Talk:Yasuke: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yasuke article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 10 days

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Why is Yasuke described as a samurai, and not a retainer? A1: A request for comment (Talk:Yasuke/Archive 3#RfC: Should the view that Yasuke was a samurai be added to the article) found, based on the reliable sources that exist on the topic, a clear consensus that Yasuke should be represented in the article as a samurai. Wikipedia describes things as they are described in reliable sources (see WP:NPOV). Any change to this consensus would likely require significant new sources to be presented. Q2: Why can't I use my own expertise or reading of the primary sources? A2: Per WP:V, etc, content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. See also WP:OR, WP:NPOV for more information.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Japan: Biography / History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:21, November 17, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Biography task force. This article is supported by the History task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles Africa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: May 12 to 18, 2024

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "Assassin's Creed Shadows sparks Wikipedia edit war over Yasuke". nichegamer.com. May 15, 2024. Retrieved May 16, 2024. The Wikipedia page as it reads now, paints a more ambiguous picture as records of Yasuke6appear to be few and far between (the article even says he was "likely" of African origin). However the real excitement is happening in the Talk page for the article. Alexander Moore (May 16, 2024). "People Are Vandalizing the Wikipedia Page for Assassin's Creed Shadows Protagonist Yasuke". GameRant. Retrieved May 17, 2024. In the aftermath of Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed: Shadows reveal, disgruntled gamers are flocking to Wikipedia to alter the page of one of the game's protagonists. Shinichiro Kageyama (July 22, 2024). "New Ubisoft Game 'Assassin's Creed Shadows:' Why the Criticism?". Japan Forward. Retrieved July 24, 2024. These inaccuracies have been widely accepted as historical facts internationally. And many in Japan have also come to partially believe them. This misunderstanding was further fueled by repeated additions to Yasuke's Wikipedia entry since 2015. The edits claim that "Yasuke was a samurai."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also added this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember: "Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the requested pages.

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

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

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

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

「◎巻十四

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you all for the recent pings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the changes proposed do not change that.

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

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

Yasuke was a man of African origin. Yes.

Yasuke was a samurai. Yes.

Yasuke served Nobunaga. Yes.

Yasuke served for appoximately 15 months. Yes.

Yasuke served until Nobunaga's death. Yes.

Yasuke served Nobunaga as a samurai. Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning CNN and Britannica

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I added "approximately" to account for this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is certainly the most notable thing about him judging by its prominence in reliable sources. Also, the majority view in reliable sources does not need qualification ("possibly" would be editorializing).

I have asked you multiple times if the RfC means that there needs to be a minimum number of mentions of the word samurai, and you ignore that.

I responded to this by asking you if you believe there should be a maximum number of mentions, which seems to be the implication. This should be handled by simply following WP:WEIGHT (proportional to prominence in reliable sources) as opposed to trying to enforce in artificial limitations. As of now there is only one mention so this isn't particularly relevant anymore.

What we all would like you to do is tell us how we can improve the lead without violating the spirit of the RfC. Give us concrete suggestions on how we can change

It looks like some of the concerns were that "Afterwords, he was sent back to the Jesuits" is mentioned without the Jesuits being mentioned prior. This has already been addressed though. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Yasuke was a chugen, he would still be as notable. Lockley himself has said that there was possibly other foreign born samurai before Yasuke, there is just no record of it.

"I responded to this by asking you if you believe there should be a maximum number of mentions, which seems to be the implication."

That makes no sense, especially in context of the changes. It is also really fuzzy how WP:WEIGHT is supposed to work in this instance. I understand the policy on weight to mean that one shouldn’t put fringe positions in the lead. The lead should be viewed as a whole, and there is no need for repetition in it.

I get the impression that you don´t understand what I am mean, but don’t realize that you don’t. Also, you don´t really explain your position, you just name a wikipedia policy and that’s that. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Either way, we are speculating. You are speculating that she did do deep research on an article where she gives credit for most of the information to someone else. You don’t seem to have an understanding of how journalism works. I will also like to remind you that WP:OP doesn’t apply to the talk page. Our job here is specifically to evaluate the sources. I am not basing my knowledge on primary sources, but rather secondary ones and the opinions of experts.

from an article on journalism: Just under three-quarters (74%) of journalists say they produce content in addition to online and print, such as newsletters (17%) and podcasts (15%). Half of journalists publish five or more stories per week, with a third publishing eight or more a week [9]https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220315005368/en/Survey-Data-Shows-Journalists-Are-Covering-More-Beats-Two-Thirds-Produce-Content-for-More-Than-One-Medium

A peer reviewed article can take years to write. Historians and journalists are two different professions for a reason, we can’t assume the later do the work of the former. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, we are speculating. You are speculating that she did do deep research on an article where she gives credit for most of the information to someone else.

No, you are speculating by claiming that she did not. I am not making a claim in either direction on this matter, my suggestion is "This is not for us to speculate".

I will also like to remind you that WP:OP doesn’t apply to the talk page. Our job here is specifically to evaluate the sources.

WP:OR does not apply to the contents of talk pages, but one cannot use their own WP:OR to determine article content; that is to say - a reliable source cannot be excluded simply because it contradicts an editor's WP:OR readings of primary sources, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia simply follows what it is in reliable sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "reliable source" can be excluded if that is the consensus. For the last time, I am not using primary sources. You can’t just ignore what I write and treat your opinion as consensus. Also, you repeatedly misrepresent both my position and wikipedia policy.

Your policy seems to be that we should assume that news sources are reliable, even when they contradict better sources. Please clarify this, because you keep making statements that seem to be saying something, but then claim you aren’t.

It seems that you want to quote as many different sources as possible in order to create the impression that there are many different sources supporting this view, when they are all citing the same guy. Your argument about weight, actually is a point against it, because it creates the false impression. Treating them as wholly reliable also raises questions, because they mention certain information, that if true, should be in this article.

You keep avoiding discussion and discouraging others from offering sources. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your policy seems to be that we should assume that news sources are reliable, even when they contradict better sources

Evaluating reliability has nothing to do with the claims within sources. Sources can and will disagree, and it is not the place for editors to determine what is true and not true, otherwise you are elevating Wikipedia to the role of the arbiter of the truth. Reliability evaluation instead focuses on material factors (example: ...the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable) as well as community consensus on topics like conflicts of interests, and so on. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many people are engaged in fact checking at CNN Travel? And yes, it is relevant that it is the travel section, because it is its own department and has its own chief editor and budget. We don’t know how many people looked over the CNN Travel article. It is also not a collaboration, because the byline isn’t shared. You want us to judge a source by a metric that we are incapable of measuring. The WP:RS page is written very generally, because consensus is supposed to decide reliability.

This isn’t about what determining what is true, but what is reliable, and what has weight. You are also contradicting yourself, because you said reliability should be decided on a case by case basis. Now you are saying that we should assume that news sources have a team of experts and lawyers fact checking their puff pieces?

It is also a fair assumption that a journalist didn’t travel anywhere, or do in depth research, because they would tell us in the article. They don’t cite sources in the same way as an academic article, but they put a lot of X says and according to Y, so that you know their sources. Only general knowledge stuff they don’t mention. The potential here is that they could draw on misinformation, especially in this field, as there is a lot of misinformation out there.

Here is a quote from Karl Friday: "Yet, as historians of premodern and early modern Japan are only too painfully aware, popular perceptions of samurai customs, institutions, and behaviors are overwhelmingly dominated by misconceptions, misinformation, and outright fabrications. Some of this stems from deliberate attempts at distortion and the invention of tradition, such as the efforts by pundits in the Meiji, Taishō, and early Shōwa eras to manufacture an ostensibly ancient bushidō (Way of the Warrior) code and marshal it in the service of nationalism. But far more of it is a product of the relative paucity— especially in Western languages—of books for general readers by qualifed historians."

As you can see, according to Friday, there aren’t many good books on Samurai history, a contrast to the idea that there are plenty of sources about Yasuke. The main issue is the large amount of misinformation out there, and it is difficult for a journalist (or anyone) to shift through it all.

You aren't really making a convincing case with regard to what wikipedia policy is. The various essays on best sources etc. indicate that there is more leeway for editors and that we should be wary of the potential of mistakes made by reliable sources.

It seems that you are trying to artificially bolster the case that Lockley´s position is the majority. In reality, it is the only published position, and if another position was published tomorrow, news sources would not be useful in determining weight.

Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to speculate on CNN's fact checking and editorial apparatus, as CNN has been affirmed by community consensus to be reliable time and time again (WP:RSPCNN).

It seems that you are trying to artificially bolster the case that Lockley´s position is the majority

I haven't mentioned Lockley at all in the context of this discussion. You have multiple times though, which does suggest that your motivation with this may be to discredit or diminish him, because you perhaps do not like that his work has been picked up by a number of reliable publications.

Such a thing would fall under POV pushing and is at odds with building an encyclopedia. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

As an example of journalists not checking their sources, the Time article cites History of Yesterday as a source, treating it as equal with other sources. However, it contains major errors. It calls Valignano an explorer, making it seem like he discovered Japan and claims Yasuke was either abandoned or escaped.

These are not errors (errors in the sense of source evaluation are generally mechanical in an overwhelmingly obvious way, and/or anything acknowledged by a given editorial department in the addendum). These are differences in analysis. Any given source can say what it wants to say.

As mentioned above, Wikipedia is not for editors to evaluate the truth (WP:!TRUTHFINDERS) of claims in sources. WP:WEIGHT (as an indirect function of verifiability) handles this indirectly; claims in multiple sources naturally have more weight. Hypothetical unique claims generally require attribution. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

In general, the most reliable sources are:

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

CNN is a major news publication and is a reliable source [10]. In terms of providing tertiary weight, it is a textbook example as it means the secondary claims in them have passed 3rd party fact checking and editorial muster.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t know what WP:WEIGHT doing its thing means here. I also think that your standard is too high. Basically, you are asking us to assume every source is flawless and not to investigate them, until that author is fired?

I think using CNN to determine weight is wrong. It creates weight based on newscoverage and not towards actual academic opinions. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream news organizations are categorically among "the most reliable sources" as pointed out by Wikipedia WP:RS policy. Academic sourcing is generally preferred if available (and there is plenty of that within the article), however not every source need be, particularly for tertiary sources, that of which per WP:PSTS are a necessary component of a balanced article. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News organizations are reliable for news. This is what Context means. There is no requirement that we use the news here. The academic sources are better, and we don´t need extra sources. The RS page aslo lists Encyclopedia as tertiary, however, since it is written by Lockley, this article is secondary. You are the only one who wants to use those sources, and for a bad reason, to inflate the WEIGHT.

This is a something to be decided by consensus, something that you have falsely claimed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quantify the difference between news and "not news"? Is investigative journalism news? If a journalist collaborates with a professor to write a long form exposé on a person is that news? Is it news only if it happened recently? What if an article about something is picked up again 30 years later? Is it news or history? Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Today's history is news. Yesterday's news is history." Sixteenth century Japan is, by any reasonable definition, history; not news. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is important here is the different methods of work. The NYT calls itself the "first draft of history" and that is one difference. A lot of journalism involves interviewing persons and in some cases witnessing events first hand. Journalists also cover a lot of different topics, especially on a travel beat. Whereas historians specialize. Historians spend a lot of time studying one subject and also speculate more (at least it is more acceptable for historians to speculate). The output of historians is a lot more in depth and less often, and that is reusing material. They are more concerned about getting their facts straight than about getting the scoop. Granted, both professions can fall into sensationalism, but with historians that usually falls under popular history.

A 30-year-old article on something might be used as a primary source by a historian, if that is what you are asking.

I am sorry I didn’t answer all your questions, they seem hypothetical, but don’t contain the relative information to decide if they were news or not. I am also not the arbitrator of news. It is probably more relevant to ask what is history. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm getting at is information is information and there is no true property of information that makes it "the news" or "not the news", so "News organizations are reliable for news... but not for things that are not news" isn't a statement that makes sense especially in the context of building an encyclopedia. The primary source sightings of Yasuke were news. Statements within scholarship could be considered news, in that it is sometimes the publishing of new assertions of fact based on observations of reality ("reporting").

There is no basis for the blanket exclusion of all "news" from certain topics. Such a proposal would be dystopian and logically incoherent.

When academic sourcing is preferred, that doesn't mean that the information itself is fundamentally different in terms of any categorical delimitation of objective reality, it means that the methodology is such experts are more likely to be involved. That is true, but it does not equate to blanket bans on other forms of reliable sourcing. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re It is perfectly in keeping with WP:RS for us to examine a given source and determine that, while it might be generally reliable, it is not reliable in the context of specific article content; or that it does not contribute significant weight in the context of specific article content. I agree. However, if you conclude that a generally reliable source (like Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, or CNN) is unreliable regarding a specific article's content, that conclusion must be based on other, more reliable secondary sources. Free-floating talk page discussions among WP editors are not a sufficient basis for discarding these sources. Do you have any reliable secondary sources that prove Smithsonian Magazine, TIME, or CNN wrong in this instance? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you conclude that a generally reliable source ... is unreliable regarding a specific article's content, that conclusion must be based on other, more reliable secondary sources.

That's a very interesting point of view. I couldn't, however, find anything in policy supporting it. WP:RS@WP:RSCONTEXT, which requires that we examine reliability in the context of both the nature and the specific use of a source, does not suggest that we need rely on secondary sources to perform that examination.

See also the following essays: Wikipedia:Inaccuracy; Wikipedia:Applying reliability guidelines#Editorial Discretion "There's a common but misguided fatalism among editors who feel everything in a reliable source must be regarded as true, but editors are meant to interrogate their sources. If a source is inaccurate, other secondary sources cannot be depended on to notice the inaccuracy." (emphasis added); Wikipedia:Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources); Wikipedia:Frequently misinterpreted sourcing policy#Journalism and news are not guaranteed reliable or secondary sources

I do concur that coverage in reliable secondary sources ought be a significant (but not sole) factor in determining general reliability. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re it mentions that he served 15 months as a samurai. A few days ago, I removed (unchallenged) this information which, as far as I can see, is not supported by sources. The 15-month figure was added (here) when the text did not yet include the word "samurai". The length of Yasuke's service then probably coincided with the period from 27 March 1581 (audience with Nobunaga) to 21 June 1582 (Honnō-ji Incident, death of Nobunaga), that is, 15 months. Arguably this is routine calculation per WP:2+2=4, but still it is questionable. We don't know for sure neither that his service started immediately after the audience with Nobunaga, nor that it finished with Nobunaga's death: according to Lockley's article, Yasuke joined the forces of the new lord of the Oda clan. Anyway, at the time the text cited this Japanese source; since I don't read Japanese, can anyone please confirm that the 15-month figure is not supported by sources? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666 The relevant text in the source originally cited is "織田信長の伝記である『信長公記』には、イエズス会司祭ヴァリニャーノが従者として連れており、その後信長に仕えることとなった「黒坊主」が登場します。「彼男健やかに器量也爾も強力十之人に勝タリ」と描写されており、信長をはじめ、当時の人々に高く評価されたことがうかがえます。日本では「弥助」と呼ばれたそうですが、アフリカでの本当の名前はどのようなものだったのでしょうか。". By my reading, this references the Shincho Koki for the story of Yasuke coming to Japan with Valignano and later serving Nobunaga; repeats the description from that source (healthy, "stronger than ten men"); suggests he was held in high regard; and finishes with his Japanese name "Yasuke", and poses the question of his "true" African name. It does not specify a duration for his service to Nobunaga; nor mention the dates on which service started or ended.

I do not recall having found any sources which directly state a 15 month period; but they may exist.

A couple of aspects of your comment are interesting:

Nor that it finished with Nobunaga's death: according to Lockley's article, Yasuke joined the forces of the new lord of the Oda clan.; After the attack on Honnoji, Yasuke is recorded as having joined Nobunaga's son Oda Nobutada; who was attacked by Akechi Mitsuhide's forces on the same night and besieged at Nijo castle. Nobutada is recorded as having committed suicide the same day, 21 June 1582 (Julian calendar); and Yasuke recorded as having been captured & returned to the Jesuits. The length of service to the Oda clan does not seem to extend beyond that date.

We don't know for sure neither that his service started immediately after the audience with Nobunaga; This is the very interesting question. The Jesuit letters have only one record of Yasuke between the initial meeting with Nobunaga, documented in Mexia's letter 8 October 1581, and the Honnoji Incident, documented in Frois' letter 5 November 1582; I discuss that single record below.

The contemporaneous Japanese source is Ota Gyuichi's Shincho Koki, which dates the initial meeting to 二月二十三日, corresponding to 27 March 1581 (Julian). Yasuke's being given "fuchi" by Nobunaga, which is the likely indicator of service, is mentioned in the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the chronicle for that date; but not in other versions. If Ota is writing the diary on a daily basis, and not later backfilling explanatory material, and if it was not added during later transcriptions of the document, then that might be interpreted as the start date. But that's quite a very, very big if; it would be better to rely on others to make that conclusion.

Matsudaira Ietada's diary entry is dated 四月十九日 of the following year: 11 May 1582 (Julian); but that meeting probably happened well after the start of Yasuke's service to Nobunaga.

Speaking against a start date in March 1581 is Frois' letter of 19 May 1581, which describes Yasuke as being with the Jesuits at Pentecost (dia do Espirito Santo), which was Sunday, 14 May 1581. (Discussed briefly: Talk:Yasuke/Archive 6#Yasuke in Echizen Province)

So, starting no earlier that 27 March 1581, probably after 19 May 1581 and probably before 8 October 1581, and certainly no later than 11 May 1582. And ending 21 June 1582.

All of which is to say that it's not easy to tell. While differencing two certain dates is (IMHO) WP:2+2=4, we don't really have certainty on the start date. It would then be best to find some high quality reliable sources which form a conclusion. Or, if none can be found, to err on the side of non-specificity. Rotary Engine ^talk 02:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I made the mistake in my last few comments of falling into the reliable/unreliable dichotomy that I was actually warning against. News sources are generally reliable, but other sources are more reliable. The argument for removing the sources was replacing them with better sources. The argument for keeping the sources was WP:WEIGHT. Which didn’t make sense. The news articles don’t add weight, because they are based on the same research and same expert. Also, 4 sources say x and 1 says y, therefore x is the majority opinion isn’t how WEIGHT works.

That said, there are specific problems with those sources that have already been mentioned. I haven’t gone too much into depth on the problems because Symphony Regalia has said that it is against policy to judge the quality of a source with how it’s statements align with current scholarship.

added: Of the three, the CNN article is the worst. It claims right away as fact that Nobunaga believed Yasuke to be a god. This is contradicts was Lockley wrote, that Nobunaga was atheist. However, if one skimmed Lockley´s book, one might get this false impression. CNN has other problems too, but they are more difficult to prove false. The Smithsonian is the best of the three. It relies mostly on Lockley, but two other historians were consulted. The main problem with Time is that it links to very unreliable sources. All three promote Lockley´s theories that are questionable, and seem to come only from him, although Smithsonian doesn´t mention the black Buddhas. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, use by other sources increases the reliability of a source, and the importance of a viewpoint per WP:DUEWEIGHT also depends on the number of sources supporting or reporting it. I agree that we should avoid WP:OVERCITE, but here we are talking about two sources out of four. You claim that they are "questionable sources", but if I'm not mistaken, you don't question the content they support - you just think they are too many, right? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I think there is too many. I don’t think that the statement that Yasuke was returned to the Jesuits needs any inline citations in the lead. In fact, because the primary source is quoted in the article and is unambiguous on this point, we could probably get away only with the inline citation for the primary source.

My understanding of WEIGHT is not that it is determined by inline citations, rather by consensus building through discussion. That CNN considers Lockley an authority on Yasuke, is an argument towards considering that Lockley is an authority on Yasuke. This isn’t changed by whether CNN is cited as a source or not. I am also clueless to what the implications regarding the article would be from the supposed change in weight. Really, we should use the best sources, and not one that contains errors in order to increase variety. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you claim that Smithsonian magazine and TIME contain errors, and what errors you are talking about, but perhaps it doesn't matter: I agree that avoiding WP:OVERCITE is a serious editorial concern. However, removing sources that have not been proven wrong is rarely advisable: some readers may be interested in the better quality academic sources, while others may prefer to rely on NEWSORGs, provided they have not been proven wrong by other better quality sources. If that's not the case, I'd be inclined to leave Smithsonian magazine, TIME, CNN, BBC, etc. in the article, but perhaps we could agree on one small change. Since many readers are interested in the "samurai question", we can use a couple of citation bundles - the first with academic sources, the second with NEWSORGs. Once we've cited TIME, CNN, BBC, etc., we don't need to cite them again if a particular piece of content can be supported by better sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why putting it in a bundle counts as a compromise. Best practice is to use the best sources. In this context, news organizations are not the best sources. Rotary Engine made a good case by referring to WP:HISTRS (essay), WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SOURCETYPES. I do not think that Symphony Regalia has read these, because WP:HISTRS addresses what a historian is.

