[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Yasuke/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

New Japanese Source

This interview [1] has a title section that reads 「伝説の侍」に非ず, or "Not a 'Legendary Samurai'", in which Goza is quoted as saying 「また、侍だったとしても『形の上では』ということもあります。例えば江戸時代、相撲好きの大名にはお抱えの力士がいた。形式的には家臣、侍として召し抱えて帯刀を許可していましたが、たとえ戦（いくさ）が起きたとしても、お抱え力士が戦場で戦うようなことはもちろん、想定されていませんでした」, or Moreover, even if he was a samurai, it could be a 'formality,' he said. In the Edo period, for example, a daimyo (feudal lord) who was fond of sumo had a stable of wrestlers. Officially, they were treated as vassals or samurai and permitted to wear swords, however, even if war broke out, it was not expected that the feudal lords would allow such wrestlers to fight on the battlefield.

Brocade River Poems 04:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Another part of the interview reads 「敵を次から次へと斬り倒す、欧米の人がイメージする『サムライ・ウォリアー』のような存在ではなかったはずで、〝伝説の侍〟といった扱われ方には違和感を覚えます。戦ったとしても、部下を指揮するようなことはなく、一戦闘員として働いたんだと思います」 which perhaps represents a more staunch denial from Goza, which is I don't think he was the 'Samurai Warrior' that Westerners imagine him to be, slaying one enemy after another, and I feel uncomfortable with the characterization of him as a 'legendary samurai'. I believe that even if he did fight, he did not lead others, but served as a fighter. and 信長のボディーガード兼芸人というのが実態だったのではないかと思います, which amounts to I suspect that the truth of the matter is that he was Nobunaga's bodyguard and entertainer.
The article has a second part here, of Thomas Lockley's book, Goza writes 「歴史学の研究者というのは、研究する対象と一定の距離感を持つ必要があって、信長を研究していて『信長すごい』ではやはりダメで、信長の限界というものもあったんじゃないか、という引いた目で見る必要があるわけです。坂本龍馬だってそうですね。龍馬の限界や問題点というものも見て研究しないといけない。思い入れが強くなりすぎ、研究対象と一体化して、『全てを肯定していこう』という感じになってしまうと、歴史学の研究にはならなくなってしまいます。この著書を読むと、その距離感を取れていないという印象を持ちました」 or translated Researchers in the field of history need to have a certain sense of detachment from their research subjects, so it is not good to just say "Nobunaga is amazing" when you are studying Nobunaga, but rather it is necessary to look at Nobunaga from a detached perspective, as if there were some limitations to his achievements. It is the same with Ryoma Sakamoto. Ryoma's limitations and problems must also be looked at and studied. If you become too attached to the subject, if you become one with the subject, if your attitude is, "Let's affirm everything," then you will not be able to do historical research at all. This book gives me the impression that the author has not achieved that sense of distance. Brocade River Poems 04:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
This is a good find, thanks for sharing it. As you say, I think this interview is more clear than the earlier article by Goza, and should settle what he meant by that last line.
>The article has a second part here, of Thomas Lockley's book
It is interesting to note that the book he's referring to here is 信長と弥助　本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍, not African Samurai. According to Lockley, the Japanese book was meant to be the more academic of the two. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
We should really change the lead to note that him serving as a samurai is in dispute, or attribute it to Lockley, with a note of a dispute by Japanese sources. DarmaniLink (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Attributing it to Lockley would probably not be the best course of action since the Lopez-Vera source came to the same conclusion about Yasuke being a samurai, and the 2020 Lopez-Vera book in English is a translation of the original book that was published in 2016 in Spanish. Likewise, Professor Yu Hirayama's tweet has also made the news. It is also worth noting that Goza doesn't outright claim or state that Yasuke wasn't a samurai. He says he wasn't the legendary samurai that westerners might be imagining before stating definitively that he believed Yasuke was Nobunaga's bodyguard as well as noting that sometimes people were given samurai status as a formality and that that was likely the case with Yasuke. My key takeaways from Goza's interview are as follows:
  • Goza's interview lends to the idea that Samurai status wasn't completely hereditary since Goza says in the Edo Period Daimyo would make their favorite sumo wrestlers samurai
  • Samurai seemed to be divided into two cases, those who were actually members of the warrior caste, and those who were made samurai as a sort of gift from the Daimyo. That it specifically was applied to entertainers calls to mind the contemporary habit of 'knighting' actors and other such entertainers
  • Goza doesn't definitively state that Yasuke wasn't a samurai, but that Yasuke wasn't the samurai warrior that westerners are imagining him to be. If Yasuke fought, he likely did so as a soldier. Goza believes the more likely scenario is that Yasuke was Nobunaga's bodyguard and someone who entertained Nobunaga. 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 carry out military duties or go fight in war.
All told, I think Goza's interview is helpful in defining what it meant to be a samurai in the Sengoku period, and what it most likely meant if the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript is correct in the treatment that Yasuke received. Goza does mention the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript again in his interview, and he does mention since the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript is the only version of the Shinchokoki that has the mention of the sword, the house, and the stipend that one cannot dismiss the possibility that it was something added afterward in the copying process. Regardless, assuming the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript is accurate, Goza's belief is that Yasuke's status as a samurai was, essentially, just for show or a formality. Since the Ietada Diary also mentions Yasuke receiving a stipend, it does seem to be the more likely case that Yasuke was a bodyguard and someone who entertained Nobunaga, so Nobunaga gave him the formality of being a samurai. Brocade River Poems 09:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I am all about including Goza's input into the article, but I don't think your addition is too thoughtful, at least you should not just present Goza's opinion in the lead without elaborating in the main article. I think several existing sentences should be revised as well, for example, the "samurai" in who served as a samurai to the Japanese daimyō Oda Nobunaga for a period of 15 months should be reverted to just "retainer", as there is already explanation about how Yasuke qualified as a samurai under Nobunaga in the same lead. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think several existing sentences should be revised as well, for example, the "samurai" in who served as a samurai to the Japanese daimyō Oda Nobunaga for a period of 15 months should be reverted to just "retainer"

I disagree. I think this would go against the spirit of the RfC consensus. Supplementary context is just that, supplementary. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the previous RfC established that Yasuke was qualified as a samurai per sources, but I am not sure if it determined how much weight we should put on such claim, especially in the lead. I also don't think it's fair to reduce Goza's opinion into an explanatory footnotes for Assassin's Creed Shadows, because it was clearly not just for criticizing Ubisoft's handling of Yasuke, but also Lockley's flawed study of Yasuke. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
1. Referring to Yasuke as a "retainer" in the opening line of the lede, which should not be done as we've already had a RfC on this, is a different matter to how much weight should be given to a particular minority view. It doesn't necessarily have to be in the popular culture section, but it's a minority view that doesn't change the status quo and he doesn't have a strong opinion in either direction. He actually concedes that he believes Yasuke may have been a samurai.
2. Lockley's study of Yasuke was not flawed and is supported by several peer-reviews. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Peer-reviewed does not mean Lockley's study is flawless and unchallengeable, especially by other qualified historians. Also please explain how addressing Yasuke a "retainer" in the lede is against the previous rfc. All I see is that you don't want to present the idea that Yasuke could be a lesser-samurai or samurai-only-in-name, even blatantly using an essay (CSECTION, non policy/guideline) to dismiss Goza's opinion, reducing it into an unimportant footnote. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Personal interpretations of what peer-reviewed means aren't relevant here. Peer-reviewed works clearly meet our WP:RS standards. And referring to Yasuke as a retainer in the lede was the status quo before the RfC. What is your reasoning for wanting to do so? In the RfC there was overwhelming consensus that Yasuke being a samurai is the majority view in reliable sources. Naturally this should be given due weight in the lede. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
In the last paragraph of the lede, it already explains why Yasuke qualified as a samurai, so there is no need to repeat that same information in the first paragraph. Samurai is even linked twice in the lede which is overlinked. Ask anyone who is not family with Japanese history, they definitely would not know that a samurai, a loanword, was naturally a retainer of their master. Avoiding to address Yasuke as an Oda retainer is against what is recommended by WP:ONEDOWN. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
No. The last paragraph is a recent addition to the lede (and can easily be placed elsewhere), and there is no arbitrary maximum of "1" on how many times Yasuke can be referred to as a samurai. Explicitly changing the first mention of "samurai" to "retainer", which is what the RfC was considering as the alternative but decided against, indeed contradicts the spirit of the RfC consensus in a very obvious way. Per WP:NPOV the lede must follow due weight.

Ask anyone who is not family with Japanese history, they definitely would not know that a samurai, a loanword, was naturally a retainer of their master.

