Talk:Yasuke

Alaric NAUDÉ denies claims that Yasuke was a samurai

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Alaric NAUDÉ

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

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

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

→false

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

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

→false

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

Due to his favor with Nobunaga and presence at his side in at least one battle, Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people.

→false

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

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

→Inappropriate

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

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

→false

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

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

→Inappropriate

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

→false

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

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

→false

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

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

→false

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

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

→Inappropriate

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

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

→false

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

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

→false

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

→false

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professor Taku Kaneko, University of Tokyo, Historiographical Institute,

“Yasuke cannot be called a samurai”.

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

Professor Yuichi Kureza , Historian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Differences between Japanese and English wikis

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

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

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

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

There are secondary sources calling Yasuke a samurai that predate Lockley's book or are completely unrelated to it - both WP:NEWSORG (Le Monde 2018) and WP:SCHOLARSHIP (Vaporis, Samurai. An Encyclopedia of Japan's Cultured Warriors, 2019 ). The description of Yasuke as a samurai has been corroborated by experts in the field, some quoted in the article (footnote N° 2), some not because they're self-published, like David Howell's [1] and Dan Sherer's [2] emails in this Google Group, and the tweets from Japanese historians Oka Mihoko and Hirayama Yū, the latter also making it into the news (New York Times).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

鈴木里奈（ロンドン大学・SOAS/教員）

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

Rina Suzuki, Faculty Member, SOAS, University of London

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A lot of this is more relevant for the Samurai page, If you have sources on a ceremony, I would really appreciate you posting it there. Adams' status as samurai is considered questionable by some, though. I have read the section of Ōta Gyūichi's book(in translation). It lists a lot of people who died either in the incident, or who killed themselves after hearing the news. It mentions that 24 grooms died, and names a few of them, but not all. He also lists 26 names of men who died in Nobunaga's residence, all with two names, so probably considered samurai today. Right after the list it talks about the pages all dying, so maybe these men are the pages. Really though, reading the book it seems like dying was a qualification for being named, and those that survive are left out. We only know Yasuke survived because of the Jesuits.[3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's quite ironic your comment about the Japanese Wikipedia since it has been proven and is common knowledge the English Wikipedia has an ultra-liberal bias in many articles. The Spanish Wikipedia has a more neutral comment saying his samurai status is disputed unlike this article who pass it as a historical fact which it doesn't have a single mention of his status as samurai not being accepted by a lot of people incluiding the origin country's term making this article unreliable. Waka Waka (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent Edit by KeiTakahashi999

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

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

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

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

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

The cited source, Ando's article on Huffington Post Japan [4], is relatively weak, as Ando is not a historian and HuffPost is not an academic outlet. Most importantly, Ando's claim that "During the Sengoku period, European missionaries often came to Japan to spread their faith, often accompanied by black attendants" (DeepL translation) does not directly support the article's statement that none of these theories are supported by firm historical evidence. Therefore, it is not possible to determine with certainty whether any of these works depicts Yasuke. Using Ando's sentence to reinforce the claim about the uncertainties surrounding possible depictions of Yasuke constitutes WP:SYNTH. I agree that removing the sentence is the better option. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see it as supporting Lockley's claim, but it does seem out of place where it is. The line isn't so much about art, but about other Africans in Japan. This could probably fit in else where in the article better, and there are better sources for it. There are academic sources in English that discuss Yasuke in the context of Africans in Japan. Here is a good source by Leupp [5] It is written in 2003. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This is what Fujita Midori writes in his chapter in a 2021 Routledge book [6]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"served as a samurai"; SYNTH problem

(move from Recent edits)

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

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

SYNTH Example from Britannica by Thomas Lockley

According to WP:SYNTH,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you read "Recent edits"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Due to his favor with Nobunaga and presence at his side in at least one battle, Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people."

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

It then goes on to state:

"In an unpublished but extant document from about this time, Ōta states that Nobunaga made Yasuke a vassal, giving him a house, servants, a sword, and a stipend. During this period, the definition of samurai was ambiguous, but historians think that this would contemporaneously have been seen as the bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank. This is where the claim that Yasuke was a samurai originates."

