this matter, because there are very often not many exceptions if there are any (I certainly could not think of any, even the examples of the Kuroda clan, Konishi Yukinaga, etc did not act as exceptions).

The reason for using Purdy in the first place is because of the extremely unreasonable demand that something must be written specifically about the individual Yasuke, which I have provided, and we cannot ignore Kaneko's review of Lockley's book who contended the same issues, regardless of how they feel about its veracity, it's an issue that cannot be omitted; if anything, it's extremely dishonest. As I already stated, you are not going to have anyone not already in support of the idea of Yasuke being a samurai to write an entire research paper acting on that single negative claim or alongside related claims, with how little impact he had in the period, in many cases hes just not mentioned at all. This does not mean that Yasuke has absolutely no contentions just because no academic source wrote about it, in fact it's only been 5 years since Lockley released that book and only in the past few years has it gotten in the mainstream eye compared to the last decade, so to say it was an accepted fact for decades when it was straight up not mentioned in many historical academic sources prior to Lockley or Lopez-Vera and the fact that very few people knew of his existence until recent years (including myself), is wrong.

I will admit, the uproar about Yasuke in Ubisoft's game did encourage me to research more about the topic of samurai status. I had already known previously that it had to do with nobility and its ties to the Gen-pei-to-kitsu clans, examples such as Toyotomi Hideyoshi rising from peasant to samurai status this way and as well as their ability and recognition of the Imperial Court in Kyoto, but as to say the specific court ranks and privileges given, the nuances all in between, it was certainly a learning experience. That being said, to claim that I am employing a No True Scotsman argument to redefine what a samurai is just to exclude Yasuke is not only insulting but also shows you haven't really paid attention to the bulk of my arguments. I had held the view very publicly that even figures like William Adams would not fit this definition (but like I said earlier I may have been wrong since that was under the Edo period which had a different way of handling it, and this is admitting fault on my part if so), I was not singling out Yasuke, I was putting it in regards to the status of all claimed foreign samurai. To talk about other foreign samurai is another discussion to be had, but here we are talking about Yasuke since this article pertains specifically to him. If I have made any changes in definition, it would be with an apology admitting my fault, I am not ashamed in being proven wrong.

And yes, I am still contending that Oxford is wrong in their definition of the samurai class, just because it switched from the Ritsuryo system to an Edo codified system which made the lines more distinct does not mean the class did not previously exist. I have made this abundantly clear, the court ranks from the Ritsuryo system was a way to measure a samurai's nobility status, regardless of what the actual role, job, or title is, it is where they were placed. Social mobility has no bearing on this system, it does not change the fact that the de jure system was preserved in spite of all of this prior to the Edo period. And again, this existed before Hideyoshi, he had to go through this system to reach his title of Kampaku, as that position was monopolized by Fujiwara kuge families. He also had Minamoto ties from his wife, Fujiwara ties from his adoption by Konoe Sakihisa and (arguably based off of his initial surname Hashiba from the Oda clan and his writing "TAIRA no Hideyoshi") Taira ties, but the Taira part is OR so we will not count that. He could've gone Shogun arguably because of his Minamoto ties, but he didn't because Shogun was considered lower than Kampaku, the idea of the Shogun being the most important seat only really started with the Tokugawa by mandating all those who want to meet with the Imperial Court have to go to the Shogun first for permission. You still had to go through these hoops if you wanted to make your way to the top, and as I said, there are practically no exceptions to this, if any. And as I already stated, when I get the time to muster for it, I will be bringing this to Talk:Samurai with plenty of academic sources to contend for this argument because I know for a fact they exist and I've read quite a few on my own in the past, so you will not find me budging on this.

If the entire purpose of Wikipedia is to accept sources at face value of how many times its been cited or how many awards its been given, then why even add that in WP:SOURCE "the work itself...can affect reliability"? Is it impossible to impose reasonable judgement on these academic sources that have very clear faults in them, which you yourself have acknowledged? Is anyone who has a vested interest in the accuracy of a historical period completely worthless in input unless they have been endorsed and sanctioned by a institution, which may or may not have potential flaws or biases? Many things get peer-reviewed and accepted without argument or controversy, that doesn't make them free from (glaring especially in this case) mistakes or fabrications. I've even proposed to keep Lockley's work in as a theory so that his contentions are still preserved in the article, but an outright assertion as a matter of fact? I cannot support that, and I'm sorry for that. Hexenakte (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

"Is anyone who has a vested interest in the accuracy of a historical period completely worthless in input unless they have been endorsed and sanctioned by a institution, which may or may not have potential flaws or biases"

Is the person completely worthless? No. Is their opinion inadmissible on Wikipedia? Yes.

Wikipedia:Truth, not verifiability

The de facto primary criterion for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia is truth, not verifiability, i.e. whether reliable sources state it to be true; not whether individual editors think they can verify it themselves.

You may have noticed that the de jure primary criterion, as stated on Wikipedia:Verifiability, basically puts this the other way round as verifiability, not truth: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".

It does not really matter. The distinction being made here is not really between truth and verifiability at all, but between the statements made by reliable sources (which we want to include in the encyclopedia), and the unsupported claims of Wikipedia editors (which we don't).

It's not quite as simple as that, of course, but once you know that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, not its editors' private thoughts and unsourceable personal knowledge, most of the rest is more or less common sense.

My comment on "No True Scotsman" is not directed at you directly, but a reference to many editors who are vying for a "pure" and rigid definition of samurai. Saying "Yasuke is not a samurai" and then being handed sources that say Yasuke is a samurai and responding "Yasuke is not a true samurai" is an appeal to purity, AKA, "No True Scotsman".

Regardless, this isn't the place to debate the definition of samurai or the caste system. We are talking in circles here, and while you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to have them represented on a Wikipedia article. The basis for dismissing sources and claims cannot be "my reading of the primary source" or "a very specific interpertation of what a samurai is".

Factually, there are reliable sources which claim Yasuke is a samurai.

Factually, there have been no reliable sources provided which contend that claim.

That is the full extent of what we are capable of saying, and as the mission of Wikipedia is to represent and summarize what the reliable sources say. It is not an extremely unreasonable demand to require a source explicitly contend the idea that Yasuke was a samurai when there have been decades of references calling him a samurai. If you feel so strongly, and you have conducted research, I once again encourage you to compile your research and interpertations into a text, and start submitting it for publication. Even if there are no reliable sources presently to be found saying Yasuke isn't a samurai doesn't mean you cannot be the first to make the argument.

That isn't sarcasm, in case you are taking it that way. If you have done as much research as thoroughly as you say you have and you feel you can make a compelling argument to refute that Yasuke was a samurai, it is something which you can pursue for publishing. It is not, however, something we can represent on Wikipedia.

As for whatever argument you want to take to the Samurai page, go for it? Why would I try and stop you, I told you to do it awhile back, haha.

Cheers, and apologies if you felt the No True Scotsman comment was an insult directed specifically toward you. I'll strike it out. X0n10ox (talk) 03:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"Factually, there are reliable sources which claim Yasuke is a samurai. Factually, there have been no reliable sources provided which contend that claim."

Sure, they claim Yasuke is a samurai, but according to their definition? This is the issue at hand that would have been solved if we settle this discussion.

According to Lockley, from a more summarized but apparently more academic version (from what I can tell) of the African Samurai book on Chapter 13:[58]

In Yasuke’s time, the word samurai simply described a profession: warrior (albeit a very specialized one). Shortly afterward, it became a caste name. At the end of The Age of the Country at War, around the end of the sixteenth century, most of those who’d fought on the samurai side in the civil wars, even some of the peasants, pirates and ninja, were classified as “samurai” in a formalized caste structure with the samurai at the top—a hereditary warrior/administrator/ruling class. The caste ranking continued with peasants, artisans and merchants, who took the lowest status (because they lived off everybody else’s hard work). Outside of the scope of the caste system were eta, impure people who dealt with death, and hinin, nonpersons such as ex-convicts and vagrants who worked as town guards, street cleaners or entertainers. Legally speaking, an eta was worth oneseventh of a human being. The Age of the Country at War had been probably the most socially fluid period since the eighth century. Able men and women, like Yasuke, were able to rise through the ranks due to the chaos. No more. From this time until their caste was abolished by law in 1873, the samurai were forbidden (in most of the country) to farm or engage in mercantile activity and had to live in castle towns rather than country villages. This was the time when the word samurai takes on its modern meaning of a warrior caste rather than actual warrior role.

This is a lot to take in, so we will break it down into parts. The main criticism I have here just at face value is that there is zero in-line citations so I have to go through each and every source he listed in the bibliography on the next page, it's very lackluster to say the least. In the first sentence, he states this:

In Yasuke’s time, the word samurai simply described a profession: warrior (albeit a very specialized one). Shortly afterward, it became a caste name.

So here he is contending that a samurai only became a caste after Yasuke's time, assuming he means the Edo period. However, he then goes to state this:

The Age of the Country at War had been probably the most socially fluid period since the eighth century.

So, was there a caste then? "Since the eighth century" is a pretty large gap, which he's implying that there was already a structure in place before the Sengoku period. But let's not get ahead of ourselves, let's keep reading.

At the end of The Age of the Country at War, around the end of the sixteenth century, most of those who’d fought on the samurai side in the civil wars, even some of the peasants, pirates and ninja, were classified as “samurai” in a formalized caste structure with the samurai at the top—a hereditary warrior/administrator/ruling class.

Already here I see an issue, namedropping "ninja", and I know exactly where he got this claim from, Stephen Turnbull. I already spoke about Turnbull earlier, so it should be no surprise that he would use outdated claims for his research. Checking the bibliography on the next page, I see he cited 4 Turnbull books. Let's continue reading:

The caste ranking continued with peasants, artisans and merchants, who took the lowest status (because they lived off everybody else’s hard work). Outside of the scope of the caste system were eta, impure people who dealt with death, and hinin, nonpersons such as ex-convicts and vagrants who worked as town guards, street cleaners or entertainers. Legally speaking, an eta was worth oneseventh of a human being.

This one isn't really wrong, but I find the commentary piece in the parenthesis very odd and opinionated, it doesn't seem very relevant to the paper.

The Age of the Country at War had been probably the most socially fluid period since the eighth century. Able men and women, like Yasuke, were able to rise through the ranks due to the chaos.

Again, not necessarily wrong, this is technically a true statement. In many cases, warriors were able to become samurai due to their performance and skill in martial arts and warfare, such as Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Whether that includes Yasuke? That's another thing to discuss.

No more. From this time until their caste was abolished by law in 1873, the samurai were forbidden (in most of the country) to farm or engage in mercantile activity and had to live in castle towns rather than country villages. This was the time when the word samurai takes on its modern meaning of a warrior caste rather than actual warrior role.

So here, Lockley is contending that samurai refers to the warrior caste in its modern use of the term, and not the established modern usage of samurai and bushi that we know to be professional warriors. So already we're at a crossroads because this is a direct contradiction from what was already established, so it is clear that Lockley is using a completely different definition of the word as he seems to have gotten them reversed.

This is what the discussion should've been about, if his definition of samurai matches what was historically recognized and had an overall consensus with historians who also contend the definition of samurai. Let's look at his bibliography:

• Berry, Mary Elizabeth. The Culture of Civil War in Kyoto. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994.
• Brown, Delmer M. “The Impact of Firearms on Japanese Warfare, 1543—98.’’ The Far Eastern Quarterly, no. 7, 3 (1948): 236—253.
• Cooper, Michael. They Came to Japan: An Anthology of European Reports on Japan, 1543—1640. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1965.
• Farris, William Wayne. Japan to 1600: A Social anti Economic History. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 2009.
• Jansen, Marius. The Making of Modern Japan. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2000.
• Kim, Young Gwan and Hahn, Sook Ja. “Homosexuality in ancient and modern Korea.” Culture, Health & Sexuality, no. 8, 1 (2006): 59-65.
• Kure, Mitsuo. Samurai Anns, Armor, Costume. Edison, NJ: Chartwell Books, 2007.
• Morillo, Stephen. “Guns and Government: A Comparative Study ofEurope and Japan.” Journal of World History, no. 6, 1 (1995): 75-106.
• Ota, Gyuichi (J. S. A. Elisonas &J. P. Laniers, Trs. and Eds.). The Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga. Leiden, NL: Brill, 2011.
• Screech, Timon. “The Black in Japanese Art: From the beginnings to 1850.” In The Image of the Black in African and Asian Art, edited by David Bindman and Suzanne Preston Blier, 325—340. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017.
• Shapinsky, Peter. Lords of the Sea: Pirates, Violence, and Commerce in Late Medieval Japan. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2014.
• Society of Jesus. Cartas que os padres e irmdos da Companhia de Jesus escreverao dos reynos de Japao e China II (Letters written by the fathers and brothers of the Society of Jesus from the kingdoms of Japan and China—Volume II). Evora, Portugal: Manoel de Lyra, 1598.
• Tsang, Carol Richmond. War and Faith: Ikko Ikki in Late Muromachi Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
• Turnbull, Stephen. The Samurai: A Military History. London: Routledge, 1977.
• Turnbull, Stephen. The Samurai Sourcebook. London: Cassell, 2000.
• Turnbull, Stephen. Samurai Women 1184-1877. Oxford: Osprey, 2010.
• Turnbull, Stephen. Ninja: Unmasking the Myth. Barnsley: Frontline Books, 2017.

If we exclude Ota Gyuichi (primary source) and Mitsuo Kure (published under an American publisher) on this list, there is not a single source cited that was written in Japanese or from a Japanese native. I am well aware that this is an unfair assessment of these sources, but it puts into perspective how a lot could go wrong if there is little to no consultation to Japanese sources, which I would believe Lockley knows how to speak Japanese considering he is an associate professor at the Nihon University College of Law in Tokyo. Especially on what seems to be almost entirely reliant on Stephen Turnbull, who I had mentioned has a lot of problems with his research and claims.

I list these sources so that you could look at them, I do want to have these sources cleared of any potential issues considering that Lockley neglected to cite pages or sections from these sources, so it makes for a very difficult case to confirm if this information is correct or not. Very unprofessional to say the least.

So is it unreasonable to say that, because of the limitations of his research, that his definition of samurai is not necessarily correct? He makes no mention of the role of nobility or titles or the Imperial Court, which I had contended was absolutely necessary if one wished to rise in the social hierarchy just like those such as Toyotomi Hideyoshi had to do. Even ignoring this, his definition seems to contradict what is the common understanding and consensus on what a samurai is, reversing the modern and historical definitions of the term.

"Is the person completely worthless? No. Is their opinion inadmissible on Wikipedia? Yes."

I am not making an opinion here, I am using factual statements and have supported my claims with secondary sources. I have already stated that I will make an effort to make the definition of a samurai more clear with the support of academic sources in the near future.

"It does not really matter. The distinction being made here is not really between truth and verifiability at all, but between the statements made by reliable sources (which we want to include in the encyclopedia), and the unsupported claims of Wikipedia editors (which we don't)."

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the claims I'm making are unsupported, the problem here is you are fixated on sources contending Yasuke, the individual, was or was not a samurai. This is not helpful at all if you do not consider their definitions, the definition of the word samurai is what determines who and who isn't a samurai, no matter what the researcher claims. If their definition of the word is insufficient or does not match historical consensus, then why are we to take their word for it? The problem here is that not only can we not verify if Yasuke was a samurai, but we cannot even verify where Lockley got this information from, he doesn't even cite anything but he pastes the entire books expecting us to flip through each one and just hope he meant it in one certain way? That is not academically admissible from my experience as a researcher.

"It's not quite as simple as that, of course, but once you know that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, not its editors' private thoughts and unsourceable personal knowledge, most of the rest is more or less common sense."

I agree, it is not as simple, the fixation on the specific claim that the individual Yasuke is or is not a samurai is a narrow-minded way of going about this issue when you do not consider the definition.

"My comment on "No True Scotsman" is not directed at you directly, but a reference to many editors who are vying for a "pure" and rigid definition of samurai. Saying "Yasuke is not a samurai" and then being handed sources that say Yasuke is a samurai and responding "Yasuke is not a true samurai" is an appeal to purity, AKA, "No True Scotsman"."

Maybe we should have a constructive conversation on what makes a samurai then? This would solve the dispute at hand quite considerably. If there is no established definition of a samurai during a certain period, there is of course going to be nonstop arguments about the semantics at hand. This is entirely a semantical issue and this would be solved if there was an effort to appropriately define the term. Otherwise, what is stopping anyone from redefining any term if it is not held with scrutiny?

"Regardless, this isn't the place to debate the definition of samurai or the caste system. We are talking in circles here, and while you are entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to have them represented on a Wikipedia article. The basis for dismissing sources and claims cannot be "my reading of the primary source" or "a very specific interpertation of what a samurai is"."

Once again, I agree that my personal opinion is not admissible to be portrayed in a Wikipedia article. This is not what I am advocating for. These are not my personal interpretations, but they are backed by reliable secondary sources. The time to getting academic sources takes a long time if that is assuming I have access to them, which in many cases they are not, so that effort will take a while if we're talking purely academic sources.

"It is not an extremely unreasonable demand to require a source explicitly contend the idea that Yasuke was a samurai when there have been decades of references calling him a samurai."

It is, actually, when you do not consider the definition that these sources are using. At least with figures such as Toyotomi Hideyoshi there is enough information to write an entire book off of him, but Yasuke? Please be reasonable, there are only sentences worth of his mention in primary sources, that is not enough information to write an entire book, let alone 480 pages, unless you plan on making up a lot of stuff in the process.

And I do not know where you got the idea where he was an established samurai for decades, as far as I am concerned and know the claims were only really backed by academic sources in the past decade or so, I cannot find any prior mention of Yasuke being a samurai in say, the 80s or 90s. If you can find them you are welcome to present them.

"If you feel so strongly, and you have conducted research, I once again encourage you to compile your research and interpertations into a text, and start submitting it for publication. Even if there are no reliable sources presently to be found saying Yasuke isn't a samurai doesn't mean you cannot be the first to make the argument."

As much as I was actually considering this - and perhaps I may actually do this in the future - it is not helpful to the discussion at hand. It is, once again, very difficult to write an entire book or paper on this individual whom we know almost nothing about, unless you plan on employing creative liberty and made up events. This is why I stated repeatedly that the only people willing to take on this goal is those who are certainly convinced that Yasuke is a samurai, those who make negative claims in this situation would be more wise to delve their focus towards the entire social structure overall rather than this one individual, because there is way more to go by and that is actually what determines if someone is a samurai, not someone's personal feelings or opinions or what they think is a samurai from prior experiences without actually considering the definition.

This is why I keep saying this over and over, you can claim that Thomas Dewey was actually the president and not Harry Truman because a newspaper stated it, (and if no academic source contends this claim it must be the correct one, right?). You can claim that Emperor Norton was the first American Emperor. You can claim that Oda Nobunaga was actually shogun because he conquered Kyoto, even though he was never given the title nor did he seek it at the time (and this is a common misconception that I see among those who are new to Japanese History, because of what they think a shogun is). You can make these claims, but you need to back them up with evidence and with an established definition, which Lockley did neither. He settled on practically the worst definition you could think of, literally swapping the modern and historical definitions of the word, which no one but him has stated.

You are absolutely correct, this is not simple, this is something that must be given more scrutiny and not by simple claims, otherwise this discussion will never end. This will continue to be a problem if people do not think about the words they are actually using, even when both of us are gone, unless that stops now.

"That isn't sarcasm, in case you are taking it that way. If you have done as much research as thoroughly as you say you have and you feel you can make a compelling argument to refute that Yasuke was a samurai, it is something which you can pursue for publishing. It is not, however, something we can represent on Wikipedia."

Like I said, perhaps I will, but I do not think it will solve the matter at hand. It would still be that, a contention, with seemingly no agreement on the definition. This isn't helpful to anyone here.

"Cheers, and apologies if you felt the No True Scotsman comment was an insult directed specifically toward you. I'll strike it out."

I appreciate the apology and I forgive you. In all seriousness, I don't want this issue to fall on deaf ears, it needs to be addressed whether sooner or later. Hexenakte (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Another reaction from Lockley in this article from The Japan Times. (Update: Contrary to what the article says, the Japanese historian Sakujin Kirino did not fact-check his book) Thibaut (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) edited on 14:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat sloppy reporting -- it isn't clear in some cases whether the reporting is of Lockley's words, or the reporter's own opinions. This statement in particular is troubling:

• "he [Yasuke] was addressed as “tono” (literally, “lord” or “master”)"

I haven't seen anything making this claim outside of this article. There's the October 1581 letter by Lourenço Mexia that mentions "tono" with regard to Yasuke, which I excerpted and provided a translation for in the Talk:Yasuke#The_Tono_Notation section. That letter makes it clear that the tono bit was gossip around town, local people speculating on what Nobunaga might do with Yasuke. I haven't read anyone else claiming that Yasuke was addressed as tono. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The claims that Lockley also makes in regards to the statement that, "there’s no piece of paper that says anybody else was a samurai," is verifiably incorrect. From below is from the Shincho-koki, and is just one of many examples of named individuals as samurai (侍):

Source text:[59]

一深田口之事三十町計ふみ出し三本木の町を相拘られ候要害無之所候之間即時に被追崩　伊東弥三郎小坂井久蔵初として究竟の侍三十余人討死依之深田の城松葉の城両城へ御人数被寄候降参申相渡清洲へ一手につほみ候　上総介信長是より清洲を推詰田畠薙せられ御取合初る也

Academic translation from J.S.A Elisonas and J.P Lamers:[60]

The unit advancing along the Fukata approach moved forward about thirty chō and took possession of the township of Sanbongi. As this place had no defensive works, the enemy was driven out instantly, leaving behind more than thirty dead - men such as Itō Yasaburō and Kozakai Kyūzō, all of them accomplished samurai. Consequently, Nobunaga directed all his forces against the castles of Fukata and Matsuba. The enemy troops there surrendered, pleading for mercy, handed over both forts, and withdrew, concentrating in Kiyosu. Kazusa no Suke Nobunaga then increased the pressure on that castle by laying waste to all paddies and fields in its vicinity. The struggle for Kiyosu had begun.

Even more glaring, the Shincho-koki also specifies titles for individuals as well:

Source text:

左　御先小性　御杖持　北若　御長刀持　ひしや　御小人五人　御行騰持　小市若　御馬大黒に召れ惣御人数廿七人　右　御先小性御小人六人　御行騰持　小駒若　御太刀持　糸若御長刀持　たいとう

Academic translation from J.S.A Elisonas and J.P Lamers:

Left: advance pages of the presence; cane bearer Kitawaka; halberd bearer Hishiya; five menials; Koichiwaka carrying a set of chaps. Nobunaga on his horse Daikoku, escorted by twenty-seven menials in all.

Right: advance pages of the presence; Kokomawaka carrying a set of chaps; six menials; sword bearer Itowaka; halberd bearer Taitō

I think the biggest takeaway from this is the lack of surnames on all of these individuals, despite given very specific titles and being noted as kosho (小性, page). More interestingly, it is differed from kosho (小姓, noble's page), and both of these terms are used within the same text while being pronounced the same. I ask @Eirikr to provide a bit more insight on this since he is more knowledgeable on Japanese etymology. Hexenakte (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

First topic: I confess I read Lockley's comment that "there’s no piece of paper that says anybody else was a samurai" slightly differently -- I don't think he was claiming that no one documented whether particular people were samurai or not, I think he meant something more like "there was no official governmental agency distributing certificates of 'samurai-ness'": as in, one did not get an official "samurai" license. Which is true so far as I'm aware. However, that does not necessarily support his apparent claim that "samurai" status was entirely fluid and just anybody could claim "samurai-ness". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I could see that, but it's kind of weird to mention that when the main criticism is that Yasuke was not explicitly stated as a samurai as a contention, which is wrong because particular individuals were named as samurai (侍) in many primary sources. Usually "samurai-ness" was applied to a person's place in the Ritsuryo system as I had outlined earlier, which is a more "official" standing of who's of samurai status. Surnames are also notable as well, if you lack a surname you basically aren't a samurai, but it has to be specifically a noble surname and not necessarily just a byname for disambiguation purposes.

As much as I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt on that, it's not where the criticism comes from, he just isn't referred to as a samurai at all. Hexenakte (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree to your points here. I think Lockley is responding to a broader array of comments than our various threads here; while his mention of "papers" seems a bit odd to us, I suspect it might be a more relevant response to things that others have said, such as some of the hubbub at Reddit or other sites. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the 小姓 and 小性 spellings, these appear to be simply variant kanji spellings for the same word koshō, in reference to a (usually young) male servant, roughly equivalent to the European "page boy". See also various resource entries on the corresponding Kotobank page, showing both spellings: https://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%B0%8F%E5%A7%93-64788

For a bit more detail:

• The 小 character is derived from an older pictogram representing the meaning of "small", with an additional sense of "young".
• In 小性, the 性 character is composed of radical 忄, a graphical variant of 心 ("heart; spirit; essence") + + 生 ("life; to bear, to give birth; etc."). This has meanings of "“human nature; personal character; what is inborn”. The Chinese character is considered to be a derivation from 生.
• In 小姓, the 姓 character is composed of radical 女 ("woman") + 生 ("life; to bear, to give birth; to be born; etc."). This has meanings of "clan; bloodline; surname". The Chinese character is considered to be a derivation from 性, replacing the radical 心 / 忄 ("heart; spirit; essence") with 女 ("woman"), and indeed both words 姓 and 性 are homophonic in many of the spoken Chinese languages.