Not necessarily, and these details are all available in the samurai article for anyone who wants them. It's also worth noting that many reputable dictionaries translate "家臣" as "vassal" as well. In any case these sort of specifics and details can easily be explained in the "life in Japan" section in their natural context with appropriate weight. Symphony Regalia (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This is ludicrous. Yasuke is not referred to as either retainer or vassal in the lede or the main article. Some sources cited in the article do use "retainer", besides "samurai", to refer Yasuke, but god forbidden we ever call him anything but samurai to not tarnish his legendary status. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you refrained from saying things like Lockley´s work isn’t flawed, especially when it isn’t relevant. The RfC didn’t have an "overwhelming" consensus. Consensus means total agreement, as there were dissenters, using it in this case is hyperbole. Furthermore, you have stretched the spirit of the RfC to mean whatever you want, and revert things that did not touch it. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I would be more helpful if those refrained from unilaterally asserting that it is. The RfC did indeed have an overwhelming consensus, it was something like 16-2 from uninvolved editors in favor (note: this is in terms of arguments, not votes). Consensus also does not require complete unanimity which is an incorrect interpretation. Lastly, on the contrary, editors overall have been lax with enforcing the RfC despite attempts by vandals to deface the article, attempts by editors to remove mentions of samurai while misusing the minor tag, and so on. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
There was a discussion on this page about the use of title vs status. There was agreement to change to status, and you undid it, and then only after your revert was reverted, did you take part of the discussion. If there was any vandalism, I haven’t seen it. I purposefully made multiple edits so that if I made mistakes, they could be addressed individually. You undid them all indiscriminately. You don’t take part in any positive discussion, but rather just tell people what they can’t do. I am trying to work with you here, why won’t you work with me? Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed that the RfC does not mean that every reference to Yasuke must address him as samurai. But obviously only mentioning samurai once would not be in the spirit of the RfC, so some sort of balance should be found until we open a new RfC, which I still think we should wait a while for.
As an aside, this new interview is a great example of why we should wait a while. Had we opened a new RfC last week, there would a lot of debate about what Goza meant. Now his position seems a bit more clear. I think after a month or so we can take a look at seriously changing the language of the lede again (via an RfC). J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Do you mean once in the lead, or in the entire article? I think once in the lead is enough. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Saying a status is hereditary, doesn’t mean that it can’t be granted. All hereditary titles in the UK can be granted. Anthony Cummins has pointed out that servants were expected to fight and protect their lords, also a lot of samurai had non-military and military duties. This isn’t so different from Europe, where servants fought alongside their masters. Yasuke probably was more likely part of a large entourage. A mounted warrior was supposed to have 14 attendants with them in war, and in 1614 an army leader had a bodyguard of over 400 dismounted troops and 130 mounted. So even if the sumo wrestlers turned samurai weren’t soldiers, they were in the reserve. Similarly, some had fiefs to manage. I am not sure if sumo wrestlers were seen as the same as actors, but Yasuke was strong and preformed tricks. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Am I reading the translation wrong? Because 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. It looks like Goza was specifically commenting on the video game usage of Yasuke, which yeah, is a fictional depiction. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the historical samurai position given to Yasuke that this article discusses. The interview linked doesn't seem to really add to the discussion of the particular topic in question. SilverserenC 03:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
As I said, It is also worth noting that Goza doesn't outright claim or state that Yasuke wasn't a samurai. Rather, Goza contends that Yasuke wasn't a legendary samurai. Beyond that, Goza says that the basis for depicting Yasuke as a samurai comes from a passage that is only found in the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Nobunaga Chronicle, and that because it only appears on the Sonkeikaku Bunko version we cannot discount the possibility that the passage was added later during the copying process. Goza then goes on to suggest that if Yasuke was made a samurai, he was made such in-form only (which I tend to translate as in-name only), and points to an example of how in the Edo Period daimyo would often grant samurai status to wrestlers whom they favored. Said wrestlers would be on the payroll, be allowed to carry swords, and were officially considered to be vassals of the daimyo, but they weren't expected to actually perform the duties of a samurai (such as leading troops and going to war). Ultimately, Goza's addition to the conversation further demonstrates how becoming a samurai wasn't strictly hereditary if daimyo were conferring samurai status on their favorite sumo wrestlers for funsies. My addition to the article about the controversy was the article about Hirayama saying that Yasuke was a "samurai warrior", while Goza states that Yasuke wasn't a "samurai warrior", but was likely a bodyguard and entertainer for Oda Nobunaga who was made samurai in-name only. Both Hirayama and Goza say, to different degrees, that Yasuke could have been conferred samurai status, but the dispute is that Hirayama seems to argue that Yasuke was a full on proper samurai, while Goza's belief is that Yasuke's samurai status was 'just for show' basically. Brocade River Poems 04:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to add a section going into more detail on the practical meaning of Yasuke as a Samurai? So far most of the disagreement amongst the sources has primarily been more centered on what kind of 'Samurai' Yasuke was rather than objecting to his being a Samurai - even if cautioning that it's primarily based in one primary source. We have the primary text white refers to him as a weapons bearer, we have two sources (Nobuo Ikeda and Thomas Lockley's peer reviewed work) referring to him as a '家臣' (High ranking vassal), Hirayama's explanation, and now Goza's explanation. I think it is clear that these sources do seem to be in dispute on what Yasuke's role amongst Nobunaga's retinue would have been and I think this is worth clarifying somewhere in the article. I think this would add the nuance that I believe many editors desire to see on the page. Even if it later comes to be shown that Yasuke's Samurai status is disputed by non-fringe sources, having this diversity of scholarly views on what his role would have been seems worth including to me. Relm (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I had created a section about the controversial status of Yasuke as a samurai in Japan, it got removed because I called it "Samurai controversy" with the removing editor citing WP:CSECTION as their justification. The contents of said section were shunted off into a footnote, and I do not have the energy or desire to argue about it, as it seems to me if the problem was the naming of the section, that renaming the section would have been a more proper solution. That said, some editors are very quick to revert or excise when they could otherwise fix the mistake. Nevermind the fact that WP:CSECTION says Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title. but further states For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources. The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title (when there are distinct groups of controversies, the section title can be "Controversies", with subsection titles indicating what these are about)(Emphasis my own) Which, given the widespread media attention about the controversy surrounding Yasuke being a samurai, you'd think it would be worth including as a section. Brocade River Poems 04:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Instead of titling the section "controversy", "Yasuke's social status in Japan" would be more appropriate. I am not sure why many editors here are so fixated on emphasizing Yasuke's samurai status. Even the latest edition of Britainnca's Yasuke article admits that Yasuke's samurai status has been disputed, after Lockley has been directly involved in its editing. Also @Symphony Regalia: why "samurai" and "retainer" are mutually exclusive is beyond my understanding. For example, in Hayashi Hidesada's article, he is described as both a samurai and a retainer of Nobunaga in the lede. My point is, there is no controversy to describe Yasuke as Oda's retainer, but the samurai status of Yasuke is a total can of worm, i.e. disputed and possibly not a standard samurai (not because of Yasuke's ethnicity) even by Sengoku period's standard. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 05:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, you don't need my or anyone else's permission to go ahead and do that. I (obviously) support the section, I even think referring to as a controversy is acceptable because WP:CSECTION is an essay, not policy. Just be aware that someone will probably end up reverting you. Like I said, it isn't worth my time to fight. Sweeping it away into a footnote, however, definitely feels like it runs afoul of WP:BALANCE to me. Brocade River Poems 05:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I hope you read the original Japanese interview. Goza's answer the question of "whether Yasuke was a samurai or not" was not based on how popular culture depicts Yasuke as a "samurai warrior". For that first question of the first part of the interview specifically[2], Goza stated that "the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of Shincho Koki could be tempered with during copying; Yasuke's samurai status was possibly a formality (ceremonial) only." In the second part of the interview[3], Goza shared his opinion on Lockley's study of Yasuke, expressing that he felt Lockley succumbed to confirmation bias. This again has nothing to do with the depiction of Yasuke in popular culture. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe that Goza was suggesting the Sonkeikaku Bunko version was "tempered". Specifically, Goza's full statement is that among the dozens of manuscripts of the Nobunaga Koki, this is the only one that includes this biography[About Yasuke receiving a sword, house and stipend], and we cannot deny the possibility that it was added later when the manuscript was transcribed. Goza later states even if he was a samurai, it might have been in-form only. Goza doesn't make a definitive statement, he couches his arguments in "possibilities", which is reasonable. He cannot conclude definitively that the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript was modified. Goza is speaking about popular culture later, though. Specifically, the interview question he was asked was 『シャドウズ』の弥助は、立派な甲冑を身に付けて登場します。実際にはどのような立場にいたと考えられますか In "Shadows," Yasuke appears wearing magnificent armor. What position do you think he actually held? and then Goza responds with 「敵を次から次へと斬り倒す、欧米の人がイメージする『サムライ・ウォリアー』のような存在ではなかったはずで、〝伝説の侍〟といった扱われ方には違和感を覚えます。戦ったとしても、部下を指揮するようなことはなく、一戦闘員として働いたんだと思います」 I don't think he was the 'Samurai Warrior' that Westerners imagine him to be, slaying one enemy after another, and I feel uncomfortable with the characterization of him as a 'legendary samurai' and also states in response to what Yasuke's position actually was that Yasuke was likely a bodyguard and an entertainer for Oda Nobunaga.
The statement he specifically uses is サムライ・ウォリアー for samurai warrior. He is directly speaking about Yasuke's depiction in Assassin's Creed Shadows when he says I don't think he was the 'Samurai Warrior' that Westerners imagine him to be. A lot of the questions the interviewer asks Goza after 弥助とは、どのような人物だったのでしょう。ＳＮＳでは、侍だったかどうかが論争になりました are explicitly about popular culture, specifically Assassin's Creed Shadows. Since he is being asked about a video game, it is fair to say that Goza's statements are referring to depictions of Yasuke in popular culture. Shōgun (2024 TV series) even gets cited as a contrasting example to Assassin's Creed Shadows. Brocade River Poems 05:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Goza's opinion on Shincho Koki, I agree with you. Still, I believe the parts of his opinions I brought up should not be diminished or degraded by the fact that this interview was conducted against the backdrop of the Assassin's Creed Shadows controversy. His answers were based on actual studies of historical documents, not modern fiction. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying they should be diminished, I was just pointing out that it's incorrect to say that Goza isn't talking about popular culture when the majority of part one of the interview was him talking about popular culture depictions. Outside of the area you highlight, he was answering questions about popular culture depictions. Basically, the section where Goza is answering the question 弥助とは、どのような人物だったのでしょう。ＳＮＳでは、侍だったかどうかが論争になりました isn't about popular culture, but the rest of the interview is in relation to popular culture. So saying He just says he wasn't the type of samurai mythologized in pop culture that was in a bunch of battles and such isn't technically incorrect, because that's more or less what Goza is saying with 敵を次から次へと斬り倒す、欧米の人がイメージする『サムライ・ウォリアー』のような存在ではなかったはずで、〝伝説の侍〟といった扱われ方には違和感を覚えます。, which I'm not going to translate again verbatim but essentially he's saying that Yasuke wasn't the samurai warrior (in Katakana) that westerner's imagine him, that he wasn't cutting down enemy after enemy, and that Goza feels uncomfortable with Yasuke's portrayal as a legendary samurai(伝説の侍).
Another way for me to word it is that 「弥助に関する史料は、残されているものが少ないので、何とも言いがたい部分はあるんです。人物史が歴史学の本流ではないこともあり、研究対象にされてこなかったわけです。「信長の一代記『信長公記』の伝本の一つ、尊経閣文庫所蔵『信長記』十五冊本には、信長が弥助に刀と屋敷を与えたという記述があり、侍として処遇したことを示しています。ただ、これは何十とある信長公記の写本のうち、この伝本にしか出てこないもので、後世、書写の際に付け加えられた可能性は否定できません」 「また、侍だったとしても『形の上では』ということもあります。例えば江戸時代、相撲好きの大名にはお抱えの力士がいた。形式的には家臣、侍として召し抱えて帯刀を許可していましたが、たとえ戦（いくさ）が起きたとしても、お抱え力士が戦場で戦うようなことはもちろん、想定されていませんでした」 is Goza's commentary on the question about the historical nature of Yasuke. Particularly, he begins his statement with 弥助に関する史料は、残されているものが少ないので、何とも言いがたい部分はあるんです。, which I translate as Since there are few historical documents about Yasuke that exist, it's hard to say with certainty what is true. And the rest is as we already discussed, Goza goes into how the Sonkeikaku Bunko version might have been modified in transcription, and that if Yasuke had been afforded samurai status, it was likely in-form only, Goza explains about the wrestlers being made samurai in the Edo period, and how they were effectively vassals with a stipend and the right to carry swords but that they weren't expected to perform the duties of a samurai i.e, going to war.
Aside from that paragraph, though, Goza is answering questions about Yasuke's depiction in popular media. Brocade River Poems 08:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
>Am I reading the translation wrong? Because Goza never claims that Yasuke wasn't a samurai
I did not say that he did in this article. In the other article he says we should be cautious in saying he was a samurai. So in neither article does he say that he was not a samurai.
>The interview linked doesn't seem to really add to the discussion of the particular topic in question.