Additionally, Wikipedia:NEWSORG discusses specifically the limits of news organizations. Noting both the concept of human-interest reporting and churalism. Doesn’t an article in the travel section count as human interest reporting? I am not sure if the three articles count as churalism, but are very close, essentially repeating Lockley´s scholarship. Since an article that copies a press release should be treated the same as said press release, I think that the articles should be treated ultimately as sources on the expert opinions of the experts quoted. This means as far as the articles are sources of Lockley´s scholarship, they are superseded by the Britannica article, which is newer and expresses Lockley´s scholarship in a much more reserved and scholarly way.

I don’t think the articles really deal with the "samurai question." The closest they come to it is when Lockley says “Anybody who took up weapons on behalf of a lord could technically call themself a samurai, or could be called a samurai” or when the Smithsonian article says "In 16th-century Japan, the title of samurai spoke to rank and was loosely defined as a warrior in the service of a lord or another warrior." Neither really tell the reader much, and Lockley´s quote has been justly criticized on this talk page. I don’t think he is wrong, but rather he expresses himself poorly in that quote. Really, the Britannica article is in every way better.

If we treated the news article as equal in weight, then we would be giving undue weight to Lockley´s other conclusions than on the question of if Yasuke was a samurai. Like the black buddha theory or pretty much everything Lockley says about Yasuke´s life prior to his serving Nobunaga, or being Nobunaga´s buddy. Those all appear to be minority opinions among scholars. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation bundles which result in obfuscation of a substitution of quantity of sources for quality of sources are not good. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of extensive scholarly debate about Yasuke, it is significant that many news organisations (BBC, CNN, TIME, etc.) and history magazines (Smithsonian) have relied on Lockley's work. From Wikipedia's point of view, it is significant because of WP:USEBYOTHERS. From the point of view of our readers, it is significant because it shows that "Yasuke was a samurai" is not our own doing (original research), but is generally accepted by the sources on which Wikipedia relies (which are the sources available, of a more or less good quality). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not certain that there is a link between "poor sources hiding in citation bundles" and UBO, but do note that, per that policy, UBO is evidentiary or indicative; not prescriptive. And not a sole factor. A source may have significant use by others and still not be reliable (as meant by that WP term of art). This source springs to mind as an example. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEBYOTHERS is very relevant here. Editors personally not liking the content of sources is not grounds for sources becoming unreliable.

Wikipedia editors are not WP:TRUTHFINDERS. Per WP:V the job of Wikipedia is to represent what is in reliable sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are referred the previous comment: 1. UBO is not particularly germane to discussion of citation bundles. 2. UBO is evidentiary or indicative; not prescriptive. 3. A source may have significant use by others and still not be reliable. (ADD: As an illustration, one of my daily newspapers regularly includes content syndicated from the Daily Mail, as do many other newspapers. This is significant use by others in reliable sources; but it does not make the DM reliable for our purposes; because they regularly inventconjure stories into existence.)

WP:V requires that all article content be verifiable in reliable sources. It does not require that all that is in sources be included in article content.

WP:TRUTHFINDERS initial sentences are Wikipedia doesn't reproduce verbatim text from other sources. Rather, it summarizes content that some editor(s) believes should belong in the Wikipedia article in the form of an encyclopedic summary that is verifiable from reliable sources. (emphasis added); which seems misaligned with the intent to which is has been repeatedly put on this Talk page.

The implication that editors are rejecting sources based on personal dislike is unfounded. Editors are rejecting a source on the basis that it is demonstrably inaccurate.

We are entirely within policy to exclude sources on that basis, and to determine inaccuracy by any means. Rotary Engine ^talk 00:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V requires that all article content be verifiable in reliable sources. It does not require that all that is in sources be included in article content.

Indeed, and no one has made that argument. If anything this is actually a point in favor of why the blanket dismissal of a reliable source based on editor WP:OR would be an egregious policy violation.

Unique claims are not wrong simply because editors do not like them, and in-text attribution as well as weight handles hypothetical unique claims quite nicely.

The implication that editors are rejecting sources based on personal dislike is unfounded.

It is not though. Observe the following list of "obvious errors":

"Yasuke’s origins remain a mystery as historical sources are scant. While some researchers believe he was from Mozambique, others suggest Sudan" Saying sources about Yasuke´s origin are scant is overstating it.

"He trained other militiamen and likely learned new techniques himself, including Japanese martial arts and sword skills." This line is suspect.

"The attack, which triggered what was known as the Battle of Honno-ji Temple..." The attack is called "the Honnō-ji Incident"

"But while Yasuke became Japan’s most famous foreign-born warrior, his time with Oda was short-lived." This is wrong or misleading. William Adams is the most famous foreign born bushi

These "errors" are almost entirely editor WP:OR, editor speculation, and editor opinion. This is exactly the kind of WP:OR-based POV pushing that Wikipedia needs to avoid. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also struggling to see how UBO is relevant to a discussion of the use of the CNN Travel article. In a discussion on the reliability of Lockley & Girard's historical novelisation, African Samurai, it would be a reasonable, but not dispositive, point - that work has significant use by others.

But we have no evidence that the CNN Travel article has been used or referenced by any other reliable source. UBO is an indicator of reliability of the "used" source, not reliability of the "using" source. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how it helps the reader to cite sources that contain obvious errors. In-line citations are not even needed in the lead, except where there are statements that are likely to be contested. It seems as if the in-line citations are being added, just to get the sources added, and not to support any particular statement. This isn’t about the claim that Yasuke is a samurai, which is poorly supported by CNN and Time anyway. The term samurai is vague, and the actual meaning doesn’t always line up with common understanding.

I am trying to think how I can convince you. Do you believe that everything from CNN must be considered reliable? Or would showing you the mistakes in the article help? I think removing the poor quality citations is supported by essays and even wiki policy. Use by others helps establish that Lockley is viewed as an expert by various news media. We don’t need to cite every source in the lead to establish that. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sources that contain obvious errors. Such as...? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- CNN claims that Nobunaga believed Yasuke was a god. This isn’t directly attributed to Lockley, but Encyclopedia Britannica makes it clear that the theory is just Lockley´s. Furthermore, Lockley claims that Nobunaga, specifically, did not believe Yasuke to be divine. Nobunaga being irreligious matches other secondary sources. So we have CNN portraying, Lockley´s speculation as fact, but also getting Lockley´s idea wrong in the specifics.

- "In an era racked by political espionage, merciless assassinations and ninja attacks, Yasuke was seen as an asset. Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records." The first part of this quote is very pop history. It sounds exciting, but it isn’t very clear what it means, but it sounds misleading. Shinonbi no Mono were a normal part of armies, but was the era racked by "ninja attacks"? The real error though is the misattribution of the source. The source mentioning the servant, house and stipend is not Jesuit, but Japanese.

- "Yasuke’s origins remain a mystery as historical sources are scant. While some researchers believe he was from Mozambique, others suggest Sudan" Saying sources about Yasuke´s origin are scant is overstating it. Especially since the letter from Mozambique was found after the article was written. The only researcher suggesting Sudan is Lockley, who I believe got the suggestion from an ambassador from Mozambique.

-"He trained other militiamen and likely learned new techniques himself, including Japanese martial arts and sword skills." This line is suspect. Who are militiamen in the context of Sengoku period? "Other militiamen" suggest that Yasuke was a militiaman, but he was a retainer and possibly a mercenary before that.

-"The attack, which triggered what was known as the Battle of Honno-ji Temple..." The attack is called "the Honnō-ji Incident"

-"But while Yasuke became Japan’s most famous foreign-born warrior, his time with Oda was short-lived." This is wrong or misleading. William Adams is the most famous foreign born bushi, which in the context of Japan, is the meaning of warrior. Yasuke doesn’t appear to have been that famous in his own time, and there were probably times when Korean samurai were more famous. I wouldn’t be surprised if Korea samurai were more well known in Japan today, well at least at the time the article was written.

Not all these things might be considered errors, and some might be considered small. There are some other things that might be wrong, but are attributed to Lockley, so are assumed accurate in reporting what Lockley said. Also, when comparing claims Lockley makes, Encyclopædia Britannica should be preferred because of the greater oversight and that it is more recent. So if Lockley made a claim in 2019, but it didn’t make it into the Britannica article, we should ask why. Is it because Lockley has changed his mind? The Britannica article also does a better job of making clear what is speculation and what is fact. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the above, and add: The source mentioning the servant, house and stipend is not Jesuit, but Japanese., the Japanese source does not mention a servant. He trained other militiamen ..., this is not evidenced in the primary sources. But while Yasuke became Japan’s most famous foreign-born warrior, "warrior" is not evidenced in the primary sources; the only record of fighting is when attacked in the aftermath of the Honnoji Incident.

But all of these are found in the various works of pop history/speculative history/historical fiction. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked via google books and African Samurai has Yasuke training militiamen.

I don’t know how we are going to resolve this dispute. I think everything has been said, that can be said. I can point out problems with the other news articles, but @Symphony Regalia keeps reverting, but isn’t taking part in the discussion. Do we need an RfC for this? Clearly Symphony Regalia and @Gitz6666 are the two dissenters as various other editors have voiced criticism of CNN. The other sources are not as bad, but the relevant essays and policies are clear, that news sources are inferior in the context of history and the lead only needs inline citations for claims likely to be contested. Tinynanorobots (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source (WP:RSPCNN) does not become unreliable simply because it contradicts editor WP:OR.

Additionally, there is no policy at Wikipedia that says that news sources are "inferior" or should not be used in bibliographies.

We are engaging in discussion with you, but you should understand that this has already been discussed tirelessly and at a certain point WP:DROPPINGTHESTICK is more productive. The reliability of CNN has been affirmed again as recently as 2024 by community consensus. Time and The Smithsonian are also well-known reliable sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERKILL is only an essay, but I find the rationale it expresses under WP:CITEMERGE quite convincing in the circumstances of this article: clutter may be avoided by merging citations into a single footnote if there's any good reason to keep multiple citations, for example, to avoid perennial edit warring or because the sources offer a range of beneficial information. Edit war and disruptive editing are a real issue here. Besides, since some of our readers may be interested in researching the way Yasuke has been represented (or misrepresented) in the popular press - which is definitely an element of the "Yasuke case" - I think a collection of NEWSORG sources on Yasuke would be helpful. Unless editors object, I'd like to add such a collection of sources to the most contentious content of this article - the opening sentence ...served as a samurai.... Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me what the purpose of adding these citations. Is it to support the statement with sources, or to show readers recommended reading on the topic? I mean that as a sincere question and not as a rhetorical one.

I think that in both cases, academic sources would accomplish that better. I don’t see how the news sources provide a range of beneficial information, because they contain mostly the same information. There are some sources that go into more detail about Yasuke´s status as a samurai, but they are for some reason not taken into account. There may be good reason for that. Part of the problem with the lead, is that it implies that Yasuke was made a samurai as soon as he entered Nobunaga´s service. Personally, I believe that is probably the case, however I am not an expert. Lockley clearly believes that Yasuke started out as a non-samurai retainer and worked his way up, thus only being "promoted" to samurai at a later date.

I find that adding NEWSORG sources would be unhelpful. Especially at the beginning of the article. The claim that Yasuke is a samurai is supported by academic sources, leading with a selection of news sources that are mainly covering entertainment and don’t explain the conclusions gives the impression that the article is making a claim based on a weaker basis than it is. The Encyclopedia Britannica article, for example, explains why historians think Yasuke is a samurai. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered your "sincere, non-rethorical question". Please re-read the comment you're replying to if you're interested in the purpose of adding more citations. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the comment. What you are saying isn’t clear to me. That is why I am asking for clarification and elaboration. Maybe I understand what you are saying, but it doesn’t make any sense to me, so I think you must mean something else. Maybe I am missing something. I can't read minds.

It doesn’t make sense to use inline citations because readers are interested in what the popular press says. On one hand, most readers probably not going to read the citations, and the selection bias for those that do, will be people who are curious, or more sceptical. I think those people would be disappointed in the popular press. Maybe the sources should be added to the Pop culture section? After all, the Time article is under the Entertainment section of the website, and all the NEWSORG sources discuss the media adaptions of Yasuke´s story. Would that be a compromise? Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's try this way. Objectives:

1. To avoid edit warring/disruptive editing by making it clear that the content about Yasuke's status as a samurai is well supported by sources;
2. If a reader is interested in the general coverage of the news organisations, they'll find what they're looking for.

I don't understand your comment: most readers probably not going to read the citations.... So what? Someone might be interested in checking the sources, why should we disappoint them? ...and the selection bias for those that do, will be people who are curious, or more sceptical I don't understand this sentence/argument. I think those people would be disappointed in the popular press This is just speculation. Wikipedia's mission is to spread knowledge; if the readers want to check the "popular press", they can do so, if they don't want, they won't. So what's the problem? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is clearer now.

The problems with your objectives are:

1. Adding newsorg to the citation is more likely to cause edit warring, because they are lower quality sources compared to other available sources, being newsorg and old. The fact that there has practically been an edit war over the inclusion of NEWSORG citations is evidence of it.
2. I don’t think the assumption that people want to read news articles from 2019 is a valid reason to put inline citations in the lead, or anywhere. I also don’t find the assumption correct, I at least personally want well written, well researched sources that explain how they come to their conclusions and have a factual tone and don’t spend the first half of the article talking about an anime from 5 years ago.

I think the main difference for our disagreement is that you see no problem with the sources, whereas I think that NEWSORG are bad for history in general and that this CNN article in particular is bad. The other articles also don’t contain any extra information that makes them useful or interesting. I am backed up in my views by WP:NEWSORG and WP:HISTRS. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not concur that these are good reasons for including lower quality sources (as determined per WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:HISTRS).

Do not concur that these are appropriate reasons for citation bundling, if the effect of that bundling is to obscure the use of lower quality sources; to obscure a substitution of quantity for quality.

Additionally re:

1. Where editors have policy compliant concerns about article content, those concerns should be heard, and responded to substantively. Where concerns are not supported by policy, a collection of sources is unlikely to be preventative. Als: "well supported by sources" appears a key point of contention on this Talk page. Such contention should not be resolved by artificial "massaging" of content (including citations), but by formation of consensus through normal processes.

2. "Wikipedia is not a search engine". We should not include sources simply that a reader might discover them. We include sources because they are specifically reliable in the context for which they are used, and they are the best sources for that content.

Not seeing a great deal of recent edit warring on the article, other than as regards the use of lower quality sources (CNN Travel et al); for which there does not seem to be a consensus for inclusion. In that regard, WP:ONUS would seem relevant.

Specifically re:

Unless editors object, I'd like to add such a collection of sources to the most contentious content of this article ...

Editors object. Rotary Engine ^talk 12:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal to add two citation bundles - one for academic sources and one for news organisations - would not obscure the use of lower quality sources: on the contrary, it would make explicit what is high quality and what is not. The two citation bundles would not prevent editors from expressing their concerns on the talk page, but would be informative for readers and perhaps discourage reckless removal of text.

Anyway, there's no consensus on my proposal, but WP:ONUS works both ways: the same goes for removing the contested sources. Smithsonian magazine has been in the article since March 2024, and CNN since 2019. Given that we have not had an RfC on this, and that there have been few comments in this thread, your claim that there does not seem to be a consensus for inclusion is purely speculative. WP:NOCON applies here and the contested sources should not be removed until a consensus emerges. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been running in circles and going nowhere for a while now. At this point I'll just tell eveyone involved to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard and let other people settle the dispute. Yvan Part (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WP:ONUS works both ways: the same goes for removing the contested sources.

Have you actually read the policy?!

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

The policy is explicitly not bidirectional. If there is a contention, and there is not a consensus for inclusion, the content should not be included in the article. This is not difficult. Rotary Engine ^talk 14:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not difficult, but it is wrong. There is no preference for removal over inclusion (except in the case of BLPs, copyright violations and external link disputes). WP:ONUS is about verifiability (which does not imply inclusion) but the policy on (lack of) consensus is WP:CON. Please read it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would concur that, by some readings, WP:ONUS & WP:NOCON would appear to be inconsistent as to how an absence of consensus should be treated.; iff the {{tq|the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit}, which NOCON suggests should be retained is assumed to be the (implicit consensus?) version prior to removal. (If the "prior version" is assumed to be the version prior to the bold addition of content, then the two policies are aligned).

Reviewing both policies, I noticed a large discussion on the Talk page of WP:CON, which mentions WP:ONUS multiple times. Am reviewing further the archives of prior discussions on that page.

If the policies are indeed misaligned, then it would be best to have that resolved at the policy level. Do not yet see anything to suggest one policy ought to be preferred over the other. Will look to open a discussion topic at either policy's Talk page (cross-posting to the other) or at VPP.

Did also notice now the comment above: Given that we have not had an RfC on this, and that there have been few comments in this thread, your claim that there does not seem to be a consensus for inclusion is purely speculative. (emphasis adjusted to fit "tq"). Where we have not had an RfC; where we have not had a formally closed discussion; and where there is not an agreement between editors (albeit a small number of editors), it does seem reasonable to say that a consensus has not yet been formed. Rotary Engine ^talk 03:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:ONUS and WP:NOCON are in contradiction only if you asssume that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content (per ONUS) implies that the responsibility for achieving consensus for removal is not on those seeking to remove disputed content. But there's no reason to make this assumption because 1) WP:ONUS is concerned with verifiability and establishes that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion; it doesn’t say or imply anything about removal. 2) That assumption would contradict WP:NOCON (When discussions of proposals to ... remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal [to remove]). The best way to establish consensus is with an RfC or by seeking the input of uninvolved editors at the appropriate noticeboard. If you think that there's not a consensus for inclusion [better, retention] of news sources, you should either start an RfC or open a thread at a noticeboard, as Tinynanorobots did on 8 September (without notifying the editors who were discussing the same issue) here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waxing philosophical, I would say that it matters whether the implied consensus (essay, but linked in-text from WP:CON) for a bold addition of content collapses or survives the initial removal. If the former, there has never been consensus for inclusion, and ONUS applies. If the latter, perhaps it does not.

On the other hand, if there is an explicit consensus, that would mean ONUS was satisfied and NOCON applies to removal. (The easiest resolution in such case would be to point to that consensus.)

Not, however, minded that it would be the best option to start an RfC on sources already being discussed at RSN and/or a discussion of a policy already being discussed on that policy's Talk page. The discussions are already underway. Rotary Engine ^talk 09:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't noticed, I made an edit yesterday that adds two citation bundles: Special:Diff/1246177149https. I think it's an improvement, but if you disagree, feel free to undo it or, better still, remove the second citation, which includes journalistic sources. It seems to me that the layout of the article is now much cleaner and tidier, and the two footnotes provide vital information for the reader interested in how the Yasuke controversy unfolded in the mainstream media. It would be a shame to confine all these materials to talk page discussions only. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not errors. They are differences in analysis, which is allowed. Sources do not have to agree with your views.

Also, when comparing claims Lockley makes, Encyclopædia Britannica should be preferred because of the greater oversight and that it is more recent. So if Lockley made a claim in 2019, but it didn’t make it into the Britannica article, we should ask why. Is it because Lockley has changed his mind?

This is speculation (for instance it's possible that certain claims are made in his academic works, as opposed to a relatively short tertiary article on Britannica, because he is allowed to go into more detail).

As for CNN and Britannica both are reliable sources, and sources should not be arbitrary preferred based on editor speculation. WP:WEIGHT will handle this naturally. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting what I said. I am not basing this on my own opinion, but on what the secondary sources and experts said. I am saying that we should compare what Lockley said in different sources and at different times. :AGEMATTERS, but it is only one factor to consider. I think it is more clear-cut if he mentions something in an interview compared to an academic source. The length allowed is also a factor to consider, I agree with you there. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the article represent Yasuke's samurai status as debated? Brocade River Poems 02:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Lockley himself has stated there is debate as to whether Yasuke truly became a samurai:

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

See Talk:Yasuke/Archive 4#Lockley's latest work for the Japanese quote and source.

At the time of the finding of this quote there was debate as to the possibility of the debate referring to laymen, with historians actually being in agreement that Yasuke was a samurai. However, Yūichi Goza has since doubted that Yasuke can be certainly referred to as a samurai (although he does not say that he isn't a Samurai):

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

See Talk:Yasuke/Archive 4#New Japanese source(s) for more discussion of this source.

Edit: Daimon watanabe also says thre are too few sources:

So, was Yasuke a samurai? It is difficult to judge from this information alone. It is questionable whether giving Yasuke a private home, a sword worn at the waist, and a stipend can be used to define him as a samurai.

Based on the little information we have about Yasuke, it seems that Nobunaga took him with him when he went out and enjoyed watching people's surprise, so he seems to have been something like a servant. Nobunaga loved new things and this probably piqued his curiosity.

(see Talk:Yasuke#Watanabe Daimon's article in Yahoo news)

We have one of the main proponent of Ysauke being a samurai saying that there is debate, and two historians saying that we should be cautious in saying that Yasuke was a samurai or that we don't have enough information. These two statements should be enough to change the article to at the very least mention directly that according to some historians there is not enough evidence to definitively state that Yasuke was a samurai. Considering how few historians have published any research on Yasuke, and the fact that most historians have not used the term 'samurai,' the lede should be changed to reflect this uncertainty.