If the details in the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entry at Kotobank (link above) are correct, the word first appears in the 1400s spelled as 小生, and referred generically to a "young boy, young man, young monk". A "young male servant" meaning appears in the later 1500s, including apparently overtones of "young male lover" in many instances (per the entry). Then during the Edo period, this word is used to refer to a specific position in the shogunate household, a young male servant who would look after the daily needs of the shogun. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

On the subject of academic sources

There's been discussions all over the place here and there on a variety of sources, occasionally covering the academic sources, but not in a very straightforward manner. We should be ignoring all newspapers and popular media sources and considering only what the academic sources say. If they choose to utilize other sources, including something from say Japanese media, then that's their prerogative to do so as academics, but we should focus on what the academics say in their secondary source interpretation. That's the best way to write a historical article such as this. On that note, I believe rather than saying "this source covers him", we should actually be including text excerpts, presenting what was actually said.

I'll start with that here. If anyone has other academic sources discussing Yasuke, then they should present them here as text excerpts with a formatted reference of some kind. And please try to keep things succinct. No walls of text, with random bolded or upper cased comments. That just makes things hard to read.

Anyways, here's what I have so far.

"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."

Lopez-Vera, Jonathan (2020-06-02). A History of the Samurai. Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4629-2134-8.

"...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 (seppuki). 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."

Atkins, E. Taylor (2017-10-19), A History of Popular Culture in Japan: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-4742-5857-9

...Yasuke already possessed skills as a warrior, as he is believed to have become a samurai after only one year, a remarkably short period of time. Samurai usually trained from boyhood. Nobunaga granted Yasuke the role of sword bearer in the royal guard, for he felt Yasuke had the "might as that of ten men." This was an era in which Japan was still suffering the aftershocks of a civil war in which hundreds of petty warlords had vied for control of the country."

On a separate page,

"Nobunaga had believed that Yasuke must either be a guardian demon or a god; he was black as only temple statues were black. But touching Yasuke, hearing him speak his rich, inimitable foreigner's Japanese, Nobunaga realized he was only a man. He threw a feast in Yasuke's honour, made him gifts of money, and requested that they train him to become a samurai - an honor never before bestowed upon any foreigner. It would elevate him into Japan's warrior class, the top echelon of society. Yasuke accepted and was granted a house, a stipend, and even, in a turn that may have felt uncomfortable to him, his own manservant. That Yasuke had arrived fluent in Japanese was a great asset."

Edugyan, Esi (2021). Out of the Sun: On Race and Storytelling. House of Anansi Press. ISBN 978-1-4870-0988-5.

I hope that serves as a good beginning to looking into the sources we have. Silverseren^C 19:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the problem of the matter here is that these academic sources that claim Yasuke is a samurai are using seemingly different definitions of what they consider a samurai, which is why this argument keeps going back and forth. If you check on my post about Lockley's definition of samurai just above in Talk:Yasuke#Reaction_of_Thomas_Lockley, you'll see that Lockley ends up using a definition that swaps the modern and historical usage of the term (it had been commonly established that bushi and samurai were used synonymously in the modern usage of the term and that it referred to warriors; Lockley states the opposite, that samurai in its modern use refers to the warrior caste, and that it was historically used to refer to warriors), so there is a clear disconnect on what one believes is a samurai in this entire discussion.

We would be having a much more productive conversation if we kept this in mind, and not think narrowly based off of the face value of what these sources claim, because this is an argument purely based on semantics. Please check for these sources and see if they provide a definition on what is considered a samurai. Hexenakte (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not using Lockley because y'all already stated he was unreliable, which is fine. It's not like there's a dearth of academic sources on this subject. As for the rest of what you said, it's irrelevant. Your opinion on the definition of samurai is irrelevant. If you don't have any sources claiming to the contrary in regards to Yasuke, then you have nothing. Do you have a single source disputing his status as a samurai, whether via definitions or just the history itself? If no, then go away and come back when you find some. Because, again, your opinion as an editor of Wikipedia has nothing to do with what sources say. I offer for you to read WP:VNT. You also can't use sources that don't mention Yasuke to then claim the definition of samurai is different. That's a classic example of WP:SYNTH. Either you have sources saying Yasuke wasn't a samurai or you have no argument. Please present the sources. Silverseren^C 19:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I've already stated I have no interest in stating whether or not he is a samurai, I simply do not think it should be stated at all because those contending he is a samurai are using their own definitions to justify it, and the lack of information on Yasuke does not justify a negative claim on the subject either. The simple fact of the matter is, there is not enough information to go by, so these assertions mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. This is why I proposed that it be stated that it is a theory and not an assertion of fact, because there is not enough information to go by on Yasuke. This is the problem I have with the matter at hand, that it is taken as a fact just because "no academic source disputes it" whilst the same sources contending it are unable to substantially prove it. This is an incredibly new claim in the academic field contrary to what others will say here, so you would be hard pressed to find much opposition to the specific claim when decades of academic sources outright ignore his existence.

So please, tell me why the lack of citations or the lack of a conformed definition does not matter, since you brought up WP:VNT, how can we verify that Yasuke was indeed a samurai? From the same page:

In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source, it may be used and attributed where needed, but reliable sources are not infallible. There are examples where material should not be reported in Wikipedia's voice, because what is verifiable is that the source expresses a view, not that the view is necessarily accurate. (Emphasis mine)

And here:

Reliable sources may express speculation, or a source for a significant view may include in it views that are not significant. In these cases, criteria other than those described in our policy on sources are necessary. (Emphasis mine)

A good way to verify this is with a consensus-held definition on what a samurai is, and this view should be held by others within the same academic field. Lockley does not provide in-text citations and neither does Lopez-Vera for their claims. As for Atkins and Edugyan, while I have not looked at them yet (since they are a new addition to this page), I suspect the same issue at hand, but I am welcome to be proven wrong.

Since this is the case, I would be advocating for presenting this view as a theory, and not as an assertion of fact, due to the failure of providing adequate citations for their claims. Hexenakte (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The qualifier of "theory" isn't even necessary, it's simply enough to say something like: "based on his description in known primary sources, most/many historians consider/categorize Yasuke as one of the first foreign-born samurai/samurai of African origin". Theozilla (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

"... most/many historians consider/categorize Yasuke as [a] ... samurai"

To say "most", we would need to do a fuller survey of all (relevant / academic) materials mentioning Yasuke and determine if the number making such a claim is indeed the majority. Until and unless we do this, we have no business saying "most". "Many" may also be problematic; so far we have four or five, one or two are of questioned reliability (per threads above), and another two are not yet evaluated for reliability. (FWIW, Edugyan's description contains speculative elements I haven't seen backed up elsewhere, and at least one apparent factual mistake [regarding Yasuke's fluency].) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Also based off of Edugyan's description, his definition of a samurai already contrasts with Lockley's, "It would elevate him into Japan's warrior class, the top echelon of society." So now the class does exist according to Edugyan, whereas Lockley contended that it didn't during Yasuke's time. To suggest any of this is appropriate when there clearly has been no due diligence done to make sure the words they are using are absolutely correct is ridiculous, there are many contradictions being made here. Hexenakte (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not different authors are using the "correct" definition is beyond our scope. Whether they are using the same (or at least similar) definitions is in scope: we must clarify for ourselves how the authors are using the word, and explain this to readers — particularly if those definitions do not match what we use, or even do not match each other (as appears to be the case here). Otherwise our article becomes internally inconsistent. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, correct was the wrong word that I used, meant to say consistent, but you are correct. Hexenakte (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

While "most" may not be determinable, I don't agree that "many" is problematic, especially considering we haven't had AFAIK any examples of published/academic historians explicitly stating that Yasuke was NOT a samurai. So far historians/secondary sources analyzing primary sources either categorize/call Yasuke a samurai, or there is no comment made regarding whether his status as a retainer/attendant to Oda Nobunaga qualified him as a samurai or not. Theozilla (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point that we are making. It is not as simple as simply stating Yasuke is or is not a samurai as a reason to state he is a samurai in the article. The definition that they use for samurai is often contradictory and unestablished, which makes the entire thing problematic. Compare Lockley's definition of samurai to how Wikipedia and credible dictionaries have it. It has been commonly established within the talk page that the conflation of bushi and samurai as being simply warriors is a modern usage of the terms, while historically it has been used to refer to the warrior class itself. Lockley has these reversed, stating that a warrior class did not exist in Yasuke's time. Compare Lockley to the other academic sources provided above. Edugyan contradicts Lockley's definition by stating that Yasuke is part of the warrior class. On top of that, the lack of in-text citations to prove the statements they make - in all of them - to say that Yasuke is a samurai is also problematic.

On another note, this trend of calling Yasuke a samurai has only been in the academic field in the past decade or so, with many academic sources preceding it entirely omitting Yasuke's existence due to the lack of notability. "Many" is, indeed, problematic, since only a select few of academic sources cover him, and these select few sources have issues with citing their evidence. Even ignoring the lack of in-text citations, which should be disqualifying on its own, they cannot seem to agree on what a samurai is. As Eirikr pointed out, by accepting these sources at face value, Wikipedia remains internally inconsistent since there are conflicting definitions on what a samurai is.

Of course it's already been established how unreliable Lockley and Lopez-Vera's work, and it can easily be said the same for the ones posted above as well as they also lack citations for their work. To quote Eirikr from earlier:

Non-samurai-ness is the assumed default state for anyone in Japanese society of the time. The lack of any mention of "samurai" status for Yasuke in primary materials is a significant omission. Authors that do not mention "samurai" status for Yasuke are implicitly agreeing with that default state of non-samurai-ness: much like anyone not mentioning that a person has two heads is implicitly agreeing with the default state of one-headed-ness for humans in general.

We cannot take the lack of sources specifically stating that Yasuke was not a samurai as an indication that he therefore was a samurai, any more than we can take the lack of sources specifically stating that Rameses II did not have two heads as an indication that he therefore did have two heads.

Secondary-source authors who mention "samurai" status for Yasuke have not yet, as far as we have seen, backed that up with specific citations to historical primary sources.

The idea of Yasuke being a samurai is very new, so it was assumed that the omission of his samurai status in prior academic sources was that he was not a samurai, and this especially the fact since the stated academic sources that do contend he is a samurai do not provide citations for their claims.

Hexenakte (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Authors that do not mention "samurai" status for Yasuke are implicitly agreeing with that default state of non-samurai-ness

This assertion isn't necessarily true though, as plenty of people who are known to be samurai (and/or have more historical consensus on their status) are frequently mentioned by authors in various texts on the subject of samurai without mention to their status as samurai, and in such cases the default implicitly assumed state often is the positive. Like in a text on Japanese history, unless stated otherwise, the assumed default state of individuals mentioned are that they are Japanese.

Or to repeat the well known Carl Sagan idiom: absence of evidence does not automatically equal evidence of absence.

Also the relative recency of a subject being categorized as something doesn't negate the fact that said categorization is now considered such by many. Like Pluto was re-categorized as a dwarf planet/planetoid relatively recently, that relative recency doesn't change the fact that most scientists now no longer categorize Pluto as a planet.

As such, noting that many historians and academic texts categorize Yasuke as a samurai is entirely reasonable and appropriate for Wikipedia, and consistent with the categorization of other historical figures on Wikipedia whose status as samurai could also be debated (since as others have noted the term "samurai" is a term subject to much debate itself). Theozilla (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This assertion isn't necessarily true though, as plenty of people who are known to be samurai (and/or have more historical consensus on their status) are frequently mentioned by authors in various texts on the subject of samurai without mention to their status as samurai, and in such cases the default implicitly assumed state often is the positive.

Can you name sources of specific individuals being samurai not being explicitly mentioned as such? Because I have found absolutely zero. This assertion of yours requires evidence, so please present them.

Like in a text on Japanese history, unless stated otherwise, the assumed default state of individuals mentioned are that they are Japanese.

Because being a samurai is a recognized position within Japanese society, this is not the same comparison to make. You cannot pick up a peasant and assume he is a samurai unless it is stated otherwise. This is equivalent to saying that the assumed default state of individuals in a European society as knights. Very few people were samurai, so it is a significant omission.

Or to repeat the well known Carl Sagan idiom: absence of evidence does not automatically equal evidence of absence.

Yes, but in the case of a renowned status, not mentioning anything about them being samurai status often means they are assumed to not be samurai. I gave you one of many examples from the Shincho-koki of named individuals as samurai (侍), as well as named individuals as being explicitly given page titles, yet lacking surnames, and they were not referred to as samurai. It is assumed that the default is non-samurai, just like how it is assumed that the average American is a non-veteran or non-military personnel unless stated otherwise, and they do not like to omit this!

Also the relative recency of a subject being categorized as something doesn't negate the fact that said categorization is now considered such by many.

It matters when you are considering that "no academic historian has contended that Yasuke was not a samurai" when the academic sources claiming that he is haven't existed for very long, there isn't much room to respond, much less an entire paper about a person we know very little about, especially since this hasn't reached the mainstream until Lockley's work. It would take time for writing a paper against it. Also again, it is not "many", these are select few sources making these claims and none of them have provided citations for them.

Like Pluto was re-categorized as a dwarf planet/planetoid relatively recently, that relative recency doesn't change the fact that most scientists now no longer categorize Pluto as a planet.

It's easy to redefine modern terms for modern purposes, not for historical terms that meant something different in the past. It doesn't change the fact that the term "planet" meant something different before 2006. Pluto was considered a planet before 2006 from a historical perspective, but not in a current modern perspective.

As such, noting that many historians and academic texts categorize Yasuke as a samurai is entirely reasonable and appropriate for Wikipedia, and consistent with the categorization of other historical figures on Wikipedia whose status as samurai could also be debated (since as others have noted the term "samurai" is a term subject to much debate itself).

Again, where is this "many" you are saying? There are only 5 academic sources proposed talking about Yasuke, and none of them provide citations for their claims. That is not many, much less reliable. I have noted prior that Wikipedia utilizes historical terms such as Uji, Omi, Muraji, Taikun, Jizamurai, because modern terms are inappropriate to define what these individuals and groups were. When you have multiple historians contending Yasuke is a samurai, but none of them can even have the same definition as a samurai, it calls into question the verifiability of their claims. In fact the branching of different definitions for a term that matters so much in the classification of Yasuke only hurts their credibility, because this gives the impression they have no idea what a samurai is. There has to be an academic consensus on the historical definition of samurai during Yasuke's time, which already exists but none of them seem to have actually prepared for that, and seemingly made up their own definitions based off what they think a samurai is, because there's no citation for their claims. Hexenakte (talk) 03:02, 1 June 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.

Priority of title justification

While the matter of Yasuke's samurai description was talked on this page extensively, i would like to form the discussion in a better order of necessity to understand better the source material available of Yasuke's time in Japan. In this sense we heard a lot of arguments, how Yasuke may or not may be justified to be a samurai with a lot of OR. The main problem with this argument would be the lack of interest to talk about contrary sources about Yasuke. For example the most used source linked on this article would be the huffingtonpost.jp article, that quoted various sources. The quotes and the text used 10 times 黒人奴隷 to describe Yasuke as a black slave. https://www.huffingtonpost.jp/entry/yasuke_jp_609347f7e4b09cce6c26a9b2 and this is a common thing in many articles, already used on this page. The article in itself evades this term, while it seem to be quite a normal thing to state in these sources. Frois seem to use more the term "black slave" to describe Yasuke, than to state this name, probably given by Japanese people to him. Maybe it should be added in the article, that some sources describe Yasuke in his live on Japan mainly as a slave.

I don't know about a single source, that clearly writes about Yasuke getting released out of slavery at any point of his live. His treatment after the dead of Oda, even quoted on the article page, hints even a continuous view of Japanese, that Yasuke would be a slave in an incident, where retainers/samurai from Oda were treated different and were often killed. While this topic is not interested to force some major change onto the article, it should document the core problem of many arguments about Yasuke, that we can't even rule out the possibility, that Yasuke was even a free man in his entire known live in Japan, thereby making additional OR about his titles to mere speculations as long this first step into the room is ignored. We can't describe him as a samurai, while one of his main sources for his actions in Japan seems to call him over his whole existence as a 黒人奴隷.

Does anyone has the accurate terms of Frois? Are all our Japanese sources using an incorrect translation of Frois, to call Yasuke a black slave? This article is really confusing about this term, if you read the sources linked in the article.

It should be added, that in these times even in the UK the use of black servants with questionable status beyond servitude was known to exist, often connected to military services and often connected with liberty for these servants after their servitude and baptism. In some cases the slavery ended by default with the enlistment into the army, often the servitude simply expanded to household-duty as servants after the war. https://www.nationalcivilwarcentre.com/museum/expertextras/name-125968-en.php These servants were often acquired in Spain or Portugal and were often slaves from Morocco and they were rare in Europa on this age (60 in whole UK, if i read the source above correctly), but they were often used in colonies and trade. By using the same level of OR, i could easily declare Yasuke as a one of these slave-servant of Portuguese, who were given to Oda as a gift and returned to the Jesuits after his death. This is the core problem of OR, it makes a lot of other arguments similar plausible.

One of the biggest sources by the people, who probably brought him to Japan and to Oda and wrote about him more than the Japanese and knew probably more about his slave-status than most Japanese, wrote not about a change of this status and called him a black slave. Before we talk about his title X or title Y, maybe we should address this in our article.

To make it a bit easier to understand my core request, i underlined the core request. The rest is to point out the trickery in using OR and this is more about the contradiction between our sources calling him a black slave, while we only sideline it once in Possible depictions of Yasuke and had to include it in the sole quote, talking about him after his capture by Akechi. --ErikWar19 (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the problems with the academic papers on Yasuke is the lack of in-text citations on any of their claims, as well as not establishing a consistent definition for the words they use, such as samurai. The primary source document on Yasuke's involvement in the Honno-ji incident states that Akechi referred to Yasuke as a black slave, but it is unknown on what he means by that, since it's the only document making this statement. While slavery was not outlawed yet in Japan at this time, Yasuke was given a stipend, so it is unlikely he was a slave in Oda's service (OR on my part, forgive me), but it's unknown in the case of the Jesuits. Lockley does make claims that the Jesuits were forbidden from owning slaves or practicing slavery in this time but, again, he neglects to cite pretty much anything (although I am not necessarily doubting this specific claim, it's just a problem with his research). It's a reason why the kosho (小性, page) title was removed from the article.

Overall, a lot of speculation is being made on what Yasuke is, however if there is one thing that can be confirmed is that he is an attendant, which the article already states he is (and it is supported by the fact he receives a stipend and had some role, whether it be combative or non-combative, and this is supported by some of the academic sources provided in the talk page as well), but we do not have an appropriate title for him since there is so little information on him, and none of the proposed academic sources have substantially proven or cited their claims. If there is a word we must use to describe Yasuke, it would be an attendant retainer. That's really the only verifiable thing we have, since we can't verify if he was an actual warrior either, he had no documented training or experience of fighting except in Honno-ji, which is the only battle he is confirmed to have participated in, and even then the details on what he did exactly are unknown. Hexenakte (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I know about the stipend claim as well. i think it is from these 1-3 sentences about him in the Shincho Koki. Even this term is difficult, because 扶持 /fuckimai, is a stipend too - often paid in rice....for example for peasants, 俸禄/houroku is meant for a stipend for a retainer....and the big question would be, is it used for servants at court?

I think, that the Shincho Koki uses "houroku", but I'm unsure about the exclusivity of this term only for retainers at court. We would need to find a mention of the salary of non-samurai servants in the court, in the Shincho Koki, without the term houroku, to secure, that the term houroku is used only for retainers and not for servants from a different rank.

Lockley claims, that the Jesuits were forbidden from owning slaves or practising slavery could be misleading, as it could be about the forbidden practice of slavery for missionaries to create slaves in Japan. This was about Japanese people and it was justified by the Japanese lords to use some western terms, as these subjects were more property of these lords than by any other authority.

To call Jesuits somehow themself to be against slavery would simply be ignorant to the history, even documented and critical addressed by the Jesuit church today. https://www.nomos-shop.de/olms/titel/sklaverei-im-urteil-der-jesuiten-id-116949/ this publication highlights even the biggest involvement of this church in slavery in the area of 1550 und 1650, so exactly in this time-frame of Yasuke, the Jesuit church was heavily involved in slavery and owned a lot of slaves and was involved in the creation of slaves in a huge scale, this is explicit about Indian and African slaves and they supported heavily the transport of these people to the American continent. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3513906 This paper highlights this part of Jesuits too and i will add, that the Jesuits in Japan came from Goa, with daily slave auctions. i will even link to this picture of 1596, showing a Portuguese nobleman in Goa https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Hoz_habitu,_qui_e_Lusitanis_nobilitate_aut_dignitate_clariores_in_India_..._obequitant%22_(26344165136).jpg surrounded by slaves, including on the left 3 dark-skinned slaves as servants for him. Even the Wikipedia page of history of Goa describe "life in Goa in these times of 1550 to 1600 with: "Almost all manual labour was performed by slaves."

Jesuits were accomplices of slavery, explicit this branch of the Jesuit church. ErikWar19 (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

As a disclaimer all of this information I am about to post is to be assumed that is already cited in previous discussions in the talk page unless stated otherwise, in order to save time.

I think, that the Shincho Koki uses "houroku", but I'm unsure about the exclusivity of this term only for retainers at court. We would need to find a mention of the salary of non-samurai servants in the court, in the Shincho Koki, without the term houroku, to secure, that the term houroku is used only for retainers and not for servants from a different rank.

About that, although I did not see a "houroku" (@Eirikr could provide insight on that), Eirikr and I already went through the Shincho Koki and its mentions of stipends, and the way Gyuichi used 扶持 (fuchi, not fuckimai) was in most cases used for pay of several individuals (alleged samurai) or daimyos, with the exception of one, in which Nobunaga increased the stipends of all his attendants, and it specified 御伴 (attendant/followers) of both high and low rank, meaning everyone in Nobunaga's party. Here's the specific text in question:

御伴之上下皆落淚也御伴衆何れも々々被加御扶持難有仕合無申計樣体也如此御慈悲深き故に諸天の有御冥利而御家門長久にに御座候と感申也 (Source text, Emphasis mine)

All of Nobunaga’s companions, those of high as of low rank, also shed tears. Each and every one of his companions had his stipend increased, and it goes without saying that they felt fortunate and thankful. It is because Nobunaga was so compassionate, everyone felt, that the heavens shed their blessings upon him and that the fortunes of his house would long endure. (J.S.A Eliasonas and J.P Lamers Academic Translation)

Fuchi can mean different things in different contexts - it can mean rice, or it could mean actual money - but regardless of what the actual pay is, it is not determining of samurai status, as we had concluded earlier and also here as well. Another reason why is because Nobunaga is exceptionally known for his generosity and treating his ashigaru often as good as his own samurai, he is famous for this, and this was documented heavily in the Shincho Koki. And this is also during his peak where he is stupidly rich and quartered in Kyoto, so it would not be unreasonable to assume that his common footsoldiers or even attendants got paid with proper money (this is speculation and therefore OR on my part). I do also want to note that the stipend was also mentioned in Ietada's diary which the excerpt is also posted in the article, so he received a "stipend". But to be honest, it really makes no sense to assert that wages are a symbol of status, and I go into large detail of what constitutes a samurai with plenty of secondary sources replying to _dk's post and X0n's post below that here, and I also made one going into detail of Lockley's definition of samurai replying to X0n's posts here (if you don't want to read the entire thing, it's mainly the one at the very end with the long list of sources in bulleted points). I do plan on making a more comprehensive list of academic sources later (as those sources are not suggestions or proposals, they are demonstrating that I did not do OR), as I did not have enough time to delve and find them since I am very busy.

But to summarize, the determination of samurai status is often measured alongside the Ritsuryo court rank system, and big indicators of samurai status often includes the privilege to ride horses and a surname of noble standing (surnames such as Oda, Tokugawa, etc. since they are descendants of the Gen-pei-to-kitsu families), or just any connection to a noble family whether through marriage (Hideyoshi's marriage to his wife One gave him connections to the Minamoto lineage), adoption (Hideyoshi's adoption into the Konoe family gave him connections to the Fujiwara lineage, and by consequence, allow him to be granted the title of Kampaku), or even imperial proclamation (Hideyoshi gets the Toyotomi surname in an unprecedented manner by imperial proclamation from the Emperor, allowing him to set his clan alongside the Genpeitokitsu families). The actual nuances in between like, actually promoting in rank, I still need to research, but these statuses are measured through that system until the Edo period.