The interview also touches on the veracity of 信長と弥助　本能寺を生き延びた黒人侍, which is not something that necessarily needs to go into the article but may be relevant in a future RfC. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Since the opening sentence says "Samurai," I'd like to make a brief comment. From a common Japanese perspective, the opening statement that Yasuke was a "samurai" seems a bit exaggerated and not very appropriate. A "samurai" is a warrior who is willing to commit seppuku if necessary, and a mere retainer is not a "samurai." There are no documents, at least not in Japan, that state that Yasuke had such Japanese ways. It's fine to treat him as a "samurai" in an interesting way in fiction or books that deal with novelties, but it's not accurate to "define" him as a "samurai" in an encyclopedia.--みしまるもも (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Why did you try to add "fiction" to the "In popular culture" section title? You seem like you're an experienced editor, you should know how Wikipedia articles are formatted at this point. SilverserenC 03:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I put it in the fiction category because it seemed strange to me to categorize the works of Endo Shusaku, a famous Japanese academic novelist, simply as "popular culture." And, since all the works written there are fiction, I don't think there's any particular problem with that.--みしまるもも (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Notably, the English Wikipedia is not written From a common Japanese perspective, so that is mostly unrelated to this article. A "samurai" is a warrior who is willing to commit seppuku if necessary, and a mere retainer is not a "samurai." And yet, there are plenty of samurai who, during the Sengoku period, did not. For instance, samurai who converted to Christianity would refuse to commit suicide because they believed it to be a sin. Konishi Yukinaga, for instance, famously refused to commit seppuku. The 47 Ronin, much later in history, all also refused to commit seppuku and instead pursued revenge. Also famously during the sengoku period Shimizu Muneharu was himself allowed to commit seppuku in exchange for the rest of the individuals inside his castle being spared. Also from the Sengoku period, Kamiizumi Nobutsuna made quite a career out of not killing himself. In fact Kamiizumi surrendered the castle without a fight, and joined Ujiyasu, Kamiizumi abandoned the Hōjō side, and sent messages to the Uesugi. He became one of Uesugi's generals, and helped the Uesugi drive out the Hōjō forces, Shingen invited him to join the Takeda side after Minowa Castle fell, what is clear is that Kamiizumi became a minor official to the Takeda clan. History is full of examples of samurai low and high in status who ran away from battles, surrendered, and lived to tell the tale. Likewise, most historical records demonstrate that instances of seppuku prior to the Edo period were forced or otherwise coerced. Brocade River Poems 04:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi, Brocade River Poems. Even if these examples exist, the essential question is whether there is any connection or commonality between their spirit, conviction, or determination and Yasuke's. Also, when one became a samurai, they would have been given a surname (名字, Myoji) by their lord, but Yasuke does not have a surname. If he had truly been recognized by Nobunaga as a samurai, he would have been given a surname like 三浦按針 (Miura Anjin, William Adams (samurai)). It would be interesting if Yasuke had actually become a samurai, but the reality is that there are no reliable, professional Japanese historical documents that state that Yasuke was a samurai.
みしまるもも (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC) add --みしまるもも (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Frankly, the essential question is whether there is any connection or commonality between their spirit, convicition, or determination and Yasuke's is irrelevant when thus far the only reliable source (that being Yuichi Goza) who has even slightly contended Yasuke's samurai status has also said that Daimyo gave their favorite wrestlers the status of samurai for funsies and that Nobunaga likely did the same to Yasuke if Yasuke was a samurai. Again, the common perception of samurai in Japan is wholly irrelevant, one cannot cite the common perception of the common Japanse citizen as a source. Also, since you mentioned Adams, I will note that Jan Joosten van Lodensteijn was only ever given the name Yayōsu in Japanese, so. Brocade River Poems 05:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
As far as I concern, not a single qualified Japanese historian has ever used the lack of myoji to contest or dismiss Yasuke's status as a samurai. Not even Daimon Watanabe. Some source like the one published on President.jp recognized such argument exists online, but it is not the argument promoted by any actual historian. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
YaYōsu was a dutch samurai who also didn't have a surname. 143.58.135.208 (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Samurai is a status in Japanese history and culture, so your comment that "the common perception of samurai in Japan is wholly irrelevant" is a blasphemous, belittling, or mocking statement against Japanese history no matter how you look at it. If Yasuke was a real samurai, there would be descriptions like those of Miura Anjin in specialized Japanese historical documents. To be honest, I was shocked at the low level of the English version, which confuses fiction and novels with historical detail and attempts to edit Wikipedia articles with a touch of fantasy. Again, if Yasuke had truly become a samurai, he would have been described as such in a proper professional Japanese historical text, like Miura Anjin. --みしまるもも (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    Samurai is a status in Japanese history and culture, so your comment that "the common perception of samurai in Japan is wholly irrelevant" is a blasphemous, belittling, or mocking statement against Japanese history no matter how you look at it No it isn't, it is a policy statement. The common perception of samurai in Japan is wholly irrelevant to the development of this article because it isn't something which can be cited in the article, as I have stated plainly. You have cherry picked my statement which was the common perception of samurai in Japan is wholly irrelevant, one cannot cite the common perception of the common Japanse citizen as a source. Wikipedia is built upon WP:RELIABLESOURCES. We cannot attribute a statement to "the perception of the common Japanese citizen". I would remind you of WP:NOTFORUM bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article with my added emphasis. Brocade River Poems 06:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • It's a shame that you can only respond in that way without making any reference to the point that "Yasuke doesn't have a family name." I've added to this article in the past, and I love the story of Yasuke, and I also love R&B and hip-hop. So I was interested in the idea that Yasuke might have been active in Japan during the Warring States period, and I wanted to know more about Yasuke, so I read a number of specialized books on Japanese history, but as a result, I found out that he wasn't particularly a samurai. Even though I know he wasn't a samurai, I still love Yasuke, who came to Japan and lived here, where he was loved by Nobunaga. So I don't really understand the intentions of those who have to make Yasuke into a "samurai" even at the expense of ignoring the richness of Japanese history. Please read more specialized Japanese literature. --みしまるもも (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    >I read a number of specialized books on Japanese history
    Do you mean books about Yasuke specifically or books about Japanese history and samurai in general? If the later, it can't be used on Wikipedia as a source about a specific subject unless a historian explicitly makes that connection. For example, your point about being given a surname is interesting, but it can't be cited in the article unless a historian explicitly makes that argument. I guess an exception would be if multiple Japanese historians say "all samurai must have surnames, otherwise they would never have been considered a samurai," but that does not seem to be the case. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Thans, J2UDY7r00CRjH. Yasuke is mentioned in only a few lines in historical documents about Nobunaga. There is no record that could define Yasuke as a samurai, and no Japanese historian defines Yasuke as a samurai. Nobunaga was alive in a time that was not so long ago, so if Yasuke was really a samurai, there should have been some records to that effect, but unfortunately there are none. Stories written by people other than professional historians that mix speculation and imagination are not "reliable sources," so if you refer to books by such people, you should mention the author's name and write something like, "According to XX, Yasuke can be interpreted as a samurai."
    みしまるもも (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    "Not so long ago"? Well, most people consider 1582 "a long ago". Everything happened before 1789 is a long ago.213.230.92.215 (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    • The time when Nobunaga lived was not that long ago when viewed from the perspective of the vast history of Japan. Sorry if that's not quite clear enough.
    みしまるもも (talk) 00:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Yasuke is indeed defined as a samurai by Japanese historians (Yu Hirayama, Mihoko Oka), though it should be noted that the ethnicity of the historian is entirely irrelevant. Your surname argument is demonstrably false. Lastly, the majority view in reliable sources does not need attribution. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Neither Yu Hirayama nor Oka Mihoko are historians with doctorates. Oka Mihoko is a person who makes the unfounded speculation that Yasuke's visual image was "close to the god Hachiman," which is questionable from the standpoint of reliability and therefore does not make her a reliable source in the Japanese wikipedia. In the Japanese wikipedia of the history section, no assertions or definitions are allowed unless the source is a properly academically recognized paper or book. In the English wikipedia, it may be acceptable to write in an "assertive" tone even when it includes speculation and imagination, but at least in the history section of the Japanese wikipedia, anyone who is unable to distinguish between such a fictional world and academic accuracy and continues to edit in an "assertive" tone is subject to violations. If you use such an unreliable source, you must preface it with an objective viewpoint such as "According to XX."
    みしまるもも (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    This is flying dangerously close to defamatory. Oka Mihoko does indeed have a doctorate, and Hirayama has a master's degree and has published extensively on the Sengoku period. I reiterate, once again, that you continue to fly dangerously close to WP:NATIONALISM by Manipulating or cherry picking what sources say for content to promote or spread a certain national or historical narrative as well as Focusing on the (perceived) ethnic background or identity of editors in talkpage discussions or other edits. Constantly asserting that the Japanese perspective is superior, or that the Japanese Wiki is somehow inherently superior is inappropriate. Likewise, I would remind you that you yourself on two separate occasions asserted that Yasuke was a samurai and submitted it to the article, here and here. Brocade River Poems 01:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Oka Mihoko has a PhD in Human and Environmental Studies ([4]). Hirayama Yu's only source is his self-proclaimed career history, and his doctoral thesis cannot be found on the doctoral thesis website. He may actually have a PhD, but it is unclear at this point. And please do not misrepresent and label me as saying that I am saying this or that about ethnicity, or that the Japanese perspective is superior. I was simply stating the fact that it is not a reliable source written by a real expert, and that the rules in the Japanese version of history are strict, so it is not allowed to edit vague things in a "definitive" tone. Therefore, since there is uncertainty as to whether Yasuke was a "samurai" (if that was clearly written in Japanese historical sources, the debate would not be so heated in the note), I am simply giving frank advice that if you write it like this, "According to XX etc., one interpretation is that Yasuke was a samurai," it would be a peaceful edit that everyone could agree on.
    みしまるもも (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    And 人間・環境学 includes 社会科学 and 人文科学, which I would remind you that history is a part of the humanities. You are tilting at windmills. Your frank advice continues to sidestep your own past actions, and likewise continues to misrepresent information and facts while trying to push your personal opinions as fact. Her dissertation is, in fact, on 近世初期の長崎とマカオ : 日本関係南欧史料の分析から which is Macao and Nagasaki During the Early Modern Period : An Overview of Japan-Related Historical Documents in South Europe. I.E, her dissertation is a history dissertation. Her field of research quite obviously had to do with history. I do not know if you are just hoping people will believe whatever you say because you are Japanese, but you have thus far provided no sources for anything you have said and continued to use this talkpage as a WP:SOAPBOX after you have been told multiple times to provide sources or to stop. Brocade River Poems 04:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    • A doctorate in "Human and Environmental studies" (人間・環境学) and a doctorate in "history" (歴史学) are different. Oka Mihoko's doctorate is not in "history". This is the same as having a doctorate in "literature" (文学) in the same "Humanities" (人文科学) as one who does not hold a doctorate in "history". And to assume that it is a "history" thesis just from the title, and to say that it is no different from a doctorate in history, sounds like a very strange fallacy. Whether she is an expert in "history" is not for you to decide, but for the Japanese academy to decide.
    みしまるもも (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Which would be true if she had a doctorate in humanities, but she has a doctorate in an interdisciplinary field that includes history, and wrote her dissertation on historical documents specifically relating to Southern European interactions with Japan, making her a historian with a doctorate. Her very subject of research involves the Portuegese interaction with Japan, which means her research subject definitively includes documents about Yasuke. Your personal opinion on the matter here is irrelevant and you once again continue to ignore the fact that your history of editing this page involves you asserting that Yasuke was a samurai twice while you are painting academics who are doing so unreliable. Brocade River Poems 21:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    Hi, Brocade River Poems. Regardless of your interpretation of Oka Mihoko, it is a fact that she does not have a doctorate in "history," and I was simply stating that fact.
    When I edited this article in the past with "samurai," I did so with a shallow understanding that "samurai" was sometimes used in the titles of fiction, so I apologize for that. I may have also written "家臣" (I remember doing so), but I did so with the meaning of Nobunaga's "retainer" or "servant" or "underling." If there is a reliable source that says that all "家臣" refer to "侍" ("samurai"), then this too was a mistake.
    After that, I saw someone delete the Japanese word "家臣," but I had nothing to do with it and I don't think I had any involvement with it after that (probably). Then, after seeing the primary sources （Chronicle of Nobunaga etc.）and materials that explain it with my own eyes, I thought that "retainer" was appropriate, and I stopped looking at this article itself. みしまるもも (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    I think there is no problem using the Hirayama's comments for one of the opinion by historian, because he offerred advices to some Japanese historical drama so he is unmistakebly historian of Sengoku Era.
    However, there is a problem using Oka's comments. She and her husband are acquinted with Thomas Lockeley and it is clear that her opinion is tend to defend Lockley. She also said the Lockley's works were "Historical Fiction"（歴史読み物） and were not "Academic Research"（学術研究）. Thus, is it not double standard adopting both of Oka's comments and Lockley's works? Pobble1717 (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    The article uses nothing of Lockley's work except the Enyclopedia Brittanica Article that was factchecked by the Encyclopedia Britannica editorial board and his 2017 work in Japanese that is supposedly academic. I sincerely wish people involving themselves in these discussions would stop tilting at windmills over Lockley. Brocade River Poems 21:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Is the Enyclopedia Brittanica Article really fact-checked? It states that Yasuke's height is [1.88 meters], but in the "Ietada Diary" (家忠日記) it says "6 shaku 2 bu" (六尺二分), which is 1.82 meters when converted to meters. And it seems that Lockley is involved in the editing of the Enyclopedia Brittanica Article ([5]).
    みしまるもも (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    As you yourself have stated I've added to this article in the past, I want to let the record show that your most recent contributions to the article prior to this past week were:
    • Inserting that Yasuke was a foreign born samurai
    • Previously adding to the popular culture section, which you recently edited by adding 'fiction' and when called out on it made it to seem like you didn't understand what popular culture meant. (Note that at the time you edited the section, you did not append fiction to it)
    • Inserting the title of Kashin, which as discussed here are quite specifically also samurai.
    Addressing your comment about me ignoring the point of Yasuke not having a surname, I responded that Also, since you mentioned Adams, I will note that Jan Joosten van Lodensteijn was only ever given the name Yayōsu in Japanese. As recently as 3 years ago, you yourself were editing Wikipedia to indicate that Yasuke was a samurai of some form, despite your argument that I am trying to make Yasuke a samurai at the expense of ignoring the richness of Japanese history. Please read more specialized Japanese literature, when it is your own edits that have variously contributed sources to the argument that he was a samurai over the years. While it is true that your understanding of the subject may have changed over time, the reality is that the additions to the article which you sourced said he was a samurai in various forms, while your present unsourced statements about "the common perspective of samurai in Japan" contribute nothing to improving the article either for or against the notion of Yasuke being a samurai. Brocade River Poems 08:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