This addresses the main deciding point from the previous RfC:

Rather than furnishing a source that argues or purports to argue that Yasuke was not a samurai, the opposition has maintained that they do not need to prove a negative. However, by NPOV as editors of Wikipedia all an editors job to do is to represent what is written in the Reliable Sources. Since there have been no reliable sources furnished which contest the status of Yasuke as a samurai, it would be a violation of NPOV to depict it as contested.

Since the sources above were not discussed at the time of the RfC (one was not known and the other not yet published), that RfC documents outdated consensus and should be revised in light of new information.

Edit: In terms of the actual language of the article, I agree with Relm that "...though this status is in dispute" is not necessary, at least given the current sources, although that can change and we should mention in the closing of the RfC that if a substantial number of new reliable sources are found that dispute the current form of the article that a new RfC would not be needed to reflect that. The wording used in the current state could be something like "Some historians, such as Yuichi Goza, argue that there is insufficient evidence to conclusively state that Yasuke was a samurai, though they do not categorically reject this possibility either."

Edit 2: to be clear, we don't necessarily need to put this disagreement in the lede. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 03:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Since the conclusion of the previous RfC[11] (which was recent, I might add) there has been essentially no published reliable sourcing that claims that Yasuke was not a samurai.

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

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

Lockley's Britannica article also says "Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded 'samurai' of foreign birth" while explicitly choosing not to attribute any disagreements to reliable sources.

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

Since the conclusion of the most recent RfC there has been some new opinions offered, mainly:

• Yu Hirayama (says that Yasuke was a samurai)
• Yuichi Goza (does not have an opinion in either direction and concedes that he may have been)
• Mihoko Oka (says that Yasuke was a samurai)

Yu Hirayama was self-published, but his professional opinion does qualify as a RS per WP:EXPERTSPS. Yuichi Goza's opinion was published in an interview on a website that may not be reliable (Together with its English-language paper Japan Forward, the Sankei Shimbun has been described as having a far-right or right-wing political stance. It has previously published books denying the atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese Army in World War II. [12]), and Mihoko Oka's opinion is a combination of self-published and published. Notably, Goza never claims that Yasuke wasn't a samurai. He just says he wasn't the type of samurai mythologized in pop culture that was in a bunch of battles and such. Which is something we already knew and wasn't in dispute. Yuichi Goza says "If Nobunaga did make Yasuke a Samurai, it was in the same way that sumo wrestlers were conferred samurai status even though they weren't actually expected to go fight in war." which is him conceding that he may have been.

As such, even among new sources there isn't a single one that claims that Yasuke was not a samurai. The newer sources are not very high quality, and there is not enough of them to depict this as disputed even if they all contended with the claim that he is a samurai, which they do not. If we do include them though the total becomes:

Claims that Yasuke was a samurai

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

Says it is possible, but not in the way depicted in video games

• Yuichi Goza

Claims that Yasuke was not a samurai

• (None)

Per WP:NPOV:

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.

WP:FALSEBALANCE is quite relevant here.

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized

Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think as long as the origin of dispute is clearly identified, then it is sufficient. I think currently there is a lack of clarity on whether Lockley was referring to 'some people (historians)' or just 'some people (general populace)' in the Britannica article. I think any dispute should center around the authenticity of the manuscript since this is the only identifiable dispute brought forward by Kaneko and Goza, with Yu and Lockley both affirming that if the manuscript is authentic then Yasuke was some form of a 'samurai' by some unclear definition of the term.

e.g. instead of "...though this status is in dispute." I think it is currently more reflective of the criticisms levied to say that "Historians such as Yu and Lockley have used the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobunaga Diary to suggest Yasuke met the definition of Samurai for x y and z reasons, though some historians (Goza and Kaneko) have urged caution in regards to accepting the authenticity of the manuscript passage for x y and z reasons."

I think the former would just spiral into more arguments, while the latter is helpful for readers and reflects the current academic discussion that is ongoing. Relm (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long thread of replies moved to the Discussion section.

• My vote is for Yes and I like the phrasing presented here by Relm, though it could probably be made a little shorter/more succinct. SmallMender (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I would say Yes, so far, although Symphony Regalia may change my mind when/if s/he replies to my longer comment, or as I read through the continuing debate—so... provisional "Yes" only! edit: not so sure now—holding off for a sec! Himaldrmann (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

See my other posts for more in-depth reasoning; I've gone back & forth a few times, but I keep seeing (what I interpret as) misleading or tendentious arguments on one side, and no such things on the other.

(E.g.: "We cannot interpret the reliability of evidence ourselves, gotta go by the sources. But this one source, he might be right-wing, uh-oh! And this other one, it's using weasel words, so let's interpret it as unusable." Or: "We can't know what exactly this guy meant, only report exactly what he said, and he was just implied but didn't say outright that Yasuke was not a samurai. This other source says some people dispute Yasuke's samurai status? Hmm, probably means 'some [Internet troll] people', I bet..." Or: "Look at alllll these sources that support the 'yes-he-was' side. ...Some of them are not actually usable, of course, but they pad out the list a bit, so..." Etc, etc .)

Looking at the state-of-play, beyond meta-reasoning about what it means to use arguments like those, it seems fairly clear to me that—while on balance Yasuke probably was a "samurai"—enough legitimate doubt exists amongst experts, either about the claim itself or its original source, to include at least a line or so to that effect in the article.

Cheers, Himaldrmann (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No because Yasuke's status as a samurai is not debated outside of this talk page, Reddit, YouTube and the like. We had an RfC on the same issue less than three months ago, and the consensus was that it would be a violation of NPOV to depict [Yasuke's status as a samurai] as contested because there have been no reliable sources furnished which contest [it]. The same is true today - nothing has changed substantially, including the boundless enthusiasm some editors have for debating this topic, even without any RS to support their POV (but note this tweet by a Japanese subject-matter expert: "it's certain that he held the status of a "samurai"). I propose a WP:SNOWBALL closure and a one-year moratorium on the topic, because it has been disruptive for too long. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long thread of replies moved to the Discussion section.

• No. In order for us to portray it as debated, we would need evidence of a debate in reliable sources. But we don't have that. In fact, we don't have even one single RS that asserts or even suggests that Yasuke was not a samurai. Loki (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  >we don't have even one single RS that asserts or even suggests that Yasuke was not a samurai

  I don't think the intention of the RfC is to write in the article that anyone says Yasuke was not a samurai. Would you mind reading my comment here and then expand more on your position? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment says that your source doesn't mention Yasuke at all. So I don't know why you think it's relevant. Loki (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which comment are you referring to? Perhaps I linked the wrong comment? It seems to be working for me. (starts at "Based on some of the discussion here") J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No - per UNDUE. There isn't a debate about his status as a samurai. I've read through all the 24,000+ words spilt so far in this RfC, and no compelling argument has been presented to substantiate the unfounded claim of "debated", so therefore we can not definitevely state his status is debated. Yu Hirayama, a historian at the Japan University of Health Sciences who specializes in the Sengoku period, said that Yasuke’s samurai status was not in question. "There are very few historical documents about him, but there’s no doubt that he was a 'samurai' who served Nobunaga". Isaidnoway (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No. There's overwhelming academic sourcing calling him a Samurai; and still no serious academic sources dissenting from it. Per WP:ACADEMICBIAS, we don't say "but some people online disagree" when discussing things that academic sources broadly treat as historical fact. Also, I agree that we should have a broad moratorium on any discussions related to whether he's a samurai or not, lasting until at least a few months after Assassin's Creed Shadows has been released; this dispute has consumed entirely too much time and energy and has mostly gone nowhere. --Aquillion (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean "moratorium"? Loki (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I will mostly copy the text I had written below in the comments section since it is now relevant due to a recent edit that removed this information while an open RfC is underway. The word "controversial" is a strong word and I think makes out the situation to be a bigger deal than it really is. There is absolutely weight to add the following sentence to the lede after mentioning the sword, stipend, etc...: Historians believe this was the equivalent to "the bestowing of warrior or 'samurai' rank" during this period. (with the reference to Lockley Britannica). This sentence does not reject the idea that he is a samurai. Also, it was previously in the lede several times before being removed by Symphony Regalia here and Aquillion here.

Several historians say Yasuke was a samurai, including the perspective that he was a samurai because of the murky definition of the term during this period and the various tasks assigned to him and the "stipend." Given that Yasuke's status is one of the main things that makes him notable, the aforementioned sentence should be in the lede, because it is a part of his status. It is not WP:FALSEBALANCE to have this sentence in the lede, as the mere presence of this sentence does not contradict those historian's viewpoints and instead supports them. And it is not WP:UNDUE for the lede because the status of Yasuke is one of the main things that make his notable, and this sentence elucidates the notability in an informative, extremely brief fashion apropos of the lede. It is not accessory information, rather it is essential to his status. Various historians use those details to conclude that Yasuke was a samurai. Without the aforementioned sentence present, the article has those details floating in the lede without much purpose. Why are they even there? They seem like minor details that should not be in an article's lede. Obviously, the reason the details are there are to indicate Yasuke is considered a samurai, but readers who aren't involved in this article's edit war are unaware are not going to understand this obvious indication. Lastly, this sentence is critical for giving weight to the more measured persepctives of other historians who don't just say "Yasuke was straight-up a samurai, no questions asked", and who instead say he can be "considered" a samurai, or whatever complex wording they choose to use. This sentence is multi-functional, does a lot of heavy lifty lifting for various persepctives in an extremely brief and fair manner, and should be in the lede.

A concern of mine is that because BrocadeRiverPoems' question at the opening of this RfC (which used the word "controversial" which has strong connotations) may get struck down by some editors, then the outcome of this RfC will be used to heedlessly strike down other similar, but not identical, discussions in the future. Which would be inappropriate. I'm already seeing people warp the outcome of the previous RfC (which did not have "overwhelming" consensus) into shutting down many, many edits concerning Yasuke's status while this current RfC is open. Green Caffeine (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long thread of replies moved to the Discussion section.

• No - The only dispute is WP:FRINGE. Yes, the dispute exists, but it is not taken seriously by experts, so neither should we take it seriously and give it false or WP:UNDUE WP:WEIGHT. I note there's a lot of badgering and hounding in this RFC... I feel it may have gotten to the point of WP:SEALIONing. Please be careful. Fieari (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. I have my own preferences of how the article should discuss the issue, but in order to be productive I think the article can continue to refer to him as a samurai. However, there should be a short section on how samurai status in the 16th century was not set in stone and refer to those helpful sources that indicate the issue is up for debate, etc. John Smith's (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• No - Per others citing WP:FRINGE. It seems that these arguments are just running in circles, and up to this point no one can show any source that disclaims the possibility that Yasuke was a samurai, while numerous sources explicitly state that he was. It is telling that people voting have spent considerable time debating the merits of various blog posts and syndicated content on Yahoo News (obviously a big heavy-hitter in history journalism), when it appears that numerous past attempts have found that calling Yasuke a samurai in the article was not made in error. Considering that now there are apparently external message boards targeting this talk page, I think we should consider definitively resolving this soon. Barbarbarty (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following thread was originally positioned as a reply to Relm's comment in the Survey section. It has been moved here due to its length.

This seems to be different from the intention of this RfC, so I want to make sure these are handled separately. Attributing opinions concerning a hypothetical about a particular passage is entirely different from depicting Yasuke's samurai status as disputed. Even the people who presented the hypothetical are not making the argument that Yasuke was not a samurai (Goza concedes he may have been), so you would run into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues as well.

And neither of them have definitely said that they believe that passage is or isn't authentic. It is probably acceptable to mention it somewhere down in the article body, but I don't think that was the intention of this RfC. In terms of Yasuke's samurai status, Wikipedia's job is to abide by reliable sources, and per the reliable sources it is overwhemingly clear that Yasuke being considered samurai is the overwhelming majority view in them. In the recent RfC on this it was made apparent that not a single source argues that Yasuke was not a samurai, and this is still the case now. As such, it would fall under WP:FALSEBALANCE to depict it as disputed. Depicting a topic as disputed is not the same as attributing an inconclusive opinion about when a particular passage was added, which is probably fine to do so with appropriate weight somewhere (though, it could also be suited for the Shinchō Kōki article). It cannot be used draw conclusions about other things by editors though (otherwise it becomes WP:OR), because they themselves are not disputing it, they themselves are not even sure, and because the experts above have not updated their assessment of Yasuke's samurai. Not all reliable sources that represent Yasuke as a samurai draw their conclusions that from passage in isolation, and even for those that do they might outright disagree. As such, if and only if the plethora of reliable sources update their assessment of Yasuke's samurai status, would said hypothetical become relevant to Yasuke's status. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(please excuse typos or misplaced sentences, if they occur... this is why I shouldn't try to do this on my smartphone, dammit—)

---

That doesn't quite seem right to me. If a bunch of tertiary or secondary sources rely on the same document, and then a reliable source i.e. an expert e.g. a Japanese historian calls that document into question or suggests it's debatable, it seems reasonable to mention something to this effect—especially if other evidence is very thin on the ground, and especially especially if more than one expert suggests caution.

"Only if the majority of sources explicitly argue that he wasn't" is too strong a standard. That would be a reason to make a definitive statement in the other direction, but this is RfC just suggesting something to the effect that "it's not for sure", no?

(See bullet-pointed bit below on this, also.)

---

---

Re: Reliability of Sources, Pt. I (academic & prim./sec./tert.):

I think user Brocade River Poems makes a good point that there is only one—evidently—academic source that makes the claim, and based on the very document about which at least two Japanese historians (right?) have expressed some level of doubt.

It appears the majority of the "pro-samurai" sources adduced (about which, see below) rely upon either no sources; this work (by Lopez-Vera); and/or the document (Nobunaga narrative IIRC) in question.

This is not some overwhelming consensus that it should take a mountain of opposing consensus to overturn, much less "overturn" only to the point of inserting some qualifying clause!

---

IIRC, you challenged this point by saying "there's no rule about sources of sources needing to be distinct"—but I dunno, man... WP:RAP, right? I don't know enough to know if there is a rule about this, but it is easy to construct absurd scenarios if we refuse to consider B.R.P.'s reasoning!

E.g., imagine:

I feel like there must be some way to challenge "Segalia", in that situation! Similarly, although the situation here is not as clear-cut—no charlatans—there must be some consideration of the strength of evidence, such that one cannot count a hundred articles as "100x reliably sourced" if it all goes back to just one or two documents.

---

Re: Reliability of Sources, Pt. II (the list prev. posted):

The following was pointed out by Eiríkr Útlendi—among others—on the previous RfC, and I don't see that it's been reflected in claims made on this page:

>""CNN, Smithsonian, Radio France, and Times sources do not appear to be usable -- they either lack sources themselves (Radio France), or appear to simply be repeating Lockley."

User Tanukisann is evidently Japanese, and claims that very few Japanese historians consider Yasuke a samurai. He may be mistaken, I suppose, but it's worth considering in tandem with the "no English sources seem to doubt that he was" point, for context if nothing else.

Too, that casts some light on the question of whether sources which are silent on the matter weigh on the "pro-samurai" side, as some have argued. Considering secondary sources: it may be that Tanukisann is correct & it isn't mentioned because no one thinks it even needs arguing against; considering primary sources: we would expect that they would note something as exceptional as "this foreigner is a samurai", and the default assumption is that any one individual (especially a foreigner) is not a samurai—the former would suggest silence is damning, and the latter that it is at least neutral.

(Additionally, user R.stst adduced a purported primary source on the previous RfC, which might be worth considering by those who know Japanese.)

---

---

Finally, some more-pointed criticism, but meant without malice; please skip if this is an emotional topic—I don't mean to be an ass.

-------------

Well, as SmallMender points out: you've presented that list with CNN & Radio France etc. many times, but must be aware that it is heavily contested as to WP:RS status; forgive me if I've missed it, but I've not seen where you/anyone really addressed this. (Edit: Wait! I believe this is the same point that I already argue, above—with the "100 sources" hypothetical—so you have responded to it, if I'm not mistaken; obviously, I don't agree with the response, heh... but I was wrong to say it was unaddressed. My mistake!)

I also see that you forbid interpretation of what some statement by e.g. Goza means—but in the same breath interpret "some people" to mean "laypeople"... which seems a bit like a double standard. I'm here taking no position on which interpretation is correct, just sayin': surely one cannot have it both ways...

This would have likely made me feel like "probably the Yes-add-'debated'-clause side is right" from the off, had I seen it initially—you know, thinking like "why would someone have to pad the source list & use double standards if they were correct?" or whatever.

Tinynanorobots has made a similar observation, I see, so I don't think it's just me. But I do not mean this as an attack—and perhaps you will school me on why it's a totally wrong interpretation!—just offering it in case you weren't aware how it might come off...

(...but I recognize that "someone who's arguing with you" is not generally going to be a source of "take-able advice", heh, so pardon if it just made you mad.)

---

Cheers, all (& pardon for the length!),

Himaldrmann (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

Since this is getting lengthy, and for the benefit of those who may be looking for an executive summary of the current state of sourcing on Yasuke's samurai status: at the conclusion of the last RfC[13] on this topic it was noted that there is a plethora of reliable sourcing that refers to Yasuke as a samurai.

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

It was also made apparent that not a single source argues that Yasuke was not a samurai, and this is still the case now. If anything the current state of sourcing is even stronger in that direction than before:

Claims that Yasuke was a samurai

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

Says it is possible, but not in the way depicted in video games

• Yuichi Goza

Claims that Yasuke was not a samurai

• (None)

As such, it would be a blatant NPOV violation to depict the majority view in RS as contested and I really do not see any rationale in doing so. We must be very careful about WP:FALSEBALANCE here.

---

That doesn't quite seem right to me. If a bunch of tertiary or secondary sources rely on the same document i.e. an expert e.g. a Japanese historian calls that document into question

This is a misrepresentation. As mentioned:

1. Speculation on when exactly the passage was added was entertained, but neither of them actually presented a conclusion in either direction. Entertaining an inconclusive hypothetical is not the same as making an argument that something is not authentic. Neither of them have conclusively made that argument (that it is not authentic) so attributing intention to them would be an WP:OR violation. Per WP:OR Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources

2. There is an additional layer of WP:OR here by jumping from said hypothetical to the conclusion that Yasuke's samurai status can be represented as contested, which is not an argument either of them made either, and even if they did make that argument it would still be a minority view because the majority of experts are saying that Yasuke is a samurai. If and only if the plethora of experts update their assessment of Yasuke's samurai status, would said hypothetical become relevant to Yasuke's status.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, this is essentially double-layered WP:OR as well as WP:SYNTH to push a minority POV that is at complete odds with essentially all reliable sourcing on Yasuke, to create a textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE.

I think user Brocade River Poems makes a good point that there is only one—evidently—academic source that makes the claim, and based on the very document about which at least two Japanese historians (right?) have expressed some level of doubt.

I mean no offense by this, but whether a historian is Japanese or not makes no difference. This focus on ethnicity (WP:NATIONALISM) can be indicative of bias.

That said, it should be noted that Yasuke being a samurai is the majority view among Japanese historians as well.

Yu Hirayama and Mihoko Oka unequivocally refer to Yasuke as a samurai. Yuichi Goza, while inconclusive, still concedes that he may have been.

The point about there being only one academic source is also incorrect. For academic sourcing that refers to Yasuke as a samurai there is:

• Atkins (A History of Popular Culture in Japan: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-350-19592-9.)
• Lopez-Vera (Toyotomi Hideyoshi y los europeos: portugueses y castellanos en el Japón samurái [Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the Europeans: Portuguese and Castilians in Samurai Japan] ISBN 978-84-9168-759-7)
• Lockley (信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍. Ohta Publishing. ISBN 978-4-7783-1556-6)
• Yu Hirayama (self-published)
• Mihoko Oka (both self-published and published)
• Several academic reviews of the above

Of the academic sourcing that presents an argument that Yasuke was not a samurai, there is none (which leads to the next point).

E.g., imagine: A hundred different news & media outlets put out articles about how new research shows that Alexandre Dumas (père) was actually 100% white

It is the job of Wikipedia to follow the sources, and in fact even further than that one can say it is an obligation. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this: Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

What this means in practice is that if reliable sources overwhelmingly say that Tom Cruise is orange, as a neutral encylopedia that is what Wikipedia would represent. Wikipedia editors are not WP:TRUTHFINDERS.

As it concerns history it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to arbitrarily interpret primary sources either. If a hundred reliable sources are saying something, that is what Wikipedia must represent as the majority view. And this is so important to the functioning of Wikipedia that this policy in particular (NPOV) has the provision that it cannot be overturned simply because a group of editors thinks an article would be better off without it.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Some two or three French literary historians protest that the news organizations got hoaxed by a fake document: the academic is a charlatan. An editor tries to insert a clause to this effect in the lede of the Wiki article about it. User Rymphony Segalia says this is Not Allowed and is WP:FALSEBALANCE and so forth—because, why, a hundred sources say it, and there's no rule about their sources!