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

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

Assume one source states,

A is B, therefore C is D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Recent Edits

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

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

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

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

@Ethiopian Epic I actually did discuss that edit with Gitz here[7]. He withdrew his objection and I changed it based on his input.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questionable neutrality

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

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

Sincerely,

Yours truly;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They serve as aides but are not necessarily the same.

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Yours truly;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Yours truly;

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

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

Respectfully,

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

Policies/Guidelines:

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

WP:NPA

WP:CIVIL (Namely, WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH)

WP:SOAPBOX

Essays:

Signs of WP:NOTHERE

Clear lack of regard for prior consensus WP:DICC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b) To show why OR is insufficient.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Story of Yasuke: Nobunaga's African Retainer."[8] 110.131.150.214 (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Yours truly;

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

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

buke mēmokumyō(武家名目抄)[9]

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

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

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

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

織田家で兵を指揮する立場の人は、下級身分の人に持たせていた。

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

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

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

Koshō were mainly young samurai who guarded their master and ran various errands for him, similar to a modern-day secretary. If their master is in danger, their role is to protect them, even if it means sacrificing their own lives. Koshō must have a wide range of knowledge about both military and domestic affairs, first-rate etiquette, and martial arts skills. If you are going to translate it, I think Japanese would be best.[10]

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

Touché.

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

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

Sincerely,

Yours truly;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not defending common practice, just describing it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many sources are using the book by Thomas Lockley

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

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

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

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

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

The Time article is the exact same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding Mr.Watanabe Daimon, he has been cited in the article for this 2021 web news [11]https://news.yahoo.co.jp/expert/articles/d194e53c49a9b820a56755a998831cd6ec13f430

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found at least 2 videos.

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

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

Quotes

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

Yasuke Status as a Slave

@NutmegCoffeeTea This section is about discussing whether it should be included that Yasuke was a slave, before serving Nobunaga. Please don't bring up the possibility of him being a slave afterwards, because that could disrail the discussion. There are plenty of sources that say he was a slave. Besides the sources cited in the article, most times that Lockley mentions that Yasuke was free at the time he came to Japan, the existence of other theories is acknowledged, also he usually phrases it as "I believe" In his 2017 paper, he lists the idea of Yasuke being a freedman as just one possibility. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

If we could have some verbatim quotations from the sources (with references) dealing with the slave issue, that would be helpful. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, although you have probably read some of them before.

Some have said that Yasuke was a slave, and Lockley acknowledges the theory but disagrees. “Personally I don’t think he was a slave in any sense of the word, I think he was a free actor,” Lockley said. The author speculates that given the circumstances of how the African man arrived at his employment with Valignano, it’s possible that Yasuke was enslaved as a child and taken from Africa to India. There, Lockley said the man could have been a military slave or an indentured soldier, but he “probably got his freedom before meeting Valignano.”[14]

So, even as he disagrees, Lockley mentions that Yasuke being a military slave was a possibility.

It is worth pointing out that henceforth he was no longer a slave, since he received a salary for being in the daimyo's service[15]

Lopez writes this after referring to Yasuke as a slave 3 times.

a mob in Kyoto broke down the door of a Jesuit residence in their eagerness to see an African slave.[16]

an African slave in the retinue of a visiting superior...[17]

There are some other sources that mention that Yasuke was a slave, but aren't clear if that was just when he was a child, or also when he arrived in Japan. What is actually wrong with the disputed sentence? It isn't weasel words, and the last challenge was just, this was removed before. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Right, then I see no problem with the proposed text, Some historians believe that he was a slave when he arrived in Japan, only gaining his freedom when serving Nobunaga. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is due at all especially with a major source disputing it. EEpic (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

"...indicating Samurai status" and fixing the last portion of the first paragraph

@Tinynanorobots @Gitz6666

Apologies for the pings. The AE case caused me to realize that at some point Tinynanorobots changed the lede away from the prior RFC consensus to refer to Yasuke as a Samurai without qualifier in the lede. It was apart of the same edit reverted by EthiopianEpic that was discussed in the 'Some Recent Edits' section. In that section, Tinynanorobots claimed that Gitz had agreed to the changes - however, when I reviewed that section it was not clear to me that it was what they acquiesced to.