A "samurai" is a warrior who is willing to commit seppuku if necessary

I've seen this double standard used toward Yasuke before, so I will mention that the majority of Nobunaga's samurai did not commit suicide after he died. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
There is a bigger problem with that. If that is the litmus test, then every samurai who didn’t commit suicide, might not actually be a samurai, because how else can you know if they are willing. Oda Nobunaga probably only committed suicide because he was going to die anyway. There was no way that he was going to survive. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Yup, I am indeed saying it is a bad standard to apply to Yasuke. "He didn't commit suicide so he wasn't a samurai" is highly fallacious, and not a standard I've seen applied to anyone else. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Oda Nobunaga probably only committed suicide because he was going to die anyway Frankly, that's why a lot of seppuku historically happened. While the 47 Ronin did eventually commit seppuku, it was given to them as a choice instead of execution because the public respected them for avenging their lord. By this notion, though, the 47 Ronin should have committed seppuku alongside their master when he committed seppuku. Hence my statement that it was usually forced or coerced. In the case of Nobunaga, there was great concern that his head would be taken by Mitsuhide, which was why some in his contingent set fire to the place to destroy the body. Without the head, Mitsuhide couldn't actually prove 100% that Nobunaga was dead. I do not have the source on-hand, but I do remember reading that briefly after the incident those who were against Mitsuhide did pretend that Nobunaga had actually survived briefly for the purpose of rallying against Mitsuhide. Brocade River Poems 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
There are not as many historical documents left from the Warring States period as from the Edo period. It is possible that documents were lost. The status of samurai was also ambiguous during this time period. A lot of Edo period documents are used to interpret the Warring States period, but it is hard to know. The usage of the term samurai may even have varied between regions.
If you have more information, especially on low ranking samurai and other retainers, it might be best to add the information to Wikipedia on the page for that specific topic. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
As a Japanese person, I am writing here using the translation function. First of all, samurai and samurai are words with similar but different meanings. The origin of the word samurai is the word samurai, which refers to people who appeared in the Heian period and whose job was martial arts. This meant to stand by, and the people who did this work as a family business were later called samurai. In other words, a samurai is a status that can be used for military purposes by superiors such as daimyo and shogun. Samurai refers to those who learn martial arts and engage in military affairs. In other words, regardless of hierarchy, everyone is a samurai, whether they are a samurai, a daimyo, or a shogun. Now, what does it take to become a samurai or a samurai? It's a last name. Surnames are family names used by powerful people since ancient times. Although samurai are formally lower in status than the emperor and aristocrats, they are included in the ruling class. In other words, a samurai is a ruler who rules the land with military power, and for that purpose, a surname is necessary. This is the basic content of Japanese history that Japanese people learn. 2400:2412:3EA0:1900:C19D:740F:4099:EAC7 (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The part where there is a story about a daimyo is a story about a busi, not a samurai. 2400:2412:3EA0:1900:C19D:740F:4099:EAC7 (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Your translator translated both words to samurai. 2A02:3036:20A:4E60:D14C:1F80:90CB:2AE0 (talk) 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
They did not know that there was a samurai in the busi category. 2400:2412:3EA0:1900:595D:C3AC:7B7D:47A (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
In my experience, what common people learn about history is often over simplified and shallow. I don’t see why Japan would be any different. In this case, it is possible that the common people learn the rule "Samurai have surnames" but not the exceptions. It is even possible that historians only recently discovered these exceptions to the rule, and therefore it is outdated information. However, more sources on the topic would be appreciated. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Isn't this a problem between Wikipedia and us?
We used to believe that what CNN and other media reported was correct, but the media used pop culture as a reference for their articles and treated their authors as experts.
Even if the Japanese media notices this and points out that it is wrong, we are unable to acknowledge it because it would deny our conventional wisdom. 153.234.178.217 (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
At least they didn't ask Japanese researchers of Japanese history for their opinions. That's the root cause. 2400:2412:3EA0:1900:595D:C3AC:7B7D:47A (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
This is veering dangerously close to WP:NATIONALIST. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I don’t know what you are talking about. If you have a better source on the topic, please share it with us. Thank you. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not concerned with what you or any individual editor personally thinks is the truth, which is a recipe for bias. I would recommend familiarizing yourself with WP:V and WP:!TRUTHFINDERS. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not 153.234.178.217, but I understand what he's trying to say.
Did the people who wrote articles on CNN, BBC, etc. really understand Japan? Did they understand Japanese history?
I think that the American and British media wrote articles based on their own modern standards and wrote articles to satisfy themselves. When I look at the articles they wrote now, I think so.
Most of the history that Lockley claims is fiction or has no evidence. The media swallowed it and wrote articles and conveyed it to the world.
Many people believed that fiction or history without evidence, and conveyed incorrect information to even more people.
Experts point out that "he may or may not have been a samurai. We don't know because there are no documents." However, in this debate, there are still people who insist that "Yasuke is a samurai." Even when their mistakes are pointed out, they insist that "Yasuke is a samurai" because it is the majority opinion.
If Yasuke was a white European instead of a black African, or if the setting was America instead of Japan, they would be more proactive in correcting it.
You say there is bias, but aren't Wikipedians the ones who are actually biased towards Asia?
If this topic was about Europe instead of Asia, would the debate have dragged on for so long?
Assassin's Creed Shadows has created a game with a sloppy worldview, and has been criticized by Japan, China, and Korea. Are Wikipedians prepared to be criticized in the same way? 110.131.150.214 (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Assassin's Creed: Shadows has been criticized for its frequent historical inaccuracies and lack of respect for culture.
An online petition is underway at change.org.
This criticism will likely be directed at Wikipedia and Wikipedians as well. 153.234.178.217 (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Is this it？
We cite various rules and say that we are having a correct discussion, but since we do not try to solve the problem, it is no wonder that Japanese people resent Wikipedians, as well as British people, of which Lockley is a citizen, and Americans, who own CNN, etc. 110.131.150.214 (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is full of misinformation. However, we can not correct it without sources. All the sources we have, and many are Japanese, CNN was removed as a source, lean towards Yasuke being a Samuari. It seems most of the people arguing that Yasuke don’t know what a samurai is. If you have a source besides public opinion in Japan, we want it. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
All the sources we have ... lean towards Yasuke being a Samuari. This seems a little overstated. Certainly there are several sources which describe Yasuke in this way; but the quality of many of those sources is not necessarily strong, and there are at least as many sources which do not describe Yasuke as a samurai. See this diff for examples. Rotary Engine talk 07:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
You have a valid point. In my opinion, there is too much reliance on term usage, and a lot of the sources are poor quality. I consider the Britannica article the best source, but it has problems. However, there is evidence through social media, youtube etc. that most historians find the use of the term "samurai" to describe Yasuke uncontroversial. Although a lot of those same sources state that the difference between a non-samurai retainer and a samurai is not known. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The sources are very strong by RS criteria. The claim is that, among reliable sources and major publications, there are an abundance that describe Yasuke as a samurai and zero that say that he wasn't.
And this is demonstrably true. I see no need to mince words. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
That is your opinion, what you are stating as fact. I suggest you read WP:TIER1 for a deeper understanding of reliable sources. If new sources appear, we must weigh those against our current sources. Our current sources aren’t so strong that it is unimaginable that they can not be outweighed by one really good source. OR however tells me, that is unlikely to happen. Pretty much the hardest claim about Yasuke to challenge is that he is a samurai. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
To be strictly fair, Lopez-Vera's book is published by Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona, while it's not on the WP List of University Presses, the requirements for a book to be published by their website in English says: In the case of books, they must be guaranteed by an institution which justifies and assumes responsibility for the contents Which means that the content of Lopez-Vera's book is supported by an institution it also says The editorial and publication services deal with publication orders from the different bodies within the University of Barcelona and publish works according to criteria of economy and quality. and also The books published are selected to meet the educational needs of teachers and researchers, and also of members of the public interested in high-level dissemination of knowledge generated by the University of Barcelona. Books can be submitted for publication by the authors themselves, or by research centres or teams and must be accompanied by a publication questionnaire, an index and, if considered necessary, a brief description of the publishing project. The publishing service, in consultation with collection coordinators, agrees to publish originals subjected to a double-blind review process by two external reviewers and economic and commercial reports. It also encourages the creation of new works so that research, teaching and publication projects feed into each other.
So while it's not on the Wikipedia List of University Presses, it's probably just not there because nobody has added it there yet. It's very much a university press, which does put it in the WP:TIER1 category, which was also part of why I replaced the other Lopez-Vera book with it. Brocade River Poems 06:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
It is not my opinion. It is our criteria for evaluating WP:RS. The current sources are indeed strong.