If we have 98 reliable sources saying A, and 2 reliable sources saying B, then A is the majority view and it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to depict the majority view as contested. This is fundamental Wikipedia policy. I am glad you mentioned this though, because this is what I was getting at by mentioning that this seems to be different from the intention of this RfC (and thus should be handled separately).

This RfC does not appear to be about whether a minority view can be included somewhere in the article with appropriate weight, but rather it is about whether the majority view can be depicted as contested — that is to say, not as the majority view. These are fundamentally different things.

• In regards to the former (I believe this is what Relm was referring to) I don't think that is a big deal.
• In regards to the later, in other words this RfC, I cannot find any policy to support it and it in fact would contradict core Wikipedia policy in egregious ways given that there is still not a single RS that argues that Yasuke was not a samurai.

Too, that casts some light on the question of whether sources which are silent on the matter weigh on the "pro-samurai" side, as some have argued. Considering secondary sources: it may be that Tanukisann is correct & it isn't mentioned because no one thinks it even needs arguing against; considering primary sources: we would expect that they would note something as exceptional as "this foreigner is a samurai",

The idea that "silent" sources can be considered to be against (or "for") the position that Yasuke is a samurai, and I no mean offense, is preposterous and at complete odds with the most core parts of fundamental Wikipedia policy.

Per WP:V

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support[b] the material being presented. The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.

It is not the role of editors, nor Wikipedia, to arbitrarily assume the unsaid.

User Tanukisann is evidently Japanese, and claims that very few Japanese historians

This is not relevant, and is veering into WP:NATIONALISM again (and verily so some of Tanukisann's statements are very problematic - You are the one who is imposing the history created by white people, and you are the one who discriminates against yellow people. You are the one insulting Japan's history[14]; this is definitely not language that belongs in a RfC discussion). Mostly importantly though his claim is demonstrably incorrect.

Apologies for the length. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I'm not convinced my silent sources thing isn't at least a little relevant, or that "what do Japanese historians say about this Japanese thing" is necessarily nationalism...

...but the rest convinces me pretty good, heh, especially the bit about the distinction between including some note somewhere in the article vs putting "it's hotly contested!" in the lede. I've changed my vote—thanks for your comprehensive response(s)!

Himaldrmann (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your claims briefly.

• Atkins (A History of Popular Culture in Japan: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. p. 72. ISBN 978-1-350-19592-9) specifically says Nobunaga gave him a sword signifying bushi status. Yasuke served as Nobunaga’s retainer and conversation partner for the last year of the warlord’s life, defending Azuchi castle from the traitorous Akechi forces in 1582, where Nobunaga committed ritual suicide (seppuku).24 Although there are no known portraits of the “African samurai,", with African samurai in quotations and the source author definitively saying that Yasuke was given a sword signifying "bushi status". Interestingly, though, is that the source Atkins lists for this claim is Ōta Gyūichi, The Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga, trans. J. S. A. Elisonas and J. P. Lamers (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 385–6; letters of April 15 and November 5, 1581, Fróis Lúis, Cartas que os padres e irmãos da Companhia de Jesus escreverão dos reynos de Japao & China aos da mesma Companhia da India & Europa, des do anno de 1549 atè o de 1580, etc. (Segunda parte das cartas de Japão, do anno 1581–1589), vol. 2 (Evora: Manoel de Lyra, 1598), 3v–4, 65v.

The lamers translation of The Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga doesn't mention Yasuke being given a sword at all, is worth noting. However, Atkins doesn't actually say that Yasuke was made a samurai.

• Lockley, Thomas (February 2017). 信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍. Translated by Yoshiko Fuji. Does not appear to be used at all in the article in any capacity. Moreover, Lockley 2017 was determined to be the same as the dismissed Lockley 2019 he teamed up with Girard in 2017, whose new tips, ideas and techniques which continuously strengthened and took the book in new, exciting and often unforeseen directions. It appears these two books are in fact the same book, the latter having a popular history spin from Girard Talk:Yasuke/Archive_1#Lockley_2016,_Lockley_2017,_and_Lockley_2019?
• Yu Hirayama (self-published). Not academically published, see my point of "single academic source". A self-published tweet by a historian who says if the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript is accurate than Yasuke is a samurai is not an academic source.
• Mihoko Oka (both self-published and published). If Oka has a published source detailing Yasuke being a samurai, it hasn't been presented to my knowledge nor is it used in the article.
• Several academic reviews of the above. Is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a source which can be verified. Simply declaring "there's several academic reviews of the above" is not tantmount to providing sources.

Which brings us right back to what I said. There is only a single academic source which definitively declares that Yasuke was a samurai, the Lopez-Vera. Brocade River Poems 23:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atkins (A History of Popular Culture in Japan: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present (2nd ed.).

Atkins refers to him as a samurai and says that he obtained "bushi status".

Lockley, Thomas (February 2017). 信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍. Translated by Yoshiko Fuji. Does not appear to be used at all in the article in any capacity. Moreover, Lockley 2017 was determined to be the same as the dismissed Lockley 2019

Whether it is currently cited or not isn't relevant to the fact that it is an academic source that refers to Yasuke as a samurai. Also, Lockley was never dismissed. The amount of works where Lockley argues that Yasuke was a samurai include:

• 信長と弥助 本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍. Ohta Publishing. ISBN 978-4-7783-1556-6 (peer-reviewed)
• An African Samurai in Japan. Yasuke Medieval World Culture and Conflict, 2022年05月, 査読無し, 招待有り (peer-reviewed)
• 信長の黒人「さむらい」弥助 ロックリ― トーマス つなぐ世界史, 2023年06月, 査読有り, 招待有り (peer-reviewed)

There have also been several academic talks:

• African Samurai: True Story of a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan ロックリー・トーマス George Washington University, 2021年02月, 招待有り
• Yasuke: An African Warrior in Japan ロックリー・トーマス The Smithsonian Institution, AfricAsia: Overlooked Histories of Exchange, 2020年09月, 招待有り
• YASUKE: AN AFRICAN WARRIOR IN JAPAN WITH PROF. THOMAS LOCKLEY ロックリー・トーマス Aga Khan Museum, Toronto, Canada, 2020年02月, 通常論文

Yu Hirayama (self-published). Not academically published, see my point of "single academic source". A self-published tweet by a historian who says if the

Yu Hirayama's professional opinion itself is a reliable source per WP:EXPERTSPS. It is as follows:

It seems like there's a lot of talk about Yasuke, a black man who served Oda Nobunaga. There are very few historical documents about him, but there's no doubt that he was a samurai who served Nobunaga. Regardless of one's social status, if one's master promoted one to the rank of "samurai," one could become one in medieval (warring states) society.

Mihoko Oka (both self-published and published). If Oka has a published source detailing Yasuke being a samurai, it hasn't been presented to my knowledge nor is it used in the article.

Mihoko Oka has self-published that Yasuke was a samurai:

It should be a common perception in the study of Japanese history that the definition of “samurai” in the Warring States period is ambiguous. On that basis, if he “fought to the last with his sword” along with his Lord, I would say he was a “samurai”. I would like to say that he was a rarity, just as he was, without having to over-adapt it. A historian's soliloquy.

And professionally backs the idea as well through つながる世界２.

Lopez-Vera

Also directly refers to Yasuke as a samurai.

Several academic reviews of the above. Is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a source which can be verified. Simply declaring "there's several academic reviews of the above" is not tantmount to providing sources

Even critics of Lockley (Purdy) refer to Yasuke as a samurai in their own voice.

Which brings us right back to

It indeed does. You are mistaken. There is a plethora of academic sourcing that refers to Yasuke as a samurai. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Goza and Kaneko find the manuscript reliable on balance. However, I don’t read Japanese and I am relying on translations. This YouTube video is supposedly Goza talking about it https://www.youtube.com/live/t30qOpV_Ltg?t=2584s This blog post also seems to be by Goza: https://agora-web.jp/archives/240721081916.html Furthermore, it isn’t the only evidence used for the claim of Yasuke being a samurai, other scholars have pointed to other evidence.

However, I am all for adding nuance to the description of Yasuke, and explaining why historians think what they do. I would also like to point out that the article on William Adams (samurai) doesn’t use the word samurai, except in the title. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following thread was originally positioned as a reply to Gitz's !vote in the Survey section. It has been moved here due to its length.

How broad is this one year moratorium? The last RfC was used rather broadly to veto several changes that really didn’t contradict the consensus. A lot of the subject-matter experts have made comments that provide interesting nuance to the Yasuke´s status as a samurai. Cryns has even said that Yasuke may not be in the strictest sense a samurai. I think academics have given support to the idea that Bushi made be a better term to use etc. So while no academic has said that Yasuke was not a samurai, some have voiced uncertainty and others have said that the status doesn’t mean what people think. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The broadest possible moratorium. Who is "Cryns"? I didn't find any mentions to Cryns on this talk page. And who are the academics that support the idea that bushi may be a better term? Note that at Yasuke's time, during the Azuchi–Momoyama period, the word "samurai" referred to the "lowest-ranking bushi (see Samurai for sources), so that a warrior of elite stature in pre-seventeenth-century Japan would have been insulted to be called a "samurai" (see Wert [15]). As far as I know, to this day no expert has ever denied that Yasuke can be called a samurai. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how broadly the last RfC was used, then it suggests that you wish to freeze the whole article and all other articles related to samurai for a year, even though there is reason to expect new works will be published on Yasuke before then.

[[Frederik Cryns]] His opinion is in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b3SGQO_Ij4 Some of the people mentioned in the video are just YouTubers who know a lot, but Steven Noriji is a researcher as well as Anthony.

If you look at the samurai talk page you will see that I pointed out that a few experts disagree with Wert, and I can´t establish who is right and if there is a majority view.

A good source for what scholars think is this google group:

https://groups.google.com/g/pmjs/c/mrXyZacOqdY

This is all scholars who study Japan talking to each other, so that means what they are saying, one can’t assume every scholar knows. Here are some relevant quotes:

"Personally, I do not agree even with using the term samurai to describe bushi in this period. Anyone familiar with Fujiki Hisashi, Takagi Shōsaku and, more recently, Fujii Jōji’s works will see how difficult it is to pinpoint the meaning of this and other correlated terms for the Oda-Toyotomi period. However, considering all the things that were given to Yasuke when he was given to Nobunaga (a house, a katana etc) he was certainly not carrying Nobunaga’s zōri around. ... What I am saying is that even calling a Japanese person a samurai in this period is highly risky, especially when dealing with low-ranking soldiers." Rômulo Ehalt

"Incredibly few historical figures whom we know as samurai or bushi, even the really famous ones, were directly labeled as such in the primary sources. This is not really all that surprising since "samurai" wasn't a formal court rank or title. At least as far as I have seen, when the term was used more often than not it was used as a general label for certain groups of people rather than to describe a specific person..." Paul Liu

"I got an inquiry from a stranger some months ago about whether Yasuke was a samurai. I replied that, on balance, I would count him as one, while cautioning my correspondent that the category is not always clear cut." David Howell

Saying that one

can

call Yasuke a samurai is different than saying that he is one. It is important to keep in mind that the Yasuke is a bushi argument is different from the Yasuke is an ashigaru argument or the Yasuke was a low ranking servant argument, or the we don´t know argument, even though they all get grouped together.

Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply - I've just noticed this comment. Frederik Cryns is not the subject of a WP article, but he is a subject-matter expert [16]. What has he written about Yasuke? I couldn't find any references.

As for the YouTube video, I am not going to watch a 34 minute video by independent researcher Antony Cummins [17]. I doubt that the author of "How to be a Modern Samurai: 10 Steps To Finding Your Power & Achieving Success" qualifies as a subject-matter expert.

Finally, I looked at the Google group you linked to. Obviously it is not a reliable source... but I came across an email from someone who signs himself as "Dan Sherer", which could be this Dan Sherer [18] - a subject-matter expert. He says First off I want to say, purely based on the Japanese sources the answer to the question of whether Yasuke was a samurai is that by any reasonable definition Yasuke was.

Anyway, this is irrelevant. We should use reliable sources. Many people debate Yasuke's status as a samurai, but no reliable source does. For the (few) historians who have written on the subject in recent years, it is clear that he was a samurai, and the point is not disputed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have Cryns' book In the Service of the Shogun, the one mentioned in the video, and he does not mention Yasuke at all. The Google group was discussed somewhat in archive 5. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Google group is actually quite interesting. David Howell, Professor of Japanese History at Harvard University [19], writes: I got an inquiry from a stranger some months ago about whether Yasuke was a samurai. I replied that, on balance, I would count him as one, while cautioning my correspondent that the category is not always clear cut. Before getting the inquiry I had not even heard of Lockley’s book. And I had no idea about all the controversies. Paula R. Curtis, another historian of medieval Japan [20], explains the "Yasuke affair" from the perspective of an insider - definitely worth reading. Dan Sherer (a historian of Pre-Modern Japan, with a focus on the Sengoku period) says that Yasuke was a samurai by any reasonable definition because he is made a vassal of a military family, given a stipend and a sword (さや巻之のし付) and a house and carries Nobunaga's (military) equipment. So while we don't have Gyuichi giving us a specific title, the suggestion is that he is being treated as a member of the samurai class, such as it was in the late 16th century. This tracks with Ietada Nikki (the other Japanese language source that describes him) and with the Jesuit source. The views of Japanese historians Oka Mihoko and Hirayama Yū, who come out on twitter in support of Yasuke's status as a samurai, are mentioned and linked by Paul Liu [21][22].

To sum up: Yasuke's status as a samurai is not disputed by historians, not only in reliable sources, but even in Google groups!

(Truth be told, there's also one "dissenter". Legal historian Rômulo Ehalt [23] writes I do not agree even with using the term samurai to describe bushi in this period and explains: even calling a Japanese person a samurai in this period is highly risky. With regard to Yasuke, he says that there are a lot of assumptions here taken from very scarce historical materials, and this includes all the attempts to answer whether Yasuke was a samurai or not.) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lopez Vera is also in that thread, as mentioned in archive 5.

>You said "purely based on the Japanese sources the answer to the question of whether Yasuke was a samurai is that by any reasonable definition Yasuke was". To this, 1) there are also European sources we should consider, I did read them in their original language, and they point to the opposite direction 2) there is also Ōta Gyūichi's chronicle, the version kept in the Sonkeikaku library, that also seems to say he was a samurai, in the 1581's standards. Regarding Lockley's book, I think we agree, and he kind of played a trick on us, since all these angry racist kids on the Internet are using his book to defend their poor arguments, they throw it at me all the time, like "oh, I see, you're just another Lockley", etc. Anyway, I think your idea of a collection of sources on Yasuke is a great idea.

As noted then, he seems to not agree that all primary sources imply that Yasuke was a samurai. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cummins has also written other books. He is most well known for his Ninja manuals. Historical documents that his translation team translates. Some books are self-published, but others are published by reputable publishers. His book Old Japan mentions Yasuke, but I don´t think that Cummins has researched Yasuke with any depth. I think that you would find the video interesting.

Cryn didn’t write about Yasuke in his book, he wrote about it in his email to Cummins. In the video, Cummins starts out by pointing out that when people ask if Yasuke is a samurai, they really want to know if he is a fighter, and not if he had the right lineage. He also discusses the difference between bushi and samurai and the difference between bushi and ashigaru. Basically, he says that in earlier periods the differences were bigger, but in the Sengoku Period, but differences had shrunk so that they were hard to tell apart. The difference between bushi and ashigaru is possibly that the ashigaru had loaner weapons. Cryn mentions that he is reading Ietada's diary, and that it uses the same word to describe the stipends given to other samurai. He adds that it is possible that Yasuke wasn´t a samurai in the strict legal sense, because he didn’t have imperial lineage or a court rank, but that high ranking bushi were sometimes called samurai. Cryn then suggest that he would consider Yasuke a Kinju, or lord´s attendant. A Kinju could be a page, samurai or bushi. The implication is that Cryn considers Yasuke at least a bushi. Most people mean bushi when they say samurai, so I don’t think we need to make the distinction.

I don’t think that we should cite the google group or the youtube video in the article, but I think we can use them and common sense to inform ourselves. Academics are not relying on one source to come to the conclusion that Yasuke was a samurai. I get the impression that most researchers would jump to the conclusion that a retainer means samurai. The problem with strict interpretation of Yasuke´s status as a samurai, is that it doesn’t allow any qualification.

Also, regarding experts, it is good to know their speciality, or more specifically, have they studied the issue. More weight should be given to a historian who has written about samurai status in the Sengoku period, than a historian who has mainly written about historic rice yields. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tweet you linked is from Hirayama Yu who later says, 私は、史料をもとに、自分の見解を述べただけ。 I was merely expressing my opinion based on historical documents here in response to someone saying that he was declaring Yasuke was a samurai. The previous RfC stipulated no source explicitly stated that Yasuke was not a samurai. Accurately reflecting sources which say there is a dispute is not tantamount to declaring Yasuke is not a samurai and thus does not require a source to explicitly say "Yasuke is not a samurai". There is Yuichi Goza's interview, where he says that he believes in reality Yasuke was simply a bodyguard and an entertainer, and there is Thomas Lockley's Britannica article which notably says the claim that Yasuke is a samurai is disputed by some people. The argument boils down to "There is one academic reliable source that says Yasuke is a samurai, so we should authoritatively say he was a samurai". The majority of tertiary sources relied on Lockley's book, which was deemed unreliable by consensus. Beyond that, we have Lockley's Britannica article, which says the status was disputed, and a number of sources who do not definitively say that Yasuke was a samurai, as well as a Japanese historian in an interview saying he doesn't believe Yasuke was a samurai. Choosing to ignore Yuichi Goza and the fact that the Britannica statement of dispute when the article uses the Britannica article isn't really adhering to WP:NPOV.

Also, your proposed moratorium is borderline WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALL. Brocade River Poems 01:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Thomas Lockley's Britannica article says that the claim that Yasuke is a samurai is disputed by some people: probably the same people who dispute it on this talk page, on Reddit and on YouTube; soon we'll be able to have a section on this kind of dispute/disruption, as there are sources [24][25]. However, Lockley also says that Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, and historians are what matter for the purposes of an encyclopedic article. As for Goza, he is an assistant professor who gave an interview to a right-wing newspaper (Sankei Shimbun). In that interview (and in a blog post) he did not dispute Yasuke's status as a samurai, that is, he did not said that Yasuke was not a samurai. He said that "we should be cautious" in concluding that he was, thus conceding that he may have been; being a lord's "bodyguard" in medieval Japan is compatible with samurai status. Basically, there are no new sources since the last RfC, and the few new ones do not support the existence of a scholarly controversy about Yasuke. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 07:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"As for Goza, he is an assistant professor who gave an interview to a right-wing newspaper (Sankei Shimbun)."

This bugged me when I saw it said before, and seeing repeated word-for-word again bugs me even more.

Like, kinda poisoning the well a bit there, aintcha? No one has made an argument, as far as I can find, that the newspaper's political orientation means anything—even about the paper itself, in terms of factors relevant to this debate; certainly not anything about Goza.

Were I a less charitable man, I might think you've swung so far to one pole of the political spectrum that you've actually outright forgotten that there exist people to whom the descriptor "right wing" does not automatically mean "disregard & cancel all involved"...

(But—luckily—I think only the best of my fellow editors, and so I choose to view this merely as evidence of such steadfast commitment to the "no interpreting" principle¹ that you wished to leave it to the reader to decide if a man choosing to speak politely to a conservative newspaper—like some sort of goose-stepping, hate-filled maniac—is a datum they wish to use in informing their analysis, or if they're too biased to see how Goza is wrong about everything always now. 🫡)

---

¹: except when it's just REALLY obvious, like Britannica clearly thinking it worthwhile to note that random commenters online dispute it, in their scholarly compendium of expert opinion; that one's a "gimme". but other times no.

(...haha, just joshin' with you a bit, amigo! I'm not actually triggered! ...well, not very much—)

---

It seems each side chooses to concentrate on different elements of the debate:

• Yes side: "There is significant scholarly doubt about the single piece of primary evidence for this claim, so the apparent consensus on this issue is really just a few experts saying 'he was', a few experts saying 'I'm not so sure', and a proliferation of left-wing² media repeating the claims of the former. This would be—if in any less heated arena—normally a fairly clear case of a thing being disputed i.e. 'his status as samurai is by no means certain.' And, too, the Britannica article outright states that there is dispute on the matter."

• No side: "It doesn't matter if it appears to be the case that the original claim came from an unusually well-crafted piece of character background for a Japanese D&D game, or if it is found inscribed in flaming letters 100 feet high on Mt. Sinai: regardless, we cannot interpret sources—that is against the rules about synthesis & OR—and the sources say 'he was a samurai.' Meanwhile, no RS says outright he wasn't. And we can interpret the Britannica source to mean probably '[non-experts only dispute] this.'"

---

(You might notice that I, at least, perceive a contradiction or two in the "no" side...)