I feel like I got off on a tangent, but I felt it be necessary lest we repeat matters that were already thoroughly discussed, which I just wanna say I do agree and share your concerns, a lot of this stuff is just really muddied and very poorly researched especially in the English academic field. As for Lockley's claims about the slavery, I personally did doubt it but I didn't want to weigh in on it since I did not know enough about slavery in Japan during this time, it's not really my area of focus. To be quite honest it does not matter to me whether Yasuke was an actual slave or a servant, since I feel like there simply isn't enough information on him to truly know, and that speculation is the most to go off of. Maybe Akechi's words are to be taken literal, that he was a slave, but it just doesn't help the fact this person was hardly talked about at all, we can't really draw any conclusions without drifting into OR (because none of the academic sources on Yasuke seem interested in pursuing that perspective). All that is really in contention is his samurai status. I think in this case, the most fitting descriptor for Yasuke is attendant, since it's the only thing that is verifiable.

Also just to be clear, the term "retainer" is a catch-all term for vassals or those in service to a lord, it can refer to samurai warriors, non-samurai warriors, ashigaru, or even attendants alike. That's why it can be a problematic term to use since some people apparently think "retainer = samurai" when that isn't the case. It's also why it's problematic to conflate samurai and bushi together when applying it in historical contexts, and why such a distinction is necessary, as there were professional warriors who were not peasants but also not of samurai status (this is even more evident by the fact when the Tokugawa shogunate distinguished the two groups from Kishi (samurai) and Kachi (non-samurai), and they did this based off of pre-existing groups). Hexenakte (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@ErikWar19, @Hexenakte, I'm not finding any instances of 俸禄 in the version of the Shinchō Kōki that ParallelPain referenced in his Reddit thread, and available here via the National Diet Library Collection: https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1920322/1/1. There are 76 instances of 扶持 (fuchi), zero of 俸禄 (hōroku).

FWIW, the various references at the Kotobank page for 俸禄 (https://kotobank.jp/word/%E4%BF%B8%E7%A6%84-628777) suggest that hōroku was a synonym and/or definition for fuchi. Meanwhile, on the Kotobank page for 扶持 (https://kotobank.jp/word/%E6%89%B6%E6%8C%81-124992), we see the word 俸禄 used to help define 扶持. We would need an extensive analysis of a specific time-bound corpus to tease out different nuances in usage. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hexenakte@Eirikr in Romajidesu the term 俸禄 is called official payment/ retainer's stipend (https://www.romajidesu.com/dictionary/meaning-of-%E4%BF%B8%E7%A6%84.html) 扶持 (fuchi, sry for my earlier error, Hexenakte) is here my Romajidesu with links to 扶持米 (fuchimai) stipend/ration by rice highlighted. (https://www.romajidesu.com/dictionary/meaning-of-%E6%89%B6%E6%8C%81.html)

I would presume, that the best understanding of term in these times would be the portuguese work at these times. So the Vocabolario da lingoa de Japam, com adeclaracão em portugues, feito por alguns Padres e Irmaõs da Companhia de Jesus ...but i don't speak portuguese https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k852354j/f217.item here is the original on Gallica.

i have a hard time to find 俸禄 (hōroku, but Collins calls it fènglù https://www.collinsdictionary.com/zh/dictionary/chinese-english/%E4%BF%B8%E7%A6%84, so i'm confused) ErikWar19 (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The fènglù rendering is the pinyin romanization of the modern Mandarin Chinese pronunciation. See also wikt:俸祿#Chinese (using the traditional Chinese glyph forms).

The entry in the Nippo Jisho, page here, right-hand column about halfway down:

Fuchi. Pága, ou ſalario. [original Portuguese]

---

Fuchi. Pay, or salary. [English translation]

Due to Japanese pronunciation in the late 1500s, early 1600s, you will not find any entry hōroku — the "h" sounds in modern Japanese were pronounced as more like an "f" at the time.

The two Nippo Jisho entries for fôrocu are here, left-hand column, about a third of the way down.

Fôrocu. Tacara, tacara. Riquezas. [original Portuguese]

Fôrocu. Panela de barro.

---

Hōroku. Takara, takara. Riches. [English translation + Hepburn romanization]

Hōroku. Clay pot.

Given the definitions, we can surmise that the first one is 俸禄, glossed with Japanese synonyms as meaning 宝 (takara, "treasure, riches") + 宝 (takara, "treasure, riches"), as perhaps the individual characters 俸 and 禄 can be (rather loosely) defined: "salary, wages, money received" + "blessings; salary, wages, remuneration". The second one is 焙烙, "a kind of Japanese earthenware pan or pot, used for dry-roasting grains, tea, and other things". Both are pronounced the same.

Given the Nippo Jisho definitions, we can also surmise any of the following:

• Hōroku was not used as a synonym for fuchi ("stipend") in the late 1500s / early 1600s.

  Monolingual Japanese references cite older texts using hōroku and fuchi both to mean some kind of "compensation / wages / salary / stipend", so these terms were probably at least partial synonyms at this time, for some (many? most?) speakers. But then, as we see too in English, some ideas may have many synonyms, of which a few are used only rarely; hōroku might be one such rarely-used term (at that time and place).

• Hōroku was not used as a synonym for fuchi ("stipend") in the local dialect(s) recorded in the Nippo Jisho, but might have been a synonym in other dialects.

  I have very little information about terminological variance among the Japanese dialects, and even less information about how that has changed through history.

• Hōroku was used as a synonym for fuchi ("stipend"), but João Rodrigues (or his deputies / assistants) were somehow confused about the meaning of the term.

  I haven't run across any other flat-out mistakes in the Nippo Jisho, so I am hesitant to decide on this option. That said, I have not done any extensive evaluation of the Nippo Jisho's definitions, and am speaking purely from occasional referencing of the work over many years while building out Japanese term etymologies at Wiktionary.

At any rate, the Nippo Jisho tells us at least that the Portuguese speakers of Japanese at that time probably did not view hōroku and fuchi as synonyms. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

About his slave status in Japan, here's what Jonathan López-Vera (who holds a PhD in History) says in his book Historia de los samuráis (2016), released in English as A History of the Samurai: Legendary Warriors of Japan:

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.

Thibaut (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

While it is reasonable to assume that Yasuke would be no longer a "slave" in the most technical use of the word, since he was paid (it was unlikely he could leave service though, WP:OR on my part), there lacks citation/evidence on the claim of him being a bodyguard, or any specific role of Yasuke at least. I don't think it's a contention to say that Yasuke was a retainer, mostly everyone here can agree on that. I also shouldn't need to mention the questionable reliability on Lopez-Vera, as was mentioned earlier in the talk page, especially in regards to the claim he was a bodyguard here. Hexenakte (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't think it's a good idea to use the word "retainer" in Wikipedia because there is no word of retainer 家来 or vassal 家臣 in any historical records.

扶持 Fuchi meant also rice, food, food expenses in Sengoku period. It was Edo era when 扶持 Fuchi became a term for salary.

After all Yasuke was given by Jesuit to Nobunaga for whom he served for 15 months. I believe as a Japanese that Yasuke was serving Nobunaga as a slave because he never had a free will to choose what he wanted in his life. He was never a free man.

A foreigner, who was taken to this strange land of rising sun by Jesuit as a slave and then given to an old man who sometimes sexually-plays with young boys and there were nobody to talk to in his language, .. would like to become a loyal retainer on his own will instead just going back to where he was brought up? I don't think so.

Foreigners are delusionary romanticizing Yasuke just because he served this big-shot samurai in Japan. Also no one would want to become a warrior to risk his life for a strange land for a strange old man who he has no attachment to and Yasuke had no patriotisms what so ever.

Yasuke served Nobunaga because he was a slave status with no free will. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, anyone under service of a lord would be considered a "retainer". It is not a special role or anything, but rather it is a catch-all term, and it can indeed make misconceptions on what Yasuke's role actually was. That's why I suggested he be referred to as an "attendant"/"attendant retainer", since he isn't known to fight besides Honno-ji, which attendants were also expected to fill in combat roles, but were not necessarily warriors themselves. While I personally wouldn't doubt that Yasuke would still be a slave under Nobunaga - since slavery was still practiced during this time - we cannot say for sure if he was a slave under Nobunaga, as we do not know what role he filled nor what status he had beyond that he was an "attendant" of some kind. Fuchi can indeed mean rice, but without further context, this doesn't give us much.

Also the comment about Nobunaga being "an old man who sometimes sexually-plays with young boys" is just blatantly wrong, Nobunaga never participated in shudo, it is an Edo myth and has no historical backing. Hexenakte (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no historical record of Yasuke's position whatsoever. All we know is that Yasuke was given by Jesuit to Nobunaga without Yasuke's free will.

Retainer in translated into 家来 or 家臣 in Japanese and those words are not used in any historical records.

If you want to use a word of position then "servant" is more fitting than "retainer". Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no records of Yasuke being a bodyguard.

It is all wishful speculation by black-samurai-believers.

There are many samurai with long swords who would die for Nobunaga.

So Yasuke is not needed and he has no motivation to die for Nobunaga the odd old man in a strange foreign land where Yasuke was just brought as a slave by Jesuit. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Where should a documentary in production go?

The edit where I added the Yasuke documentary was reverted saying a documentary in planning doesn't go in "Popular culture". Where should it go? Nowhere man (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

For the past two to three weeks, @Eirikr and I have been working hard to verify the origin of a quote mentioned to be from the Shinchō Kōki[61] (transcription by editor Kondō Heijō, Editor's notes here talking about Oze Hoan as mentioned below[62]) on the Yasuke article, as it had been noticeably missing from the J.S.A Eliasonas and J.P Lamers Academic Translation of the Shinchō Kōki.[63] The missing quote is as follows:

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

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

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

That being said, we made sure to check other avenues such as the Shincho-ki, which is NOT the Shinchō Kōki. The Shincho-ki (or commonly known as Nobunaga-ki) was written by Oze Hoan, a Confucian scholar who was notably plagiarizing Ota Gyuichi's Shinchō Kōki by romanticizing the events or even making entire fabrications (J.S.A Eliasonas and J.P Lamers talks about this in their introductory page). So when we checked Hoan's Shincho-ki,[64][65] the quote was also missing. We had also checked for the Azuchi Nikki, which was in possession of the Maeda clan (we could not find a Maeda version of Shinchō Kōki). @Eirikr states his findings as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

He also added this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember: "Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth".

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

Thank you for taking the time and resources to solve this problem with us. It is important to know a few key factors to keep in mind: What Kaneko claims, the source text, and where does he claim it is from, since there seems to be a bit of confusion on whether it's referred to as the Shinchō Kōki or the Shincho-ki, which the title of his book and according to this[66] (which also talks about Kaneko's review of Lockley's work, however I could not find his actual review, if anyone has a link to it it would be greatly appreciated) it's reaffirmed to be referring to the Shincho-ki, so it is important to know what document he is specifically referring to.

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the requested pages.

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

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

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

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

「◎巻十四

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

付、依時道具なともたさせられ候、(二月二十三日条)扶持」

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

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

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

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

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

There might be a misunderstanding from the word Kaneko uses (屋敷) could be misinterpreted to mean "mansion" and this was evident when I put it through a machine translation, but the word also refers to residence, estate, etc., and when checking kotobank,[67] it seems to refer to a main residence, as a proper house. However, it doesn't match the same kanji used in the transcript above (私宅), Eirikr might provide context on this matter.

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

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

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

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

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

Why not just add a section about the samourai status

that would explain conflictual depictions / sources Freavene (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

We have right now bigger problems, some of the main sources for his samurai status is often translated incorrectly (s. section about "Translation of the extract from the Shincho Koki) about regular things, like his age. So the source material is difficult to secure.

I made a point in my section, that he could be a slave and there is a possibility, that his stipend wouldn't be an actual retainer stipend or just a regular salary, but this is hard to certify, so i would suggest to wait for the books Thibaut ordered to give us a bit more inside into the actual sources. thx @Thibaut120094 btw

A lot of these translation mistakes happen, in all respect and without calling myself prone to the same mistake, by google translate and the tendency of this translator to mistranslate some terms, like black slave to black people, if you just copy paste the article into the box and expect it to be correct.

(this happen in my case at least, i switched the language to my non-english language and than noticed the differences and had to translate every single word of certain quoted to realize, that the Portuguese sources mainly speak about a slave, that is presumed to be Yasuke in these articles)

Same with claims, that he owned katanas or the Sumo-depiction, that presume the identity of both people to fit it into this article...We have depictions of servants and they are presumed to be slaves with a dark skin colour in Japan in this time-frame and we see Portuguese Jesuits in the same screen. Maybe one of these servant-slaves was Yasuke.

The Portuguese Jesuits, while partly critical views existed in Europa and America, where deeply supportive and connected to the slave trade, explicit the Indian branch, that formed the Japanese Jesuit section, daily slave auctions and every nobleman has slaves in Goa, level of embrassed slavery culture. And these Jesuits introduced these black people into Japan and gifted one of these people to Oda, who served him...( Kano Naizen's "Arrival of the Southern Barbarians Screen" ~ 1600, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Nanban-Screens-by-Kano-Naizen-c1600.png/1920px-Nanban-Screens-by-Kano-Naizen-c1600.png)

In other words. The matter about his slave to samurai status is not conflictual, all of this is Original research...or a bit direct, presumptions without good sources. And the reliable sources are more and more leaning to the slave status in my personal view btw. Some media for entirely different artistic and not historic reasons just wants to depict him different. --ErikWar19 (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

No one's written about this and comparing sources would be WP:SYNTH. This is ultimately an obscure historical figure few wrote about at the time, and a lot of sources not familiar with Japan seem to conflate retainer with Samurai to begin with. We have sources he was a retainer, so just run with it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

even the claim, that he would be a retainer is not enterely secured and a matter of discussion on this talk page.

It should be highlighted, that the biggest source of his liv ein Japan, the Portuguese sources, who brought him to Japan in the first place, called him a slave in more than one paragraph.

Easily source-able by simply searching for the term "black slave" in our already used and linked japanese articles.

please dont simply copy-paste the articles into google translate, they will translate it wrong into english. ErikWar19 (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• There is a currently open RFC on this subject that is likely to close in a week or so; given that it seems to be leaning overwhelmingly towards presenting him as a samurai as the primary (and possibly only, uncontested) view, it's likely the article will have to be substantially rewritten afterwards. So there's little point in discussing what to do with the current version - based on the way the RFC is leaning, unless the closer reads something truly startling into it, the dispute we'll be looking at after it closes is "given that the RFC concluded that his status as a samurai is the majority and primary view, should we mention that there is a minority that is skeptical of that, and if so, based on what sources? Or should we just state that he was a samurai as uncontested fact?" If people want to influence how that is worded (or the still-open RFC) the thing to do would be to focus on digging up sources discussing the view of him as a samurai. --Aquillion (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm still amused that there has yet to be a single reliable source presented arguing that he wasn't a samurai, despite continual claims by some on this talk page that such a view is the main academic one. Instead, we're just seeing a ton of editor OR in a bunch of sections arguing for using primary sources in a certain way based on only an editor's translation of what they mean. Silverseren^C 19:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  This has been addressed consistently throughout the talk page and yet this point is still being repeated with no thought towards what the actual circumstances are, especially with the use of questionable secondary sources which have been pointed out to have no citations for their claims (not even some, but evidently all of them), the concerns of peer reviews of these sources, and the lack of a consistent definition standard of what a samurai is during this time period. Please stop repeating this flawed claim and actually address these issues, you have seen these arguments, do not pretend you haven't. Hexenakte (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• And I've told you repeatedly that actual academics whose job is to study Japanese history and culture are way more relevant and important than your opinion on what they said. You are the one claiming they don't have sources, without evidence. You are the one making up reliability claims about their works without evidence. You, an WP:SPA account made a month ago pretty much exclusively to edit this article pushing a claim about the subject that is the same nonsense that started being pushed at that time by Gamergaters throwing a tantrum about the new Assassin's Creed game having a black person in it. Apologies if I don't consider your original research about Yasuke worth anything. Silverseren^C 01:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Again, you did not read what I said. I have pointed out that even in their own peer reviews, such as Lockley's, have been pointed out of the lack of citation on their claims and even to be considered non-academic as a result of it.[68] I've pointed out that the other academic sources mentioned also use Lockley or also have the same problems of lacking citations for their claims. I have also pointed out that none of them share the same definition on what a samurai is. You are not at all considering any of these arguments which are not at all considered OR, these are not MY claims. They are what these academic sources have written and considering the merits of what they have written. If they do not provide citations on the claims, they cannot be proven, and even their peers agree. This is a very complicated subject considering how contextual the Japanese language is. So please, practice due diligence as others and I have to gather only reliable sources on the matter, since these sources are not reliable, and stop trying to dismiss it as OR.

  Also, do not claim I am a WP:SPA, this account was made long before the topic of Yasuke even came up, and I do intend on using it for other purposes as well, you can check my profile showing that I am open to collaboration on many other historical topics other than the Sengoku period. Hexenakte (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Are you drawing parallels between Hexenakte and racist gamergaters to implicitly discredit the discussions on this Talk page? That, plus the cheeky and condescending tone of your posts, throws out any presumption of good faith. What I see on this Talk page is a proof that certain secondary sources, which claim Yasuke was a samurai, are not reliable sources. A secondary source which makes things up about a primary source is not a reliable secondary source. An editor can't use it. That's Wikipedia 101. The sources claiming Yasuke was a samurai are not verifiable, and they are not reliable sources. Why should they be considered reliable? A book written by a well-known individual, but which lacks sources to back it's claims up, is hardly reliable, much less "academic."

  This is not original research. This is checking the sources which is *typical* in *any* Wikipedia article. Hexenakte has given sources for his/her/their claims, multiple times, and only for people to dismiss those claims "original research."

  The default condition for Yasuke is: him not being a samurai. Yasuke cannot be considered a samurai simply because many modern depictions or folk-tale style stories show him as a samurai, or because unreliable secondary sources claim his as such. It's legend. It's fine that it's legend. But it's not a verifiable claim. And I get the feeling that many people out here (not necessarily you) are fetishizing the status of being a samurai, as if being a retainer makes Yasuke less "cool." Incredibly problematic. Green Caffeine (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's not just popular culture that says he's a samurai. I posted a list of reliable sources in the RFC and what I posted isn't even complete, as far as I can tell. Googling just now I found this additional source by another historian which also says that Yasuke was a samurai.

  You may not like Lockley but he's clearly an expert in the subject area, so if he says Yasuke was a samurai that pretty clearly constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. (Wikipedia doesn't get into the business of trying to check a source's sources, so it doesn't matter whether he cites his own sources. He could say it's just his professional opinion and be reliable on the topic.) And academic reviews of his book agree that Yasuke was a samurai, and so does the Lopez-Vera source, and so does the Smithsonian Magazine source, etc etc.

  Would this be enough in the face of a clear academic consensus that Yasuke wasn't a samurai? No, definitely not. But we don't have that. Instead we have some sources that call him things other than "samurai", and zero academic or even reasonably reliable sources that say explicitly he wasn't a samurai. Since all the reliable sources that give an opinion say he was a samurai, we have to say that too. Loki (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  It is, in fact, popular history saying he is samurai. The review I just posted describes Lockley's findings as "popular history" and specifically states that it is "not detailed enough for the academic [field]". Here is the relevant quotes:

  The book is clearly intended as popular history, and, while it may be unfair to judge a book by what it is not, the scarcity of primary sources on Yasuke is compounded by the lack of scholarly citations or other means to document the narrative.

  ...

  While Yasuke is not a fictional character, his contributions to the outcome of events, like the primary sources about him, are slim at best. He does, however, offer the reader a non-Japanese lens on Japan. Although this lens may not be detailed enough for the academic, African Samurai's lively writing style does offer the reader of popular history and historical fiction a glimpse of samurai values from late sixteenth-century Japan. (Emphasis mine)

  This is not me saying this, this is a peer who has reviewed Lockley's work and deemed it unacceptable in an academic format, and if you want additional quotes by Purdy, they are also listed in the talk page as well, he goes into more detail about the lack of citations and the invention of creative embellishments by Lockley.

  As for the other sources, such as Lopez-Vera, they are often in the similar boat as Lockley, that is, the lack of citations to make up for their claims, which can be seen in Talk:Yasuke#On_the_subject_of_academic_sources (also check Talk:Yasuke#Samurai_status on a cohesive definition of what is considered as a samurai backed with a plethora of secondary sources (a more comprehensive list will be made in the future) and Talk:Yasuke#Reaction_of_Thomas_Lockley on Lockley's definition of samurai), which are all the current listed academic sources in support of Yasuke being a samurai, which is 5 of them. All of them follow the same problems as Lockley, they fail to cite their sources. You can look more about it there, because we have discussed this extensively. Remember, the content determines reliability just as much as the researcher's background WP:SOURCE.

  Those who are newer or not looking at this talk page much should keep in mind, all of these things have already been considered, it would be tiring having to repeat this over and over in multiple sections so please look before posting about it. I also suggest that a different method be taken instead of the current RfC due to the lack of participation in those who added to the RfC as well as the complexity of the circumstances we have at hand. Hexenakte (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Doesn't matter what the sources do about their sources. A source can cite zero sources and still be reliable (and in fact the vast majority of sources on Wikipedia are like this: it's rare for a newspaper to cite its sources, for instance). We are simply not at all in the business of caring how a reliable source came to its own opinion, and trying to poke in there is WP:OR.

  Lockley's professional opinion as a historian whose area of expertise is Japanese history is reliable on this matter even if his book isn't reliable for specific factual details. Lopez-Vera's professional opinion is similarly reliable, and his book is reliable for specific factual details. The paper I just linked is also clearly a reliable academic source. Many of the academic reviews of Lockley's book call Yasuke a samurai, and those are reliable sources. The Smithsonian Magazine is a reliable source, and it calls Yasuke a samurai. Etc etc.

  You can't say "all of these things have already been considered" when you've clearly arrived at a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS based on the opinion of a bunch of very new WP:SPAs that totally misreads Wikipedia sourcing policy. Loki (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Doesn't matter what the sources do about their sources. A source can cite zero sources and still be reliable (and in fact the vast majority of sources on Wikipedia are like this: it's rare for a newspaper to cite its sources, for instance). We are simply not at all in the business of caring how a reliable source came to its own opinion, and trying to poke in there is WP:OR.

  This is not per Wikipedia policy where the content itself can affect reliability (see WP:SOURCE) and the scrutiny and fact checking given to said sources makes it more likely to be reliable, and that editors must use judgement on what sources should be used or deemed inappropriate (see WP:SOURCEDEF). In fact it states that "no source is 'always reliable'". The idea that editors cannot practice due diligence on the reliability of secondary sources is not only wrong, but calls into the question of whether you are even acting in good faith about the topic at hand. Who wants to enforce ideas they cannot verify? Because that's essentially what you're arguing for, see Wikipedia:Verifiability. Still engaging with accusations of OR also hurts your case when you have not practiced the same due diligence nor assumed good faith in the others who have.

  Lockley's professional opinion as a historian whose area of expertise is Japanese history is reliable on this matter even if his book isn't reliable for specific factual details. Lopez-Vera's professional opinion is similarly reliable, and his book is reliable for specific factual details. The paper I just linked is also clearly a reliable academic source. Many of the academic reviews of Lockley's book call Yasuke a samurai, and those are reliable sources. The Smithsonian Magazine is a reliable source, and it calls Yasuke a samurai. Etc etc.

  It can absolutely be thrown out if his claims are not reliable, his background is not the only thing that determines reliability, again see WP:SOURCE and WP:SOURCEDEF. Lopez-Vera, as I stated, neglected to cite his claims on Yasuke, just the same as Lockley. If you want to know specifically what he wrote, he put Yasuke in a white box in one page of his academic book, which contained zero inline citations, and that was it. Please show the academic reviews that claim Lockley's claims were "reliable", because I gave you a review from professor RW Purdy who noted the extreme lack of inline citations for his claims, which you can read in full in this talk page, see Talk:Yasuke#Reaction_of_Thomas_Lockley. Again, you glossed over this review despite how integral it is to determining the reliability of an academic book. Why do peer reviews matter then, if you're not even going to read them?

  You can't say "all of these things have already been considered" when you've clearly arrived at a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS based on the opinion of a bunch of very new WP:SPAs that totally misreads Wikipedia sourcing policy.

  These findings were not challenged further despite the fact they are up for everyone to see, and we have pointed to that section multiple times. Also to say it was the "opinion of a bunch of very new WP:SPAs" while also considering the fact that a good portion of those participating in the RfC above have not participated further after it ending, and often not at the consideration of these findings. Exactly like how you are doing, they are not involved in checking to see the reliability of these sources, but by all means I would prefer it if they did. Not to mention, the people involved in that section are not SPAs at all, editors such as @Silver seren, @Eirikr, @Theozilla, and myself have all been extensively involved in this talk page. None of them are SPAs, and 2 of them disagree with me.