Our current sources aren’t so strong that it is unimaginable that they can not be outweighed by one really good source.

In terms of weight, no. You would likely need to see multiple published reliable sources, and good tertiary coverage, before you'd have roughly even weight, which is still far from "outweighing". Symphony Regalia (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm Japanese and I'm not good at English. Therefore, I'm using machine translation.
Because this is a long post, I won't cite any sources, but please bear with me.
If there are any web pages that you think might be helpful, such as Wikipedia, I'll let you know where they are.
I would be happy if I could be of some help.
First of all, please do not forget that, as I think everyone has noticed, status was fluid until the class system was fully established by the orders of Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the Edo Shogunate. Therefore, what I am about to write is one answer, but it is not absolute.
In English, the Japanese words "武士" and "侍" are both treated the same, samurai. Please understand that there is a language barrier.
Below, there are some parts where English and Japanese are mixed to make a distinction.
First of all, "武士" means a fighter whose main occupation is fighting. You could call them warriors.
During the Heian period, the emperor and his guards were what we would call aristocrats today, and did not have the power to fight. Therefore, when necessary, we convened specialized organizations to fight on our behalf. That was 武士.
There is a word "武将" which refers to the commander who gives orders when the 武士 form a team to fight.
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AD%A6%E5%B0%86
There is a word called "家臣" which refers to the aides of the master carpenter whom the 武将 served. It was a team that only special people, such as military commanders who had achieved great accomplishments or trusted blood relatives, were allowed to join.
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AE%B6%E8%87%A3%E5%9B%A3
（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashindan）
Initially, only high-ranking 武士 were called 侍. Among 武士, only those who held the rank of 5th or 6th or higher and had the rank of 侍品, whose job was to guard aristocrats and powerful clans, were called 侍.Even though they were called samurai, they were only in appearance, and because they were aristocrats, some people did not fight themselves, but only gave instructions behind the scenes.Anyone who does not qualify as a 侍 is a 武士.
During the Kamakura and Muromachi periods, those known as gokenin, whose job was to guard the shogun, also came to be considered 侍.
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BE%A1%E5%AE%B6%E4%BA%BA
Those whose job was to guard powerful clans, not the shogun, were 武士. There were occasional exceptions, but even in those cases, they were not called samurai unless they held a high rank.
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BE%8D
During the Sengoku period, as the authority of the Muromachi shogunate declined and order collapsed, examples of people calling themselves official ranks without going through formal procedures, or calling themselves samurai without permission appeared. In other words, 武士 and 侍 came to mean roughly the same thing.
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%87%8E%E4%BC%8F_(%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%8F%B2)
During the Sengoku period, when people who had gained ability found people who were talented or who were their favorites, they would sometimes give them samurai treatment. However, if they were not useful, they would sometimes take it away.
It is wrong to say that a samurai is someone who is willing to die for his master, always commits seppuku when he loses a battle, and continues to fight until the end.
You've seen too much fiction.
In addition to samurai, there were also people called samurai servants. They were servants who helped samurai to be active, and their treatment and treatment differed depending on the organization they belonged to, but in 1591, Toyotomi Hideyoshi established a standard.
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%BA%AB%E5%88%86%E7%B5%B1%E5%88%B6%E4%BB%A4
（https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_Edict）
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AD%A6%E5%AE%B6%E5%A5%89%E5%85%AC%E4%BA%BA
若党: They were equipped with both a sword and a wakizashi. They were allowed to wear haori. Their work was mostly guarding, but they also transported important luggage and did odd jobs. As a soldier, they were the same rank as ashigaru or slightly higher. There are theories that they were samurai and theories that they were not samurai, so it is not clear.
中間: Not a samurai. They only had one sword, and in some cases they were not allowed to wear a real sword, so they were equipped with a wooden sword. They were not allowed to use surnames. Like farmers and peasants, they worked in silk kimonos. Their work included security and carrying luggage. It was basically a part-time position where I was paid a salary. If a servant became a favorite of his master, his children were allowed to serve him for generations, and in some cases they were allowed to use a surname and carry both a sword and a wakizashi. The work involves doing chores and carrying luggage. They were given more important work than the lower-ranking servants.
小者: Not a samurai. The lowest rank among servants, and treated as an ordinary person. Since there was a shortage of manpower, they were kind of like helping out nearby farmers. The work involves doing chores and carrying luggage.
When you work to carry cargo, it's not just weapons that you carry. Sometimes they carry small items and food necessary for daily life.
↑So far, we have talked about Japanese warriors, samurai, and other.
↓This is where the story of Yasuke comes in.
It is said that ``Yasuke was carrying tools, but it is unclear what kind of tools he carried.
It's not necessarily a weapon.
There has been talk before about what kind of private residence Yasuke was given, but we don't know because there are no documents on that.
For reference, the site of the mansion of Toyotomi Hideyoshi, a powerful member of the Oda family, looks like this.
The mansions of powerful samurai of the Oda family were located between the castle town of Azuchi Castle and the castle, and were of this size because they also served as a defensive wall to protect the castle from enemies.
If it were an ordinary person, it would not have been this size.
https://kojodan.jp/castle/19/memo/1244.html
One criticism of Yasuke is that "Yasuke is not a samurai because he didn't carry both swords and didn't have a surname." This is probably based on the standards created by Toyotomi Hideyoshi.
When Yasuke served Nobunaga, the standards were set before Toyotomi Hideyoshi established them, so it is unclear whether it is appropriate to use these standards.
In particular, Oda Nobunaga gave even Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who was of lowly origins, the opportunity to become a vassal if he saw that he had the ability, and he banished Sakuma Nobumori, who had been his vassal for generations, for doing a poor job. Since Nobunaga often did unusual things that were not often seen in other daimyo families, it would not be strange for him to give special treatment to Yasuke and give him a status. That said, if he had been given a certain level of rank, he would appear in more documents.
The reason why Yasuke does not appear in literature is that his job was to accompany Nobunaga as his bodyguard or conversation partner, and it is assumed that he did not have the status of samurai or samurai, or even if he did, it was a formal status with no real status. However, since there is no literature, this is just a guess. Tanukisann (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. A lot of it fits with what I already know. Unfortunately, without a good source, it can’t be added into the wikipedia article. I also have a question, what do you mean that about the status of samurai? That it was a status with no formal status? As far as I can tell, there is a wide range of ranks that fall under the category of samurai, from poor 3 koku samurai to the Shogun. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. A lot of it fits with what I already know. Unfortunately, without a good source, it can’t be added into the wikipedia article. I also have a question, what do you mean that about the status of samurai? That it was a status with no formal status? As far as I can tell, there is a wide range of ranks that fall under the category of samurai, from poor 3 koku samurai to Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. We apologize if any parts of the translation are difficult to understand.
I'm also sorry that I can't provide a good source.
There are many sources in Japanese, but it's hard to find ones in English.
First of all, there are actually several theories about the origin of the status 武士 and even in Japan, it is not known which is the correct one.
It is said that in the past, peasants took up arms to protect their land, but there were several circumstances that could not be explained by this alone.
The currently leading theory is that officials whose job it was to protect the land and nobles in Kyoto, the capital at the time, learned martial arts for their work, and were then sent to the provinces for work, where they continued to be armed even after their term of office ended.
NHK Broadcasting Course - Japanese History 「The Emergence of the bushi」
Supervisor：本郷和人（Doctor of Letters／Professor, Historiographical Institute, University of Tokyo）
Correspondence learning materials for high school students supervised by experts and broadcast by NHK.
https://www2.nhk.or.jp/kokokoza/watch/?das_id=D0022120048_00000
https://www.nhk.or.jp/kokokoza/nihonshi/contents/resume/resume_0000000567.html
Although it is not suitable as an information source, it is an easy-to-understand column site.
武士の上位階級 侍とは（Upper class of 武士 What is a samurai?）
https://www.touken-world.jp/tips/21046/
Since we're not entirely sure, it's enough to think of 武士 as fighters who fought for their masters, such as aristocrats and powerful families, and who came from families whose family business was fighting. Some of them had weak physical strength and were not good at fighting, so although they were combatants, they were better at office work or negotiators.
They received a salary from their master, and additional allowances depending on the results of their work. No matter what, you must first be recognized by your master.
Their main occupations are farmers and merchants, and they are called to war when their masters need them. When it was over, they received their wages and went home. These part-timers, who were only called in when their master's company was busy, were not 武士.
Their main occupation was as subordinates to their master, and they received a salary on a regular basis. When fighting broke out, they became combatants. When there was no fighting, they performed clerical work and the like. Employees of such a master's company are 武士.
If a person's master and those around him recognize him as a combatant who fights for his master, then that person can be called a 武士. There's no such thing as a license.
As for the status of 侍 the definition changes depending on the era, as I wrote above.
Originally, they were 武士 who protected their lord, and only those who held a certain status as aristocrats were called 侍.
The Kamakura period was a military government centered on the Shogun, and those who protected the Shogun came to be called 侍.
People who held the official ranks mentioned above were also called 侍.
A rule was made and strictly enforced that if a daimyo or powerful clan member wanted an official rank, they first had to request it from the Shogun of the shogunate, who would then consult with the Emperor at the Imperial Court to get permission, and the Shogun would then hand it over to them.
御成敗式目
An easy-to-read version in modern Japanese
Tamagawa University Academic Research Institute Modern Japanese Translation「御成敗式目」Full text
Procedures for official ranks (Articles 39 and 40) - 官位の手続き（３９条・４０条）
https://www.tamagawa.ac.jp/sisetu/kyouken/kamakura/goseibaishikimoku/index.html
During the Muromachi period and the Sengoku period, the imperial court and the shogunate weakened and the shogunate itself was on the verge of disappearing, causing the previous system to collapse.
Feudal lords and powerful clans who wanted official ranks began to contact the imperial court directly, giving large amounts of money or gifts in exchange for receiving one.
Eventually, there were even people who claimed to have official ranks without anyone's permission.
As a result, it became impossible to distinguish whether someone was a 侍 or not based on criteria such as holding a certain official rank or the nature of their job.
This state of confusion continued until the Edo shogunate established rules regarding official ranks.
武家官位
https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AD%A6%E5%AE%B6%E5%AE%98%E4%BD%8D
武家諸法度
https://ja.wikisource.org/wiki/%E7%A6%81%E4%B8%AD%E4%B8%A6%E5%85%AC%E5%AE%B6%E8%AB%B8%E6%B3%95%E5%BA%A6
Now, regarding Yasuke's status, first of all, was he hired as a combatant? If he wasn't a fighter, he wasn't a 武士, right? If he wasn't a 武士, he didn't meet the prerequisites for being a 侍, did he?
We know that he was physically fit and strong, but there is no mention of him being employed as a fighter.
"I like your black body because it's unusual. I like it even more because you're strong and strong. I'd like you to stay by my side and talk to me from now on."
If this was the situation, words like entertainer, conversation partner, and friend would be more appropriate than samurai.
It is true that Yasuke was serving Nobunaga. I also receive a salary. However, if there were no plans to use him as a fighter, he probably wasn't a samurai, or was only a formal samurai.
Although they did not hold any official rank, as I wrote earlier, it was not a big problem during the Sengoku period.
There is also a form of salary in which they are given rice instead of land.
If you've been granted land, there will usually be a record of where you own it and how much you own.