---

---

² (hey, if y'all can be throwin' poison around, I'd like to make sure everyone gets a taste—fair's fair—)

---

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully in regards to Sankei Shinbun, I will make that argument then.

Sankei Shinbun is a known nationalist publication. Throughout the RSN discussion over Lockley, many Japanese sources were cited uncritically, including some which were clearly nationalist in origin. I do not recall if it was Gitz or someone else who pointed a few of them out, but as an example one was employed to criticize Lockley and then in the next breath say 'if we don't get a handle on this it'll turn out like the comfort women issue'. Other sources made clear their objection to Yasuke being a Samurai entirely off of his race. This establishes a need to vet Japanese sources on the controversy, and why some who were apart of those discussions may feel vigilant towards known nationalist sources.

Sankei Shinbun is not a reliable source for Japanese History (WW2 revisionism, war crime denial, comfort women revisionism, nationalist bend on coverage, etc) in any stretch of the imagination. It is not listed on the list of sources, but I can't imagine it should be treated any different than similar publications that are on the list such as WP:NATIONALREVIEW. If it is included it should be with direct attribution to the historian making the claim in any case.

As for the characterization of the argument, I think it is more apt to say the dispute is over how much weight should be given to questioning the primary source's legitimacy. The consensus shown amongst historians - including many who are skeptical about the source - is that if the text is genuine, then Yasuke constitutes a 'samurai' by the loose definition that was employed during the Sengoku Jidai period for a variety of reasons. Those who are skeptical about the source seem to do so on the basis that any manuscript change is worthy of skepticism.

Any change to the article to reflect disagreement is thus less about disputing the claim of Yasuke constituting a Samurai, but rather the authenticity of the manuscript that claim comes from. This may sound like splitting hairs but when it comes to implementing such a change the difference is quite stark. See my other comments in this topic about how I view such changes should be handled. Relm (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>"Any change to the article to reflect disagreement is thus less about disputing the claim of Yasuke constituting a Samurai, but rather the authenticity of the manuscript that claim comes from. This may sound like splitting hairs but when it comes to implementing such a change the difference is quite stark. See my other comments in this topic about how I view such changes should be handled."<

I liked your formulation as to the phrasing to use & would be fine with it, absolutely.

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you responded to a single line of text stating that Goza is an assistant professor and Sankei Shimbun is a right-wing newspaper with nearly 500 words of self-congratulatory mockery! Was it worth it?

The interview with Goza is a poor quality source because interviews as secondary sources are no different from self-published material. Sankei Shimbun's political leanings don't automatically disqualify it as a source (biased sources can be reliable) but they're not irrelevant either. Yasuke is at the centre of a culture war waged by right-wing netizens (neto uyo) who are outraged by the idea that a Black man could have been a samurai. That's likely why a nationalist, right-wing newspaper like Sankei Shimbun would publish an interview on what is essentially an academic yet minor topic. This is the same newspaper that in 2015 notoriously published a series of articles whitewashing the Nanjing Massacre. In the interview, Yūichi Goza says that Yasuke may have been a bodyguard and an entertainer, but concedes that he may have been a samurai. This interview is clearly not sufficient to include Yasuke's samurai status as "debated" (debated by whom?), as this RfC proposes. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo just published an article making the same arguments as Goza: [26]

>また、『信長公記』の伝本の中に、「弥助が私宅と鞘巻（太刀）を与えられ、時には道具持ちをした」と記すものがあり、もし、これらの情報が正しければ、弥助はサムライとして遇されていたことになる。

>結局のところ、史料の絶対的な不足から、弥助がサムライであったか否か断定することはできない。

MTL:

>In addition, one extant copy of "Nobunaga Koki" states that "Yasuke was given a private home and a scabbard (long sword), and sometimes acted as a tool carrier." If this information is correct, Yasuke would have been treated as a samurai.

>In the end, due to the absolute lack of historical materials, it is impossible to determine whether Yasuke was a samurai or not.

(@Relmcheatham as this is related to your post in this subthread as well also @BrocadeRiverPoems as this is related to some of the points you suggested we might add relating to Shinchō Kōki IIRC) J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that in this case Yahoo is a news aggregator. The original source is 歴史人 (Rekishijin; "History Person/People"?), ja.wiki article; which is owned/affliated with Asahi Broadcasting Corporation. The original article is here. Rekishijin also has a few previous articles on Yasuke, which can be found by searching that site for "弥助". Rotary Engine ^talk 01:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't catch that, thanks. According to WP:RSP, Yahoo syndicated content is not necessarily reliable. I have no idea if 歴史人 or Asahi is reliable. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With Yahoo aggregated content, reliability depends on the originating source; as it does with with any other aggregator (e.g. MSN). A resonant example might be the articles from the Daily Mail which are syndicated in reliable news media - they don't become reliable by having been syndicated.

If I had to put forward an initial, rough, opinion on this source, I would say that: Shimazaki appears to be a subject matter expert on Japanese history; Rekishijin appears to be a reliable publication; and ABC appears to be a reliable publication group.

And that this is certainly no less reliable a source than tweets and Google groups - the converse being more true. Rotary Engine ^talk 02:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit: moved to Talk:Yasuke#Watanabe_Daimon's_article_in_Yahoo_newsJ2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author is listed as 島崎晋 (Shimazaki Susumu), which is the historical writer; ja.Wiki article. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there is some cause to put Shimazaki under some scrutiny for whether he counts as a subject matter expert. I'm aware of him through my studies of the Three Kingdoms period because his works are some of the most popular representations of it in Japanese. It is thus not a shock to see that his academic works are on Chinese History and religion, while he also writes pop history and religion aimed at a younger audience on a variety of basic topics. He is most certainly a Historian, but I am skeptical to the claim that he is a subject matter expert on Japanese military history, Sengoku Jidai, or any form of Japanese history. The following are his only listed works on Japan:

"Easy to Read Kojiki" Kosaido Publishing , September 2003. ISBN 4331509966

"Easy to read Tale of the Heike" Kosaido Publishing, July 2004. ISBN 4331510565

"Easy to Understand 'Kojiki'" Shinjinbutsu Oraisha , September 2009. ISBN 4404037325

"Japan's Ten Great Battles: The Strategies of Great Generals that Changed History," Seishun Publishing Co., Ltd., August 2010. ISBN 4413042840

"Japanese History Explained Through Money (SB Shinsho)" SB Creative , May 2018. ISBN 4797396148

"The Kojiki is so interesting you won't be able to sleep" PHP Institute, March 2020, ISBN 4569846823 Relm (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His stance is stronger than Goza's (who I would describe as purely inconclusive).

He directly concedes that Yasuke is a samurai if the information is correct and does not make an argument that he was not (また、『信長公記』の伝本の中に、「弥助が私宅と鞘巻（太刀）を与えられ、時には道具持ちをした」と記すものがあり、もし、これらの情報が正しければ、弥助はサムライとして遇されていたことになる). Goza concedes that Yasuke may have been a samurai and does not make an argument that he was not, but qualifies it a bit more.

As for 歴史人, it is described as an entertainment magazine which would put it in the pop history category. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>"Wow, you responded to a single line of text stating that Goza is an assistant professor and Sankei Shimbun is a right-wing newspaper with nearly 500 words of self-congratulatory mockery! Was it worth it?"<

No, didn't you read? I said only an uncharitable man would think those things!

I'm afraid this is not even the only major blunder I've noticed: you accidentally a word in the very first sentence, which was almost certainly intended to read "...nearly 500 words of hilarious self-congratulatory mockery". (No need to apologize, though; I knew what you meant. :)

(...look, I admitted I was a tiny bit triggered--)

---

More seriously, though:

>"This is the same newspaper that in 2015 notoriously published a series of articles whitewashing the Nanjing Massacre."<

...okay, I didn't know it was that right-wing. I understand, then, why you included the qualifier.

---

Thinking about prior arguments used here, against evaluating sources / claims within sources, it seems possible there's some dissonance over the role of editor judgment... depending on whether we're discussing an unsympathetic-to-"Yes"-side instance, or the reverse:

• ". . . if you conclude that a[n RS] is unreliable regarding a specific article's content, that conclusion must be based on other, more reliable secondary sources. . ." / ". . . [e]valuating reliability has nothing to do with the claims within sources. . . " / ". . . it is not the place for editors to determine what is true and not true. . ." (emphases added)

E.g.: to determine if "claim is based on a contested document" is a factor in its evaluation, or whether "this source is a puff piece by CNN Travel that contains known errors" might affect how much weight we give it -- then we cannot use our judgment or make a simple inference... but to cast a side-eye toward Goza's statements, or decide that the Britannica article probably means "some [non-experts] dispute" -- then we can use our judgment & don't need to find a secondary source saying exactly that "Goza can't be trusted; he's motivated by nationalist fervor!" (or whatever).

I'm aware that it's not impossible to square all of the above (& that you, Gitz, did not yourself commit to the latter quotes) -- so please understand, I'm not: making an argument against anyone in particular (you are all mis hermanos de sangre, totalmente) / saying that there's a hard-&-fast double standard in the above (very possible some criteria apply to X & Y, but not Z, for A-B-C reasons) / saying "you [Gitz] are contradicting yourself here, therefore" (& indeed, you're not!).

Only mean to gesture at an idea / suggest alertness re: different standards for convenient vs. inconvenient sources/arguments.

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your point would be easier to understand, if it is explicit. It seems that you are implying something. I am guessing that you are saying that Goza is biased, but despite this bias still concludes that Yasuke is a samurai. If you want to make that case, you don’t need to rely on guilt by association. Goza criticizes foreigners for not making the protagonist in a Japanese game Japanese and mentions diplomatic incidents. I am not sure which land the Japanese government should be mad at in this case, France or Britain. This is a political position and one that is directly relevant to Yasuke.

I don’t think Goza´s bias in this case is important, because he mostly agrees with other historians. He thinks the relevant text is mostly reliable and that Yasuke was treated as a samurai and had the formal status of a samurai and was a bodyguard. He also thinks that Yasuke might have been in line for a fief. He just doesn’t think that Yasuke played a major role on the battlefield. Goza´s opinion that is most different from others, is his "entertainer" thesis, which may be based on a mistranslation. Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my argument is not based on guilt by association, it's rather "look, not even the Sankei Shimbun managed to find an expert willing to commit to the no-samurai thesis". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good point—why did you let me assume bad faith & go off on an unhinged rant like that, then, huh?!¹

...but see, this is what I don't quite understand!

What you've done here is make a reasonable inference from what we know, even though it's not, like, explicitly stated in other sources. Is this not the same as, e.g., reasoning thusly:

---

• The Times, Smithsonian, CNN, etc. sources often pointed to in this thread—the collection of news media sources, you know—mostly either list no references, or use Lockley.
• Repeating a claim doesn't tell us anything about its merit.
• Hence, we may infer that 100 of these pieces quoting e.g. Lockley ought not count as 100x more weight on the one side of the scale.

Or:

• The single published academic source² (Lopez-Vera) that references Yasuke's samurai status bases it upon a single recension of a single document.
• That text is available in thirteen different actual manuscripts. Only one has the Yasuke claim. Some experts have expressed doubt about this portion of the manuscript being genuine.
• Hence, from this and the above, we may infer that apparent overwhelming consensus on this topic is in fact on much shakier ground than merely citing every organization that did a puff piece on Yasuke might suggest.

---

Are these not very similar things to "if that paper could have gotten a hotter take from any historian in Japan, it would've", or to "Lockley's E.B. article's note that 'some people dispute [the claim]' seems to mean 'randos', else he'd have written 'some historians'" (...Himaldr said, still monomaniacally fixated on the minor point–)...?³

Sure, you're not making the argument to discard the source based on that, or anything, but it's at least being thrown into the evidence pile, as it were; and it appears to me that similar reasoning on the "other side" is not allowed to be.

...thrown into the pile. Er. You know what I mean.

---

I'm bowing out, after this; but all jokes aside, you seem reasonable & not as axe-grindy as some—so, genuinely: am I going seriously wrong somewhere above, then...?

I certainly think it would be a mistake to make it appear as if it's hotly debated—it seems there's almost no doubt Yasuke was what anyone today would call a samurai—but it seems to me a single line somewhere isn't out of order...?

Just to ensure the reader gets the impression that "it's slightly less certain than 'Octavian was the first Roman Emperor'", say...?

---

Anyway: as said, that's it for me, but I'll return to read (& may change my vote one last time, if you or anyone else shows me why I'm dumb & wrong here).

Cheers, and may the god of my people watch over you all.⁴   o7

 

(we all know I'll probably be back but ssh it's a touching moment ok)

 

---

fütnöten

---

¹: (in case it's not evident, I'm kiddin')

²: (Another, Atkins, has been adduced, but there seems to be dispute over content: he calls Yasuke "the 'African Samurai'", in "so-called" quotes.)

³: (Some may shout "WP:OR!", but from what I've been reading on the history RS page—& the RS context page, & RS page—it is actually expected that editors do this kind of minor but extremely useful reasoning.

⁴: ("Tripping Jaguar". We keep making offerings of teonanácatl in hopes he doesn't sober up & start demanding hearts and stuff again.)

---

Himaldrmann (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating a claim doesn't tell us anything about its merit.

Editors are not WP:TRUTHFINDERS. It is not the job of Wikipedia editors to evaluate the merit of claims (it does seem you feel there is an inconsistency, so I will address that below). The job of Wikipedia is simply to present what is in reliable sources. And that is overwhemingly that Yasuke was a samurai. If we deviate from this we are then violating WP:NPOV.

I get the impression that you feel editors are being strict about this, but editors are being strict about this because policy is strict about this. Per WP:OR

On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.

Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

No source has actually stated the conclusion Yasuke was not a samurai, and there is a large amount that have, so it would be a textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:NPOV violation to depict it as disputed.

This is being stated in very strong terms because it is crucial to the functioning of Wikipedia to the point that WP:NPOV was given special provision that it can't just be sidelined because editors want to read between the lines or think an article would be better off without it: This policy ... cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

It seems you believe there are some inconsistencies, namely:

1. That editors are debating the meaning of "some people", which is a manner of interpretation that should be forbidden per the above

Editors are not inferring what he meant by "some people". Inferring the meaning would be to conclusively state or imply that he meant "horde of angry video gamers" and then put that into the text. No one has made that argument. Some of just saying that he intentionally chose not to attribute it, and that it lacks weight as a unique statement.

2. That a lot of tertiary sources reference the same secondary material; in short these sources are just "repeating" a thing

This is feature of the weight provisions of WP:NPOV, not a bug. I would go even further and say that this concept (weight) is fundamental to how Wikipedia functions to the point that it would be non-functional without it. Wikipedia wants articles with sources that have tertiary coverage (WP:PSTS), and more importantly it wants editors to respect the weight given to secondary sources by tertiary sources.

If editors play arbiter and attempt to "balance out" tertiary coverage it then becomes a WP:NPOV violation. It is a seemingly good intention that would quickly lead to an unreliable encyclopedia. In terms of Yasuke this is not even really relevant because there are no secondary sources that state the conclusion he was not a samurai, and there are multiple secondary sources stating he is, but it is still worth noting.

3. That Sankei Shinbum is being treated unfairly for being right-wing

I think this has already been addressed, but I concur that it is not because of guilt by association. Rather, it is because that paper in particular has been linked to outright changing or denying portions of Japan's history such as the complete denial of war crimes, and the promotion of nationalist false history.

And as mentioned, even they couldn't find someone willing to make the argument that he was not a samurai. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following thread was originally positioned as a reply to Green Caffeine's !vote in the Survey section. It has been moved here due to its length.

>A concern of mine is that because BrocadeRiverPoems' question at the opening of this RfC (which used the word "controversial" which has strong connotations)

Where is the word "controversial" used in the opening of the RfC? I can't seem to find it. Was it changed in a later edit? Or do you mean "debated?" I agree "debated" left on its own is not so clear, which is why I wrote a comment here trying to explain what I think it means based on previous discussions. (The above link is meant to go to the text "Based on some of the discussion here", in case it is not working.) J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it doesn't use the word "controversial." I'm sorry. I'll respond to the rest of your reply when I have more time in a bit. Thanks. Green Caffeine (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in my response. What I am trying to say is that sources might use more measured language rather than directly asserting that Yasuke was a samurai no questions asked. In other words, tip-toeing around the idea that Yasuke was a samurai, or that he was a vassal that simply fulfilled the role of what could be considered a samurai. It's a significant difference in perspective, and not splitting hairs. If there are sources which directly call Yasuke a samurai, then that perspective can be included in the wiki article. Likewise, if there are sources which use measured language, such as the language that Thornton employs (Yasuke "had privileges that are markers of a samurai"), then that perspective must also be included. Editors are getting hung on the word "debated" which makes it sounds like we should be looking for sources that are about scholarly arguments asserting that one perspective is incorrect. There are multiple perspectives in play, and they probably aren't going to call out one another as incorrect. I hope my response is helpful. To be clear, Yes I support what this RfC is asking to be included, in the context of these paragraphs I have written. Green Caffeine (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Two questions. 1) As a tertiary source, why should Britannica's more general overview matter in comparison to the academic sources we already have? 2) Where in the Britannica does it state as such? There appears to be conversation up above about it referring to Yasuke being made a vassal. But that doesn't say anything one way or another on the samurai question. So you can't use it to prove a negative. In short, what exactly do we have that's new references on the question from after the last RfC, outside of quotes from Japanese media interviews? Which are minor sources in comparison to actual published scholarship, even if the person being interviewed is a historian. Silverseren^C 02:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Britannica states Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people in its lead, which clearly indicates that someone disputes it. It also states the definition of samurai was ambiguous, but historians think, which presently cannot be represented in the article as the prior RfC declares that the usage of samurai is to be authoritative in Wikivoice. The phrasing "historians think" is not a definitive conclusion.

  As for Japanese media interviews, per reliable source guidelines, Yuichi Goza as a Subject Expert Matter shouldn't just be ignored. But, even if we ignore Yuichi Goza, the primary evidence of Yasuke's status as a Samurai is derived from the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript. Hiraku Kaneko's book, which is presently cited in the article, contains a statement by Kaneko that it cannot be discounted that the information about Yasuke was added to the manuscript after the fact during the transcription process, and it is also notable that the information about Yasuke is not included in any of the other versions of the Nobunaga Koki, which, again, cannot be represented due to the prior RfC.

  The actual published scholarship amounts to a book by Lopez-Vera saying that Yasuke was a samurai. While a good quality source from an Academic Press, Lopez-Vera cites to the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript for the information about Yasuke, the same information which Hiraku Kaneko maintains in his book might have been added in the transcription process. Lockley's Britannica article says that the status of samurai has been disputed by some people, Yuichi Goza, a Japanese historian, has interviewed in the media and expressed doubt, and Hiraku Kaneko has expressed doubt in his book over the validity of the passage that is the very foundation of the claim.

  It just seems appropriate to the enyclopedia that this should be represented.Brocade River Poems 03:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What's interesting is that none of the references you noted are actually ones who dispute the statement. They just state things like "it cannot be discounted" in terms of additional possibilities, but the authors themselves don't actually directly state in their position that they dispute it. Even Goza just points out the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript without taking a position directly. So, who are the ones actually "disputing" it that we would be referring to? Because it's none of those you mentioned. This instead sounds like general scientific jargon of "well, it could also be this", but without anyone actually advocating for those alternative possibilities. Silverseren^C 03:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  >Even Goza just points out the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript without taking a position directly.

  Goza specifically stated that 'we should be cautious in concluding that Yasuke was a "black samurai."' How do you take that statement? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Him not actually taking a position on it. He's not saying that Yasuke wasn't a samurai, just that how the sources are used should be done cautiously. But Goza himself isn't staking the stance that Yasuke wasn't one. Hedging a stance is definitively not disputing it. Silverseren^C 03:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the question is, should we as wikipedia also hedge it. There is evidence that the majority opinion among scholars is that the definition of samurai in the relevant period was vague, and therefore it isn´t worth arguing about if an individual like Yasuke was a samurai. Some scholars lean towards using bushi instead of samurai. Vera even says in his book that bushi is the proper term, but that he will use them interchangeably.

  This lists the views of several scholars on Yasuke, the term samurai, and Lockley´s book. https://groups.google.com/g/pmjs/c/mrXyZacOqdY?pli=1 I don´t see any of them claiming that Yasuke being a samurai as an indisputable fact. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This basically ends up with the same questional adage brought up in the previous RfC repeatedly. Even with the new sources you're discussing, is there literally a single one taking a definitive stance stating that Yasuke wasn't a samurai? If no, then we're literally in the exact same position as the last time this was discussed. If it is so disputed that Yasuke was/wasn't a samurai, then why isn't there a single academic-related source that is arguing directly that he wasn't one? Goza saying he wasn't what pop culture envisions as a samurai and that the technical samurai class system wasn't invented until later (something we're all very aware of and is already pointed out by many other sources) isn't an actual dispute against the many sources saying Yasuke was a samurai and a lord's vassal during the Sengoku era. Silverseren^C 03:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  >He's not saying that Yasuke wasn't a samurai

  >is there literally a single one taking a definitive stance stating that Yasuke wasn't a samurai

  >why isn't there a single academic-related source that is arguing directly that he wasn't one?