  That being said, I do not know why you didn't reply in those sections if you think these findings were wrong, because that should've been the first place to go if you want to address the contention of these sources. No, I am not going to repeat the same information I have been writing out on this talk page over and over spread across multiple sections, that is a waste of time and resources. You are going to go to those sections where they have already been addressed if you want to challenge it. Do not expect others here to have the time to cite each and every time they bring up information when that information has already been addressed and not challenged further in the previous sections, because everyone here has lives they have to attend to. I will always point you to those sections for you to look at to demonstrate that none of this is OR, so please, respect my time and others as well and look at them. Hexenakte (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  "The paper I just linked is also clearly a reliable academic source."

  I believe you mean this paper?

  • https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Boga-Manatsha/publication/369693451_Historicising_Japan-Africa_relations/links/642843ca315dfb4ccec54d88/Historicising-Japan-Africa-relations.pdf

  We already discussed that paper and determined it to be deeply problematic, as described above in the #Samurai status section. Manatsha claims:

  He [Yasuke] was later promoted to a samurai (warrior), and stationed at Nobunaga’s Azuchi Castle, where he distinguished himself by gallantly fighting to defend his new master (Tsujiuchi, 1998; Russell, 2007; Weiner, 2009).

  However, upon evaluating Manatsha's sources, none of them — not Tsujiuchi, not Russell, not Weiner — make any statement about Yasuke becoming a samurai.

  Looking at Manatsha's paper again just now, I see further indications that this is not a scholarly work of rigorous academic value.

  Page 3, second paragraph (emphasis mine):

  One Sinologist claims that “In 1976 a great sensation was produced at the court of Tang Emperor by the arrival of an Arab envoy with a ‘negro slave’ in his suite” (quoted in Russell, 2007:24).

  As I understood it, the last Tang emperor died in 907. If we were to be extremely generous, we might point out that "1976" and "907" share two of the same digits.

  Further along in that same paragraph:

  The Japanese word ‘kurombo’ refers to dark-skinned/black people. It was derived from the Chinese word ‘kunlun’, which originally referred to the dark-skinned people, mainly from South Asia, who were slaves during the Qin and Tang dynasties (Tsujiuchi, 1998; Wyatt, 2010; Welsh, 2012).

  The Japanese word 黒坊 is pronounced as kuronbō in the modern language, and was pronounced without the medial nasal as kurobō in the 1500s and early 1600s. This is not derived from Chinese kunlun (for which the only Chinese word I'm aware of is 崑崙 Kūnlún, the name of the Kunlun Mountains). The Japanese term kurobō or kuronbō is derived from 黒 (kuro, "black", native Japonic term) + 坊 (bō, "monk's quarters; monk; acolyte; boy", ultimately deriving from the Middle Chinese term for "workshop").

  Boga Thura Manatsha's paper, "Historicising Japan-Africa relations", is not a reliable academic source. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 09:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Just an FYI, the source Manatsha quotes writes 976, the 1 is a typographical error. As for the Tang Court, see Southern Tang. The source of "Kunlun" and "Kurombo" is also Russel, who cites Midori Fujita's widely cited Nihonshi niokeru 'Kurobo' no Tojo. I don't think a source can or should be declared unreliable over a single typo and a quote from other academic sources just because your understanding of the language disagrees with the sources the author used. 172.90.69.231 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  • A typo of the magnitude of changing 976 to 1976 when talking about the Tang Dynasty is inexcusable. This indicates that the paper was not edited by anyone even passingly familiar with Chinese history.

  This kind of typo calls into question the quality of the paper as a whole. If such an obvious and egregious error appears here, where else has the author made uncorrected mistakes?

  • The Southern Tang is not the Tang. Claiming that an incident in 976 happened "at the court of the Tang Emperor" is problematic wording. Moreover, the Southern Tang fell in 975, as described at Song conquest of Southern Tang. Russell's 2007 work, "Excluded Presence: Shoguns, Minstrels, Bodyguards, and Japan's Encounters with the Black Other", is marked in Manatsha's paper as the source for this mention of the Tang court. Russell is available here at Academia.edu:

  • https://www.academia.edu/3834263/Excluded_Presence_Shoguns_Minstrels_Bodyguards_and_Japans_Encounters_with_the_Black_Other

  Russell himself dates the Tang Dynasty as ending in 907, and the mention of 976 is in a quote that Russell includes from a different work, "(Coupland, quoted in Filesi 1962, 21)". Filesi 1962 is listed in Russell's bibliography as China and Africa in the Middle Ages, which I cannot currently track down (though I will look more later).

  • Manatsha does not cite Russell, but rather "(Tsujiuchi, 1998; Wyatt, 2010; Welsh, 2012)" for the mention of kuronbo and kunlun.

  • Tsujiuchi via JStor: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43294431?read-now=1&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents

  Tsujiuchi makes no mention of kurombo / kuronbo / kurobo anywhere in the body of the text, and only mentions kurobo in the bibliography as part of a title.

  No mention anywhere of kunlun.

  • Wyatt 2009 appears to be The Blacks of Pre-modern China by Don Wyatt. That appears to be this text in Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=colwNdOiiCQC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

  I have not been able to evaluate this text yet in any detail; I see that it includes many instances of the word kunlun, but zero instances of kurombo / kuronbo / kurobo.

  • Welsh 2012 appears to be "Cultural trends and cross-cultural interest: The “southern barbarian screens” and early modern Japan" in the publication Japan Studies Association Journal, volume 10, pages 138-162. Available here: https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=503e8a8b-1a97-4244-87f5-ddd163b60d52%40redis

  No mention anywhere of kunlun.

  One mention of kurombo, as part of the putative compound kurombo-jin. This is lexically strange, as the 坊 (-bō) suffix in Japanese already includes a sense of "person", so the addition of the 人 (jin) on the end is redundant; at any rate, there are exceedingly few instances of 黒坊人 (kuronbō-jin) anywhere in Google hits (none on regular Google [69], three on Google Books [70], of which one is definitely a scanno with intervening punctuation, and the other two might be, as Google's "snippet view" is unreliable and difficult to evaluate.

  In addition, my description above about the derivation of Japanese kurobō is by no means just "[my] understanding of the language". Please, by all means, have a look at the multiple Japanese dictionary entries available on the corresponding pages for this term at Kotobank [71], [72] and Weblio [73], [74]. Then use those to view the corresponding pages for 黒 (kuro, "black") and 坊 (bō, "boy"). See also the English Wiktionary entry at wikt:黒坊, or the Japanese Wiktionary entry at wikt:ja:黒ん坊. This Japanese term is in no way derived from any Chinese term kunlun.

  None of the three cited texts makes any claim that Japanese kurombo / kuronbo / kurobo is from Chinese kunlun; none makes any claim about the etymology of the Japanese term at all. So Manatsha here seems to be fabricating.

  Ultimately, just from what I've evaluated above in this thread (based in part on @Tisthefirstletter's post earlier in #Status above), Manatsha has fabricated an erroneous etymology for kurombo, and fabricated that "[h]e [Yasuke] was later promoted to a samurai (warrior)". In both fabrications, Manatsha cites sources that do not back up his claims.

  Manatsha's paper is not a reliable academic source. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, looking at it again more closely Manatsha miscites and misattributes a bunch of things. I'm tempted to write to the editorial board of that journal because these are gross errors. The section in Russell says "konrondo" meant "black slaves" and that "konrondo" was derived from "kunlun-nu" on page 41. Which is surprising, since according to his credentials Boga Manatsha has a PhD from Hiroshima University. My bad. 172.90.69.231 (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Appreciate the honesty, and yea, unfortunately this seems to be a recurring theme surrounding Japanese history in the English field in general, but more glaringly in the case of Yasuke. Hopefully more people can realize just how muddy the research here is. Hexenakte (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  The actual source for the "Tang Court" claim can be traced back to here which notably doesn't mention Tang at all in the 976 Statement. Russell cites Coupland, quoted in another book, and the Coupland cites the above book as the source. Considering as we know when all of the various Tang Dynasties came to an end, it is definitely a gross oversight to keep perpetuating Coupland's error. 172.90.69.231 (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for tracking those sources down.

  It appears that Coupland made two errors that have been propagated by other authors.

  • Coupland erroneously describes the 976 encounter in China as occurring in the Tang court:

  In 976 a great sensation was produced at the court of the Tang emperor by the arrival of an Arab envoy with a ‘negro slave’ in his suite; [...]

  This is sourced to E. Bretschneider's 1871 book On the Knowledge possessed by the Ancient Chinese of the Arabs and Arabian Colonies, etc. (which you kindly also found and linked above).

  Meanwhile, what Bretschneider actually wrote on page 13:

  In 976 an Envoy from Ta shi brought a negro slave from 崑崙 K'un lun⁶ to China who created much sensation at court.

  ⁶[long explanation of the identity of K'un lun, as both the w:Kunlun Mountains on the border between China and Tibet, and as an alternative name for the island of Pulo Condore near Cambodia — which is now Vietnamese territory, and called by its Vietnamese name of w:Côn Đảo — which is spelled in Chinese as 昆仑, a.k.a. K'un lun. Bretschneider explains that the "Kunlun slaves" were very likely dark-complected people living in that area: what we now call Southeast Asia, the Malay peninsula, the Indonesia islands, and the Philippines.]

  • Coupland then also agrees with William Ingrams' 1967 book Zanzibar (here at Google Books, only limited preview available) in deciding that Bretschneider's K'un lun was "in East African waters rather than in Malaya". Without reading Ingrams, I cannot directly assess his reasoning, but given the existence of 昆仑 in the waters off Vietnam, I am inclined to think that Ingrams and Coupland were both wrong on this point.

  Very interesting how mistakes can echo down through the years. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  May I remind that Lockley's book is highly unreliable?

  I recommend watching this video from a historian who mentions some of issues with Lockley's book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14BnxtZLBNc

  Lockley's African Samurai does not have in-text citations, making it impossible to verify individual claims. In addition, both the historian in the video above and some editors here on Wikipedia have proven that Lockley actually misquotes some of the primary sources he listed in the book.

  Other secondary sources have similar issues - direct statements without verifiable citations or using unreliable secondary sources to back up their claims. None of the sources which claim Yasuke was a samurai try to argue/debate with the assertion using specific evidence. They just state it as a fact. This would be somewhat acceptable for a historical figure where we have overwhelming evidence in support of the consensus, but that is not the case for Yasuke. Here we have a consensus with very shaky support in historical sources. 81.223.103.71 (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Don Roley isn't a historian. He has no academic background or non-self published works. Don Roley is, in fact, a martial arts instructor and nothing more. He is quite literally the definition of an unreliable source. 172.90.69.231 (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Youtube is not a reliable source, and he isn't even a historian, You all keep arguing put can't prove what you are saying Freavene (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  He is also a translator of a number of books from Japanese and has a solid understanding of the historical period being discussed. I don't see how the lack of a formal academic background makes the points he made about the verifiability and reliability of Lockley's book less valid.

  I am trying to believe your arguments are in good faith, but find it challenging that you would accept unverifiable secondary sources based solely on the merit that the author was a historian. 81.223.103.71 (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's mostly just Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Using self-published sources. Don Roley isn't an established expert by Wikipedia criteria. Translating and self-publishing a book by Seiko Fujita doesn't establish his credibility because there is nobody really overseeing the process nor is anyone in the process verifying that his translations are completely accurate or faithful. Anyone can self-publish books and make a YouTube video making claims, it doesn't make them reliable. 172.90.69.231 (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for the added references on Wikipedia policies and the clarifications. Yes, I stand corrected that Don Roley unfortunately cannot be used as a source beyond his personal observations. My apologies! 81.223.103.71 (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  I am Japanese and there are many of us who are really mad at Lockely, who is just an associate professor for English/Culture in Japan, is the source of all these delusional nonsense of Yasuke. Yasuke's historical records can be read under two minutes and I read them in Japanese. Lockley fabricated lots of things with his imaginations without any historical backing and circumstances. In our ancient culture, the clan name/family name/sur name is the important marker to recognize who is the ruler class or important persons. So Yasuke not getting any clan name/surname from Nobunaga means that Nobunaga never considered Yasuke as bushi let alone samurai (high rank bushi). There were many warriors other than bushi in Sengoku period like 僧兵 monk soldiers. But we don't call 僧兵 bushi let alone samurai. We never called any warriors samurai. Samurai was a noble bushi or high rank bushi. There were 農兵 peasant soldiers too below 足軽 Ashigaru. 農兵 and 足軽 were all called as 雑兵 Zohyo by samurai during Sengoku period. In 信長公記 Shincho Koki, 雑兵(Zohyo) and Samurai were clearly distinguished. Yasuke never fought in battle fields as Nobunaga never went to any battle after he got Yasuke from Jesuit. Honnoji incident is not really a battle nor war, it was just an assassination or sneak attack. We don't call just anyone who just got caught in an incident a samurai.

  Many Japanese feel that foreigners are trying to falsifying our history and culture and we are really angry. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  While Roley may not meet the Wikipedia criteria for an established expert, Roger Purdy does, as a university professor and published historian. His CV is available here. Purdy also pointed out problems with Lockley, as discussed and mentioned earlier on this page in numerous earlier sections, and even above in this very #Why not just add a section about the samourai status section. His review of Lockley is available via Academia.edu, at https://www.academia.edu/116182001/African_Samurai_The_True_Story_of_Yasuke_A_Legendary_Black_Warrior_in_Feudal_Japan. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

About the situation during the time of Oda Nobunaga

Someone wrote a comment in English on ja:Talk:弥助, so I'll write a few comments here too. The era of Oda Nobunaga was at the end of the Sengoku period, and social customs were very different from those in the Edo period that followed. I'm a Japanese speaker, but I think there are some things that the editors of this article don't know enough about, so I'm commenting on them.

About Samurai

The status of samurai in this era was not fixed, unlike in the Edo period. For example, it is well known that Toyotomi Hideyoshi was born as a farmer or merchant, and Ishida Mitsunari was a temple page. It was also common for retainers to change their lord for their own convenience, with Todo Takatora being a famous example.

About gays

Being gay was normal behavior for samurai in this era, and was not particularly problematic. For example, it is well known that Mori Ranmaru, a close aide to Oda Nobunaga, was also Nobunaga's lover, and although it is not often mentioned, Maeda Toshiie, who later became the lord of the Kanazawa domain, was also one of Nobunaga's lovers. A little later, it is also known that Tokugawa Iemitsu was bisexual.

EgiptiajHieroglifoj (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

WakandaScholar was active here too....he was disruptive and not constructive. --ErikWar19 (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

About the samurai status, the lack of a consistent definition is the issue we're dealing with at hand, I suggest checking up here with my post replying to _dk and to X0n's additional comment below that, and here, mainly the big post about Thomas Lockley's use of definition of samurai, which is the very big post with the bulleted source list. I am aware not all of them are academic sources per se (some are), but this kind of stuff has been well documented and accepted within historical academia (as evidenced by the few academic sources I had at hand atm). When I do get the time I will make an effort to gather more academic sources to provide a more cohesive case, but in summary for the purpose of this section here, it has been noted that specific individuals were not samurai, such as Toyotomi Hideyoshi, until he was, but it was not when he was a sandalbearer, which I go into elaborate detail over.

As for the topic about homosexuality, from what I have read this was not cited and supported by evidence of any sort, and I heard this claim from Lockley as well. FWIW, I ask for evidence on that matter, since I didn't see any, and those that did claim it failed to cite their sources for it. There is absolutely no evidence for Yasuke's homosexual relationship with Nobunaga, it should be worth noting that none of the primary sources (WP:OR, but necessary for the topic at hand) state any intimate relationship of Yasuke with Nobunaga.

The fact of the matter is, these words matter a lot, and there was a great deal with those given samurai status. It was definitely easier in the Sengoku period, but it still went through the usual practices you see in feudal societies, that is, marriage, adoption, and/or imperial proclamation (through the Emperor) measured in accordance with the Ritsuryo court ranking system (which dictionary definitions among the Portuguese recognized the term had nobility tied to it, before the Edo period, I cite the dictionary in one of the posts above for you to see). The actual nuances of each rank do not really matter too much for the matter at hand here, just note where samurai are supposed to lie. All of this is detailed in my posts made up above that I linked here, and there are a few more posts that cover other fields I have if you have the time and energy to go through all of that, but I understand if you don't, just expect due diligence has already been done on this matter and that it isn't as simple as some may claim, and that these are the two main ones I made. If you have additional questions or concerns please do not be afraid to ask, in most cases I probably would have already covered it. Hexenakte (talk) 05:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The statement about Ranmaru Mori being involved in a shudo relationship with Nobunaga is false,it is an Edo period invention.There is no contemporary source that describes those 2 as having a shudo relationship compared to people like Takeda Shingen. 80.106.161.157 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke’s height

Re: diffs #1228431545, #1228451819

The quote 「身長は6尺2分」 that we see here and there on the media, seems to come from Matsudaira Ietada's diary, Tenshō 10, month 4, day 19.

Could someone who can read cursive Japanese script help confirm? Thibaut (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, found a transcript: 「身ハすみノコトク、タケハ六尺二分、名ハ弥助ト云」 and this very useful database of cursive characters.

We know that one shaku is approximately equal to 30.3 cm but what about one 分 and what is its reading? Thibaut (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

分 is 1/100 of a 尺 (shaku) according to jisho.org. It's worth checking things like this also on JP Wikipedia pages: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B0%BA

The section here is relevant:

尺という単位は古代中国の殷の時代には既にあったとされている。『漢書』律暦志では音階の基本音（黄鐘）を出す音の笛に、粒が均一な秬黍（くろきび）90粒を並べ、その1粒分の長さを分（ぶ）と定義している。そして10分を1寸、10寸を1尺とする。古代の1尺の長さは正確にはわからないが、出土文物からの推測では、戦国から秦にかけての1尺は23 cm前後であった。漢代でもあまり変わらず、23–24 cm程度であった。文献によると周の尺はその8割ほどの長さ（約20 cm）であった。 81.223.103.71 (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The entry on this page for April 19, 1582 (https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/772514/1/54) mentions Yasuke by name, and so far this is the only primary source that I've seen that does so. Transcribed into print as written in the source, without punctuation:

「雨降　上様御ふち候大うす進上申候くろ男御つれ候身ハすミノコトクタケハ六尺二分名ハ弥助ト云」

Rough-and-ready translation (my own):

Rain falls. Boss [Nobunaga] stipend, Dai usu ["Deus": Jesuits?] presented [something to a superior], black man brought along; body like ink, height 6 shaku [traditional Japanese foot] 2 bu [1/10th of a sun "inch", 1/100th of a shaku "foot"], name of "Yasuke".

The first three clauses could be interpreted as modifiers on the final clause, in which case we could tweak the translation a bit and rework for a more natural English rendering to say "Black man brought along, who has a stipend from the Boss, and whom the Jesuits presented;..."

The exact length of the shaku varied somewhat over time and place, much as the exact length of the "foot" was also somewhat unstable. Using a modern standardized length of 30.3cm for the shaku, Yasuke would have been 182.4cm in height, or 5'11.8" (just shy of 6 feet).

HTH! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

i could be wrong about this, but isnt Sourou 候 (or 御) a term to tell for example in つれ (brought along), that the 大う (dai u/jesuits) in contrast to the くろ男 (black man) brought HIM along (to present him)? So a word to make the direction of the intention clear?

Because we have the same word in the 上様 (uesama/Oda) and ふち (fuchi) part.

I am asking, because directly afterward we have the Jesuits, so the intention FOR the ふち could be to the Jesuits and not to the black man, who was presented by them.

Maybe Oda gave a salary to the Jesuits, because they presented a man to Oda.

I can confirm the height with 6 shaku and 2 bu.

I can confirm the ink in the section "body like ink", but i am unsure about the body term. Skin or body etc.

I would have attempted with shaky legs, so please have mercy:

Oda gave salary to Jesuits, who presented to him black man, they brought him along, he has a body of ink, he has 6 Shaku 2 Bu height, called Yasuke.

--ErikWar19 (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

候 (sōrou) is basically synonymous with あり (ari, "to have; to be; to exist"), as described in various references. See also the entries at Kotobank: https://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%80%99%E3%81%B5-511813#E3.83.87.E3.82.B8.E3.82.BF.E3.83.AB.E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.B3.89. Like ari, sōrou would come at the end of a statement. 御 (mi-) is an honorific prefix, distinct from copular ("to be") verb 候 (sōrou).

The source text doesn't have any directional, so not necessarily "for" anyone. That said, we know from other records that Nobunaga did not give a salary to the Jesuits: they were independent, and not on Nobunaga's payroll. He might have given them gifts of money, but not salaries.

The term for "body" was simply 身 (mi). See also our entry at Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E8%BA%AB#Japanese:_mi ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

身ハすミノコトク - his body was like ink

The old aspect of this is using 身 (mi) to denote "body". Nowadays it would be 体 (karada) or 身体 (shintai/karada).

I agree on the general lack of directionality. An understanding of a broader context is necessary to judge who did what. 81.223.103.71 (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

6尺2寸は182cm（about 6 feet）です。

6尺2寸 is 182cm（about 6 feet）.

Who just interpreted that 6尺2寸 is 6 feet 2 inches?

The level of foreigners of understanding of Japanese culture is not reliable.

Why wouldn't the English Wikipedia refer to the Japanese Wikipedia regarding Japanese history and culture? Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia, including the Japanese Wikipedia, cannto be used as a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED and WP:NOTSOURCE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

insisting on google translate translation into article

people stillt try to insert 黒人は信長様から家臣として召し抱えられて俸禄を得た。名前は弥助とされた。短刀と屋敷なども与えられた。時折、信長様の道具を運ばされた」 this quote into the article, while it is "translated" 短刀 with google translate means short sword, while the term is clearly more in use with the term dagger or knife. even our own wikionary calles it a "short dagger" so even the term dagger is generous. It is not a wakizashi.

Please stop trying to spam down the article with the single source of 1 sentence, that he got a salary 3-4 times. While not quoting once one of the many other quotes, who call him simply a slave. ErikWar19 (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You have now several times removed referenced text, specifically the sentence "As a retainer, he was granted a stipend, a house, and a short sword.".

In your edit comments, you have claimed that "than i will just remove the google translate, that isnt even able to translate the tanto Yasuke received from an actual short sword/wakizashi."

There are multiple problems with this removal of yours.

• The word 短刀 (tantō) literally means "short sword": 短 (tan, "short") + 刀 (tō, "sword").
• Going back to the source material provided earlier today by @Thibaut, the Japanese uses the term さや巻 (sayamaki), also spelled in modern dictionaries as 鞘巻 (sayamaki, literally saya "scabbard, sheath" + maki "winding", in reference to decorations on the sheath). If you can read Japanese, the Japanese Wikipedia article at ja:短刀 describes the sayamaki as a specific kind of tantō. See also the entries here at Kotobank, further describing this as a kind of 腰刀 (koshi-gatana, "hip-sword"). The Kotobank page for 腰刀 glosses that term as:
  • 「腰にさす、鍔のない短い刀。鞘巻など。腰ざし。」

  Koshi ni sasu, tsuba no nai mijikai katana. Sayamaki nado. Koshi-zashi.

  "A short katana with no tsuba [hilt-guard], worn at the hip [stuck through one's obi or sash-belt]. Such as a sayamaki. Koshi-zashi [any hip-worn sword].")

You are correct that the weapon given to Yasuke was not a wakizashi: it appears that instead it was a sayamaki. However, a sayamaki is not any kind of knife or dagger that is smaller than a wakizashi. The main difference between the sayamaki and the wakizashi is not size, but rather that the sayamaki has no tsuba or hilt-guard, whereas the wakizashi does have one.

In light of the concerns that Professor Hiraku himself voices about the provenance of the Japanese quote, we may ultimately decide that this English rendering needs some kind of qualifying statement. That said, this quote does appear to be backed by secondary sources, per Wikipedia requirements. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I didn't think of it this way, thanks for the additional input Eirikr. However since it has no tsuba, it must not have been something that would be used as a battle weapon, and tantos typically do not possess tsubas. It seems kind of odd for a sword such as a katana or tachi to lack a tsuba, whereas tanto are commonly found without one. In any case, since we do not have any actual details on the sword itself, would it be reasonable to translate it directly as a "sayamaki" instead of any different type of sword, due to the lack of context and also of the academic sources provided? Hexenakte (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi I am Japanese and would like to point out about the below record.