One last time. Since we don't really have any data, we can only make predictions about Yasuke. Tanukisann (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Historians tend to think the idea that he received a sword as indication of him being hired as a fighter. Furthermore, Lockley speculates that Yasuke was trained as a fighter before he came to Japan, and was hired as a valet in order to serve a bodyguard function. Entertainer sounds like a juggler or singer. There is little evidence that he was anything like that. Saying that he was Nobunaga´s conversation partner and made formally into a samurai, is basically what Lockley says. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Historians tend to think the idea that he received a sword as indication of him being hired as a fighter. I'm not certain that I've seen it stated as directly as that in any of the secondary sources by historians. But if it is, it might be a good addition to the article text. Would it be possible to provide a couple of sources? Rotary Engine talk 07:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe Lockley said somewhere that it indicated Bushi status. Furthermore, Hirayama bases his argument on it. https://twitter-thread.com/t/en-US/1814356500326035650 Apparently, lower servants weren’t allowed to wear it. Anthony Cummins also specifically refers to Yasuke as a "fighting man" in a YouTube video. Cummins also points out that all servants were supposed to protect their master. Cummins may be relying in part of his conclusion on Lockley´s characterization of Yasuke as possible a trained mercenary who was hired as a bodyguard for the Jesuits.
The term "fighter" could be an easily movable goalpost. No historian has suggested that Yasuke´s main role was to fight in battle, although Lockley has suggested that Yasuke was present for at least one. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I do now recall something about Bushi status in Atkins' A History of Popular Culture in Japan; which is sourced to Elisonas & Lamers' translation of the Shincho Koki, and to the Letters of Frois on April 15 & November 5, 1581 (sic?). I'll have a look at both of those to see if the conclusion is attributable to Atkins or the others.
Hirayama's tweet includes 太刀を与えられている、と史料に登場するから。and また、太刀を許されているので、二刀指であり、下人などではない（下人には刀指が認められていない）ことも重要。 With great respect to him, 太刀 tachi, is not found in any of the primary sources; and neither is 二刀指 two sword wielder.
The closest we get is the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shincho Koki's さや巻 sayamaki, which is a short sword. And perhaps Frois' letter of November 5, 1582 describing Yasuke's surrender to Akechi Mitsuhide's men after the Honnoji incident, which has "hum criado de Aquechi se chegou a elle, & lhe pedio a catana, que nao tivesse medo elle lha entregou", which uses catana (katana). This is likely used as a generic term for nihonto, and the text doesn't ascribe ownership of the sword.
The argument in the second sentence, that servants were not allowed to wear swords is predicated on the first sentence, and is also possibly anachronistic, given that the great sword hunts did not begin until 1588 under Toyotomi. Though to be fair, Oda did apparently remove swords from farmers in Echizen province in 1576. There is, however, no indication that he prevented his own men from owning or wearing swords.
And, Hirayama's contention is that this demonstrates that Yasuke was a 「侍」 samurai, not necessarily a warrior.
All of which is a very long way around to saying that this sort of thing is the reason that I'm really not keen on using tweets as references for unattributed statements. Rotary Engine talk 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I apologize that the sources I provide are all Japanese pages.
Even in Japan, it is not known when the practice of carrying both a large sword and a small sword began.
Farmers and merchants are not prohibited from equipping both long and short swords.
However, I didn't do it unless it was necessary. The reason is that I am not used to it and it is difficult to walk.
It was during the Edo period that townspeople were prohibited from wearing long swords.
When Toyotomi Hideyoshi ordered the confiscating of swords, not all weapons were confiscated. Some weapons were exempt from collection if there was a reason for it, such as those needed for pest control.
People who were equivalent to samurai servants were also exempt from collection.
In the Edo period, there was no written text or law that required samurai to carry two swords: a long sword and a short sword. There may have been cases where this was made by individual daimyo rather than by the country.
Townspeople were not allowed to carry long swords, but samurai could. As a result, it became a samurai privilege.
https://crd.ndl.go.jp/reference/entry/index.php?page=ref_view&id=1000280015
Q.
I heard that the "Buke Shohatto" states that samurai must carry two swords. I'd like to see that text.
It may not be the main text of the "Buke Shohatto," but a document like a bylaw. It may also be the bylaws of the revised Kan'ei era's samurai laws.
Respondent：National Diet Library of Japan
A.
Regarding the passage you inquired about, "Samurai must carry two swords," and the detailed rules of the "Buke Shohatto," we have searched through various documents, but were unable to find anything relevant.
Yasuke was a person who existed before the Edo period.
Naturally, it is not prohibited to equip two swords. Tanukisann (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Before the sword hunts, peasants were armed like samurai. There is a ninja manual that says that the only way to tell a samurai army from a peasant army is the flags. The two swords seem to have been normal for sword wearers till the Edo period. After that, it was restricted to samurai, but also non-samurai were sometimes granted the right to wear two swords. So it really doesn’t make sense to apply it to the Sengoku period.
Tweets are problematic because it is hard to get most of the context, but they also tend to be spontaneous. In another tweet, Hirayama mentions a short sword. According to Koji Ruien only samurai were allowed to have scabbards with this type of decoration.
Hirayama is using Edo Period documents to support his ideas. The idea of samurai was changing in the Sengoku period, so they might not apply. In a more scholarly context, he would probably have added a bunch of caveats.
Here is Cummin’s video on Yasuke being a samurai, it includes the opinions of other researchers that he asked. He acknowledges that we don’t know if Yasuke could fight, a contrast to other sources that claim Yasuke was trained. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b3SGQO_Ij4 It seems a better source to cite than Twitter. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Noting that the sword, is described in the SBV version of the Shincho Koki as having decorative or ornamental aspects, and should not necessarily be understood as a purely utilitarian device. Rotary Engine talk 08:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Swords tend not to be purely utilitarian. Yasuke´s role as a retainer was probably not purely utilitarian. Servants and attendants were partly there to do work, but they were also ceremonial and served as indicators of the master’s status. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Rotary Engine talk 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I wrote a lot of things above, but maybe this is what you wanted to ask?
侍 up to the Muromachi period: Simply put, this is an elite course.
Because they hold a high position, they are entrusted with important tasks and are given good treatment accordingly. If they failed, it was tragic. If someone who is incompetent takes up that position, they will have a hard time.
侍 in the Sengoku period: They were treated no differently from 武士.
To begin with, there was no distinction.Those with higher abilities were treated better.
However, high-ranking officials who were called 侍 under the old standards sometimes received good treatment even after the distinction was abolished. Because they came from aristocratic backgrounds, they were ideal diplomats when negotiating with the nobility.
It's a bit questionable whether Yasuke was a samurai just because he fought in the Honnoji Incident.
Many people were attacking him, trying to kill his lord and his subordinates, including himself. Resisting with a weapon would have been a normal reaction.
For a samurai, giving a sword was a very high reward. However, as Kureza shows, swords were also given to people who were not samurai.
Nobunaga may have given a sword not because the recipient was a samurai, but because, as a samurai, he wanted to give the recipient something as fine as possible.
In addition, surprisingly, Nobunaga seemed to value the act of giving, and tended to carefully select gifts that would please the recipient. This also applied to subordinates.
"Is there anything you want? Don't you like beautiful paintings? Don't you like expensive tableware? What do you want most? If so, I'll give you a weapon."
If such an exchange had taken place, it would not be strange for him to give a weapon. Since Yasuke was a foreigner and not a Japanese person, it is difficult to judge the value of other items, and he may have simply wanted a weapon with a beautiful blade.
There is an episode about how much Nobunaga valued presents. A famous letter was written to Hideyoshi's wife. It is said to be handwritten by the author, but since it is a personal letter, there is no documentary evidence to support it.
Nobunaga listened in silence to Hideyoshi's wife's complaints about Hideyoshi's infidelity, and later mediated the couple's quarrel in a letter.
The letter begins with the following words:
It begins with this opening:
"Thank you for following my orders and coming to Azuchi. The gifts you brought are all so wonderful that I cannot express them in words. I wanted to give you something in return, but they were all so wonderful that I didn't know what to give you, so I think I'll give them to you the next time I come."
Letter from Oda Nobunaga to One Private collection (not on permanent display as it is privately owned. Nationally designated important art treasure)
https://www.tokugawa-art-museum.jp/en/exhibits/planned/2016/0714/post-12/
http://www.asahi.com/area/aichi/articles/MTW20160810241310002.html
That said, this is just my own speculation.
It is understandable that Rock Lee claims that Yasuke is a samurai because Nobunaga gave him the sword.
What was given to him was a 「のし付の鞘巻き」. Noshi is a luxurious item decorated with gold and silver, and is meant to look gorgeous in public. It was meant to look good rather than be practical.
From this we can infer that he was in a special position or was particularly liked.
Whether this was as a proper warrior or just for formality is unclear.
Saya-maki means short sword.
If you switch from English to Japanese on Wikipedia, the word will appear.
At the time, even farmers and merchants sometimes carried them for self-defense. Of course, they were not decorated with ornaments, as they were more practical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tant%C5%8D
A while ago, Rotary Engine asked me if there were cases where Nobunaga gave swords to subordinates he was making into samurai. Yes, there were.
It is recorded in "Nobunaga Koki."
On September 16, 1578 (August 15, Tensho 6), Nobunaga held a sumo tournament and appointed those whose achievements were recognized as subordinates.
On that occasion, he gave rewards.
A sword with a noshi attached, a wakizashi, a set of clothing, 100 koku of land, a private residence, etc.
On this occasion, Nobunaga gave not only a wakizashi but also a tachi sword.
It is a little different from Yasuke who only had a wakizashi, but it may be useful to know that there was an example of this.
（【巻十一（十）小相撲之事　寅八月十五日　のし付之太刀脇差衆御服かみ下御領中百石宛私宅等）
https://ja.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%BF%A1%E9%95%B7%E5%85%AC%E8%A8%98 Tanukisann (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Hirayama says that Yasuke was given a tachi with a noshi attached. It seems if he was given only a wakizashi, it would strengthen the case that he was a porter. I am not sure if porters were armed, but if sandal bearers count as porters, then they were armed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Per my comment above, which I was composing simultaneously to your comment here, tachi is not in the primary sources. Hirayama appears mistaken. Rotary Engine talk 11:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think so too.
Mr. Hirayama may not know the difference between tanto and tachi, or he may not have read the original text. Tanukisann (talk) 12:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I know that in Europe, a lot of historians don’t know much about the weapons in their period. It matters what kind of historian they are and what kind of resources they are using. Although, weapon terminology can change. This is why context matters in regard to Reliable Sources, and not just how many reliable sources agree. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Maybe Mr. Hirayama is thinking about Sayamaki-no-Tachi instead of Sayamaki?
On other days it says tachi, but on other days it omits it?
Sayamaki（鞘巻）
There are various names for small swords, such as wakizashi（脇差）, koshigatana（腰刀）, and chisa-gatana（小さ刀）. One of those.
A small knife wrapped with plant vines to prevent it from slipping or to create a pattern.During the Edo period, actual rolling became less common, and instead patterns that looked like rolling began to be added.
A small sword with no wrapping pattern or tsuba is called an aikuchi（匕首，合口）.
Sayamaki-no-Tachi（鞘巻太刀、鞘巻之太刀）
The name of the decoration on a Japanese sword.
Like sayamaki, it comes from the fact that it has something wrapped around it or has a pattern that looks like something is wrapped around it.
A sword wrapped in thread is called Itomaki Tachi（糸巻太刀）, and a sword wrapped in leather is called Leather Winding Tachi（革巻太刀）.
https://www.city.yurihonjo.lg.jp/1001503/1002098/1002113/1002128/1003574.html Tanukisann (talk) 12:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed Shadows has created a game with a sloppy worldview, and has been criticized by Japan, China, and Korea. Are Wikipedians prepared to be criticized in the same way?