  This RfC is not whether we should state that Yasuke was not a samurai. It is whether to "represent Yasuke's samurai status as debated." Stating unambiguously that Yasuke was a samurai is contested by the above sources, without any of them saying that Yasuke was definitively not a samurai. To give an example, imagine 1/2 of historians said the moon landing happened, and another half said there is not enough evidence to determine if the moon landing happened. That event would then be contested, and the lede should not read "the moon landing is an event that took place in [...]" without mentioning that half of the historians disagreed that such a statement be made unambiguously. Perhaps the RfC should be worded more carefully, although based on the literal meaning of the proposition in the RfC and previous discussions on this talk page I think this meaning was clear.

  >Goza saying he wasn't what pop culture envisions as a samurai and that the technical samurai class system wasn't invented until later

  Where does Goza say this in reference to the "we should be cautious" statement? This seems like synth. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But Goza himself isn't staking the stance that Yasuke wasn't one, actually, he does. In his interview he says that he doesn't believe Yasuke was the legendary samurai that Westerners make him out to be and that it is his belief that Yasuke was a bodyguard and entertainer to Nobunaga. Regardless, though, the problem with the current RfC is that the foundational basis for Yasuke being called a samurai by other scholars has been called into question. The RfC ruling that says Yasuke should be represented as a samurai authoritatively in Wikivoice is being used presently to bludgeon any attempt to represent that the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript's authenticity has been questioned, to stop any attempt from removing redundancy from the article lead, and as justification for not representing a source for what it actually says (in the case of the Lockley Brittanica). Moreover, that none of the references you noted are actually ones who dispute the statement. I don't need to, the source itself vis-a-vis Lockley's Britannica article states in the lead that it is contended. There is no onus on me to hunt down and verify every individual whom the Encyclopedia Britannica might be referring to in this instance, as Wikipeida's job is only to represent what the Reliable Sources say. The Encyclopedia Britannica by Lockley has been deemed reliable. Just as the argument has been made that a source must definitively state Yasuke was not a samurai, I propose, then, that it should be undertaken to find a source that definitively states that it is not disputed, because the Enyclopedia Britannica definitively states that it is. Otherwise, this is WP:Cherrypicking to use the Britannica to support the statement that Yasuke is a samurai while ignoring that the Britannica says it is disputed.

  All of the high quality academic sources (that is to say, the single book by Lopez-Vera) that represent Yasuke as a Samurai draw their conclusion from the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobunaga Koki, based on a passage that two Japanese historians, one being Hiraku Kaneko (in the same book which is used to quote the Sonkeikaku Bunko passage in the very article) have called into question the authenticity of the passage.

  Which, again, we presently cannot even mention that Hiraku Kaneko expressed doubts about the authenticity of the passage regarding Yasuke through a strict interpretation of the RfC. Brocade River Poems 04:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Not all reliable sources that represent Yasuke as a samurai draw their conclusions that from passage in isolation.

  2. The passage is not disputed. Rather, a hypothetical has been entertained, but no historian has definitely declared there is anything wrong with the passage, or even presented an actual concrete argument stating as much.

  3. This is a fallacy, as it does not follow that Yasuke was not a samurai regardless. Some experts may have already considered that hypothetical. Though to avoid speculation the only way for this matter in Wikipedia terms would be if experts updated their assessments of Yasuke's samurai status, which they have not.

  as Wikipeida's job is only to represent what the Reliable Sources say

  And the Reliable Sources in totality, even when factoring in new ones, are such that it is very clear that Yasuke being a samurai is the majority view in reliable sources.

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

  It is also worth noting that the RfC did not decide Wikipedia's longstanding WP:NPOV policy on this. I imagine that such policy was added precisely for situations like these.

  WP:FALSEBALANCE is quite relevant here. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the question is, what is the majority view among experts, then we should count experts, not articles. Let us look at your sources:

  • The Smithsonian: this cites a couple of experts: Prof Okuyama doesn’t say that Yasuke is a samurai, and doesn’t appear to be a historian. Doan has studied samurai, but isn’t quoted saying samurai. Then of course there is Lockley.
  • Time: Lockely
  • BBC: This describes Laurence Winkler as a historian, whereas his website describes him as a "physician, traveler, and natural philosopher" He did write a book, Samurai Road though. Serge Bile is a journalist and author, and wrote a book about Yasuke. Not a specialist on Samurai or Japan though. Also Lockley is cited.
  • Britannica: Lockley
  • CNN: Lockley
  • Vera's academic work: Vera
  • Lockley's academic work: Lockley
  • Atkin's academic work Atkin

  Total count: So that is 3-5 experts, depending on your standards for who qualifies as an expert. It is also important to note, that the article can’t say that something is academic consensus without a source that says explicitly that it is a consensus. I don’t think majority opinion is determined by counting sources. There isn’t a yearly poll of the opinions of experts on academic questions. Yasuke is more notable as a pop culture figure than as a historical one and there isn´t much scholarship on him. There is also consensus on what a samurai is. It seems to be acceptable among expert to call a lot of people samurai, even if it isn’t sure if they were considered samurai at the time. Especially, because in English Bushi and perhaps other Japanese words are translated as samurai. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia policy goes by reliable sources, not individual people. Many sources often represent dozens of people through fact checking apparatuses, editorial department, and so on. There has never been a "one person one source" requirement. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it rather funny that you bring up WP:FALSEBALANCE when you cannot even reliably demonstrate that Yasuke being a samurai is commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are a plethora of sources which do not refer to Yasuke as a samurai, and a single academic book by Lopez-Vera and a handful of tertiary sources that do say Yasuke is a samurai. Even allowing for the argument that the sources don't explicitly say Yasuke wasn't a samurai, you are still left with a single academic source that says unequivocally that he obtained the status of samurai as Lopez-Vera does. You are making it out to be that there is an overwhelming amount of scholarship that says Yasuke is a samurai, so much so that representing any doubt to the fact expressed by the sources is apparently undue weight when that absolutely isn't even remotely close to being the case.

  a hypothetical has been entertained, but no historian has definitely declared there is anything wrong with the passage, or even presented an actual concrete argument stating as much.

  Yes, they have. Kaneko and Goza have both stated that it cannot be stated unequivocally that the statement about Yasuke wasn't added during the transcription process and that the passage only exists in the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the manuscript. If there are 13 manuscripts of a Primary Sources, and only 1 of the manuscripts of the Primary source contains a pasage of information, and the historians studying the passage say they cannot guarantee it is authentic, that is a red flag and it should be represented in the article. Lopez-Vera, the only academically published book involved in saying Yasuke is a samurai, explicitly points to the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript and the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript alone. It is not unreasonable or undue in Wikipedia policies to represent that the authenticity of the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript has been called into question. Brocade River Poems 22:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are attempting to pivot from Reliable Sources, the standard that Wikipedia uses, because it is clear that the Reliable Sources do not support your POV. The job of Wikipedia is only to represent what reliable sources say. WP:FALSEBALANCE is very relevant here.

  At the time of the last RfC we had:

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

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

  This is still the case now, and in fact

  As of now:

  Claims that Yasuke was a samurai

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

  Says it is possible, but not in the way depicted in video games

  • Yuichi Goza

  Claims that Yasuke was not a samurai

  • (None)

  There is still not a single RS making the argument that Yasuke was not a samurai.

  Kaneko and Goza have both stated that it cannot be stated unequivocally that the statement about Yasuke wasn't added during the transcription process

  In other words, they are not making the argument that it was added. They are simply entertaining a hypothetical. While it can be cited in itself, it is unclear language that cannot be used to draw arbitrary conclusions about other things by editors (otherwise you are engaging in WP:OR), because they themselves are not disputing it, and because the experts above have not updated their assessment of Yasuke's samurai. As mentioned, not all reliable sources that represent Yasuke as a samurai draw their conclusions that from passage in isolation, and even for those that do they might outright disagree. If and only if the experts do update their assessment of Yasuke's samurai status, does said hypothetical become relevant to Yasuke's status.

  Wikipedia OR policy is very clear about this.

  This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.

  Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Symphony, in every discussion you are bringing the same list of sources, while it has been already discussed at great length (including again this RfC) why The Smithsonian, CNN and Time, for instance, are problematic. May I ask why? This is really not conductive to having a productive discussion. SmallMender (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  At Wikipedia we follow sources, not original research or editor's views.

  Reliable sources do not become problematic just because editors do not like the conclusions in them, and/or because they contradict the outcomes of WP:OR. I see nothing in the previous RfC to indicate that those sources are "problematic", nor has such consensus been in any other discussion. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not about liking or not liking conclusions in specific sources, but about deciding if a source is reliable or not. If despite being pointed out numerous times (both in this RfC, in the previous RfC and in separate discussions about sources to the Yasuke article) why the sources I mentioned are not reliable, you refuse to acknowledge that, there is no further discussion to be had.

  I already put my vote in this RfC and will refrain from engaging with you any further. SmallMender (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Contradicting WP:OR is not a valid reason to dismiss a reliable source, and this has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to be using "reliable source" in a way that is not in line with Wikipedia's policies. Publishers like CNN, Time, etc. are "generally reliable," not reliable period. From WP:RSP:

  There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable

  These are not blank checks to repeat anything stated by individual articles from a generally reliable publisher:

  Context matters tremendously when determining the reliability of sources, and their appropriate use on Wikipedia. Sources which are generally unreliable may still be useful in some situations. [...] Conversely, some otherwise high-quality sources may not be reliable for highly technical subjects that fall well outside their normal areas of expertise, and even very high-quality sources may occasionally make errors, or retract pieces they have published in their entirety

  We can and should use original research in determining if a source is reliable. That is, for example, what the reliable sources noticeboard does. There is no secondary source that Wikipedia uses to determine the reliability of sources in many (perhaps even most) cases. Examples of original research in determining if a source is reliable is looking at the staff page of the outlet to see the qualifications of the journalists writing there and looking at the editorial policy of the outlet and the parent company if relevant. Sometimes a source is only considered reliable in certain years until the writing started to go downhill for various reasons, or a website may have started out as a blog but later became reliable, such as AnandTech. Additionally, consideration of a specific article trumps the general reliability of the outlet that published the article. The specific relevant factors here are the fact that this is a "technical subject" and that the given sources have "made errors."

  For example, the CNN article states as a matter of fact that

  Oda believed Yasuke to be either a guardian demon or “Daikokuten,” a god of prosperity usually represented by black statues in temples [...] In an era racked by political espionage, merciless assassinations and ninja attacks, Yasuke was seen as an asset. Nobunaga soon made him a samurai – even providing him with his own servant, house and stipend, according to Jesuit records.

  This passage is full of errors: "guardian demon," "even providing him with his own servant." As far as I know, none of these claims are mentioned anywhere in primary sources and are complete speculation, yet are presented as fact. The "Daikokuten" quote seems to be an even further embellishment of this line from African Samurai.

  Black was the color—if one believed in such things, which Nobunaga did not—of gods and demons. Not men. Nobunaga had seen such a “god,” Daikokuten, before in the Kiyomizu Temple, a short walk away. And, the protective guardian demons at the gates of most temples were often dark skinned: black or deep burgundy. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Publishers like CNN, Time, etc. are "generally reliable,"

  "Generally reliable" is actually the highest standard there is. Either way, editor WP:OR cannot be used to strike reliable sources.

  We can and should use original research in determining if a source is reliable

  This is a fundamental misunderstanding of source evaluation. Evaluating reliability has nothing to do with the claims within sources. As it does concern the claims within sources, if editors want to say that a claim in a source is wrong, you will need other RS and experts stating as much. Weight also factors in, but weight in either direction does not imply that something is correct or incorrect.

  This passage is full of errors: "guardian demon," "even providing him with his own servant." As far as I know, none of these claims are mentioned anywhere in primary sources and are complete speculation

  Again, these are not errors. This is analysis, and that is allowed. More than just allowed, this manner of analysis is actually what we rely on secondary sources for (their analysis of primary source material, and the conclusions they draw from it). WP:PSTS makes very clear:

  All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

  It is not the place for editors to determine what is true and not true, otherwise you are elevating Wikipedia to the role of the arbiter of the truth. Reliability evaluation instead focuses on material factors such as conflicts of interest (financial, political), evaluating how many people are involved in a review/editorial capacity, etc. CNN, Time, etc are very reliable in that capaciy and that does not change just because some editors disagree with content. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Lockley uses the term "some people", choosing to not refer to them as historians. He makes clear that among experts there is a clear consensus that Yasuke was a samurai.

  "Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded 'samurai' of foreign birth".

  This is Lockley stating that he does not believe there is a debate among the people who matter for Wikipedia's V and NPOV purposes (experts).

  "Some people" is unattributed, and could very well refer to the internet fringe angry over a video game. The only thing we know is that it is not historians. It's also worth noting that this comment amounts to tertiary opinion on the behalf of Lockley, which isn't enough to say that something is contested (Wikipedia policy usage is very different from plain English). To determine if it is actually contested by Wikipedia's standards one should look at current reliable sources, and when doing so it is abundantly clear that Yasuke being a samurai is the majority view in them, which has not changed. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is Lockley stating that he does not believe there is a debate among the people who matter Is WP:OR, you cannot testify to the decision or mental thought processes of why an author used what wording. Stating commonly held by Japanese historians speaks only to Japanese historians, meanwhile, 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 notation that it has been disputed by some people is attached to the statement about historians, not separated from it, and does not speak in any particular way to the expert nature of the people. It is an ambiguous statement which cannot be determined to definitively say "Lockley says they're not experts". Perhaps some people refers to historians who are not Japanese. Without a heavy dose of WP:OR by way of any analysis...that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources you cannot speak to the nature of the individuals who are disputing it. Brocade River Poems 04:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I can state that Lockley explicitly choose to use the term "some people" for disagreements, choosing to not refer to them as historians, while explicitly attributing "Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded 'samurai' of foreign birth" to historians, because that's what he did. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It sounds like a double standard on your part. If I try to analyse what sources are saying, then you accuse me of WP:OR and say that we can’t question them. I am inclined to believe that Lockley means non experts, but we can’t rule out other meanings. It is ambiguous. If it is people whose opinions don’t matter, then why does Lockley include it? It could also be unintentional. Often topics are just described as disputed, without qualifying who. In fact, Lockley said so in his Peer reviewed article (he should have cited a source, so if anyone has access to the article it would be a good place to check.) Tinynanorobots (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not a double standard. Lockley is the one who choose to not attribute "some people". It could refer to the reactionary internet fringe angry that Yasuke is being featured in a video game, it indeed could also refer to some other group. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, "some people say" is classic MOS:WEASEL - it presents the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. And since Lockley didn't identify or give attribution to who these "people" are, we have no way to assess the source of the POV that it is "disputed". And this - you cannot speak to the nature of the individuals who are disputing it - makes the point that these "people" are not identified or given attribution, so it's just plain WEASEL. In other words, we can't give any WEIGHT to these "people" and their POV about it being "disputed", because we don't even know who the hell they are. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Wikipedia Manual of Style doesn’t apply to sources. A lot of the sources that are used for this article would not be considered very good, by wikipedia policy. I think the question here, is can we put in the article that Lockley says that it is disputed. I am not sure that we should put it in, but we can, because that is what Lockley said. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mr. Goza does not say that he was a samurai, only that if the story that Yasuke gave him a sword, etc. is true, it can be assumed that he was a samurai.

  Lockley uses expressions such as generally believed but does not specify who is generally thinking. Japanese people and Japanese history experts generally do not think so.

  It's simple. I don't know even if I look it up because I don't have the materials. No one is investigating.

  Who was arguing about Yasuke?

  I think if you're saying that Lockley is "debatable," you can write it that way. No one in Japan actually discusses this, and only non-Japanese people believe that he is a samurai.

  So, while someone who wants to write it as samurai might write it as such on the English version of Wikipedia, it would never be written that way on the Japanese version.

  There is a debate about whether Yaske was a samurai in the Japanese version as well, but I think it will probably be written as ``We don't know whether Yaske was a bushi or a samurai because there are no documents.

  The Encyclopedia Britannica says that he was given servants, so some people want to write about that.

  That's understandable, but is it reliable information?

  Can you verify the source of information? What did you use as a reference?

  If the content reported by many media outlets such as Britannica, CNN, TIME, etc. is based on Rockley's claims rather than having been verified by multiple experts, then they are not reliable sources of information. , its contents belong to Rockley.

  Very little has been written about Yasuke.

  There are very few primary sources.

  The Shinchō Kōki（信長公記） is a sort of heroic tale about Oda Nobunaga, and strictly speaking is a secondary source.

  Britannica and Wikipedia are tertiary sources.

  Why is something written in tertiary sources that is not written in secondary sources? Tanukisann (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to add one thing.

  In the Japanese version of Wikipedia, I wrote that there is a debate as to whether Yasuke is a samurai or not.

  Those who claim that Yasuke was a samurai say that there are the following reasons.

  "Those who believe Yasuke was a samurai have plenty of evidence, including Britannica, TIME, CNN, the BBC, Lockley's paper, and many others. Those who do not believe he was a samurai do not provide evidence."

  I don't know why, but there's a similar text a little higher up.

  They get rejected, and then a little while later, they try to make the same claim again, and they keep repeating the process.

  It's strange, isn't it? Tanukisann (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am guessing there is a language problem causing some unclarity. However, there are Japanese people who talk about this, specifically Japanese historians. A large part of the argument that Yasuke is a samurai is that few people were called samurai back then. It was usually used to refer to a group. Also, the meaning of samurai and possibly bushi are vague. A lot of famous figures are called samurai without evidence. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, we can not say in the article that Lockley says that it is disputed, because he did not say that in the Britannica source, he said "some people", which makes it weasel. If we are going to say in the article that his status as a samurai is debated, then we have to give attribution to who is making the opposing argument against his status as a samurai. And then we must decide if we should give WEIGHT to that opposing argument, based on the prominence of that viewpoint in published reliable sources. If it's a minority viewpoint, then UNDUE needs to be considered as well, in contrast to what the majority viewpoint is. WP:FALSEBALANCE says unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In his peer review article, he says disputed. We can quote Lockley. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Lockley does not attribute them to anyone, so it's still weasal. Also, quoting a single tertiary opinion is not the same as a topic being disputed in terms of Wikipedia policy. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia Manual of Style doesn't apply to what the sources say. If the Reliable Source represents that something is disputed, there is no less reason to take it at face value than there is to take a source at face value for any other claim it makes.

  Numerous academic books will contain some variation of the phrase "but others disagree" without delving into who the others are, it is an acknowledgement that a theory or argument being made is not a universally accepted one. I have become involved in another dispute on Wikipedia over the origins of Neith, whether Egyptian or Libyan, and all of the sources that discuss Neith as Libyan do not identify the originator of the theory nor the opponents of the theory but tend instead to say something along the lines of "some historians believe that Neith is of Libyan origin, but other Egyptologists note there is no concrete evidence". Neither the originator of the theory nor the opponents are identified by name and, yet, the dispute very much exists. The Brittanica article states that Yasuke as a samurai is commonly believed by Japanese historians, and yet, it doesn't list specific Japanese historians that believe this and nor has anyone presented any academic publication in Japanese that definitively says that Japanese historians say this, but it has been deemed acceptable for use in the article to support Yasuke's status as a samurai. Since the Encyclopedia article says it is disputed, we cannot just cherrypick the supporting evidence and ignore the statement that it is disputed.

  Per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another.

  Other editors have mentioned that guidelines also state Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view but, frankly, what majority view? There is one academically published secondary source that the article uses and a handful of tertiary sources, several of which are based on a book thats reliability is dubious (Thomas Lockley's book), and an Enyclopedia Article by Thomas Lockley which self-admits that the claim is disputed. We have a Japanese historian in an interview who has disagreed with claim as well as Hiraku Kaneko's doubt that the passage in the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript, on which Lopez-Vera basis his statement of Yasuke being a Samurai, is authentic. It's hardly a minority view worth exclusion when two Japanese historians have expressed doubt about the authenticity of the foundational text used by the Spanish historian to make the assertion, one of whom, Hiraku Kaneko, is an expert in the time period employed by the highly esteemed University of Tokyo Historiographical Institute. The man who in quite many senses of the word wrote the book on Oda Nobunaga expressed doubts all the way back in 2009 when his book was published that the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript was completely authentic. It is a minority view which is worth inclusion because it allows the readers of the encyclopedia to draw their own conclusions.

  Also, the top of the page which contains MOS:WEASEL states: The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources

  Likewise, the guidelines found in the helpful essay WP:PRESERVEBIAS There is no policy that dictates that we cannot document, use, and include "non-neutral" sources, opinions, or facts in an article body or its lead. In fact, we must do this. A lack of such content may be an indication that editors have exercised whitewashing and censorship. It is a serious violation of NPOV to use censorship and whitewashing to remove any non-neutral opinions, facts, biases, or sources. Our job is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage.