>>然に彼黒坊被成御扶持、名をハ号弥助と、さや巻之のし付幷私宅等迄被仰付、依時御道具なともたさせられ候、(この黒人は扶持を貰い、名を弥助と言い、私宅と鞘巻（腰刀の一種）を与えられ、時には道具持ちをしていた)

This black guy was given 扶持 Fuchi, his name is Yasuke, He was given 私宅 a private house and 腰刀 Koshigatana (shortest sword) and sometimes he carried 道具 tools.

>>上様御ふち候、大うす（デウス）進上申候、くろ男御つれ候、身ハすみノコトク、タケハ六尺二分、名ハ弥助ト云

（信長様が、扶持を与えたという、宣教師から進呈されたという、黒人を連れておられた。身は墨のようで、身長は約1.82メートル、名は弥助と云うそうだ）

Lord Nobunaga had a black man accompanied who was given by a missionary. He was given Fuchi and his height is about 180cm and his body was like a black ink and his name is said to be Yasuke.

There is no words of 家臣 vassal nor 俸禄 ほうろく Horoku nor 屋敷 grand house in these two records and also other records.

There is no records of Yasuke being 家来 retainer nor 家臣 vassal nor 小姓 Kosho. We don't even know he was 家来 retainer even, as Yasuke was given by a missionary as a slave. So it is very likely that Yasuke served Nobunaga as a slave. Because a retainer or vassal should have a free will to choose who he wants to serve but Yasuke had no free will. He was just given to Nobunaga by Jesuit like a property. He was never a free man.

Also 俸禄 is a term used mostly in Edo era. 扶持 Fuchi became used as a salary in Edo era. But during Sengoku era 扶持 Fuchi also meant rice, food, food expenses.

And 私宅 private house is different from 屋敷 grand house.

I don't think giving a private house is a special treatment as Yasuke needed a place he sleeps without people coming to see his rare black skin all the time. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to point out, that nowhere does it say in the source text that Yasuke was given a Koshigatana (腰刀) but rather a Sayamaki (さや巻 / 鞘巻). From the help of Eirikr, the sayamaki is determined to be a ceremonial sword of some kind without a tsuba, meaning that it was not meant to be a battlefield weapon. This could be from as short as a tanto to as long as a tachi (assuming Nobunaga didn't give him a nodachi), although I wonder what the point of long swords without a tsuba would be for, I think Eirikr might be able to provide valuable insight on this.

Another thing, you are correct there is no Kosho (小姓) title, this has been removed from the article as discussed previously. We do know that he received a Fuchi (扶持) which this could mean rice or actual coinage, but without further context (since we aren't given any) we cannot say for sure which. The fuchi is not determining of any status anyways, as low attendants were given the same type of stipend as many other examples provided in the Shincho Koki as we discussed in Talk:Yasuke#Establish_a_clear_distinction_between_Bushi_and_Samurai, although I ask that you excuse original OR I have done for some of the parts, I have corrected this in other sections (see Talk:Yasuke#Samurai_status, Talk:Yasuke#Reaction_of_Thomas_Lockley, Talk:Yasuke#On_the_subject_of_academic_sources, Talk:Yasuke#Priority_of_title_justification, etc. etc.), but that section talks about the use of fuchi and how it does not apply exclusively to samurai.

As for the private residence (私宅), we do not know whether this means a proper house or just a private quarters like how Eirikr once pointed out, "you can stay in private quarters over there in the unused gardener's cottage, instead of bunking together in the servants' quarters". It is hard to justify it as the former as Yasuke was never given any koku estate, which would come with the house, as for example, Tomo Shorin, an individual named in the Shincho Koki, was stated to be given a private residence, land of 100 koku, notably two swords (大小, Daisho) - one long sword (太刀, Tachi) and one short sword (脇指, wakizashi) - a kosode (小袖, kosode, basically a short but wide sleeve version (and predecessor) of the kimono) and a horse (馬, Uma) with a set of armor/gear (皆具, Kaigu). This individual was given these gifts on the spot by Nobunaga due to him impressing Nobunaga with his talents in sumo, which is far more than what Yasuke received. As you will note, Tomo Shorin was given a residence AND a koku land estate, and not a small one by any means, so it is reasonable to say that he was given a proper house unlike Yasuke. Hexenakte (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

鞘巻 Sayamaki is a shortest katana in middle age as below.

http://muromachishomin.livedoor.blog/archives/9089716.html

This type of sword was not for battles, and people other than bushi were carrying.

I have not researched yet if Hideyoshi hunted this type of short sword as well in his Sword Hunt... but people including peasants, merchants, craftsman, monks, etc. had all kinds of swords during Nobunaga era for sure.

Even a small hut could be 私宅 a private house. Lockley claims that Nobunaga favored Yasuke like a closest ally but if that is true Nobunaga would have Yasuke live just in his residence but instead Yasuke lived in a house separated from Nobunaga's residence. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

In my recent post, I used the English word samurai for the convenience of the readers, but I think that the content should be discussed using the Japanese words 侍 or 武士. In addition, discussions should be based on materials written in Japanese, and I think it is inappropriate to base discussions on English materials, even if they are written by Japanese people. --EgiptiajHieroglifoj (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Who changed the content in Wikipedia (semi-locked)?

The content says of Yasuke "as a samurai" which has no historical records.

Yasuke serving as a slave is a lot more likely from historical records.

This "as a samurai" in the content is a blatant history falsification.

As a Japanese, I oppose this "as a samurai" expression the content. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke mentioned by Portuguese

While this became a controversial topic, the Portuguese source of his introduction to Nobunaga describes him clearly in a public available source as a "Cafre". (i will call him C., because it is today a slur) Not problematic....except, that the term C. is used on other spaces of the same source. In one part (page 88) we see a discussion about black people, who were angry at the Portuguese, so that the Portuguese had to flee and a C. was killed with an arrow. The N-word is used quite a few times to speak about black people in the book, but not in the paragraphs about Japan, but to speak about Africans.

I will highlight once again, that the Portuguese source differentiate between not owned, black people (N-word) and C., their property. In a different section about the C. of Nobunaga (Yasuke) is mentioned, that the C. was given away to Nobunaga, like a property without any mentioning of the motives of the C. in any of these mentions of them.

A different section already used in this article, used the same term and translated it with slave in the quote about his capture. In this case we have even articles talking about the potential racial intentions of this Japanese person to call him an animal. The articles, like the translated quote, call Yasuke a slave.

At last i want to highlight once again, that the term C. was heavily used by Portuguese to describe slaves in India. sources: https://purl.pt/15229 ErikWar19 (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, this strikes me as very clear original research. Perhaps others will disagree. Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with @Dumuzid — @ErikWar19, this seems like original research.

In addition, it seems like you're arriving at mistaken conclusions.

As we can see in the 1603 Nippo Jisho entry here for the Japanese term Curobǒ (modern 黒坊 kurobō), the Portuguese definition of "Cafre, ou homem negro" strongly suggests that "cafre" did not mean "slave", but rather was a homonym for "black person".

As we can also see in the Portuguese Wikipedia article pt:Cafre, this did not mean "slave", and was instead a term that referred to black people from Africa, particularly southern Africa.

Cafre ou kafir (do árabe كافر : kāfir: 'infiel') foi um termo que se tornou ofensivo (especialmente na sua versão inglesa, kaffir) que designa uma pessoa negra, na África do Sul e noutros países africanos.

Em português, foi inicialmente um termo neutro, aplicado aos negros africanos. 'Cafre' ou 'cafreal' designava o povo da Cafraria (ou Cafreria), a qual, segundo os textos antigos, seria uma região muito extensa da África Austral. 'Cafre' referir-se-ia a qualquer indivíduo da população africana banta, afim dos zulus, não muçulmana, do sudeste africano. Introduzido na língua portuguesa no século XVI, a palavra foi usado por Camões no plural, 'cafres', no Canto V (47) de Os Lusíadas, em 1572.

---

Cafre or kafir (from Arabic كافر: kafir, "infidel") was a term that became offensive (especially in its English version kaffir) that designated a black person, from South Africa and other African countries.

In Portuguese, this was initially a neutral term, applied to black Africans. "Cafre" or "cafreal" designated the people of Cafraria (or Cafreria), which, according to ancient texts, was a very extensive region of southern Africa. "Cafre" would refer to any individual of the Bantu populations, such as the Zulus, non-Muslim, from southwest Africa. Introduced to the Portuguese language in the 16th century, the word was used by [Luís de] Camões in the plural, "cafres", in Canto V (47) of the Os Lusíadas, in 1572.

Erik, bear in mind that the Cafres Wikipedia article you linked to is specifically about the "people born in Réunion of African origins." This is a distinct subset meaning of the word "cafre", which is not reflective of the broader meaning in use in Portuguese in the late 1500s. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

As i stated already exhaustingly prior, this is not original research @Dumuzid, this is in fact the sources already used by this wikipedia article over years?, maybe just 10 months.

https://www.huffingtonpost.jp/entry/yasuke_jp_609347f7e4b09cce6c26a9b2 the biggest sourced article on this article, is using the term slave in their quotes and in these article and explicit in the section about the Honnō-ji Incident and in source 22 and 27 it is mentioned too. We already have the word slave standing in a quote in the Article.

The sources call him C. and the translations of multiple RS, already used by us, call him by these Portuguese sources, a slave.

At the same time, to debunk the opinion, that C. could mean in this book something different, i gave a source, that in a different instant with free black people the Portuguese writer made an effort to differentiate between black people and C.

We just purposely evade this term in RS to this point in the Portuguese sources and Japanese articles.

It is not original research to highlight our contrast to our own sources used in this article, thereby ignoring the first sentences of Verifiability. In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions,[...]

Where is the source, that these Japanese articles are wrong in their translations, that Yasuke was a slave?

Why are you using quotations provided by these articles, who call Yasuke a slave, if you disbelieve in the reliability of these sources without doing anything against these sources over months and without any intention to fix these issues?

I allowed you to see into the entirety of the reports of the Jesuits in Japan, pointed even at the sources, who talk about C. in a manner of slave-posession. No reaction.

How is it possible to give away a human as a gift, without owning him? Why did these Portuguese, who talk about Yasuke, differentiate between free black people with the n-word and C. to describe Yasuke? What makes Yasuke different from a free black person by the term C.? At least look at this contradiction into the provided sources from me and don't strike blindly a original research claim.

@Eirikr The dictionary is a dictionary to translate Japanese to Portuguese, maybe ask yourself, why are Portuguese calling black people first Cafre and than people?

Cafre has on Wikipedia multiple related articles with small different language differences. One of these articles is about the slur-word for example, one of these articles is about the Arabic roots etc.

Your Portuguese article on a side-note wrote later, to use your own words, reflective of the broader meaning in use in Portuguese in the late 1500s:

Seguindo a terminologia de Leão, o Africano, o clérigo e historiador inglês Richard Hakluyt (1552 - 1616) igualmente se refere a essa população como Cafars ou Cafari, no sentido de infiéis ou descrentes. Ao falar dos escravos ("slaves called 'Cafari' ") e de certos habitantes da Etiópia ("and they use to go in small shippes, and trade with the Cafars") Hakluyt usa aqueles dois termos; ao referirse a uma porção da costa da África, utiliza a expressão "land of Cafraria".

I linked to the Reunion C. to make the main distinction clear, but this may be still hard to understand, so maybe look at the Sri Lanka Kaffirs to get the point or maybe read the article about the slur-word. These black population in Goa or other Indian Ocean colonies were called C. by colonists, because they came from Africa and they were not brought to these colonies as tourists or guests, Eirikr. Please accept the reality of live for these people in these colonies at these times.

There are Portuguese slave-trade involved Jesuits, calling Yasuke, a black person, with a term typical used for slaves in their colonies (explicit to differentiate them from Indian slaves btw.). We have multiple RS, calling him a slave. We have wiki-articles, linked by yourself, pointing at the use of the term for slaves for black people at these times.

What is the problem?

Why don't you download the pdf, search for the n-word and C-word and read the paragraphs. It is only 15-16 mentions and you ge tto my core problem.

they use 2 terms to describe black people. One for the Africans, one for their Yasuke and slaves. This goes hand in hand with our reliable sources mentioning him as a slave.

--ErikWar19 (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to start with the issues. Thus, in no particular order:

• The source you say you gave is presumably this: https://purl.pt/15229

This links through to two PDF files, the first of which took me about four minutes to download on a decent connection (clocking around 900+Mbps download). This PDF is 976 pages long. You gave no indication which of the two PDFs we should look at, no indication of which page, no quote even. This first PDF (unsure about the second) is also a compilation of images, which are not searchable for text.

→ Without at least a page number, this is useless as a citeable reference. You cannot expect us to read through 900+ pages to find whatever example you have in mind.

• You seem to have misunderstood the context of your quote from pt:Cafre#Etimologia. That describes how Englishman Richard Hakluyt used the word "Cafari" when writing in English. As English, this is separate from how the word "cafre" was used by the Portuguese.

Moreover, in the context of Hakluyt's text, it becomes clear that the "slaves called Cafari" phrase did not signify that the word "slaves" was equivalent with the word "Cafari", but rather that this particular group of slaves happened to belong to the group or ethnicity called "Cafari". He used the word "in allusion to a portion of the coast of Africa (“land of Cafraria”)." See also Kaffir_(racial_term)#Early_English.

I make no argument that Yasuke was or was not a slave, in relation to the Portuguese Jesuits.

I do take issue with your apparent misapprehension that the term "cafre" necessarily means "slave". I cannot find any reference that states that "cafre" means "slave", not even monolingual Portuguese references like the Dicionário Priberam da Língua Portuguesa. Here is their entry for "cafre": https://dicionario.priberam.org/cafre. No mention of the word escravo ("slave") anywhere on the page. Likewise, their entry for "escravo" (https://dicionario.priberam.org/escravo) has no mention anywhere of the word "cafre". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

ErikWar19 - My apologies. Original research may have been a bit off the mark; WP:SYNTH may capture it better. You are reaching a conclusion not explicitly stated in the sources when you analyze their terminology and draw conclusions therefrom. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

apologies accepted, of course, but i have to intervene again, as my first claim is entirely about terminology consistency in a singular source, we already use in this article. i don't take 2 sources and combine them. The source itself is not used in a consistent manner as it uses the n-word and C. in different sense.

Additional, it is not Synth to point out, that multiple reliable sources in the article already state in words and quotes, that Yasuke was a slave from the Portuguese viewpoint.

Additional, it is not Synth to point out, that to argue against this fact, would meant, to discredit 2-3 additional reliable sources in our article, who are talking about these quotes, who are even partly featured in this article and these sources call him partly a slave too.

the original source call Yasuke by a term, used to describe slaves by Portuguese in Asia, Japanese articles translate these sources with the term slave for Yasuke and articles talk about these quotes and interpret them, while calling Yasuke a slave.

And we use these sources in our article and excluded the term slave.

It is not Synth, when both sources state the same thing. I would rather ask to review your own views as Cherrypicking ErikWar19 (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

the second PDF allows the search of the text and is identical with the first PDF. Is has the size of 108MB. If you don't want to download something, there is a public version, but i presume without a search version.

To claim, that the word cafre was not used in a reference to slaves in Goa is like calling the n-word not a word used predominant for slaves in the USA in the early 1800s, but only to describe as an American slave-owner the original location of these black people on his farms. Surely they were not slaves.

Strangely you will not find in modern English dictionary, that the n-word was used as a synonym for racial enforced slavery, but just as a term to describe, as an insult, black people. It is still oblivious, that in the context of these times and the actions of these Portuguese slave owners, the term cafre had a clear message involved, that a modern dictionary wouldn't even think to portray for good reasons.

Sources using the term explicit involved with Portuguese slave trade to describe explicit African slave trade is laughable easy to find.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41930225

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26362123 and without access to jstor, maybe this?

https://repositorio.ul.pt/bitstream/10451/64058/1/LS_book-slave%20trade.pdf And before you may ignore it, i would recommend to read the quote 12 of the last source to the last sentence. In the section about terminology.

--ErikWar19 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

As a Japanese, I also believe Yasuke was a slave.

This is why Jesuit gave Yasuke to Nobunaga like a property.

Even in the Japanese historical record such as 家忠日記 Ietada Diary by 松平家忠 Matsudaira Ietada, he wrote that Yasuke was GIVEN by a missionary.

And according to Jesuit, 明智光秀 Akechi Mitsuhide said of Yasuke as 黒奴 black slave and 動物 animal and he spared his life and returned him to Jesuit.

Even Jesuit wrote "a black slave we gave to Nobunaga" in their report. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

it could be, that the term slave has to be seen in a matter of time. In some rare cases slaves were freed by long term service for a master, explicit military service as a serving boy for a higher ranked person. This was the status quo in India and it is to presume, that the Portuguese at least saw Yasuke in this light, as his origin in clearly from these Portuguese and from India (and the ~area of Mozambique as the area of origin.)

A lot of this view, that he is from Mozambique, is just speculation of academics, but it is most likely and thereby to be presumed to be correct. But this is already implying slavery as the form to transport him from this are to India and later Japan.

As we have accepted the Mozambique-roots of Yasuke, it would make sense to at least allow the necessary clarification on the article, that Yasuke's present in Japan must have lead to a slavery background for Yasuke at some point of his live.

Even people, who used the term retainer on him, like Lockley has to acknowledge this potential slavery background of Yasuke and just presumes, that he probably got his freedom already in India, without giving any prove for this claim.

The sources about him in Japan don't mention in any paragraph a independent action of Yasuke (except his surrender) in contrast to other matters, like him being called a gift as a person and him getting send back to his former presumed owners and not killed, because of his mere slave status.

We have already Japanese secondary sources calling him a slave and we have a source (about Portuguese slave trade, the repositorio-pdf above) stating, that in Asia Cafre was a typical term for slaves. My source at the start tries to highlight, that a C. and a group of black people refereed with the n-word was mentioned by the Portuguese in one singular instant. The source is calling Yasuke a C. multiple times too.

In the sentence with both words, N-word and C., we can see the different use of both terms to talk about two forms of black people, that can make us understand the difference between both terms for the Portuguese and thereby understanding the status of Yasuke as a member of one of these groups. I argued, that the term Cafre is used for black people in servitude for the Portuguese, while the n-word was used to describe free black people, who reacted violent against the Portuguese and killed a Cafre.

This sentence is kinda important, because the Portuguese sources would only use his actual name once as a name used by Japanese. They don't use a name to talk about him, they call him only a Cafre.

This doesn't contradicts the Japanese view on Yasuke, but it clearly shows us the view on Yasuke for the Portuguese. --ErikWar19 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@ErikWar19, I am not disputing whether Yasuke was a slave or not. I am disputing your contention that Yasuke's description in Portuguese as "cafre" necessarily means that Yasuke was a slave.

Even in the sources you've given me, they do not use the word "cafre" to mean "slave". https://repositorio.ul.pt/bitstream/10451/64058/1/LS_book-slave%20trade.pdf is an excellent example.

• You recommended that I look at footnote 12. Here is the relevant main-body paragraph, and footnote.

The term Negro (Black) in Macao and Japan meant slave (in general), or dark-skinned (African) slave, whereas Cafres (Kaffirs), from the Arabic كَافِر kāfir¹², designated someone ungrateful, unfaithful, an unbeliever, a renegade, or a non-Muslim.

¹² Originally, the Portuguese used this word to designate the non-Bantu populations they encountered south of present-day Angola, as they were descending the western coast of Africa on their way to India, more specifically, the Khoisan of present-day Namibia (c.1484–88). Interestingly enough, the Portuguese chose to name the Khoisan Cafres since they realized that the latter were neither of the Nilo-Saharan nor of the Niger-Congo ethnic/racial groups who are/were either Muslims/Islamic or had a very sophisticated religious system. Obviously, the Khoisan had/have a very sophisticated philosophical and religious system. Unaware of this, the Portuguese only judged them based on their looks and their nomadic lifestyle. Cafres—from the Arabic كَافِر kāfir, “infidels”, “renegade”, or “he/she who rejected the word of God”—was then the term that came to their minds since it was used in the Iberian Peninsula at the time of the Muslim occupation (711–1492). In Asia, then, the Portuguese and their descendants used this term to refer to someone with a dark skin tone, most of the time a slave.

Some of these details don't entirely agree with other resources I've seen (stating instead that "cafre" came into the Portuguese language in the 1500s, and referred to non-Muslim Bantu populations of southeast Africa — not non-Bantus of southwest Africa), but setting that aside, it is clear that Lúcio de Sousa, author of The Portuguese Slave Trade in Early Modern Japan, did not view the word "cafre" as synonymous with "slave".

• Further down on page 215, we have part of Table 4.4 "Asian slaves (1588–1643) (cont.)". In the "Short Biography" column, at the bottom of the page, we see:

On the return trip, departing from the port of Kochi, the ships carried 256 slaves, namely: Kaffirs, Bengalis, Canarins, Animals, Corumbins, Javanese, and Chinese.

"Kaffir" (used here by the author as the English synonym for Portuguese "cafre") is being used here in a way that is clearly distinct from the meaning of "slave".

Granted, in Portuguese circles at that time, it does appear that most people of African descent and who were not Christian were subject to possible enslavement, and this would include anyone in the "cafre" category. However, someone being a non-Muslim person from southeast Africa and called a "cafre" in Portuguese documentation does not necessarily mean that that person was a slave. Much like a person called a "negro" in US texts prior to the Civil War does not necessarily mean that that person was a slave.

----

The Japanese source you pointed to for calling Yasuke explicitly a 奴隷 (dorei, "slave") was the Huffington Post Japan article at https://www.huffingtonpost.jp/entry/yasuke_jp_609347f7e4b09cce6c26a9b2. All of the quotes in that article appear to be translation into Japanese of the original letters from the Jesuits in Portuguese, where the translator renders "cafre" as 黒人奴隷 (kokujin dorei, literally "black person" + "slave"). That said, the quality of the Huffington Post reporting is not high; they misattribute at least some of the text, such as this bit.

黒人奴隷は少し日本語が分かったので、信長は彼と話して飽きることがなかった。
Kokujin dorei wa sukoshi Nihongo ga wakatta no de, Nobunaga wa kare to hanashite akiru koto ga nakatta.
The black slave understood some Japanese, so Nobunaga did not get bored talking with him.

The article attributes this to Fróis, but this is clearly the letter written by Mexia, as I excerpted above in the #The Tono Notation section:

& assim não se fartava de o ver muitas vezes, & falar com elle, por que sabia mediocremente a lingoa de Japão,
& so he [Nobunaga] didn't get tired of seeing him [Yasuke] often, & talking to him, because he knew the language of Japan mediocrely,

This kind of misattribution damages the reliability of the article. Considering also that this is a pop-culture online magazine and not an academic work, I don't think we can use this to make any factual statements about the historical Yasuke.

----

Rather than focusing on the word "cafre", I think a better case could be made by paying attention to how the Portuguese letters describe Yasuke in other ways. I think this bit from Luís Fróis's letter of November 1582, reporting on the death of Nobunaga, presents a clearer case. This is on the left-hand (facing, unnumbered) page 66 in the Segunda Parte ("Second Part") PDF (https://purl.pt/15229/4/res-402-v/res-402-v_item5/res-402-v_PDF/res-402-v_PDF_24-C-R0150/res-402-v_0000_capa-capa_t24-C-R0150.pdf), or page 136 as numbered by the PDF file itself, we see the following text, starting about halfway down the right-hand column. Here I give my transcription, my updates to modernized spellings, and the adjusted Google Translate output (emphasis mine):

Temiamos mais porque hum cafre que o padre Viſitador deixou a Nobunânga polo deſejar, depois de Nobunánga ſer morto ſe foi a caſa do principe, & ali eſteue pelehando hũ grande pedaço: hum criado de Aquechí ſe chegou a elle, & he pedio a cataná, que não tiueſſe medo elle lha entregou, & o outro foi perguntar a Aquechì, que fario do cafre, reſpondeo: eſſe cafre he beſtial, que não no matem, la o depoſitem na igreja dos padres da India, polo qual nos começamos aquietar algũa couſa, & mais quando vimos a grande miſericordia q́ o ſenhor vſou cõ eſta caſa em ſe ir poucos dias antes o cunhado de Nobunãga pera o Sacáy, porq́ ſem duuida pera o matarẽ a elle q́ tãbẽ auia de ſer dos mortos era neceſſario q́ poſeisẽ fogo a noſſa igreja que eſtaua pegada cõ ſa caſa, ou elle ſe auia de recolher a noſſa por ſer mais forte que a ſua, & aſsi milhor nos auiaõ de queimar, & deſtruir a noſſa.