I would like to remind you to refrain from stating your personal opinion as fact. Symphony Regalia (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yasuke in Echizen Province

The article says that Yasuke visited the Echizen Province with Jesuits, however this is supposed to have happened three days after it says he was with Nobunaga. The year isn’t given, did Yasuke visit the Echizen Province with the Jesuits after being given to Nobunaga, or before? Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Concur that there's an apparent discrepancy. If he was Nobunaga's man at the time, then why was he traveling with the Jesuits. The source we reference for the Echizen visit with the Jesuits is Fujita Midori's "アフリカ「発見」: 日本におけるアフリカ像の変遷". Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of this book and there's no preview or ebook version available on Google Books. Will have a look for alternative sources which might clarify the timing of events. Rotary Engine talk 01:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1041119/1/105
Naojiro Murakami「Jesuit Society of Japan Annual Report」May 19, 1581 Report of Luis Frois（村上直次郎「耶蘇会の日本年報」一五八一年五月十九日 ルイスフロイスの報告）
A rough translation of the situation just before the problem description
"From Azuchi we went to Nagahama, where Tōkichirō's castle is located. Luis Frois had never been there before, so between three and four thousand people came to watch, some walking in front, some walking behind, some laughing, some shouting abuse. Some people came running out of their houses when they heard the commotion.This situation continued so much that our guide chose the wrong house to stay in."
Problem Area
On arriving at the house, the owner closed the gate to prevent the crowd from entering, but three or four times they broke it down and entered the house to see the negro who accompanied them.（其家に着いて、主人は群集の入ることを防ぐ爲め戸を閉ぢたが、三、四回之を破って家に入り、同伴した黒奴を見んとした。）
Just because it says someone is black doesn't mean that they are Yasuke.
Maybe it's someone else. Tanukisann (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Briefly explain the back part
Soon after, Oda Nobuhide, Nobunaga's son whom Tōkichirō had adopted, sent people to check with the people around to see what they were doing and where they planned to go. Nobuhide Oda also wanted to meet me, so he came to the house where I was staying with his cavalry warriors, and I told him that I was going to Echizen with permission from Nobunaga, his father.
He left after a while, but now Tokichiro's nephew came and politely greeted him.
It seems that he traveled to Echizen to visit Shibata Katsuie and Takayama Hida no Kami (father of Takayama Ukon, a Christian with a baptismal name) on the occasion of Pentecost, and preached to the believers while keeping records of his journey. Tanukisann (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
This section runs from frames 105 to 111.
The stories about black people are not about events in Echizen, but about Nagahama, where they stayed overnight on the way.
The large number of people had gathered to see the missionary group, including Lewis (and were intrigued when they saw that there were black people among them).
As you read further, you will find a statement that says, ``There would be no end to writing about what happened.Japanese people love unusual things, and we were something unusual in Japan.
Black people only appear in the scene in Nagahama mentioned earlier.The word "Yasuke" does not appear even once. Tanukisann (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Tanukisann Thank you. I think we have a partial answer. Based on Frois letter of May 19, 1581, the Jesuits' trip to Echizen is prior to that date. Ietada's diary entry is apparently 11 May 1582.
But that opens up another question, if Yasuke was given to Nobunaga on the 23rd of the second month per Ota Gyuichi in the BSV Shincho Koki (which seems to convert to March 27, 1581), then what was he doing traveling with Frois in May? Frois also describes the meeting between the black man and Nobunaga in his letter of 14 April 1581, so it cannot be later than that. Even accounting for different calendar systems, the date of the meeting described by Ota and Frois doesn't seem like it can be reconciled with the Echizen trip. Did Nobunaga ask Valignano to give Yasuke to him on a later date? If so, then why does the BSV Shincho Koki describe the sword, stipend & residence on the date that it does? Or was there more than one black man in Japan at the time?
And how does this affect our article content? The easiest answer to this last question is probably in-text attribution. Rotary Engine talk 06:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
The only thing I can say is that it does not say that Yasuke went to Echizen.
Alessandro Valignano and his attendant Yasuke met with Nobunaga on March 27, 1581 (February 23, Tensho 9).
Luis Frois left Azuchi on May 14, 1581 (April 12, Tensho 9).He arrived in Nagahama that afternoon. That was the same day that a large crowd gathered.
He arrived in Echizen on May 16, 1581 (April 14, Tensho 9).
The report was dated May 19, 1581 (April 17, Tensho 9).
Upon review, the next section contains a report dated May 29 (April 27, Tensho 9).
After conquering the Takeda, Yasuke was seen with Nobunaga's party on the way back to Azuchi on May 11, 1582 (April 19, Tensho 10).
Possible scenarios
A: Luis said he was going to Echizen, so Yasuke got Nobunaga's permission and accompanied him.
B: Nobunaga had never seen a black person, but there were several black people among the missionaries' followers. After considering who to introduce to Nobunaga, only Yasuke, who could speak some Japanese, was chosen to meet Nobunaga.
C: Since Yasuke was gone, a new person was called in.
～
By the way, I would like to report that I found the following statement further on.
I think there are some Japanese words that I have seen somewhere before. Yes, it's the Honnoji Incident.
There is no mention of Yasuke performing the beheading of Nobunaga or of Nobunaga telling him to hide his head.It does not say that he reported on Akechi Mitsuhide's betrayal.
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1041119/1/161
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1041119/1/163
https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1041119/1/164 Tanukisann (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
There were certainly more than one black person in service with the Jesuits. The book about unfree persons and the Jesuits discusses this. Because I was unable to confirm the Japanese source for the article, and it seems an obvious mistake, I removed the sentence.
About Nobunaga´s head. Lockley made it clear in an interview that we don’t know who beheaded Nobunaga, however his personal opinion was that Nobunaga was decapitated by his page, and Yasuke decapitated the page. Lockley´s reason for the latter is that Yasuke was the only one left. The records do say that Yasuke went from Nobunaga to Nobutada, after the former’s death. I think there is another record that says that Nobutada received news of the attack from messengers. If Yasuke is one of these messengers is unclear. If messengers were sent at the beginning of the attack, then Nobutada might have already heard of the attack. Especially since Lockley says the two buildings were ten minutes apart, then Nobutada might have already heard the fighting. If the only source is the HuffPost, then it might be a conclusion made by the journalist jumping to conclusions, and not a historian who has examined the different accounts of the battle. Tinynanorobots (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I think we should double-check, if possible, Fujita´s book. I think in this case, we can also interpret the incidence's absence from other lists as it being a minority position, and on that basis and the basis of it being unlikely to be Yasuke, remove the line. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

English Wikipedia's reliability has been damaged because of this Yasuke case

It's been months, and this article still have so many false information on it, referring to him as a samurai without any reliable source, Thomas Lockley is still cited after he was exposed to use his own Wiki account to edit articles citing his own fictional books. Debates on talk pages are going nowhere and the admins seem to care more about political correctness than trying to keep Wikipedia clean and neutral. If this is what this website supposed to be then I'm out. Feel free to continue helping them rewrite history. I don't care anymore and please delete my account. Ezio's Assassin (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Political correctness? Your recent history with this article seems to be based around complaining that it offends your sensibilities. And your complaints seem centered around information that’s been in the article since 2005. If Yasuke being referred to as a samurai was seen as relatively inoffensive then, why is it such a terrible crime now? The actual historians don't seem to mind. The real problem with the article seem to be that the pop culture section is in list format. Why not fix that?
I’m also confused as to why Thomas Lockley’s involvement is in any way contentious. From what I can see, Yasuke was being referred to as a samurai long before he came into the picture. Furthermore, the last time I was active on Wikipedia, experts and popular authors were encouraged to contribute their materials. The only hang-ups were when they edited their own wiki page, used the wiki to publish original research without citation, or gave their own contribution too much weight. Am I misunderstanding, or has this changed recently?
Also, saying “I quit” on Wikipedia is a very weird flex to make. I stopped being active on the site years ago; nobody cared. Why make a scene of it? Your drama is just going to get lost in the archives after all. Dragon Helm (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
I've never heard of Thomas Lockley, Yasuke was always portrayed as a samurai long before whenever you think this Thomas entered the scene. Suredeath (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
source? ErikWar19 (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Grounds for stating that Yasuke had a servant / servants of his own?

The second paragraph of the lede currently states:

As a samurai, he was granted a servant, a house and stipend.

This sentence is sourced to the CNN Travel article "African samurai: The enduring legacy of a black warrior in feudal Japan", written by one Emiko Jozuka. The article relies heavily on Lockley / Girard's book African Samurai.

The portion of the article that states that Yasuke had a servant reads in context as a paraphrasing of Lockley / Girard. Jozuka herself is a journalist, and her mini-bio on her own website states that she is more fluent in English, French, Spanish, and Turkish than Japanese, so she is probably lacking expertise in Japanese-language materials about Yasuke.

I haven't seen any sources other than Lockley / Girard stating that Yasuke had servants of his own. Is anyone else aware of any such sources? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The CNN Travel article reads like it was a write up of an interview with Lockley. Suggest it would be inappropriate as a reference for unattributed statements of fact; but likely usable for attributed opinions. The essay Wikipedia:Interviews#Reliability has guidance on how to handle this type of source. Rotary Engine talk 05:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
The section in question is here:
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 problem is, we don't know if this is a conclusion drawn by the author of the article or attributed to Lockley.