  While it is true that Editors must be honest and guard against consciously or unconsciously framing material in a manner that misrepresents its original meaning or presents it with a slant or point of view not found in the source. Such misrepresentation may occur by painting a rosier picture, using sophistry, manipulation, or logical fallacies, appealing to emotion, or using propaganda techniques, spin, or weasel words.

  That applies to writing the encyclopedia, not the content of the sources. See WP:ACCORDINGTO which says Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. As I said, Lockley's Brittanica Article has already been deemed reliable. The Yasuke article on the Encyclopedia Brittanica is a tertiary source,

  Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other

  Per Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#"If it's written in a book, it must be true!"

  The best way to describe a dispute is to work with a tertiary source that already describes the dispute and cite it as a reference. Tertiary sources may also help to confirm that there is a legitimate dispute to begin with, and not just a fringe theory against a universally accepted idea. Brocade River Poems 21:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  >Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view but, frankly, what majority view?

  Another point worth mentioning here is that "majority view" is less relevant when the sample size is so small. From WP:NPOV:

  >If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

  There are no reference texts involved in this dispute as there is very little research done on it, which itself is another reason not to state one viewpoint as fact over another. It makes sense to speak of a majority view when there are multiple in depth sources about a topic. Citing passing mentions from Vera and Atkins who do not explain their view at all should not be considered the same majority view as, for example, the majority view about the causes of major wars which have been studied in depth by thousands of scholars. A 3 vs 1 majority is not the same as a 100 vs 3 majority. In any case, a 1/4 minority view is still rather large and should easily qualify as a significant minority. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Reference texts" in this context means reliable sources that support the majority view. For Yasuke, there are many of them (roughly 13 in favor, 0 against, 1 inconclusive though this inconclusive one was published in a source that may be unreliable (Sankei - Together with its English-language paper Japan Forward, the Sankei Shimbun has been described as having a far-right or right-wing political stance")).

  Lastly, Wikipedia's NPOV makes no reference to "sample size" which would be rather arbitrary, and in any case not relevant here as the number of sources on this topic is quite large. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Isaidnoway makes a good point in that it is indeed weasal language. Just because it can be directly attributed does not mean it is not.

  If the Reliable Source represents that something is disputed, there is no less reason to take it at face value than there is to take a source at face value for any other claim it makes.

  Saying that someone says something is disputed, by some unattributed other, is not the same thing as something being disputed in terms of Wikipedia policy. If something is disputed in terms of Wikipedia policy, it means there is no clear majority view which in this case is false.

  By looking at reliable sources it is abundantly clear that Yasuke being a samurai is the majority view. In fact, there is not a single RS that argues that he is not.

  Since the Encyclopedia article says it is disputed, we cannot just cherrypick the supporting evidence and ignore the statement that it is disputed.

  At best, you can attribute it solely to Lockley, which is not the same as suggesting that there is a debate among RS over Yasuke's samurai status.

  It is also worth noting that this is a misunderstanding of fundamental Wikipedia policy. Per WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:VNOT not every line in every article has to be included.

  Other editors have mentioned that guidelines also state Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view but, frankly, what majority view?

  As mentioned above:

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

  All make the claim that Yasuke is a samurai. In the 2 or 3 years since the Netflix series there is not a single reliable source that makes the argument that he was not.

  It's hardly a minority view worth exclusion when two Japanese historians have expressed doubt about the authenticity of the foundational

  1. Entertaining a hypothetical is not the same as making an argument that something is not authentic. Neither of them have actually made that argument so you are now attributing intention to them which is a WP:OR violation.

  2. You are engaging in further WP:OR by trying to jump from said hypothetical to the conclusion that Yasuke's samurai status can be represented as contested, which is not an argument either of them made either, and even if they did make that argument it would still be a minority view because the majority of experts are saying that Yasuke is a samurai. If and only if the plethora of experts update their assessment of Yasuke's samurai status, would said hypothetical become relevant to Yasuke's status.

  This is essentially double-layered WP:OR as well as WP:SYNTH to push a minority POV that is at complete odds with essentially all reliable sourcing on Yasuke, to create a textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE.

  Per WP:OR Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.[a] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources

  Wikipedia policy is very clear on the above.

  Likewise, the guidelines found in the helpful essay WP:PRESERVEBIAS There is no policy that dictates that we cannot document, use, and include "non-neutral" sources, opinions, or facts in an article body or its lead. In fact, we must do this. A lack of such content may be an indication that editors have exercised whitewashing and censorship. It is a serious violation of NPOV to use censorship and whitewashing to remove any non-neutral opinions, facts, biases, or sources. Our job is to document "the sum total of human knowledge," and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage.

  This is an essay and it definitely cannot override Wikipedia NPOV policy. Not only can an essay not override Wikipedia guidelines or policy, but even other policy cannot override Wikipedia NPOV policy (This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus). Per WP:NPOV:

  Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.

  The best way to describe a dispute is to work with a tertiary source that already describes the dispute and cite it as a reference. Tertiary sources may also help to confirm that there is a legitimate dispute to begin with, and not just a fringe theory against a universally accepted idea.

  This is an essay, not Wikipedia policy, so I will directly refer you to WP:V which is very clear on how prominence and dispute status is determined.

  Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.[c] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.

  Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the Yasuke article, I think we have to ignore Wikipedia's article writing standards to some extent.

  Wikipedia specifically lists multiple media sources as reliable sources of information.

  These are reliable sources of general news and information.

  Even if there is incorrect information, since multiple media outlets report on a single event, it is possible to check which information is reliable and which is false information.

  The situation is different for yasuke.

  There are only a limited number of reliable primary sources. These include the Ietada Diary（松平家定日記） and documents from the Society of Jesus.

  There is no doubt that there was a man named Yasuke, that he was black, and that he was favored by Oda Nobunaga and became his subordinate.

  All Japanese historical commentators agree on this, as does the Japanese version of Wikipedia.

  There are also limited secondary sources. This includes several manuscripts of Shinchō Kōki（信長公記）.

  This is a biography about Oda Nobunaga that was created during the Edo period. The author also wrote biographies of great figures such as Toyotomi Hideyoshi and military records of Tokugawa Ieyasu. One of them. Since he was one of Nobunaga's subordinates, if it is an original document, it can be treated as a primary source.

  However, it has been lost, and now the only copies left are those that were later copied by someone other than the author, and the contents are slightly different, so it is possible that some information was added later.

  Yasuke appears in multiple manuscripts, and only one of them contains information such as Nobunaga giving him a house.

  Even if you look at all the primary and secondary materials, there is no material that specifically describes what position he held.

  For example, just because a man served in the English King's army and fought wearing arms and armor, it does not mean that he or she was given the title of knight.

  If I were to write an accurate introduction about this man, I would simply say that he was a man who served in the English King's army.

  Even if someone were to write a fictional novel about that man and he was promoted and received a knighthood, I would not say anything. It's because it's a creation.

  There is also nothing wrong with creating a hypothesis that he was knighted. You are free to think.

  Lockley Thomas wrote academic books rather than fictional novels.

  He argued that the content was not a hypothesis, but a fact.

  Yasuke is so little known that I did not realize that there were studies and papers about such a person. There were almost no objections. Even if someone had noticed, would he have been able to object? Even though there are no materials.

  In this way, the imaginary figure of Yasuke created by Rockley became the correct history of Japan in the West.

  The image of Yasuke known in the West today is largely a figment of Lockley's imagination.

  Just because the media reports on Lockley's imaginary creation, can we really trust it?

  The other day, an Amazon drama in which the British king was black, gay, and in a wheelchair was criticized.

  Let's say that this story was created a dozen years ago without anyone knowing about it, and that it spread throughout Asia and the black community without Westerners knowing about it, and became famous worldwide.

  Even when people in the West say, It's not a historical fact, they say, Look, there are lots of news stories and articles from Asia and Africa. You guys just didn't know. You're in the minority. How would you respond?

  Netflix clearly states that the content is fiction. There are limits to what they can tolerate, but Japanese people are generally tolerant when it comes to fiction. Rather, they enjoy it themselves.

  That's why no one complains.The Amazon drama went too far, so I got scolded.

  This is exactly the situation Japanese people are in.

  A story is made up without our knowledge and spread, and when we realize it, it's like we're being forced to follow it with the words, "You just didn't know. We are the majority in the world, so you have to go along with it."

  Although they may not want to admit it, Wikipedians are among those forcing their own fabricated history on the world.

  To be clear, a new trend is emerging in Japan due to the issue of France's Assassin Create and the Yasuke issue caused by Lockley Thomas.

  "This is the true nature of white people. White people believe that they are righteous people. White people compromise and recognize black people as human beings. And they think that yellow people are racially worthless. Therefore, white people also think that Japan They cannot distinguish between China and Thailand, and they falsify Japanese history without permission."

  They believe that white people have created history for them, the yellow race, and are forcing them to accept it.

  I've gotten off topic, so let's get back to it.

  Wikipedia requires people to create articles based on information. At the same time, although not so much as censorship, it is necessary to at least check whether the information is correct.

  If the result of that confirmation is that there is no correct information, that it does not exist in the media or in books, then you should mention that.

  I propose to write it like this.

  A. There are no documents that clearly depict whether Yasuke was a samurai or not.

  B. The Sengoku period was a period of flux, and the position of the samurai was also in flux. Definitions differ among experts, and there are no clear standards. Some people, such as Rockley Thomas, say ``Yasuke was definitely a samurai, while others, like Yuichi Kureza, say ``It is impossible to say that Yasuke was definitely a samurai. There is no unified opinion. do not have. Tanukisann (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Symphony Regalia, do you understand?

  You are the one who is imposing the history created by white people, and you are the one who discriminates against yellow people.

  You are the one insulting Japan's history.

  I do not believe that everyone here is like him, but I am astonished at the number of people who have entered information about Yasuke that is not in the documents and who refuse to correct it, claiming that what they have entered is not incorrect, citing a history that they have created of their own accord. Tanukisann (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are pushing a minority viewpoint that runs against the experts Hirayama Yu and Oka Mihoko. Your long rant about Netflix is unrelated to your minority viewpoint. NotBartEhrman (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think @Tanukisann's point is rather that it is not a minority viewpoint in Japan, and that most of the sources cited by the "pro-samurai" side here appear to be proliferated from a single contested document.

  A user above makes the claim that there is only a single academic source that supports the "he was a samurai" position—Lopez-Vera's—and as far as I can see this has not been challenged. (However, my dam' 📱 is not displaying anything right, so I may be mistaken.)

  Hirayama Yu did not say Yasuke was a samurai, as far as I know—where is this coming from? The only thing I have seen Hirayama say is that Yasuke was a samurai in all but name.

  Oka Mihoko was very critical of Lockley's work and only said "'samurai' was vaguely-defined at the time, so it could be fair to call [Yasuke] a samurai" (emphasis mine).

  Yuichi Goza and Hiraku Kaneko have both expressed doubts—one about the claim, the other about the source of the lines in the manuscript the claim is based upon, if I'm not mistaken, though I may be about Kaneko.

  So... that is not at all a minority viewpoint: 1 for (LV), 1 "could be fair" (OM), 1 (YG) or 2 (depending on how we categorize Kaneko) uncertain/in doubt, 2 against (HY & Yuichi Kureza)—that is, of those available to the English-speaking editor; possibly, if we are to believe Tanukisann & another Japanese user (R.stst I think?), in Japan the minority view is that the question is even in doubt at all (on the side of "not a samurai"). Himaldrmann (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's totally sensible to be critical of Lockey's work, especially with the many inexcusable differences between the Japanese and English versions of his book. Regardless, Tanukisann is manufacturing a Japanese position that does not exist, and putting words into the mouths of Japanese historians. The consensus among subject experts is that it's fair to put Yasuke on the level of a samurai; Hirayama did not write against that. NotBartEhrman (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It has been pointed out that I am speaking for what many Japanese experts are not saying. I'm not denying it because it's not wrong.

  I would like to take this opportunity to clearly state what Japanese experts think, although no one has said so. There is a hint in what Mr. Oka and Mr. Goza said.

  "I don't know about Yasuke because I don't have the materials, so there's no way to investigate. Please don't let that interfere with my work. And don't involve me. I don't want to be part of a suspicious person like Thomas Lockley. not"

  I don't know if it's out of kindness or just to show off, but I'm thankful that there are experts out there who will speak up without me asking. Tanukisann (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Such an analysis will be useful in the future, when Wikipedia accepts mind-reading as a reliable source of information... in the meantime, here is a translation of Hirayama's comment NotBartEhrman (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  True, I may have misinterpreted the statement of Hirayama—I was given the translation "in all but name", but Tanukisann provides rather the opposite translation below ("in name only"). I'll keep my mouth shut unless & until I find something more substantive!

  Cheers,

  Himaldrmann (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me answer that question.

  Neither Mr. Hirayama nor Mr. Oka has stated that Yasuke is a samurai. They only use their own criteria to the extent that "it would be no problem to call Yasuke a samurai."

  Neither of them accepts Thomas Lockley's claims, but they simply leave them alone, knowing that amateurs are free to present their own theories.

  ----

  It would be too long to cover everything about Hirayama, so I will only touch on a small part of it.

  First of all, he does not acknowledge Thomas Lockley's claims at all.

  He's not a historian, and his books are crappy books. That's why when I saw them at the bookstore, I looked at the contents and didn't buy them. I was right.

  https://x.com/HIRAYAMAYUUKAIN/status/1829045749398794645

  He asks people overseas to tell them their definition of the strongest samurai in their opinion.

  https://x.com/HIRAYAMAYUUKAIN/status/1829719809074086118

  People from other countries point out that the definition of samurai is incorrect.

  “It seems to be misunderstood, as it is based on the image of local knights and military officers.”

  https://x.com/HIRAYAMAYUUKAIN/status/1828994698146414598

  He argues that in Japan, the status of samurai has become more vague as time has progressed.

  https://x.com/HIRAYAMAYUUKAIN/status/1829166117912498682

  Hirayama decided to create his own definition of a samurai.

  To tell you the truth, at first I said, Yasuke is a samurai because he was given a house and a sword.There is also an example of Hideyoshi.

  In response to this, many people criticized him, saying, "How can you be so definitive when there is no definition of a samurai?" He had been blocking people he didn't like, but it became too much of a bother, so he seemed to think, "If there is no definition, I'll just make one."

  As a result of his own definition, he seems to have come to the conclusion that Yasuke cannot be recognized as a samurai（武士）, but that they can be recognized as the lowest rank of samurai（侍） in name only.

  https://x.com/HIRAYAMAYUUKAIN/status/1828998721578631584

  https://x.com/HIRAYAMAYUUKAIN/status/1829005623687778320

  https://x.com/HIRAYAMAYUUKAIN/status/1814356500326035650

  He points out that there may be problems with Mr. Kaneko's claims.

  “Did Gyuichi Ota have access to the Ietada Diary?”

  Even among experts, there is a lack of sufficient research, so it can be seen that opinions vary widely.

  https://x.com/HIRAYAMAYUUKAIN/status/1828695863126114536

  ----

  As for Oka Mihoko, I haven't been able to follow all of her arguments, so I don't know if the content will be what you want.

  Once she has said what she wanted to say, she says "That's it" and ends her activities. But then a few days later, she thinks of something else to say, so she starts speaking again, and ends it again. She keeps repeating this cycle.

  I wonder if this account was really created by her? It would be troubling if it was an impersonation.

  Her story is much longer than Mr. Hirayama's, so I will only highlight the important parts.

  She does not acknowledge Thomas Lockley's claims at all.

  "In today's history studies, even if an amateur makes a bizarre remark about a minor phenomenon in Japanese history, it is considered part of historical practice, and when a professional criticizes it, he or she is called uncouth or bullying the weak."

  https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1813579715657204141

  I do not agree with Mr. Lockley's reasoning regarding Yasuke after the Honnoji Incident.The book contains the result of a compromise between both parties.

  https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1813130354854928663

  "In academic tradition, it is considered vulgar to dismiss or ignore the value of a research effort because you disagree with the theory."

  https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1813132392900731072

  "I consider Lockley's books, both in Japanese and English, to be historical reading material and not academic research."

  https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1815156183478735215

  She didn't create a definition for samurai. She decided to answer using only circumstantial evidence and her own intuition.

  It is generally recognized in Japanese history research that the definition of samurai during the Sengoku period is vague.

  If I fought with my master to the end with a sword, I think I can call myself a samurai.

  "There's no need to dramatize it too much. I want to say that he was as he was and was a rare person."

  https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1814272582222557241 Tanukisann (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for this extensive overview! It's very handy to have someone who actually speaks Japanese, heh.

  Himaldrmann (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I speak Japanese as well, and Tanukisann is incorrect with this.

  Not only does Yu Hirayama say that Yasuke is a samurai, but he says so very bluntly[27].

  It seems like there's a lot of talk about Yasuke, a black man who served Oda Nobunaga. There are very few historical documents about him, but there's no doubt that he was a samurai who served Nobunaga. Regardless of one's social status, if one's master promoted one to the rank of "samurai," one could become one in medieval (warring states) society.

  Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for this (& your other responses)—it appears I was incorrect! I'm removing my vote, since I evidently don't know enough to be sure of even getting my quotes right, heh.

  Cheers,

  Himaldrmann (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh my goodness.

  I looked it up and you're right.

  I guess I'm tired. I'm going to rest for a while. Tanukisann (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this discussion is about what the secondary sources are saying, not about NPOV, or even WEIGHT. By making it about NPOV, you aren’t leaving room open for discussion. I think that if you focus on Consensus building and trying to convince people based on their concerns, then you have a chance of being successful. By repeatedly listing the arguments that others have told you they find unconvincing, you come across as not listening. WP:LISTEN Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your argument doesn't make any sense to me, on the one hand you are saying, there is a book thats reliability is dubious (Thomas Lockley's book), and on the other hand you are saying that there is an an Enyclopedia Article by Thomas Lockley which self-admits that the claim is disputed, so according to your logic, we are to believe that Lockley's statement that "the claim is disputed" is reliable and DUE for inclusion?? Seems like to me if you are arguing Lockley's reliability as "dubious", then that logic should apply equally to both the book and the encyclopedia article. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe for context it is important to note that Lockley has a pop history book in addition to peer reviewed publishing on the subject which appear in other article collections. The Encyclopedia Britannica entry was originally done by a writer who wrote the original version of the article off of Lockley's pop history book uncritically taking it at face value. After the dumpster fire related to AC Shadows and the finger pointing at Lockley by many online, Britannica launched an editorial commission to redo the page in a much higher quality process whereby an editor who is a scholar a relevant field reviews a new version of the article written by a scholar on the topic (in this case they presumably chose Lockley as the primary person writing specifically on Yasuke). Encyclopedic articles should be used with caution, and Britannica taken on a case by case issue, but on this specific issue it is clearly a source worth citing. Relm (talk) 12:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A book that has ``arguments that are debated is ``Tsunagu Japanese History.

  It's a peer-reviewed paper, so I think it's safe to trust it to some extent.

  Mihoko Oka is assisted by Mr. Lockley in her work, and Ms. Oka's husband reviews Lockley's new book.They are people with vested interests, but I'm sure they will do their best to check it out.

  Britannica says that a panel of experts conducted a fact check, but the person who wrote the content was Lockley Thomas himself, who started the problem.

  Although his book bills itself as a nonfiction academic work, he admits that it actually contains fiction. Media interviews include things that even Japanese experts have never heard of.

  I think you should be careful when handling it.

  It would be fine if the content was similar to the content created for Japanese in ``Tsunagu Japanese History, but if an article is written with content similar to the content of ``African Samurai, it is dangerous to trust it. Tanukisann (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your argument doesn't make any sense to me, on the one hand you are saying, there is a book thats reliability is dubious (Thomas Lockley's book), and on the other hand you are saying that there is an an Enyclopedia Article by Thomas Lockley which self-admits that the claim is disputed, so according to your logic, we are to believe that Lockley's statement that "the claim is disputed" is reliable and DUE for inclusion??

  If you mean me, then the answer is no. The Lockley book was determined by consensus to be generally unreliable because it did not undergo any factchecking process, apparently, and engaged in speculative narration and was reviewed unfavorably by an academic reviewer and was a work of popular history. However, the same consensus said that Lockley as a whole isn't unreliable and that his more academic work can be considered reliable. Since the Encyclopedia Britannica has been deemed reliable by others because it is factchecked by the Encyclopedia Britannica editorial board, we shouldn't cherrypick what the encyclopedia says if we're going to use it as a source. Using the encyclopedia article to support the statement that Yasuke is a samurai, but ignore the part of the article that says Yasuke's status as a samurai is disputed isn't WP:NPOV.

  If editors do not want to note that the Lockley Britannica article says the claim is disputed, then the Britannica article shouldn't be used at all imho. Brocade River Poems 05:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue is that it is unclear where the dispute is from to just state it is disputed and that Lockley contrasts it to an assertion thatL: "Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians to be the first recorded “samurai” of foreign birth, although this has been disputed by some people."