Temiamos mais porque hum cafre que o padre Visitador deixou a Nobunânga pelo desejar, depois de Nobunánga ser morto se foi a casa do principe, & ali esteve pelehando hum grande pedaço: hum criado de Aquechí se chegou a elle, & he pedio a catana, que não tivesse medo elle lha entregou, & o outro foi perguntar a Aquechì, que fario do cafre, respondeo: esse cafre he bestial, que não no matem, que la o depositem na igreja dos padres da India, pelo qual nos começamos aquietar alguma cousa, & mais quando vimos a grande misericordia que o senhor usou com esta casa em se ir poucos dias antes o cunhado de Nobunãga para o Sacáy, porque para o matarem a elle que tambem avia de ser dos mortos era necessario que pusessem fogo a nossa igreja que estava pegada com sa casa, ou elle se avia de recolher a nossa por ser mais forte que a sua, & assi milhor nos aviando de queimar, & destruir a nossa.

We feared more because a kaffir that Father Visitador [[[Alessandro Valignano]]] left to Nobunânga [to do with] as he wished, after Nobunánga was killed, went to the prince's [Nobutada's] house, & there he was fighting a great deal: a servant from Akechi approached him, & he asked for the katana, not to be afraid, he gave it to him, & the other went to ask Akechi, what would he do with the kaffir, he replied: this kaffir is beastly, don't kill him, deposit him there in the church of the priests of India, through which we began to calm some things down, & more when we saw the great mercy the lord showed towards this house in having Nobunãga's brother-in-law go to Sacáy a few days before, because without doubt in order to kill him, who was to be of the dead, it was necessary for them to set fire to our church, which was attached to his house, or he was going to save ours because it was stronger than his, & thus better dispatching us by burning, & destroy ours.

That bit about "deixou a Nobunânga polo deſejar" ("left to Nobunaga [to do with] as he wished") only makes sense if Yasuke had no real agency: this implies that Yasuke was, to the Jesuits at least, a slave.

All that said, these letters from the Jesuits are still primary materials. We Wikipedia editors would be on much more solid ground if we can find secondary, reliable, and ideally academic materials that clarify Yasuke's status, with explicitly stated reasoning and citations of source texts. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Eirikr thx for your view of the source.

the statement about the meaning of the term stands in the paragraph about the terminology and this includes the terminology the PDF is using, while the quote clearly states, that in Asia, then, the Portuguese and their descendants used this term to refer to someone with a dark skin tone, most of the time a slave." So we have a secondary material, that clarify the term used in context of slavery by the Portuguese. Even the other quote once again uses the term slave and than specify a group of slaves with the term C.

I posted this PDF to highlight the often to be presumed context of this term as a potential view at least, how the primary material of the Jesuits have to be understood, if we want to understand the term in their writings.

There i want to highlight the Page 153 (right side).

It starts with os Portugueses comecarao etc.

I will just summarize, your translation will probably be better, but the Portuguese began to assemble two or three rifles to defend themselves against the black people (n-word) of the land,....seem to be the start of it.

Afterward the priest try to talk with these black people of the land and in the followed aggression a C. died. C. has to posses thereby at least a difference to these native black people for the Portuguese, that may help our understanding of both term.

The interesting use of the term cafre and the n-word is at the end of the page and a bit to the next page. i think the writer even highlights the fact, that the N.s killed one of them. So this section is at least worthy to be viewed.

--ErikWar19 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Digging through the meat of that letter, "Carta que o padre Pero Gomes escreveo de Amacao a outro padre acerca do seu naufragio que fez indo da China pera Iapão a treze de dezembro, de 1582" ("Letter written by Father Pero Gomes from Macau to another father about his shipwreck on the way from China to Japan on the 13th of December, 1582"), it is clear that the "negros" mentioned were likely residents of the South China coast, or of Taiwan, or possibly even the Philippines (it is not entirely clear where Father Gomes's ship came ashore). Given other Portuguese sources clearly defining cafre as meaning at least "black resident of southern Africa", this would be a meaningful distinction between the "cafre" people who were part of the Portuguese sailing group, and the "negro" people who were local residents, and who were likely visually distinct from sub-Saharan African people. Again, I really don't think that the "cafre" term as used in this letter necessarily means "slave". Sub-Saharan African people in Portuguese contexts were frequently slaves, but the term "cafre" does not, in itself, appear to include any such "slave" meaning. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

well, to the idea, that "negros" would mean people of Southasian areas, i would like to point at the ending of this paragraph: nos espreitam como a inimigos, e hu cafe mataram com frechas, e pou eo menos a outros tres, cadahu dos quais trazia tres quatro frechadas: de nossa parte lhe matarão hum negro.

I just suspect, that they didnt used the term "negros" for Southern Asian people, while using the adjective "negro" to describe a cafre. It is more likely, that these people,were some natives on the African coast, seen in a contrast with "cafre" as black people, who served the Portuguese sailing group, mainly as slaves. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

"It is more likely, that these people,were some natives on the African coast,"

@ErikWar19, I am concerned at your apparently deep ignorance of geography. Father Gomes's letter is specifically about a shipwreck that occurred on a voyage from China to Japan. More specifically, from Macao to Japan.

In terms of distance, from Macao to Japan is roughly analogous to the distance from Gibraltar to London. Thus, traveling from Macao to Japan by way of Africa is roughly analogous to traveling from Gibraltar to London, by way of Argentina. This is preposterous and makes no sense whatsoever.

In addition, we know that Father Gomes's letter was written on December 3, 1582, about events earlier that July. If the voyage had traveled from Macao, to Africa, to Japan, and had left Macao on July 6 as stated in the letter, they would still have been en route by December, not back in Macao (again as stated in the letter).

No, it is absolutely unlikely that the "negros" mentioned in the letter "were some natives on the African coast". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

oh, i saw the mention of the Canarians prior and knew, that Alessandro Valignano was since Feb 1582 on his way back to Portugal, but this was a letter of Pedro Gomez still in Asia. (on a sidenote, is this the Gomez, who was Spanish and later involved in the Philippines in the 90ths?)

Still it is curious, that he is comparing the cafre with these natives and with the term negro.... --ErikWar19 (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we need the analysis of the terms used during that time in Portuguese. And I appreciate your insight. Japanese translation of the word cafre in the Jesuit repots is "黒奴". 黒 is literally black. 奴 means slaves from the ancient times in Japan. Slaves in Japan were rather treated better than black slaves in America. So people tend to exclude all types of slaves from the slave category because due to the American media influence, slaves are only thought of as black slaves of America.

The important fact is that Yasuke was given by Jesuit to Nobunaga without Yasuke's free will. Lockley is a culprit to try to change our history based on his wishful speculation.

For example, the below speculation by Lockley is total nonsense as the historical fact is that Yasuke was GIVEN by Jesuit to Nobunaga as a gift.

>>he probably got his freedom already in India

And the Jesuit repot mentions that the missionaries thought of making money by showing Yasuke to Japanese people in town who they thought would pay to see a rare black man.

Also, there were slaves in Japan during Sengoku period. The slave system has been banned from sometime in the ancient times in Japan but there were many slaves existed especially after famine or wars. During Sengoku era, the defeated places were pillaged for things and people. And some of those kidnapped people were sold to Portuguese slave merchants. The estimate number of Japanese who got shipped as slaves by Portuguese is like 50,000. Hideyoshi got furious when he got to know these slave trading and immediately ordered 伴天連追放令 and banned human trafficking.

The more I research about Yasuke, the more I am convinced that he was merely a slave servant who was treated better for his rarity. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

How the Portuguese treated Africans at the time is a separate topic from how Nobunaga treated Yasuke, so if it is mentioned in the article, I think it should be in a separate section.--EgiptiajHieroglifoj (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

my intention would be to add it in the section about his early live.

Yasuke had African roots, and Luís Fróis wrote of Yasuke as Cafre in his letters. Crasset states that Yasuke was a servant brought from India when Alessandro Valignano came to Japan, while Solier states that he was from Portuguese East Africa (now Mozambique). It has been suggested that Yasuke was likely a Muslim.

In the footnote about the term Cafre or in the section itself should be mentioned, that the majority of the Cafre in service for the Jesuits were slaves and/or that Yasuke had experienced slavery at some part of his live and that some academics presume, that he was a rare case for these slaves to be freed.

The article should represent in some manner the African-Indian slavery of the Portuguese colonial empire at this stage of history in an article of one of it's most famous victim.

the main academic source, who claims, that Yasuke was freed, is Russel. He claims, that as a child in India (so even he agrees, that Yasuke was at some point a slave) he was given back his freedom with zero prove in any source for this claim. We still try to use this claim by Russel in this article 2-3 times as if it would be a fact, that Russel said just as a presumed claim.

This attempt to hide the slave-history of Yasuke under Portuguese rule is on a side-note really hurting the article, as it makes it hard to explain, that the Japanese side, mainly Oda, may had a different view on slavery compared to Yasuke's Portuguese owners and may even gave Yasuke various things to allow him to distance himself from them. But we can't talk about this interesting clash of different cultures by Yasuke's live in Japan, if we hide his clear slavery-background in the article.

--ErikWar19 (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The historical Japanese records and Jesuit records say that Yasuke was GIVE by Jesuit to Nobunaga. People who get treated like a property in human trafficking are slaves.

So Yasuke was a slave. There is no confusion on this.

As a Japanese, I feel a great threat to our culture and history by foreigners who try to falsify our culture and history for the benefits of their interests.

And now someone just edited the content to Yasuke "as a samurai" and put a semi-lock until November when the AC Shadows releases.

Wikipedia is now a tool of black supremacy and DEI propaganda.

We need to stop any attempt for history falsification. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Why not an RfC?

This talk is an unreadable mess that will never deliver a consensus on the samurai issue. I suggest that editors interested in the topic read WP:RFC carefully. You could use the RfC on Trans woman as a reference model. This so-called RfC was not advertised at RFCA using the {{rfc}} tag. Note that opening statement should be brief and neutral, and that best practice is to keep the survey and discussion sections separate. In this case I suggest a separate section or page (example) also for Sources, where editors can list sources and publish excerpts from them. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding a separate Sources section, is it typical for a RfC to also discuss the reliability of individual sources entries? The reason for the Yasuke RfC and the historical figure of Yasuke are a slightly unusual scenario in the sense that primary sources are very scarce and secondary sources are largely non-academic and/or engage in speculations without clear backing in (or in contradiction with) primary sources. 81.223.103.71 (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

In principle we should avoid dealing with primary sources because that's close to original research: Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them per WP:PRIMARY and Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources per WP:SECONDARY. If there's a dispute about whether a particular source is a reliable source (RS), editors may start a discussion at WP:RSN. Finally, for the purposes of an RfC an organised presentation of RSes such as this one could be very helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we must be wary of engaging in WP:Original research.

That said, I don't think we should therefore avoid looking at primary sources altogether, especially when those primary sources are referenced as the ostensible origin of claims made in the secondary sources.

As part of doing our due diligence in identifying reliable sources for history, we must evaluate the claims of the secondary sources we wish to cite. And if those secondary sources make claims that are ostensibly backed by other sources, it behooves us to look at those other sources to see if those claims are indeed backed up.

By way of example, see the discussions above about Manatsha's paper "Historicising Japan-Africa relations" (in #Samurai status and #Why not just add a section about the samourai status), where an evaluation of Manatsha's cited sources revealed that those backing references actually do not support Manatsha's claims — rendering Manatsha's paper unreliable.

Using primary sources as a reference point for our articles could thus be appropriate — so long as we limit our use of primary sources to the work of determining the reliability of secondary sources (or quoting from them to help illustrate a point made by the secondary source, as per WP:HISTIP). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Eirikr

There are not really any secondary sources on Yasuke in the first place. Yasuke is a trivial figure who doesn't even have a surname/clan name in Japanese history, therefore no one really study about him whose historical records can be read under 2 minutes in Japanese.

Lockley is an associate professor for English/Linguistics in Japan University in Japan and his study on Yasuke is like his hobby not a academic job.

If Lockley's book can be a secondary "academic" source then anyone can write about Yasuke and can be used as a secondary source.

Would the editors here take those secondary sources then?

Lockley's book and any media using his book are like a novel not academic level sources. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 10:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

One concern I have about the not-quite-RFC that happened earlier, is that many of the commenters seemed to be ignorant of the many issues brought up previously on this Talk page about the reliability of the sources. Either concerns were ignored, or dismissed out of hand. The process played out as basically a popularity vote, rather than an open discussion of the issues.

I'm not sure this kind of popularity vote would be avoided by holding a proper WP:RFC.

That said, I entirely agree that having a full list of all sources looked at so far, with room for talking about the perceived issues with each, would be a good idea. That would hopefully help us avoid the problem recurring on this Talk page, where multiple posters independently bring up the same sources multiple times, each in apparent ignorance of the reliability issues already identified and discussed in the past. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the vast majority of editors, including myself, don't agree with your original research or opinion on the sources presented. Silverseren^C 22:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead now says that Yasuke served as a retainer. Two sources are provided ([75] [76]), which are in Japanese and don't look like high quality / academic sources (the second one is the Huff Post). Per WP:NONENG, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. Several reliable sources in English call Yasuke a samurai:

• The Britannica article about Yasuke says "Yasuke (born c. 1550s) was a Black samurai".
• BBC says "He would go on to become the first foreign-born man to achieve the status of a samurai warrior".
• Smithsonians Magazine calls him "The first Black samurai".
• Time says "Yasuke was a real-life Black samurai".
• CNN says "Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records".
• France Info says "premier samouraï d'origine étrangère et africaine" [the first samurai of foreign and African origin].

I browsed through the long talk page discussions and noticed that Eirikr made nearly 70 comments arguing that all of the secondary sources describing Yasuke as samurai or koshō (page boy) are not backed by any primary sources and that One of the big problems we've been zeroing in on in this Talk page is that the secondary sources do not appear to be all that reliable. They claimed that CNN, Smithsonian, Radio France, and Time sources do not appear to be usable, that the Britannica article about Yasuke is vague in its defintion of the term [samurai] and is inconsistent with what I've read in other more-detailed sources, and that Manatsha, Boga Thura (2019). "Historicising Japan-Africa relations". Pula Botswana Journal of African Studies. 33 (1) is not a reliable academic source. I don't know anything about Japanese history, and I have no prior knowledge or interest in the subject, but I do know that this approach to sources is contrary to core policies WP:V and WP:NOR.

So I'm now changing the lead according to the best available sources. Please feel free to revert if you don't agree and we'll have a meaningful and orderly RfC on the subject. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There's also the academic sources and quotes I presented in the Talk:Yasuke#On_the_subject_of_academic_sources section, Gitz6666. I was honestly just waiting for the one month period on the RfC to end, ask for admin closure, and then it wouldn't matter what arguments were being made, consensus would be shown. As you noted and I've elaborated on before, it seems very against WP policy to claim that the consensus of the editor community is wrong because they're "ignorant" of the subject. We've had plenty a "subject-matter expert" come around on various topics and try to enforce their opinion despite what the broader editor community consensus was on the subject. Things rarely turned out positively for the "experts" in question. Silverseren^C 23:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Silver seren, excellent sources. Is this the RfC you are referring to? It's on a different albeit related question (the viewpoint that he was a samurai might be more mainstream than a significant minority view) and most importantly WP:RFCOPEN was not followed so that that "RfC" was not listed at WP:RFCA, uninvolved editors were not notified by Yapperbot and basically the wider community could not join the discussion. I doubt that RfC deserves closure. I'm pinging RomeshKubajali on this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point, actually. I can make an RFC and ping the participants in the old "RFC" in a few hours (or if you want to I'm fine with someone else making it first). Loki (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Local talk page RfCs involving people interested in the article are allowed. Not every RfC gets listed on RFCA (otherwise it would be a lot more congested, considering the amount of talk page discussions going on at any one time). And the involvement of 15 editors seems fairly high for a random article talk page discussion. But doing a larger RfC is fine too. Silverseren^C 00:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that if/when my edit to the lead gets reverted we can have a larger RfC and ping the editors who took part in the first one. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping and please forgive me for the slow reply; I've been rather tired of this entire Yasuke situation and Wikipedia in general. My RfC was listed on RfC/A, I used the RFC template and included the RfC in the bio and hist categories (see diff). I additionally announced the RfC on other related articles and WikiProject Talk Pages (see diffs for Foreign-Born Samurai, Samurai, Black People in Japan, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject Biography and, WikiProject Africa). I understand however that the RfC template is for some reason no longer in my section (I assume the bot removed it after 30 days?) which has caused this confusion over whether the RfC was properly made and publicised.

On a related note I am going to/have revert(ed) your edit adding the Samurai title to the lead. I believe this edit was improper given my RfC attempted to resolve this issue and currently has an active closure request. RomeshKubajali (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

my mistake, thanks for clarifying the RfC tag issue. Still, that RfC is not neutrally framed: it asks whether the view that Yasuke was a samurai should be included as "significant minority view", while it is actually the only view supported by reliable sources: an uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion.The RfC should have been worded as @LokiTheLiar's RfC here below - four options on an equal footing, none of which is presented as majority or minority view. Notwithstanding this shortcoming, the RfC's question received (if I'm not mistaken, I'm on a mobile) one No and nine Yes, and six editors !voting Yes (myself included) specified that the subject's status as a samurai is actually the mainstream view to be stated in wikivooce.

That RfC should be closed per WP:SNOWBALL and my edit to the lead immediately restored. Alternatively we could re-open Loki's RfC, which was interrupted for no apparent reason. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

In theory we ought to wait until the old RFC is closed. But it's kinda on the border of WP:SNOW territory. Loki (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

No, we should not close the RFC and immediately restore your edit, as there are serious problems with stating in wikivoice that Yasuke was a samurai. There are serious problems with the sources claimed as "reliable", which issues have not been addressed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 08:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666

Recently Kirino Sakujin denied Lockley's claim that Kirino did a fact-check on Lockley's book.

https://x.com/kirinosakujin/status/1795768862652449021

Since there is no one having fact-checked his book, Lockley's book and any media using his book as source are all unreliable.

So you should stop repeating any media using Lockley's book as sources. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

So are you not going to address these issues? You are completely ignoring every argument we have been saying and given you multiple chances to explain to us why you believe these sources are reliable or why we should use these sources. Not once have you actually acknowledged this question, you keep trying to insist on changing it without considering the sources. If you continue to ignore this we're going to assume you're disrupting this conversation with zero interest in having an honest discussion on the verifiability of these sources claiming Yasuke is a samurai. Hexenakte (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I could have worded the RfC better. I don't think my poor first attempt at an RfC necessitates another RfC though; other Wikipedia users gave various "Yes but..." responses to the RfC so I don't see another, better worded, RfC resulting in a different outcome. Looking at the other responses in this thread other users also have issues with the RfC for varying other reasons so maybe it would be beneficial to go to DRN.

...while it is actually the only view supported by reliable sources: an uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion.

That is only the case if you accept the idea that a source needs to explicitly state he was not a samurai for it to disagree with the assertion that Yasuke was a samurai. That's an absurd view to take though as I and others have explained previously. RomeshKubajali (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It is in fact just how sourcing works. A source can't be used to source claims it doesn't make, even if it also doesn't make the opposite claim either. Loki (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

To refer to the proof of negative claims, this section explains it well here:

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.

Keep in mind most of this information was sourced from earlier discussions (see #Samurai_status, #Reaction_of_Thomas_Lockley, #On_the_subject_of_academic_sources, #Priority_of_title_justification), so assume everything here is supported by secondary sources unless I state it is OR otherwise for the sake of saving time. For evidence of absence regarding Yasuke's samurai-ness:

• The default status for Japanese people was non-samurai, and that being a samurai was a rarity/privileged class. Also that Toyotomi Hideyoshi was specifically stated as not a samurai until after his marriage with his wife One (who came from Minamoto lineage) in 1561.

• Yasuke lacked a surname, which is necessary to be considered of a samurai status or class. If we compare him to Tomo Shorin, Tomo Shorin was given a 100 koku estate, a daisho set, a horse with armor/gear, a kosode, a stipend, and a "private residence". Yasuke only received a stipend, a "private residence", and a sayamaki (a Japanese sword of some kind lacking a tsuba; this could refer to a tantō, which commonly did not have a tsuba (this tanto claim is OR)).

• Yasuke was never once referred to as a samurai nor was he referred to by any title.

• The lack of a conformed definition of "what a samurai is" among academic scholars pushing the positive claim that he was a samurai.

• The lack of proper citation and/or support for the positive claim that he was a samurai.

• The lack of Yasuke being considered a samurai by academic historians for decades up until the last 10 or so years, which so far all of those listed in this talk page goes back to the previous bullet point.

Overall, it does not need to be said that he was explicitly not a samurai in the article, which source support is required for. What you do not get is that we are not advocating for making this explicit statement, instead he should be referred to as what is supported by proper citations/evidence, that is that he was an "attendant retainer", which several of the secondary sources listed here do call him, such as from Russell's paper mentioned in #Samurai_status:

Retained as an attendant by Nobunaga, he later accompanied him into battle against the rival lord Akechi Mitsuhide (1528? —1582)who upon defeating Nobunaga at Horyuji, spared the African and subsequently released him. (Emphasis mine)

This is evidence we can use for the article in accordance with WP:CONTEXTFACTS ("The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another."), as this is supported by the primary sources as he was said to carry Nobunaga's tools and that he was in his service.

So no, the burden of proof for the positive still needs to be met. You cannot dismiss our arguments simply because no academic paper made a negative claim about it, this is an argument from ignorance. The burden of proof lies on the positive, not the negative. Hexenakte (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

We already have explicit unambiguous policy on this. Basically some editors on this talk page are arguing, on the basis of their background knowledge of the history and culture of Japan, that Yasuke as a samurai is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. I don't agree with them (and will explain why) but even if we accept the point, it follows that we need multiple high quality sources, which we do have. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I categorically disagree that we have "multiple high quality sources". I will post a more in-depth look at this later. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 09:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:RSN be the right venue for posting your forthcoming in-depth source analysis? We've already had plenty of those on this talk page and it's clear that they don't help reaching a consensus. If you keep on posting them here you are only WP:bludgeoning the process. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666, I am honestly confused — what issue do you take with my analysis of Manatsha's paper, "Historicising Japan-Africa relations", as described in detail in the #Why not just add a section about the samourai status section?

In that analysis, I point out that Manatsha makes two claims (about the status of Yasuke as a samurai, and about the derivation of the Japanese term kuronbo), which he cites to specific sources. Upon inspection, we (not just I) found that those sources do not back up his claims.

Are you contending that WP:V and/or WP:OR state that we (editors in general) should not attempt to evaluate the reliability of a source, by looking into the verifiability of a source's claims? Seeking clarity here. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I want to highlight as the person, who had a strong discussion with Eirikr just before your section, about the slave status of Yasuke, that Eirik is the calmest voice in this talk page with the biggest insides in this matter here, who took the most effort to actual view into these sources and i dont see the same commitment in your posts in this section, except the same claims already stated and dismissed MONTHS ago on a wimp to push a certain view.

A lot of your "reliable sources" about his samurai status state papers of news-articles, who are not about Yasuke, but about a various shows, that takes historic liberties with this historic figure. These samurai Yasuke articles in recent media are not the historic Yasuke, they talk about the media-Yasuke and try to connect this media-Yasuke with his actual historic reality. I even talked on this talk page about this issue and these articles were highlighted to not talk about the historic Yasuke countless times on this talk-page by various people. You ignored this and just posted the same stuff again as "reliable".

It seems to me, that your "browsing" was not based on a NPOV and ignorant to the primary sources in the enjoyment on specific secondary sources and their claims over other secondary sources with different claims.

Just to prove your point, i will write a third time again about this Time article About a Yasuke of the Netflix’s New Anime Series.

Even the main academic source for the Time was just requesting e-mails from Lockley, who acknowledges the theory of Yasuke being a slave and not a samurai In your source. He just disagrees to this view.

Personally I don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor,” Lockley said. But his personal views are not even so relevant to Lockley's own academic papers and his followed 3-4 statements from various statements of him to the Times, clearly evaded the term samurai and classify him as "a kind of bodyguard" "warrior".

Statements like “Anybody who took up weapons on behalf of a lord could technically call themself a samurai, or could be called a samurai.” were used by Lockley, after getting directly asked about the samurai status at these times and they were not specific about Yasuke, but were inserted into the article in a way to make the claim of his samurai status somehow reasonable explained, ignorant to Lockley's other statements in the same article, just to make the modern media not oblivious ignorant to the real historic Yasuke.

It is in all honesty not the job of Wikipedia to defend modern non-historic media by ignoring primary sources and it is not the job of Wikipedia to use articles about a media adaptation of a figure as reliable sources for a historic figure, while not quoting the experts in these same articles in a reliable way. ErikWar19 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of people here are trying to falsify the history of Japan.

There are primary historical records that contradict Lockley's speculation, but many editors here are ignoring the contradictions .

And the Japanese man, who Lockely (Associate professor for English/Linguistics) claimed that he did a fact check, DENIED officially that he did a fact check. Then the Japan Times retracted the part that Lockley said his book was fact checked by that Japanese man .

BTW, Lockley is not a historian but he is just an associate professor for English/Linguistics. He is NOT an associate professor for history. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666

Western media are not reliable sources if they use unreliable sources. Since when those Western media became the academic authorities?