A consistent issue I've been noticing with the page is that several edits that occured during or just after the Arbcom case when most frequent editors of the page were otherwise preoccupied have remained without discussion, causing several 'trip ups' in regards to what has been on the page and for how long. In this regard I just want to confirm whether some form of agreement occurred since this seems like it goes against the RFC. Relm (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I am leaving the above as it is, I initially made a mistake caused by some of the diffs having very different versions, leading me to think 'as a samurai...' had been removed from the lede, rather than just adding a clarification to the second paragraph. I still think this skirts the RFC, but I do not *disagree* with the edit.

I am instead now using this as a chance to fix the first paragraph. The former is how the page was before my edit, the latter is my patch that is closer to the original wording that has been on the page for months. Despite my best efforts, I still feel the sentence is clunky and insufficient.

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a man of African origin who served as a samurai Yasuke served between 1581 and 1582, until the death of Nobunaga's heir, Oda Nobutada.

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a man of African origin who served as a samurai to Oda Nobunaga between 1581 and 1582, until the death of Nobunaga's heir, Oda Nobutada.

What I am looking to ask is how y'all believe the latter half should reference service under both Oda Nobunaga and Oda Nobutada until their deaths? Would replacing Oda Nobunaga to "the Oda clan" be preferable, or would that constitute synthesis? My current thought would be an edit along the lines of:

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a man of African origin who served as a samurai to the Oda clan between 1581 and 1582, until the death of Nobunaga's heir, Oda Nobutada.

Relm (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

This comes across as casting aspersions to me. First, I don't think that the lead was stable, and I don't think anyone sneakily changed things as is implied. After the ArbCom, most of the frequent editors were banned, and the others seemed to stay away.

I understand that when the RfC said "without qualifications" it meant words like "possibly" but mainly in wikivoice. I don't see how one can argue that Gitz objected to my change, because he didn't object.

I agree that the line is chunky. My attempts to make the first line less chunky have been viewed as controversial. I think breaking up the sentence is the best way to go. What information is actually needed? The rest can go in another sentence. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for any aspersions, they were not intentional. The initial portion came out of me misreading the inline citation's quote from vera as having replaced it in the first paragraph when viewed in the edit view and me scrambling to figure out when that happened and failing to do so until after I reread it a fourth time and caught myself. The portion about my thoughts on the state of the page are not an accusation about any particular editor, and moreso acknowledging that there was a significant drop in talk page activity relative to the changes being made on the page - some from editors who have since been put under sanctions for those edits. I understand your reaction to it, I could have worded myself more clearly, but it was just trying to denote that the page has changed a lot in a variety of small ways over the past month, and not all of them are easy to trace back.

For the second paragraph, phrases like 'signifying samurai status' were objected to pretty strongly during the second RFC. The way it is included in the lede seems perfectly fine to me though, which is why I noted that it seemed to conflict - but that I would support the edit. Likewise the assent from Gitz (here) did not seem clear as to what specifically they supported from the edit.

As for the opening sentence, I think it may be easier to get as much of it in one sentence as possible then work the rest into the next paragraph, but welcome any suggestions. My current thought for what that opening sentence would look like is:

Yasuke (Japanese: 弥助 / 弥介, pronounced [jasɯ̥ke]) was a samurai of African origin who served the Oda clan between 1581 and 1582 during the Sengoku Jidai until the death of Oda Nobutada.

The main issue with the sentence is that it tries to clarify that they began their service under Oda Nobunaga and it ended with the death of Oda Nobutada. The next paragraph includes the portion about Oda Nobunaga, so perhaps working the Oda Nobutada part into the next paragraph instead and reverting the first sentence to how it was prior to that insertion would work? Relm (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with this change. I agree that none of this affects the RfC consensus; the previous text was consistent with the RfC, as is the current one. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This edit is fine. The change that moves the article away from consensus is the repeat removal of "As a samurai" to change it out for "signifying samurai status" which is against There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification. EEpic (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)