  There is no way to identify who 'some people' refers to here. If one can point to criticism of the claim from other scholars has been done then those should be attributed. If one argues that this 'some people' must refer to 'some historians' due to the earlier part in the sentence, then it should only be presented here in that same context of stating that the common view of Japanese Historians is that Yasuke was a "samurai".

  I agree that the source shouldn't be cherry picked, I would just prefer that the actual dispute be identified (see my other reply here for more detail on how that might look). Relm (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I caught a cold today So I guess I haven't been feeling well lately. Let's leave that aside.

  I think everyone is free to think that Yasuke is a samurai.

  I think everyone is free to think that Yasuke is not a samurai.

  It hasn't been decided yet, so it doesn't matter which one.

  However, if you state clearly in the wikipedia article that Yasuke is or is not a samurai, you are fixing something that has not been determined yet.

  That's why I think it's best to say, "I don't know." I think it would be a good idea to let each person who reads the article decide whether Yasuke is a samurai or not.

  Mihoko Oka's words listed above.

  "In today's history studies, even if an amateur makes a bizarre remark about a minor phenomenon in Japanese history, it is considered part of historical practice, and when a professional criticizes it, he or she is called uncouth or bullying the weak."

  It is academic etiquette to not explicitly deny something that an amateur has come up with, even if you have something to think about.

  Not everyone who doesn't voice opposing opinions is necessarily positive. If you don't understand that there are people who don't voice opposing opinions but are still negative, you won't understand this statement. This isn't just something that can be said about academia, but about Japanese people as a whole.

  與那覇潤

  https://note.com/yonahajun/n/n0074a95cf5b0

  Mr. Goza Yuichi's contribution provides a clear explanation of "how much can be said about Yasuke" based on the remaining historical documents.

  It seems that there are an increasing number of historians on Twitter who are stepping forward without being asked, and who are in fact damaging the reputation of empirical historiography.

  （Although their names are not mentioned, they are Hirayama Yu and Oka Mihoko.）

  The issue is that Thomas Lockley, an associate professor at Nihon University from the UK, introduced Yasuke to the world under the name "African Samurai", so the important thing is "the image that comes to mind when Westerners hear the word 'Samurai'". Well, usually it's a military commander like the one played by Ken Watanabe in the movie "The Last Samurai" (2003).

  No one is going to hear about how a samurai is defined in a Japanese historical society, where 99% of the members are Japanese.

  People overseas are asking, "Did Yasuke's true identity match the global standard image of a samurai?" but they're not looking for a super-domestic answer like, "In research on samurai in medieval Japanese history..."

  The trend of political correctness has been going on in the West for a long time, and there is a high demand for stories that encourage marginalized minorities.They have been sought after as material for politically correct entertainment. However, the material is gradually running out, and if you were to make a story about, for example, "black soldiers who fought bravely in America's foreign wars," there is a risk that it would no longer be politically correct for a different reason.

  From a Westerner's point of view, moving the setting to the Far East in the distant past and saying "There were black people in Samurai too!" is the best material for being politically correct without any aftereffects. However, as a result, if an image of their own country's past is circulated that is completely different from reality, it will be a bit of a problem for Japanese people.

  渡邊大門

  https://news.livedoor.com/article/detail/27073006/

  Daimon Watanabe spoke about Japan's slavery system in a video titled "Thinking about not only Yasuke and black slaves, but also Japanese slaves" on his YouTube channel. Watanabe began by asserting that "it is probably a mistake to say that there were many black slaves in Japan because there are no records" in response to the topic of black slaves, which has been increasingly covered in online news.

  "If we were to bring them from Africa through Europe to Japan, the food costs, shipping costs, and the risk of getting sick would be high, making it unviable as a commercial transaction."

  Watanabe also mentioned Yasuke, a black samurai who is said to have served Nobunaga, saying, "There are few primary historical documents, so we don't know if Yasuke was a samurai or not," and expressed the view that Nobunaga was "a person who liked new things," so he may have found Yasuke interesting and kept him by his side.

  In concluding the video, Watanabe reiterated that "it is a mistake to say that there were many black slaves in Japan because there is no historical evidence to back this up," and concluded by saying, "Whether Yasuke was a samurai is a topic for future study." Tanukisann (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But come to think of it, we may not have been debating whether or not Yasuke, as Thomas Lockley puts it, was a samurai.If a space is created, discussion can take place and there is room for discussion.

  Is there anyone out there other than Thomas Lockley who keeps insisting and researching that Yasuke was a samurai?

  No one did any research at all because there was no material, so when the book was published there were very few people who opposed it. It was only after the uproar grew that experts began to voice their opinions.

  Now that someone has appeared to discuss the matter, there is finally room for debate. Tanukisann (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for contributing. The links to tweets are especially helpful as I am not on twitter. I get the impression that your English isn’t perfect. I don’t mean this as a criticism, but it may lead to some misunderstanding. If you are using translation software some meaning can be lost.

  It seems that most academics, in both Japan and the West believe that it is okay to call Yasuke a samurai, although there are those who wouldn’t call anyone in the Sengoku period a samurai. This is a difference in term preference. Similarly, some are less confident that he is a samurai. This is made difficult because historians are unsure what a samurai is, but also translate multiple Japanese words to samurai. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly, There is no way to identify who 'some people' refers to here. If one can point to criticism of the claim from other scholars has been done then those should be attributed, there is no need to identify who 'some people' are. The entry for inclusion in Wikipedia isn't that the source must identify what its sources are, or that the source must state unequivocally who is making the dispute. If the source says it is disputed, why should we take at face-value that the source supports the statement that Yasuke is a samurai but ignore the source's face-value acknowledgement of dispute? Choosing not to acknowledge that the source says the claim is disputed just because the source author uses weasel words (both in his declaration that it is "commonly believed" by Japanese historians despite the fact that there is next to no publications in Japanese asserting this claim until recent statements by historians online that say more or less "if the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript is accurate, Yasuke would be a samurai", noting that it is conditional on the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript's being accurate) doesn't mean we should ignore the disputed statement if we're using its statement of support. The fact of the matter is that the article acknowledges that the claim is disputed, and if we're going to use the Encyclopedia Britannica we cannot well just cherrypick which weasel worded declaration is acceptable to use and exclude the other. We are only supposed to represent what the sources themself say.

  Which, again. Far better to not use the encyclopedia article at all if we're going to dismiss the claim that it is disputed for using "weasel words", because it also uses weasel words to describe the support of the claim. By the by, I agree with your statement above re: Kaneko and Goza and representing the claim. The purpose of this RfC was not to say definitively "Yasuke was not a samurai", the point of the RfC was to change the consensus from "Yasuke was definitively a samurai" so that editors will stop reverting every attempt to improve the article while citing the prior RfC.

  • Lopez-Vera uses the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript to support Yasuke being a samurai.
  • Hirayama Yu has said if the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript's description is accurate, Yasuke is a samurai.
  • Lockley on Britannica has said that the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript is the evidence to support this claim.
  • Hiraku Kaneko's book expresses that the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript could potentially be inauthentic.
  • Yuichi Goza's interview has expressed that the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript could potentially be inauthentic.

  The majority of the tertiary sources listed such as CNN, The Smithsonian, etc. rely on Lockley as their source, and Lockley is relying on the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript. We cannot say definitively in the article "Yasuke is a samurai, because this document says he was given a sword, a stipend, and a house" without attribution or acknowledging that some historians believe that the document could be inauthentic. For instance, the article uses Britannica to support According to historians, this was the equivalent of "the bestowing of warrior or 'samurai' rank" during this period in the lead, or in a prior dif, to definitively declare that Yasuke is a samurai because he was given x, y, and z. This content should probably be moved to the body of the article and criticism and discussion about the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript placed alongside it because in the section of the Britannica article being cited, Lockley is specifically saying that the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript is where the claim that Yasuke was a samurai originates in the very next sentence. However, any attempt to remove any mention of samurai-ness from the lead has resulted in a reversion citing the prior-RfC. Brocade River Poems 22:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "However, any attempt to remove any mention of samurai-ness from the lead has resulted in a reversion citing the prior-RfC"

  I think the problem is less to do with the prior RfC as with WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. I don’t think it is normal that we have to have an RfC to decide everything, or that we have this many reverts, especially with little discussion. I think it might take a few edits to get to a version of the article that incorporates the source criticism well, but if there are always reverts after the first change, then there is no progress. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is my view on the Encyclopedia Britannica article:

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

  And then further down in the article, Lockley documents where the claim that Yasuke was a samurai originates from.

  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.

  What I don't see is where Lockley documents in the article where the claim - "disputed by some people" - originates from. Seems like to me if there is any cherry-picking going on here, it's from those editors who want to include those four words - "disputed by some people". I don't believe we should be trying to dress those four words up as if something meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague and ambiguous claim has been asserted. I'm not seeing any compelling argument at to why we should give any WEIGHT to a vague and ambiguous claim that consists of four words. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't intend to collect any convenient opinions.

  As far as I know, I think the document that contains it is page 32 of ``つなぐ世界史 2.

  Don't get me wrong, this is not a textbook. This is a collection of papers contributed by various people.

  This is a peer-reviewed document. Mihoko Oka, one of the reviewers, said that Thomas Lockley is an amateur, so even if he writes strange things, he has never denied the content. She considers Lockley's paper not a research document but a historical novel. However, she says that it was created through mutual compromise, such as changing parts of Yasuke's actions that were unacceptable after the Honnoji Incident.

  When Oka joined the editing team, it had already been decided that Rockley would contribute.

  https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1813130354854928663

  https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1813132392900731072

  https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1813134117393023214

  https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1813714544474399183

  https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1815153396032397726

  https://x.com/mei_gang30266/status/1815156183478735215

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

  この時代、武士とそれ以外の身分の垣根は曖昧であり、本当に弥助が「サムライ」となったのかについては議論があるものの、少なくともその身一代においては、彼は間違いなく信長の家臣に取り立てられたと考えられている。

  https://www.shimizushoin.co.jp/books/view/763

  https://researchmap.jp/7000004775/published_papers/45900467

  https://x.com/BonpoB/status/1830930503014457375

  https://x.com/2ALlPuM_/status/1817545987487158730

  I think this is the source of Britannica, but I don't know where the content of this paper came from.

  My personal opinion is that this is Thomas Lockley's personal opinion.I think it's best to ask him where the source is. Tanukisann (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I want you to listen to me calmly and not get angry, but this is a Japanese story that happened more than a month ago.

  In his books and interviews aimed at Japanese readers, Thomas Lockley often prefaces his statements by saying that there are objections or that they are hypothetical.In his books and media interviews for foreign countries, he states most of his statements in a definitive manner.

  You looked at Britannica and wondered where the information about the controversy came from, right? This has never happened before in English articles. Yasuke is a legendary samurai and a hero. After Nobunaga committed seppuku, Yasuke was the one who decapitated him, and Yasuke was the one who hid it and protected him. Rockley says.

  Even in the Japanese version, various stories are told, such as the episode in which Yasuke was the one who protected Nobunaga's neck. Even Japanese history experts have never heard of them. But it's not as bad as the English version.

  When the Japanese noticed the situation, they thought:

  What's this?

  Editors of the Japanese Wikipedia began to look into edit histories and media timestamps, and discovered that the source of the information being circulated overseas was likely Thomas Lockley, who had probably written books and papers, edited Wikipedia and Britannica himself, and perhaps promoted his own ideas through propaganda.

  Sometimes his unpublished papers were cited as sources.

  I don't know if the content is true, but he even introduces himself.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=680634911

  Thomas Lockley creates the information himself and publishes it on Wikipedia and Britannica, the media uses these as sources of information for their coverage, other media, Wikipedia, Britannica etc. use these media as sources of information to develop, and the media then uses these as a basis for their coverage.

  Um, how much more should I write?

  There are arguments and editing battles on Wikipedia. Right here, right now.

  This is the road we have been on for over a month now.

  I wonder if Britannica will be the next battlefield? The editor of the current final version is Thomas Lockley, right?

  How much of what is written can we trust? As we all know, the literature on Yasuke only takes up a few pages of notebooks. Lockley stuffed it with a ton of fabricated stories and published it as a 380-page academic book written in the form of a non-fiction novel, and everyone, readers and the media, believes it.

  There are people here who believe it right now, aren't there? Tanukisann (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, look. It says this. What should we do about this?

  Jul 16, 2024　Article replaced with expert commission.

  The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

  Thomas Lockley

  https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yasuke/additional-info Tanukisann (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The main source is from つなぐ世界史 2, where he also mentions that there is argument, as stated elsewhere.

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

  I repeat this even though it was already mentioned by Tanukisann because it should be noted that he is not simply saying here that there is debate, but also that all we know for certain is that he was a vassal. That is according to Lockley himself. So he himself is giving credence to the debate by saying all we know for certain is that he was appointed as a vassal. Combined with Goza saying that we should be cautious in saying Yasuke was a samurai, this seem like enough to show that Yasuke's true status is not fully clear, and that should be reflected in the article. Of the three most detailed articles dealing with Yasuke's status as samurai, all three of them mention this point. (ie. つなぐ世界史 2, Goza, Britannica) It should also be noted that つなぐ世界史 2 is the only peer reviewed work involved here. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we can put that in the article. It is a peer reviewed article. I think it is important though to remember that Goza said that Yasuke was treated like a samurai, and that the gist of what he says is that Yasuke might not have been expected to fight on a battlefield. I think we should also try and figure out what Hirayama Yu means when he says that Yasuke was probably a "low samurai" but also not a "middle servant" I think that reflects the scholarly consensus of Yasuke. He was a retainer of high enough rank to have a sword etc and be in Nobunaga´s presence. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you on the phrase being vague, however:

  If you read the Weasel words policy, you will see that it doesn’t apply to sources, and certain phrases aren’t always weasel words. They are more words to look out for.

  I don’t understand your lipstick on a pig metaphor. You probably didn’t intend it so, but it could come off as a veiled insult. More importantly, I don’t see how it applies to the situation. I think most people reading the article without any external context would assume experts dispute the claim that Yasuke was a samurai. I don’t think the amount of words matters either. If the phrase was shorted just to "is disputed," then the meaning would be clearer.

  A big problem with the sentence is that it is difficult to find any expert that disputes it, this supports interpreting the phrase to refer to laymen. A further problem is that Lockley made a similar claim in his peer reviewed article. Theoretically, he should have cited that claim. Since those that have read his article haven’t pointed to that source, I assume that Lockley didn’t cite that claim. This fits with my understanding of Lockley as a not very good historian, and so I think both instances are mistakes.

  It is also important to know that Regalia Symphony has said on this very page: "Evaluating reliability has nothing to do with the claims within sources. Sources can and will disagree, and it is not the place for editors to determine what is true and not true, otherwise you are elevating Wikipedia to the role of the arbiter of the truth. Reliability evaluation instead focuses on material factors"

  So, according to Regalia, I shouldn’t use my knowledge to interpret sources deemed reliable. This is, I think, where the idea of cherry picking or double standards comes from. I disagree with Regalia´s interpretation of wikipedia policy, so I oppose describing the status as disputed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am unsure precisely how many times it must be stated that MOS:WEASEL does not pertain to the contents of the source, but only for writing Wikipedia. We cannot exclude a source for using weasel words. Yes, Lockley states where the claim originates, he does not provide any evidence at all to support that it is commonly believed among Japanese historians.

  Saying that Lockley's article is good enough to accept the vague claim Yasuke is commonly held by Japanese historians without naming any evidence to support this outside of noting the document where the claim originates, but that the article saying some people dispute this claim is too MOS:WEASEL to be represented is, quite literally, cherrypicking. You're using WP:SYNTH to connect Commonly held by Japanese historians to a passage that says This is where the claim that Yasuke was a samurai originates.

  Stating the origin for the claim that Yasuke is a samurai does not make saying Commonly held by Japanese historians less weasel-worded.

  And again, with extra emphasis

  The guideline does not apply to quotations, which should be faithfully reproduced from the original sources (seeWikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations). Brocade River Poems 22:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Weasel language within sources is still relevant when it comes to evaluating the weight of unattributed hearsay. If a source is referencing another source when editors need to know what the source is in order to evaluate weight.

  It could be attributed directly to Lockley as a unique opinion with appropriate weight (that is to say, not much), but as it stands a weasel reference to an unattributed "some people" isn't very useful for building an encyclopedia and it doesn't really add to the article. And it certainly can't be used to depict Yasuke's samurai status as contested because as a unique opinion, it would violate NPOV, and also because there is still not a single RS arguing that he was not one. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the issue here is not weasel words, but the lack of collaboration. If we knew who was debating and what they were debating, then it wouldn’t be weasel words and there would be no problem with it. You are right that it would have to be attributed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey! Isn't this the same thing I was saying earlier—that we have to use our judgement, sometimes, instead of just slavishly counting up "well RSes are saying it, so..."—in my "100 news outlets say Alexander Dumas was pure Swede but all based on a single shaky document & therefore it's clearly sometimes necessary to evaluate sources" hypothetical?

  Himaldrmann (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case no, because Lockley is unique in his opinion (and thus it lacks weight to begin with even with attribution). It is unattributed hearsay, but if 100 sources were referencing the same unattributed hearsay then that would be different. Symphony Regalia (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am unsure precisely how many times it must be stated that MOS:WEASEL does not pertain to the contents of the source, but only for writing Wikipedia. We write Wikipedia based on what the contents of sources say, and if the source uses weasel language like "some people", then yes, best practice according to MOS is to exclude that weasel crap. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Consider that the issue with weasel language is that it is "aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated" and that it amounts to "vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis." This should not be a concern in the case of Lockley as he is not advocating for the opinion that he is mentioning when he says 'there is debate as to whether Yasuke truly became a "samurai"' (using the other quote as an example). That is, there is no reason to suspect that Lockley intends to "dress with authority" or "create an impression" of the idea that there is debate as to whether Yasuke truly became a samurai, as if anything he would have the opposite motivation being a proponent of the claim that he says there is debate about. In terms of our actual potential mention of this debate in the article, we can cite Goza directly, so there would be no issue in terms of MOS:WEASEL as well. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems sort of like a reason to do the exact opposite ("we write Wiki content as the sources say it" → "the sources use these words" → ..."therefore we shouldn't use those words"...?).

  Regardless, though, if you want to go by the book, rules-as-written—well, the rules say MOS:WEASEL doesn't apply in this case. If you want to go with case-by-case, what-seems-reasonable, rules-are-just-guidelines—well, I think you'd have to argue it beyond citing MOS:WEASEL, right?

  or something I dunno I'm depressed don't mind me

  Himaldrmann (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am aware of the problems with Lockley´s work, but the Britannica article is still the best we have. In the last RfC it was said that some sources could be reliable for some things and unreliable for others. This contradicts the idea that we have to accept everything a "reliable source" claims. We have to weigh claims in a source against other sources, secondary, tertiary and primary. Yes, even primary, as long as it isn’t OR, can be used. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I remember saying this a long time ago, but I've been using translation sites for a long time. I was taught everyday English conversation when I was a student, but since I haven't used it for a while, I've forgotten it. Before posting, I convert from Japanese to English, and then from English to Japanese to confirm that the content has not changed significantly, but it is difficult to match 100%. I apologize if it's hard to read.

  It is true that Mihoko Oka reviewed a paper by Thomas Lockley. She doesn't deny its contents. The reason is that the author, Lockley, is an amateur, not because he agrees with the content.

  In other words, there are two types of peer review in Japanese history.

  The first is to check whether the content is actually correct and whether there are any academic problems. This is probably what most people are thinking of.

  The second is to acknowledge that there are people who make such claims as experts about the hypotheses and ideas that a person has made. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong. As a result of research, they may or may not be accepted.

  The review of Lockley's paper is definitely the second one.

  I am not completely refusing to cite Britannica's content on Wikipedia. However, you will have to do this with great care.

  The reason is simple. The content written in Britannica is a mixture of reliable content written in documents and content based on Lockley's hypotheses and imagination.

  A while ago, there was a discussion that ``Britannica states that among the things given to Yasuke there was a servant, but this is not in the document and may be Lockley's personal idea. did. Ultimately, it was concluded that this was attributed to Lockley.

  Yes, this is it. Before adopting Britannica's content on Wikipedia, you should check each one.

  Finally, I would like to answer from a Japanese perspective why there are no experts who deny the opinion that Yasuke was a samurai.

  The reason is simple: we don't know.

  There is a possibility that Yasuke was a samurai. It's also possible that he isn't a samurai. I don't know the right answer. There are too few materials to make a judgment.

  In such cases, Japanese people say, ``I don't know, and hold their attitude. They rarely express their opinions clearly. In this state, although I don't deny it, I don't agree with it either. It is a mistake to think that just because there is no negative opinion, that everyone is in favor of it.

  A few experts, such as Lockley and Hirakawa, believe that Yasuke was a samurai, but most other experts have reserved their position or are silent, citing a lack of evidence to be too limited to make a judgment.

  If I were to write about the current situation, I think it would be like this. Tanukisann (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]