Your insistent attempt of making Yasuke into a historical samurai is very concerning and getting a troll on Wikipedia page.

I noticed that you wrote French in your page.

Anyway please provide valid historical Japanese evidences to back up those western media about Yasuke. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that you wrote French in your page.

@Shinjitsunotsuikyu: If you’re referring to Gitz6666’s userpage, that’s Italian and a bit of Latin, not French.

Some primary sources about Yasuke are in Middle French, French speakers (including myself) have helped translate them on this talk page, so not sure what the problem is. Thibaut (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094

Some primary sources are in mid French?

I don't know what primary sources you are referring.

Could you put a link for that?

Hope it is not a few hundred years later like in Meiji period when French people came to Japan. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a book called Histoire ecclésiastique des isles et royaumes du Japon (lit. 'Ecclesiastical history of the islands and kingdoms of Japan'), published in 1627, you can read the discussion by clicking this link. Thibaut (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"I'm sorry that the vast majority of editors, including myself, don't agree with your original research or opinion on the sources presented. SilverserenC 22:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)"

@Silver seren — It is not "original research" to follow up on a source's own sources. That's all I did for Manatsha's paper. In doing so, I found that Manatsha's citations did not make the statements that Manatsha said that they did. This is not my opinion, this is a simple matter of logic, and of Manatsha's claims, cited to other works, not aligning with the actual statements in those other works.

Whether intentionally, or incompetently, Manatsha's paper essentially lies about what its sources say. This renders Manatsha's paper unreliable. Yet you continue to hold this paper up as a "reliable source", even after the problems have been clearly pointed out.

Honest question: what does "reliable" mean to you? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Gitz, before making completely erroneous assertions like the RfC was not advertised at RFCA using the {{rfc}} tag, maybe actually check the page history? [77]. I've closed the new RfC for now because there is no reason to rehash the debate when the original valid RfC is stil at RFCLOSE and hasn't been closed yet. If the result of the old RfC is inconclusive I am happy to re-open the new one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

it was hard for me to imagine that you or others might have removed the RfC tag from an open RfC. I don't understand the reason why you did so, but that's not important: that RfC is not neutrally worded because it presents as "significant minority view" (rather than irrelevant/fringe) what is actually the mainstream view supported by all RSes. That RfC should already be closed with Yes prevailing per WP:SNOWBALL but that Yes would still not be conclusive - arguably we should use wikivoice and state that he was a samurai. I'm not reopening the second RfC launched by Loki only because my recent edit to the lead has not yet been undone. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"arguably we should use wikivoice and state that he was a samurai."

On what basis? Because TIME Magazine says so?

I've shown conclusively that one source, Manatsha's paper, contains outright fabrications. That source was re-listed as a "reliable source" in the abortive RFC from earlier today. Lockley's book has also been shown to be problematic, not least by this academic review by historian Roger Purdy, who characterizes the book as "popular history and historical fiction".

If these are your "reliable sources", I see deep problems with how sourcing is playing out for this article. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 08:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

On what basis? Because TIME Magazine says so? Yes, TIME is a reliable source, same as Britannica, Smithsonian magazine, CNN, Lockley's book, etc. They all qualify as WP:RS irrespective of what you think about them. However, editors' original research on this talk page is not reliable until it gets to be reputably published. I strongly suggest you read the guidelines and policies that have been mentioned on this page multiple times. Lack of knowledge or disregard for basic policies on verifiability and sources has already wasted a lot of editors' time. If you don't agree with this, please seek input from uninvolved editors at WP:RSN. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Many of these so-called reliable sources trace their information (directly or indirectly) back to Lockley's book on Yasuke. As has been pointed out by Roger Purdy and in fact many comments from readers online, the book is NOT a historical book, but a work of fiction. The claims it makes hinge strictly on the reputation of Thomas Lockley as they cannot be verified. More so, some have been refuted based on the sources Professor Lockley himself listed in the book.

Should then editors not pursue due diligence in verifying individual secondary sources? 84.115.239.106 (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@84.115.239.106

Lockley is an associate professor for English/Linguistics at Japan Uni.

He is never a professor for history let alone Japanese history.

I am going to phone Japan Uni. about Lockley when I get time. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Erikir's, Hexenakte's, and several other editors' posts regarding the reliability of certain sources do not conflict with Wikipedia policy. In fact, they conform with it. Refer to WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:CONTEXTFACTS which exist due to the natural need for discretion when editing Wikipedia. Please be aware, I am not speaking about the various posts on this Talk page that are obviously original research or original synthesis (such as Yasuke's height), or the obvious WP:SOAPBOX posts. I am purely speaking about the posts which question the reliability of sources which claim Yasuke is a samurai. Do not misconstrue the text within the WP:NOR and WP:V policies to declare that no discretion may be exercised by Wikipedia editors. Editorial discretion does not conflict with these core policies. In fact discretion is used to varying degrees everytime someone determines a source to be reliable or unreliable. This is even more important when dealing with figures or events that deal with non-"Western" languages and cultures due to the higher difficulty of preventing mistranslation and crossing cultural barriers, especially with the historical, not current, versions of that language and culture. This article covers a niche subject matter. (from a Westerner's perspective)

Editors who may want to report Yasuke as a samurai have furnished at least one tertiary work -- for example, the Britannica encyclopedia, the TIME article, and CNN article. Although reliable for some subjects, this can be questionable for certain historical contexts. And in this context, it has been shown numerous times, that several popular sources pertaining to Yasuke are unreliable. Not via original research, but by simply evaluating the source. Note that tertiary works that are generally reliable can still have unreliable entries, especially for non-Western figures, even more so for those that were obscure to Western audiences until relatively recently. Additionally, there are cultural barriers and the difficulty of historical translation.

To get specific, if you read the Britannica article, it appropriately uses soft language such as "historians speculate..." and "historians assume..." etc., which is fine; however, for the exceptional claim of Yasuke being a samurai there is no softer language and it reads as a secondary source would. Naturally, the tertiary work is not appropriate for this claim, and a secondary source should be used for this claim. There exists information on Wikipedia that requires sources that are more robust than teritary works -- this is typical and not a problem, hence Wikipedia preference for secondary sources.

Apropros of the above, editors have also furnished secondary sources. Unfortunately, these have been shown to be unreliable and unverifiable. Even the most basic implementation of editorial discretion, for example viewing a cited work within a secondary source, has led to indications of fabricated claims in a secondary source. Not to mention the issues with the other secondary sources such as Lockley. Checking a cited work, as many Wikipedia editors are used to doing, does not qualify as original research. In fact, it does not conflict with any wiki policy as far as I can tell. I am not implying the fabrications are intentional but at the very least the sources conflict with WP:RELIABILITY. That is to say, to report the default condition of Yasuke as him being a samurai conflicts with the WP:RELIABILITY policy.

Be aware, the default condition for nearly any individual in Japanese history is that of not being a samurai. To report someone as a samurai is exceptional. It needs reliable, appropriate sources. Not a tertiary work in this case, and not news articles, and not popular history works.

The term "samurai" cannot in good faith be invoked in the lede. Apologies for any poor formatting as I am traveling (in and out of internet service) for several days, and posting from a mobile device. To other editors: I strongly support opening up the Rfc but am not in the position to do so at this moment. Green Caffeine (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Green Caffeine

I am Japanese and I am opposing this history falsification by secondary sources from western people on Yasuke that have no historical backings.

Historical records contradict the "secondary sources" based on Lockley's book.

Yasuke was never born into a samurai family not even into a bushi family not even into a Japanese family.

Yasuke was brought as a slave by Jesuit to Japan and stayed in Japan for about three years but only was with Nobunaga for 15 months.

Yasuke was given like a property by Jesuit to Nobunaga.

Nobunaga did NOT give Yasuke a clan/family name which is a must-have as a bushi class at least.

Ietada stated in his diary that Yasuke was GIVEN by missionaries to Nobunaga.

Akechi Mitsuhide said of Yasuke as black slave and animal.

William Adams got his SURNAME, fief and a TITLE of hatamoto. He got his status after SEVEN years after he did everything for Ieyasu like building ships, teaching European math etc.

Hideyoshi got promoted because he did contributed to Nobunaga in wars.

But Yasuke had done NOTHING. So, it is not possible for Nobunaga to make Yasuke a samurai (high rank bushi or noble bushi clan).

If western people wants to claim Yasuke as samurai historically, they need to provide valid proofs backed by Japanese sources and backgrounds.

大体、日本語も読めない書けない喋れない外国人が日本の史料を無視して現代のポリコレメディアを使って勝手に15か月の荷物持ちの黒人を歴史上の侍に仕立て上げることは、完全に文化盗用であり、文化植民地主義であり、歴史捏造です。

日本人として断固として反対致します。

Please search in the Youtube with the word "アサクリ" to see the opinions from the Japanese people. Majority of Japanese are really mad at this history falsification and cultural appropriation by the "so-called politically correct westerners". Our history is not westerner's politics nor tools for black lives matter. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The ethnicity of the person who wrote a source has nothing to do with if the source is allowed or correct. To even propose such a thing is ludicrous.

There are plenty of good sources that prove that Yasuke was a samurai regardless of how much that angers ultra-nationalist groups, or right-wing Japanese racial purist groups, who are the ones trying to revise history in spite of a documented fact. It is not unlike how Japanese ultra-nationalist groups still try to revise history in real-time in regards to the Nanking Massacre and Japan's atrocities during WW2.

Your comment comes across like the screed of a very racist Japanese nationalist and is entirely out of place here. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is an extremely weak defense of the sources. They are all post-race riots of 2020. They have the same shared sources, not actual investigation but instead appear to be a crude ritual of repetition. This exact problem is something that critics of wikipedia frequently bring up. We have the actual primary sources, the exact same ones as these 'reputable' sources you speak of and their claims are not reflected in the only history known to anyone alive today. This should disqualify the articles and perhaps the specific authors. Not only that, but Britannica previously reported far lower numbers of victims in the holocaust than the 'agreed upon' number today. Is that authoritative? to be wrong? Or perhaps NYT running stories during political campaigns which turn out to be complete fabrications? The problem with "well the source is reliable" is that it is false on its face on a case-by-case basis. There are times when NYT's articles *are* accurate, and times when they are easily disproved by open source information such as witness accounts from the time of the event which corroborate each other. This is how history and encyclopedic records *should* be handled. Not blindly following some guideline of 'party' approved publications - and I don't mean that politically, I mean that in the very sense of completely disregarding the motivations behind certain articles.

Many of the articles cited in this wiki entry are from 2024. The majority are since 2020. This is not a reliably or ethical use of sources and it is painfully obvious to everyone looking in from the outside. FifteenthClause (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I am Japanese and I oppose any history falsification on Japan. There is no historical record of Yasuke being samurai. And based on our culture, Yasuke was not samurai since he had no clan/family name (surname) to become a bushi in the first place. Samurai was a high rank bushi before mid-Edo period. So foreigners like Lockely (associate professor for English/Culture in Japan) who are trying to falsify the Japanese culture and history are pure cultural appropriators.

Yasuke was not born into a samurai clan. Yasuke was a slave brought to Japan and given to Nobunaga by missionaries. Therefore, any foreigners who want to claim that Yasuke was a samurai historically must provide valid historical sources of how and when Yasuke became a free man first and then how and when he became a samurai.

William Adams had a clan name/surname with a fief and a title of Hatamoto.

Where are those for Yasuke? You guys need to provide the same amount of historical records as William Adams.

The depiction of Yasuke in fictional stories in pop culture does NOT make him a samurai in our history.

Also any foreign media or web site does not make him a samurai in our history.

This is literally a real cultural colonialism. Western media do NOT define our culture/history. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Who is "we" whose history you are talking about, we Japanese people or we black people? Don't bother answering - comments that are not based on soruces or policy are irrelevant here and close to WP:SOAPBOX. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

We as Japanese people.

I am Japanese and I oppose this history falsification of our history.

Yasuke was never born into samurai clan. So if you say he was a samurai then you need to provide valid Japanese sources that say Yasuke became a samurai or was considered as samurai.

Why do you think that western media citing just an English associate professor's book is accepted as a proof of samurai?

Is Japan a colony of western world? Do the western people determine who is samurai or not by ignoring Japanese historical records?

We Japanese know that Yasuke having no surname is just enough proof of him not being samurai.

Do you speak/read/write Japanese like native Japanese? Are there anyone in the editors group who speak Japanese like native and who can read Japanese historical records like native?

何で、日本語も読めない書けない喋れない外国人が勝手に日本の歴史を決定して世界中に拡散しようとしているんですか？

Like there is Japanese Wikipedia on Yasuke and all the editors can read it using google translation, why not do that?

日本語のウィキを自動翻訳するくらいはできるのに、それもせずに、英語のウィキで勝手に日本の歴史を改変して世界中に嘘をバラまくのは、完全に歴史改変行為であり、文化盗用です。 Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The ethnicity of the person who wrote a source has nothing to do with if the source is allowed or correct. To even propose such a thing is ludicrous.

I am Japanese as well. There are plenty of good sources that prove that Yasuke was a samurai regardless of how much that angers ultra-nationalist groups, or right-wing Japanese racial purist groups, who are the ones trying to revise history in spite of a documented fact. It is not unlike how Japanese ultra-nationalist groups still try to revise history in real-time in regards to the Nanking Massacre and Japan's atrocities during WW2.

Your comment comes across like the screed of a very racist Japanese nationalist. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no basis for your claims.

The foreign people who assume that Yasuke is a samurai are basing their claims on Lockley's non-academic, speculation-filled book, while the Japanese are basing their claims on primary sources.

Your story that you are Japanese and that the right wing is trying to roll back history is also completely unfounded and a scribble not worth discussing.

No one with a sane brain would even think of discussing such futility. 217.178.103.145 (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The current RfC is a popularity contest with majority of those entering into it not even participating in the talk page, nor are they considering the reliability of the secondary sources presented. Only a small portion of those in the RfC are active participants. I will reiterate a comment I stated above to Loki when he stated that editors had no business in determining the reliability of secondary sources:

This is not per Wikipedia policy where the content itself can affect reliability (see WP:SOURCE) and the scrutiny and fact checking given to said sources makes it more likely to be reliable, and that editors must use judgement on what sources should be used or deemed inappropriate (see WP:SOURCEDEF). In fact it states that "no source is 'always reliable'". The idea that editors cannot practice due diligence on the reliability of secondary sources is not only wrong, but calls into the question of whether you are even acting in good faith about the topic at hand.

The fact of the matter is, all of these secondary sources lack the proper in-line citations to check their claims, they lack the primary source support, they even lack the peer review support as evidenced by R.W. Purdy. What more do you want? Credentials do not override the content of their writings especially if the information they say is complete fabrication. This is not just Lockley, but this is every other secondary source presented, such as Lopez-Vera and others also talked about. These sources cannot in good faith be used. Hexenakte (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

One of the common uses of an RFC is to break up a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that's against global policy, so it's not a problem that the majority of participants weren't previously active on this talk page. If anything I expect !votes from experienced editors who weren't participating on this talk page to be weighted more highly than the swarm of new WP:SPAs that descended on this talk page after the news about Yasuke being in Assassin's Creed Shadows.

You can in fact dispute any given source, but saying that a forest of RSes saying that Yasuke is a samurai are all wrong while you have zero sources that say he's not a samurai just doesn't make sense. It's clearly WP:OR special pleading to reach the result you want. Loki (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since you're a relatively new user, I think you should defer to Loki's judgement on this matter rather than questioning their good faith. Alternatively you can go to WP:RSN and explain the reasons why Britannica, CNN, TIME, Smithsonian magazine, BBC, Lockley's and Lopez-Vera's books are not reliable sources for the claim that Yasuke was a samurai. There you will also be able to explain that WP:SOURCE and SOURCEDEF imply that "content itself can affect reliability" and that "editors must use their judgement as to which sources should be used or deemed inappropriate". Editors at RSN need a laugh from time to time. As for the editors on this talk page, I think they've had enough of this crap. Repeating the same point over and over again may be disruptive. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Since you're a relatively new user, I think you should defer to Loki's judgement on this matter rather than questioning their good faith.

Since you are relatively new to this talk page, I think you should defer to the multiple sections I have committed in participating and provided multiple secondary sources as well as peer review studies by academic professors such as R.W. Purdy (see Talk:Yasuke#Samurai_status, Talk:Yasuke#Reaction_of_Thomas_Lockley, Talk:Yasuke#On_the_subject_of_academic_sources, Talk:Yasuke#Priority_of_title_justification). I have more than enough provided information on why Lockley, Lopez-Vera, etc etc. are not reliable, with no one in opposition actually acknowledging it. I do not like to assume bad faith, but it is extremely difficult vice versa if no one actually acknowledges the problems that Lockley and other sources have. Not a single person still arguing that these are reliable sources has actually acknowledged these problems, especially when I said that statement to Loki, but there are quite a few who initially did that aren't anymore, such as Silverseren in one of the sections I pointed to already. Not a single person here who hasn't been convinced otherwise has actually engaged with this discussion, the only ones who did have already changed their mind on it.

Alternatively you can go to WP:RSN and explain the reasons why Britannica, CNN, TIME, Smithsonian magazine, BBC, Lockley's and Lopez-Vera's books are not reliable sources for the claim that Yasuke was a samurai.

Please look at the sections I have listed above. It is unacceptable to say that credentials and regurgitation are the only factors to affect reliability, according to Wikipedia's own policies, content is also a factor, and it is most applicable here, please see WP:SOURCE and WP:SOURCEDEF. There is plenty of documentation in this talk page about these sources, but you have to actually engage and acknowledge these arguments if you want to get anywhere with this issue, which you simply have not done.

Editors at RSN need a laugh from time to time. As for the editors on this talk page, I think they've had enough of this crap. Repeating the same point over and over again may be disruptive.

You are essentially doing the same thing you accused me of doing, assuming bad faith. I have tried my absolute best to engage with other editors who disagree with me and tried to be as fair as possible, even going so far to defend other editors as not being WP:SPAs even though they disagreed with me. Saying I am "repeating the same point over and over" and "disruptive" is ignorant to the participation I have given in this talk page, as with each new section I am often giving new information each and every time. Every time I look for more sources, the case against Lockley only gets stronger. You cannot hide behind credentials as a reason to accept these sources at face value, if you are aware of the issues that a source has arguing the opposite, that is, they have ZERO in-line citations, which isn't even acceptable in an academic environment, then you also would be arguing for its removal, even if they had more credentials. No one wants to purport knowingly wrong information, and if you say you do, you are not being honest.

That being said, I have cited a peer review by an academic professor R.W. Purdy - you can read his review in the sections I listed above - which is vital for the integrity and accuracy of academic research who states that Lockley's work is not applicable to the academic field and contains historical fiction and creative embellishments. If you want me to assume good faith - which I have done plenty enough already - you have to address these issues. This work is simply not acceptable. Please go read those sections before accusing me of anything regarding WP:OR or arguing in bad faith, I have been providing way more than what should be required. Hexenakte (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 i just want to point out, that i explained already on one example of your still insisted to be "reliable sources", the Times article about Yasuke, who actual talks about the popular culture view of a Netflix show and their historic base, that the actual source state the "samurai status" of Yasuke with Lockley's statements, who is NOT CALLING YASUKE A SAMURAI in this article, but more or less anything else, except a samurai.

Lockley, the dude you spammed 4-5 times already as a reliable source, evades the term himself in this source, you provided.

You are using articles about the popular western culture view on Yasuke to warp the historic section of this article. STOP IT.

If i would use the same OriginalResearch, you are using and if i actual use the same sources, you provided as "sources", i could argue, that Yasuke is a slave and was never free in Japan. If there is a mention of a potential samurai status of Yasuke in this article the same sourcing will be used 1to1 by me to call Yasuke a slave in Japan. Your source, the Timearticle, talks about this common interpretation of Yasuke as a slave. Your form of sourcing allows this form of argument level as well.

To allow one Original Research opens up the door for every similar original research with the same sources. --ErikWar19 (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand what you wrote. There seem to be issues with the English translation of your comment. But please, don't ping me again unless you have a reliable source that unequivocally states Yasuke never acquired the status of a samurai. Until we have such a source, I'm not interested in discussing about sources reliability on this talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

oh i see WP:ICANTHEARYOU just kinda shows, that you are a disruptive editor, that often exhibits these tendencies:

Is tendentious:

continues editing an article in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors.

Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Wikipedia:

Verifiability; misrepresents reliable sources, or performs original research.

Fails to engage in consensus building:

repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;

repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

Fails to recognize, rejects, or ignores community input.

resists requests for comment

continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

In addition, such editors might:

Campaign to drive away productive contributors like @Eirikr:

Act of Ownership of articles that might not exhaust the general community's patience but still operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive, rule-abiding editors on certain articles.

Maybe you should read about WP:POWER --ErikWar19 (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"[...] don't ping me again unless you have a reliable source that unequivocally states Yasuke never acquired the status of a samurai."

As has already been pointed out multiple times on this very page, samurai-ness was the exception, and non-samurai-ness was the default state. @Green Caffeine stated it quite well here:

If I may throw my hat into the ring as a third party.... Multiple people keep bringing up that no sources state that Yasuke wasn't a samurai, but it's highly atypical to expect sources to argue the negative/default condition. The default condition for anybody, even those in Japanese history such as Yasuke, is the state of not being a samurai. Multiple published resources such as the Smithsonian refer to Lockley or whichever of the few sources that say Yasuke was a samurai, but these resources *cannot* be used to argue that the default condition is Yasuke being a samurai, because they either are non-academic resources that are not typically used on Wikipedia, or they are unreliable resources, or they have little to no expertise in the field, or they circle back to the same unverifiable sources. They should not significantly factor into the discussion of what the "default" condition is for Yasuke. I cannot stress enough that the burden of proof is on the positive condition. The few sources arguing the positive condition are unverifiable.

This is NOT original research. (However, yes, there is original research taking place elsewhere on this Talk page.) This is looking at the sources which is typical for any Wikipedia editing process. We can verify that Yasuke attended to Nobunaga, but claiming he was a samurai by using one of the unverifiable sources is nearly equivalent to espousing legend as verifiable fact. Or espousing modern folk-tale as verifiable fact. Which is not acceptable. When you take a step back, the situation here is not that complicated.

Lastly, and I will be short here since this paragraph is only a tangent and just my personal unverifiable opinion, I can't help but feel that there are people here fetishizing the status of being a "samurai." I get the vibe that people believe that if Yasuke was not a samurai, then he is somehow less "cool." It's problematic to think this way, to say the least. Green Caffeine (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Requiring sources that explicitly argue for the negative, non-samurai, default condition, while simultaneously ignoring the many issues with the sources that argue for the positive, samurai, non-default condition, and while pushing for the article to make a statement of objective fact (in "wikivoice") based on such flawed sources, is problematic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Eirikr

Yes, Samurai-ness is not a default even for Japanese.

I am Japanese and my ancestors were not samurai as far as I know. If I wanna state that my ancestors were samurai, I have to PROVE by some historical records.

Yasuke was never born into a samurai clan but he was just brought and given as a slave to Nobunaga.

Rather he was a slave by default based on historical records.

Yasuke was not samurai by default.

Therefore anyone who claims that Yasuke was a samurai must prove by some historical records. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I am Japanese as well. There are lots of reliable sources supporting Yasuke's status as a samurai. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666

There is a source of Yasuke NOT being a samurai. Nobunaga never gave Yasuke a clan name/surname.

In Japanese culture and history, having and officially using a clan name/surname is a "must" for samurai.

Samurai was a hereditary clan status, so all samurai had clan name/surname.

Yasuke never had a clan name/surname to form a buke (bushi clan).

samurai is a high rank bushi especially before mid-Edo era. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

A clan name was not necessarily required to be a samurai. Yayosu, the other European samurai who was bestowed the high rank of Hatamoto alongside Williams Adams aka Miura Anjin, never received a clan name. He was also allowed to practice daisho, the carrying of two swords, which by that time was a privilege reserved for the samurai class. He was unequivocally a samurai, yet had no surname. 98.15.205.40 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

＠Loki

Yasuke was not born into samurai clan.

Therefore you need to provide valid historical records that can prove Yasuke became samurai.

I am Japanese and my ancestors are not samurai as far as I know. But in your logic, my ancestors were all samurai because there are no proof that they were not all samurai.

Your logic is just ridiculous and disrespecting our culture and history.

On the other hand, there is a historical record that proves that Yasuke was a slave.

Why don't we write that?

But why do you wanna write something you cannot prove? Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"a forest of RSes saying that Yasuke is a samurai"

Honest question: what makes a source reliable, to you?

Are you aware of the real concerns that multiple editors, not just editors that might be categorizable as single-purpose accounts, have brought up about these sources? Why is a source "reliable" even after it has been shown clearly that that source includes outright fabrications (Manatsha's paper)? Why is a source "reliable" even after it has been shown clearly that an academic review by a credentialed historian characterizes the source as historical fiction (Lockley)? I cannot understand your reasoning. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

A kind reminder that a lack of evidence for a negative is not evidence itself. It's a known logical fallacy and I have seen it committed multiple times on this Talk page.

Considering being a samurai is not a default status of a person living in Sengoku Jidai and it is strongly implied Yasuke was a slave, on top of being a foreigner, the more the burden of proof is on the claim Yasuke was a samurai.

None of the secondary sources argue or try to address this conflict. Yasuke is called a samurai without clarification on how that conclusion was reached and/or demonstrative support in primary sources. More so, some sources emphasize Yasuke was "given the status of samurai" which stands in conflict with primary sources.

While part of it is my reasoning, I believe editors should be allowed the discretion to verify challenging claims made in secondary sources. 2A02:8388:1AC1:CC80:3D59:E610:1824:DB59 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gitz6666

As a Japanese, I am opposing that you decide our history based on the votes. Our history is not politics nor popularity contest.

If you wanna state Yasuke as a samurai, please provide some valid Japanese sources not western media that use Lockley's book that was never fact-checked by anyone reliable.

If you can't we should just write "Yasuke served Nobunaga". There should not be any words like "as a samurai" since there is no evidence but rather more evidences that say Yasuke was a slave. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, I haven't joined the discussion in a while but I did keep reading everything that has been said and quite frankly, strong-arming a "consensus" based on a weeks old RfC while ignoring every argument that has been added to the discussion since is quite frankly disgusting.

That being said, all the editors in favor of the samurai status still insist on using a handful of dubiously reliable secondary sources (some of which shouldn't even be considered secondary but tertiary) that have been discussed extensively on this page, personally only considering Lockey and Lopez-Vera to still even be worth considering, while entirely ignoring the argument that other reliable secondary sources that mention Yasuke did not need to explicitly mention he was not a samurai because that idea had never been brought up before.

I think a new RfC is needed, presenting all sides of the argument on not only the argued definition of samurai, the reliability of the secondary sources that call him a samurai and the existence of secondary sources that do not call him a samurai and the extremely limited primary sources.

We've just been running in circles with editors refusing to acknowledge logical arguments and it's time to put an end to this. My personal opinion on this hasn't changed since the first RfC and think we should have a separate section about him being a samurai or not rather than a blanket statement for or against it. Yvan Part (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I am once again imploring you all to take this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. This is a complex issue which is not suitable for RfC. As for "weeks old RfC", the default state/assumption for an RfC is that they are ripe for closure after 30 days. The RfC running its course is not "strong arming" a consensus. Having an RfC to establish a consensus and then having an RfC immediately after asking the same question just because you disagree on some level with the consensus just established is not likely to be a productive course of action. Chrhns (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC: How should we describe Yasuke?

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.

---

How should we describe the subject of this article?

• Option 1: As a samurai, consistently
• Option 2: As a samurai, with a note that some sources do not call him a samurai
• Option 3: As a retainer, with a note that some sources call him a samurai
• Option 4: As a retainer, consistently

Loki (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 1 The sourcing here seems to be pretty clear that "Yasuke was a samurai" is the majority view among scholars. We have lots of reliable sources that say that he was a samurai, including:

• This paper by an academic historian.
• The book by Lockley mentioned several times above.
• Several academic reviews of Lockley's book.
• The book by Lopez-Vera linked in a previous comment.
• The Smithonian magazine.
• Time.
• The BBC.
• Britannica.

Conversely, we have not a single reliable source that says explicitly he was not a samurai, or that even suggests that he might not have been. Not one. All we have is a bunch of WP:OR readings of primary sources and sources that don't say anything on the subject. Loki (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 It's really the only option that makes sense with the sourcing we have. They all refer to him as a samurai and several go into explicit detail of how that class ranking occurred for him in the court of Nobunaga, such as with the available academic sources. Here's some example excerpts I included in a section earlier on this page.

"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."

Lopez-Vera, Jonathan (2020-06-02). A History of the Samurai. Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4629-2134-8.

"...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 (seppuki). 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."

Atkins, E. Taylor (2017-10-19), A History of Popular Culture in Japan: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-4742-5857-9

...Yasuke already possessed skills as a warrior, as he is believed to have become a samurai after only one year, a remarkably short period of time. Samurai usually trained from boyhood. Nobunaga granted Yasuke the role of sword bearer in the royal guard, for he felt Yasuke had the "might as that of ten men." This was an era in which Japan was still suffering the aftershocks of a civil war in which hundreds of petty warlords had vied for control of the country."

On a separate page,

"Nobunaga had believed that Yasuke must either be a guardian demon or a god; he was black as only temple statues were black. But touching Yasuke, hearing him speak his rich, inimitable foreigner's Japanese, Nobunaga realized he was only a man. He threw a feast in Yasuke's honour, made him gifts of money, and requested that they train him to become a samurai - an honor never before bestowed upon any foreigner. It would elevate him into Japan's warrior class, the top echelon of society. Yasuke accepted and was granted a house, a stipend, and even, in a turn that may have felt uncomfortable to him, his own manservant. That Yasuke had arrived fluent in Japanese was a great asset."

Edugyan, Esi (2021). Out of the Sun: On Race and Storytelling. House of Anansi Press. ISBN 978-1-4870-0988-5.

The amount of detail and consistency in the academic sources on the subject, while still having separate presentations of events that give their own details quite clearly shows the history involved. Particularly in why and how Yasuke was given such an honor and also why Nobunaga was so enamored with having Yasuke be a part of his court and kept him close in his service even to the end of Nobunaga's life itself. Silverseren^C 03:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• There was a previous "RFC" that was not declared with the RFC template above. (Note that because of this, I at least would not object to closing this early if discussion peters out quickly.) Pinging participants in that discussion to this one: Loki (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

RomeshKubajali, Eirikr, Yvan_Part, X0n10ox, DemianStratford, Hawkatana, Ivanvector, Sock, Hemiauchenia, Hopefull Innformer, Hexenakte, Silverseren, natemup, Aquillion, Ezio's Assassin, Fleari, 2A02:A457:533:0:8A55:EAA7:71D6:C0FB, ErikWar19, Green Caffeine, Gitz6666 Loki (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Fieari for misspelling your name. Loki (talk) 03:23, 28 June 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.

Secondary sources using old Wikipedia info should be removed

Below sources are some Japanese Internet media which just copied and pasted information from the old version of Japanese Wikipedia on Yasuke.

And these should be removed along with the information relating these sources.

I am going to check rest of all the Japanese sources later.

"戦国時代にアフリカから日本へ? 織田信長に仕えた黒人従者「弥助」とは【前編】" [Did he come to Japan from Africa during the Sengoku period? Who is Yasuke, a black servant who served Oda Nobunaga? [Part 1]]. excite news (in Japanese). Excite Japan. 27 September 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2023. Retrieved 12 September 2023.</ref>

"戦国時代にアフリカから日本へ? 織田信長に仕えた黒人従者「弥助」とは【後編】" [Did he come to Japan from Africa during the Sengoku period? Who is Yasuke, a black servant who served Oda Nobunaga? [Part 2]]. excite news (in Japanese). Excite Japan. 29 September 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2023. Retrieved 12 September 2023.

Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The National Diet Library is a reliable source, I don’t see Wikipedia in the bibliography.

I agree for the second one. Thibaut (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

my mistake.

There are two sources of part 1 and part 2.

The second one is part 2 and I thought I pasted part 1 first.

I tried to edit but only the code source editor is available so I am going to fix it. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay now I see, yes secondary sources that contains "Wikipediaより" should be discarded. Thibaut (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

So how will we delete these sources from the article page while the page is semi-locked？

I found other Japanese sources that use Wikipedia info, but first we should remove the above sources and the relating sentences from the article first. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke should be described as a slave since there is no record that tells he was not after given to Nobunaga

Some editors here claim that it is ok to edit that Yasuke as a samurai because there is no primary document that says he was not a samurai. In the same logic, Yasuke should be described as a SLAVE because he was a slave brought by Jesuit and given to Nobunaga. And there was no primary document in Japanese that says Yasuke was not a slave. Rather Jesuit says of Yasuke as black slave as well as Akechi Mitsuhide.

There are many Japanese secondary sources that say of Yasuke as black slave. Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

You are going to need a reliable source for your claim that Yasuke, legendary Samurai Warrior, was a slave.

有名な武士である弥助が奴隷であったというあなたの主張には、信頼できる情報源が必要です。

12.75.41.40 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Academic papers in Japan talking about Japanese people like Nobunaga interacting with slavery by the example Yasuke.

not a source.

Some random American writing about his personal view, that Yasuke was freed from slavery as a kid in india probably with the source, trust me bro.

RELIABLE. ErikWar19 (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Lockley's book was NOT fact-checked, thus UNRELIABLE

Since some people here, who are insisting that Yasuke was a samurai, keep ignoring my comments, I post here for everyone to see.

Recently 桐野作人 Kirino Sakujin DENIED Lockley's claim that Kirino did a fact-check on Lockley's book.

https://x.com/kirinosakujin/status/1795768862652449021

Since there is no one having fact-checked his book, Lockley's book and any media using his book as source are all unreliable.

Therefore, any edits based on any media using Lockley's book should be not allowed.

～日本人の皆様方～

英語ウィキペディアの編集者にはロックリーの妄想本を取り上げた欧米のメディアを利用して「弥助は侍だった」と日本史を捏造しようという勢力が大勢います。ちなみに、ロックリーは日本大学で英語系の准教授をしているイギリス人です。最近、桐野作人氏がロックリー妄想本のファクトチェックなんてしていないと発信して、Japan Timesが桐野作人のファクトチェックを受けたというロックリーのウソ話を撤回しました。 ロックリーは欧米メディアに対しても桐野作人にファクトチェックされたと言って騙して来たのだと思います。 この弥助における日本史捏造の本丸はロックリーです。

Shinjitsunotsuikyu (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke and elements that define a Samurai

To explain to a non-Japanese audience, a Samurai is a "bushi" (warrior) of high societal status who serves a noble. However, not everyone who serves a noble is a Samurai. To be a Samurai, one typically needs a family history or lineage of Samurai, marked by strong loyalty to their noble. Alternatively, exceptional service in battle or as a bodyguard could also earn one the Samurai status, particularly during the Sengoku Period, when Yasuke lived. - Recommended Reading: https://www.touken-world.jp/tips/21046/

Yasuke lacks crucial elements that define a Samurai, and thus does not deserve this respectful status/title. He does not come from a family of samurai (武家) and is not entitled to the samurai status by birth. Furthermore, his official service to Oda Nobunaga was not due to exceptional service in battle or as a bodyguard, but rather because his black skin piqued Oda Nobunaga's curiosity. - Source: https://kutsukake.nichibun.ac.jp/obunsiryo/book/005729777/

Yasuke was also not recognized as a Samurai by Akechi Mitsuhide and his army, as evidenced by his treatment during the incident at Honno-ji (already mentioned in this Talk). True samurai loyal to Oda Nobunaga would have fought to the death or committed suicide in the form of seppuku. Akechi Mitsuhide executed surviving Samurai to prevent any attempts at revenge. Yasuke, however, was allowed to live. Akechi Mitsuhide decided to release Yasuke to the temple for the southern barbarians (南蛮寺), deeming Yasuke as an animal who knew nothing. It is clear from this humiliating treatment that Yasuke was not taken seriously as a Samurai, for he did not have the loyalty nor pride that defines a Samurai.

Moreover, it is not sensible to try to define him using pre-existing Japanese words "Samurai", "Bushi", "Kosho" etc, given Yasuke's unique situation in Japan. Yasuke was different to other Japanese people in every aspect, and did not seamlessly integrate into Japan's society. As such, Yasuke is best described as a private servant or pet of Oda Nobunaga. He was chosen privately by Oda Nobunaga purely for his rare appearance, not for his family background, loyalty, or service in battle, as would be the case for a samurai. Sakamajiro (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)— Sakamajiro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Did you really make a new account just to post this 216.138.9.189 (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Others have mentioned this but this place isn’t Reddit so refrain from making unrelated posts :) FYI, this is my first and only Wikipedia account. Sakamajiro (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)— Sakamajiro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Lockley RSN

Hello, I am posting here to give notice that I have put the Lockley up on the Reliable Source Noticeboard, as probably should have happened much, much earlier. You can find it Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Thomas Lockley here. There has been an exhaustive amount of debate on this talk page about Lockley's reliability and this is the easiest way to settle the subject for you. Chrhns (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2024

Yasuke was not a samurai. I condemn the change of history for the simple reason that uubisoftö, wants it to be tru 93.106.131.92 (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Geardona (talk to me?) 23:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Retainer

A retainer can be a warrior that fought for noble fuedals. The Oda clan pages and history clearly point to many of his warriors being retainers. But samurai is not the proper definition of Yasuke as we have no confirmation. I could care less the color of his skin. But there is some misinformation being spread. Requesting retainer term to be readmitted. Many other real samurai have used the retainer term as well such as Sakuma Nobumori who was described as a retainer. Many 'Samurai' had to be born within hints why they never earned the title. However, we do know that the term Samurai wasn't used at the time. History experts will back me up on this. Hatrick24 (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

"Retainer" in Japanese historical contexts does not necessarily mean "warrior". The word is a rough translation of the Japanese 家来 (kerai), which is spelled literally "house/family" + "coming [to]". Historically, this word was also used to refer to anyone on the household's payroll -- including maids and cooks. As, indeed, the English word "retainer" can refer to a servant. See also https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retainer, for example. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Sakuma Nobumori was described a retainer but a warrior who led fights for Nobunaga. William Adams (samurai) was a foreign-born who attained Hatamoto Samurai status. Yasuke is identified as a retainer of the Oda clan but had no official title. If Yasuke had been a samurai after being taken, he would have been considered a ronin and most certainly executed after the battle or willing to commit Seppuku. However, this did not occur, and he was thrown to the Jesuits. I'll leave it as he was treated as a Bushi, which can be used to construct a Samurai case. But Yasuke was never officially given a title, which to me yields the case for retainer title similar to Nobumori. 

Hatrick24 (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

History expert here. Yasuke is described as a samurai by reliable sources.

弥助は伝説の武士です、それについて泣きます。

12.75.41.40 (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Descendent of an (actual) samurai of the saeki clan, with a preserved 15th century land grant document in my family's possession here. I'm seeing a lot of accusations thrown around here, and I want to add my understanding.

Looking at ja:弥助, as well as googling the topic, the only mentions of him described as a samurai come from pop culture WP:headlines/movie titles in or translated from english. He was absolutely a bushi and a retainer of oda nobunaga, no question about it. Maybe by the english use of samurai (which most people just think of "soldier holding katana = samurai", from it seems), you could call him one. To be accurate to the way it's used in Japanese, he was not formally a samurai.

Most of the sources calling him a samurai are in english, and use samurai to mean warrior or reference the hollywood production "Black Samurai," whenver mentioned in japanese, have samurai written in katakana (signifying it's a foreign usage of the term). My guess was this was to keep it simple without overloading english speakers with terms they might not know. "Black Bushi" sounds more catchy, but people might not know what that means. Samurai, everyone knows.

[79]https://sengoku-his.com/43

This repeatedly makes mention of him, in japanese, as a bushi (武士). Interestingly, upon further research google translate and several en-jp dictionaries translate bushi to "samurai", furthering my point that this is likely an english use of samurai as a catch-all for "katana wielding man."

If you want to just call all bushi and samurai samurai because that's how "samurai" is used in english, that's fine. The historical argument however, is completely invalid.

Also, if you're going to try to be disrespectful in a language you don't know, i recommend not using google translate, it might make you look like a silly goose. (〃ω〃) DarmaniLink (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You admit to not understanding the usage of certain English words, so why not contribute to a wiki where you are fluent instead of worrying about word usage here?

あなたは特定の英語の単語の使用法を理解していないことを認めていますが、ここで単語の使用法を気にするのではなく、流暢に理解できる Wiki に貢献してみてはいかがでしょうか?あなたは弥助のことをとても怒っています。

12.75.41.40 (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood, samurai is used in English as a catch all for "ancient Japanese man who swings a katana" when it's a specific type of Japanese nobility. Id like to thank you for conceding by the way. I agree, he's a bushi. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you may be confused about what is happening here. Your personal understanding of a word doesn't matter, neither does mine. We use reliable sources, which refer to Yasuke as a samurai. You should suggest specific changes, backed by reliable sources. It will be a better use of your time than wondering openly about the meaning of words. Please read WP:NOTFORUM 12.75.41.40 (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read wp:civil, given you (incorrectly) told him to go cry about it.

I am assisting in the building of a consensus for removal and the discrediting of the author who called him a samurai, given the common (improper) use of the phrase DarmaniLink (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

If you aren't providing reliable sources, you aren't helping build a consensus. Wikipedia isn't a vote based system. Any opinions not backed by policy have no weight when making a consensus based decision here. We don't care if you feel right, or claim to be descended from a samurai - even if that samurai is Yasuke himself. We only care if you have reliable sources. 12.75.41.40 (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I provided my source, and my argumentation already. Take your WP:IDHT elsewhere. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

We've just had an RfC on this very issue and there are ongoing discussions at both RSN (here) and ANI (here). I suggest @Hatrick24 and others to join them (especially the RSN one) but please leave "samurai" untouched for the time being, as per the RfC closure. I must say I find adding a template:under discussion inline three days after the closure of an RfC unhelpful. Finally on the "retainer" issue - the subject of this thread - please provide sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It's what's is happening and by not noting, isn't being truthful @Gitz6666 , which I assume is going on with some here who have ulterior intentions. I can name dozens of Samurai during the Sengoku period using the term retainer on wiki pages including Sakuma Nobumori, Sakuma Morimasa, Yamauchi Kazutoyo, I just found this topic yesterday and will be moving on from this mess. Hatrick24 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this dispute is really about the confusing and ambiguous use of the word "samurai" in English, rather than any factual dispute about the role Yasuke served in Nobunaga's service. Ideally we should have a section in the article disussing how the term "samurai" is used in English, which would result in less annoying talk page comments. This dispute is largely culture war bullshit over semantics, after all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

+1. As a uni prof of mine was fond of drilling into us, we need to define our terms.

Much of the confusion on this page (among many, actually) appears to stem from confused usage of the word "samurai" in English, and the lack of a clear and specific definition that is shared by us and the authors of the works we seek to reference.

When people start using a word to mean different things, without being explicit about their intended defintions, confusion and dispute is pretty much guaranteed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I think an efn on the word samurai, briefing outlying that in english, due to misconceptions, "samurai" often is used to refer to both warriors (bushi) and the warrior nobility (samurai), and would save a lot of future headache. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried adding something like this [80], but it was reverted [81]. Go figure. Does anybody have any good (preferably academic) source discussing the ambiguities regarding how the term "samurai" is used in English? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/samurai

The term samurai was originally used to denote the aristocratic warriors (bushi), but it came to apply to all the members of the warrior class that rose to power in the 12th century and dominated the Japanese government until the Meiji Restoration in 1868.

Samurai are usually bushi, but not all bushi are samurai. (I also think aristocratic is being used... loosely here)

I think britannica would be acceptable, given it's being used routinely for a basic definition, and not much more (and drawing a firm line at that). DarmaniLink (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that using Britannica as a source for the definition of "samurai" would be okay in this instance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What?!? Hemiauchenia, you just removed Britannica from everywhere in the article claiming it was a low-quality source when it says Yasuka is a samurai) [82][83], and now you're claiming that Britannica is "okay" for providing a definition of samurai? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence. A low quality source making an ordinary claim, that we agree is an ordinary claim is fine, so long as we're in consensus. Please don't play gotcha games in talk pages and help us to build a consensus. It comes off as divisive. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It's okay for providing basic definitions, but not much more than that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, so, we can move forward with a light consensus here, so, i'd recommend adding something, sourcing that with a "per talk" and if anyone wants to challenge it, they can come here. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Nope, no consensus - it's just you two guys talking to each other. There's just been an RfC with 15 !votes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALLING - We aren't saying to remove the description of samurai, but to add additional context that in english the word is used differently than how it was historically used. This is *adding* to the article. If you have a problem with it, let us know why. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I tell you why. I opposed adding this footnote [84] because it is unsupported by RSs and possibly confusing. Let’s try to clarify the issue.

First, we are talking about a 16th century samurai, but the 16th century Japanese meaning of “samurai” is useless to us. I read in Michael Wert's Samurai. A Very Short Introduction (OUP, 2019) that originally "samurai" had a very narrow meaning, referring to anyone who served a noble, even in a nonmilitary capacity, so that a pre-17th century nobleman would have been insulted to be called a “samurai.”.

So we are referring to the contemporary/modern meaning of samurai. Are there two modern meanings of samurai, as you claim? If so, I'd like to see a source on this point. What are these two meanings? On the one hand, any warrior with a sword, and on the other, warriors of higher status? Or rather, on the one hand, warriors of higher status, and on the other, hereditary warriors?

Moreover, were there hereditary warriors in 16th century Japan? If there were, did they belong to a closed caste system, meaning that you could not be appointed as such by a lord? If so, Yasuke, as a foreigner, was obviously not one of them; but what were they called? Not "samurai" (per Michael Wert). And why should we care whether Yasuke belonged to their rank or not?

Probably in 16th century Japan, the status of higher-ranking warriors (rarely if ever called "samurai") was quite fluid and depended not only on birth, but also on the favour of the lord. Yasuke enjoyed the favour of his lord and had a higher social status, so he was a "samurai" in every meaningful sense of the word, as all RSes call him.

To sum up, I doubt we should be making dubious distinctions about the meaning of "samurai" in this article. If there are good sources, I’d like to see them, but it’s likely that the samurai article would be the best place for this explanation. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the amount of dispute on this talkpage about the definition of "samurai" and whether it applies to Yasuke it would be nice to have even just a footnote discussing the meaning of the term so we can educate readers who may be confused, especially as the lede of the samurai article currently states that samurai were the hereditary military nobility and officer caste of feudal and early-modern Japan from the late 12th century until their abolition in the late 1870s during the Meiji era. Also, the definition of the word samurai in Japanese (侍) both historical and current is separate from its definition in modern English. This articles use of the term "samurai" should seek to use the broad modern English use of the term (to which many authors seem to agree that Yasuke qualifies). Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This conversation should be moved to the Samurai talk page. And if people are interested in what a samurai is, they can click the wiki link. 12.75.41.40 (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I gotta go eat dinner, so I'll have to dip out for a bit, and can google sources later if you want me to. I'll quickly address some points though.

What a samurai was/meant changed based on era and period heavily.

Historically, they were military nobility. Many of them, and their families, *owned* the land they lived on (rather than be subject to a lord), which was exceedingly rare at he time. Some, (such as the ones i descend from) lived in castles as well.

The shogunate caste system was *more or less* open until the sword hunt, then became de-facto closed as any feasible potential for upwards mobility was then lost to commoners.

The ordinary soldiers were just called "bushi", literally "swordman." In english, though technically wrong, many sources from what i've seen refer to ordinary soldiers as samurai, which is wrong.

The reason to care is because this entire dispute has been over confusion over definitions, and will continue. By just saying "hey, in english, we don't use this term the way its used in japanese", which is true, we can just tap the sign at anyone trying to further argue the point that he wasn't historically considered a samurai. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right when you say that "this entire dispute has been over confusion over definitions", but you must concede that this is a dispute between WP editors (plus other digital communities) and not between sources. Sources don't dispute his status, whether he was a samurai or not is of no interest for the historians, who would probably all agree that he can be called in that way (at least, nobody disagreed so far). So if this is a dispute among editors, why should we settle it by agreeing on definitions that are not made by the sources? Couldn't we just let the sources speak in our articles, without aiming at solving all the questions, avoiding all the ambiguities and mistakes, preventing all the disputes? Just write down what the sources say, that should be our job here. Thus was not merely a Japanese black warrior, but a Japanese black warrior of higher social status, which in modern parlance is a samurai. The very day a professional historian publishes something new and different on the social status of Yasuke, we'll add a section on the issue and modify the lead accordingly. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, because the sources are wrong and unreliable in regards to the proper usage of the term, leading back in a circle to this dispute. Deferring back to the sources is what has gotten us into this mess, as their expert-ness is being called into question over their usage of the term samurai. Allowing the sources to speak is what created this problem, and why their reliability has been called into question.

By acknowledging in a footnote that in English, the term is often used as a catch-all compared to the relatively narrow definition in Japanese, you maximize the truthfulness of the article and minimize the amount of lost context, and reach a compromise where everyone's (hopefully) happy.

Him being a retainer to nobunaga already places him in high social status, but isn't enough for him to be samurai by the japanese definition. By the english definition, you could build a case for it, perhaps. So long as we ignore this glaring contradiction, sources will constantly be on the chopping block over their reliability because of this. DarmaniLink (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)