There are also speculative claims like this one:
When feudal Japan’s most powerful warlord Nobunaga Oda met Yasuke, a black slave-turned-retainer, in 1581, he believed the man was a god.
However, this one is later elaborated on by (and attributed to) Lockley.


I agree with @Rotary Engine that the article could be used as a source of attributed claims made by Lockley, but not for statements of fact based on the analysis/synthesis of other sources. Judging the CNN article is also made difficult by the fact that it mixes speculative elements, references to pop cultural depictions of Yasuke and doesn't always make it clear what the basis for the individual claims is. SmallMender (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Given that the article mentions Lockley 20 times (11 times with the verb says, 5 times according to, twice speculates and once each assumes and suspects), I think it's very unlikely that the conclusion is drawn by the author; and not part of the same pattern. Rotary Engine talk 08:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Noting that "according to Jesuit records" doesn't seem to reconcile with my recollections of the letters of Frois and Mexia. And, given the small set of primary sources, unless that attribution can be independently verified, I would not support including it in article text. But perhaps my recollection is incorrect; happy to be corrected with reference to a source. Rotary Engine talk 17:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the quote as stated now is misleading as it sounds too similar to the quote from the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shinchō Kōki. If we do attribute this claim to Lockley, it should just read something like "According to Lockely, Yasuke also had servants." It shouldn't be included along with the other things that are not from Lockley. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Since I cannot verify that it was directly from Lockley, I've attributed the claim of a stipend, servant, and house to "an article by Emiko Jozuka". Anyone is free to change it if they can think of a better attribution, of course. Brocade River Poems 22:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Mostly a courstesy heads up since I already had changes in the pipeline for this part. The Britanicca article that's basically written by Lockley also mention servants and the attribution to a cnn journalist does not really help the article in my opinion. If the servants part is further contested, feel free to remove it. Yvan Part (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I haven't read the Britannica article by Lockley. I just went off of the discussion about the source that was attached to the claim, and since nobody seemed to know for certain that it was Lockley who made the claim, I didn't feel attributing it to him was correct. If there's a source you're going to use where Lockley makes the claim, all the better. Brocade River Poems 23:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

There are a number of stories around Yasuke in Lockley's and in Lopez-Vera's works, but which don't have corresponding appearances in the contemporaneous Jesuit & Japanese sources and which seem apocryphal. These include the skin scrubbing, the intimate dinners with Nobunaga, and perhaps the servants. The closest I can find to servants is a mention in one of the Jesuit letters (Mexia, 8 October 1581) that Nobunaga sent Yasuke around town with his "private man". But is the "his" referring to Yasuke or Nobunaga? My medieval Portuguese is not strong, and interpreting the text isn't helped by a tendency to write long rambling sentences, but, from the context, it is more likely the latter. Rotary Engine talk 06:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that is probably Nobunaga´s man. First, because Yasuke was Nobunaga´s man as well (although I am not sure if in the context "his private man" has specific meaning), and second, the verb "sent" implies that Nobunaga commanded both of them. The mention of servants is an unpublished document that has already been discussed. The source for the scrubbing and the dinners in unknown to me. There is the account of his first meeting Nobunaga, where Yasuke has to remove his upper garment. Perhaps the washing is an interpretation. I also wonder about the money that Yasuke received. Lockely said it made him a rich man, however it is not in the Britannica article. Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The mention of servants is an unpublished document that has already been discussed. if the document referred to is the Sonkeikaku Bunko version of the Shincho Koki, then it does not include any mention of servants. The additional material in that version covers: stipend, name, sayamaki, residence; but not servants.
As for the money, the Jesuit letter that is the primary source is that of Luis Frois, dated 14 April 1581. Rotary Engine talk 13:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I think it would be nice if the article had the sum listed. It would be nice to contextualize it, but we would probably not be able to find a secondary source for that, or has Lockley done this? I saw an interview where he mentioned the money, but I don’t think he provided context besides to claim that Yasuke was rich. I guessing it was a lot of money for a valet, but not a lot for a Nobunaga. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
The sum listed in Frois letter is "dex mil caixas" (10,000 caixas). A caixa in modern Portuguese is a box; but also extents to include ledger, cashier, cash register & payment counter. In Macanese, it also means a small copper coin which is probably closer to the meaning in Frois letter. Japan during the Warring States period used both imported Chinese coins and locally produced coins in copper, silver & gold. See Japanese currency & Mon (currency) for details & references. The buying power varied depending on the quality of the coins, so it is difficult to say how much 10,000 copper coins would be worth. The closest that I've found is a table of shopping item values from the Edo period which indicates a salmon would be worth 250 mon, and a bottle of sake 200 mon. If that's accurate for the earlier Warring States, then 40 fish or 50 bottles. But there's a lot of assumption in that.
Lockley's Britannica article simply mentions "a large sum of money". African Samurai suggests 10 strings of coins weighing 80 pounds; but is not reliable for factual statements. His earlier Japanese translated book has "up to 30kg". Ten thousand mon, at around 3g each, would be 30 kilograms (66 pounds), which accords with Lockley's estimates. Rotary Engine talk 19:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Japanese currency, the source I recently added to Koban (coin) might also be of value. It speaks about the periods before and during Tokugawa. I don't know about mon specifically, but various forms of gold, silver and copper were indeed used, presumably in the forms of small sheets (han-kin and han-gin) which were cut and weighed. For weighing the tael or monme unit of weight was used.
Without going into OR, is it possible to judge 10,000 caixas would indeed mean "10000 copper coins" per Portuguese to English translation? SmallMender (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I think equating caixa specifically to mon would be OR, but to a copper coin generally might be more acceptable. But, as always, a source would be better. Lockley's chapter in つなぐ世界史2 includes "... 信長は弥助に褒美を与えることにし、甥である津た信澄を通じて、重さ３０kgに及ぶほどの大量の銅貨を贈った。" (emphasis added) which explicitly states "銅貨" (copper coins). Rotary Engine talk 21:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I think that is enough to say 30 kg of copper coins. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd be comfortable with "10,000 copper coins". Rotary Engine talk 01:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@Rotary Engine, FWIW I agree with @Tinynanorobots that the "private man" is Nobunaga's, in terms of the context and grammar of the original text. The specific Portuguese wording was excerpted and translated earlier here: Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#c-Eirikr-20240524224800-X0n10ox-20240524024300. Note that this person was described as muito privado / "very private", indicating that this is not "private" in the sense of "belonging to someone, not public" (which doesn't work well with the intensifier muito), but rather "private" in the sense of either "intimate" or "discreet" (as in, someone who was probably very close to Nobunaga, and could be trusted). See also sense 2 here (in Portuguese). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Concur that Mexia's letter isn't directly supportive of Yasuke having servants of his own; and with your thoughts on the Portuguese. Rotary Engine talk 03:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

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.

This is problematic — Ōta's account does not state that Nobunaga either made Yasuke a vassal, nor that Nobunaga gave him servants. See also the relevant Japanese text, translation, and explication, over at Talk:Yasuke/Archive_5#The_relevant_quote_from_the_Sonkeikaku_Bunko_version_of_the_Shinchō_Kōki.
  • It is probably reasonable to infer that Nobunaga made Yasuke a vassal (家臣, kashin) on the basis of paying him a stipend (扶持, fuchi). However, the Ōta text does not state that Yasuke was a kashin: Ōta does not use this word to describe Yasuke.
  • However, it is just baffling that Lockley claims that Ōta's text states that Nobunaga gave Yasuke servants. There is no mention of this in any primary text, neither Ōta's nor anyone else's, as far as I'm aware. The closest we might get is in Lourenço Mexía's letter, where he states that "agora o fauorece tanto que o mandou por toda a cidade com hum homem ſeu muito priuado pera que todos ſoubeſſem que elle o amaua / now he [Nobunaga] favors him [Yasuke] so much so that he sent him throughout the city with a very private man of his so that everyone would know that he loved him". The "very private man of his" would have been someone in Nobunaga's employ, not a servant of Yasuke. See also the relevant original text, as excerpted and translated here in the archived "The Tono Notation" subsection.
Unless we can find other sources that back this claim that Nobunaga gave Yasuke servants (independent secondary sources that have done their own research, not just sources that quote or paraphrase Lockley as the CNN article does), I think we need to explicitly attribute any such claim to Lockley. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 09:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I would support attributing this specific claim to Lockley as well. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Tricks or Good Manners?

The article says that Yasuke preformed tricks. I have noticed other sources say that he had good manners or temperament. Is it possible there is a translation error? Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Oka Mihoko points out that existing published translation is in error and that she would translate the relevant passage as "very powerful in strength and talented." (非常に力があり、資質に優れている) [6][7] _dk (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
There's almost certainly translation errors for a number of aspects. I'm currently looking at the various descriptions of Yasuke's meeting with Nobunaga and seeing examples of this.
e.g. Frois, in his letter dated 14 April 1581, uses the words "estranha festa" (strange party) to describe Yasuke disrobing to prove that his skin colour was natural. Solier renders this as "grand feste" (great feast), and begins to separate the words from the disrobing. Lockley in Tsunagu Sekai Shi 2 has 盛大な宴。(grand banquet); in Britannica, more simply, "a banquet", and in "African Samurai" has around 12 pages (e-book) describing the party, conversations & actions of the participants.
The key divergence appears to be in the translation from Frois' Portuguese to Solier's French.
For completeness: Lopez-Vera in both Toyotomi Hideyoshi y Los Europeos and History of the Samurai, and Ota Gyuichi in both the standard & Sonkeikaku Bunko (SBV) versions of the Shincho Koki do not include mention of a party or banquet.
The "good manners or temperament", I recall also being potentially better translated as "in good health", which is how Lopez-Vera's THyLE renders it: "aparencia sana"; sourcing this to Ota Gyuichi's Shincho Koki. The equivalent section in Elisonas & Lamers' translation of that work is rendered as "looked robust and had a good demeanor". The SBV version in Japanese has 彼男器量すくやかにて, (good looks, fine appearance) but Kaneko's book indicates that 器量 is an SBV unique addition; so the other versions would have 彼男すくやかにて, which is more in line with "healthy appearance". And that, in line with comments of Oka, mentioned above, seems a far better translation than alternatives which emphasise beauty or temperament.
I will try to find similar translation chains for the tricks. Rotary Engine talk 00:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I found another source that mentions Yasuke. It approaches the subject from the viewpoint of Jesuits and race. They believe he arrived as a slave and translate the "estranha festa" as a strange celebration. The author, Liam Matthew Brockley, specializes in Portuguese and religious history. [8]https://www.google.de/books/edition/Jesuits_and_Race/RlfSEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=jesuits+japan+armed+attendants&pg=PA82&printsec=frontcover Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
What Oka Mihoko refered to is in this dictionary:
[9]https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Vocabulario_portuguez_e_latino/H-NBAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
check on page 293 for expression "boas manhas" which Oka claims this expression to be "very talented" or "had multiple talents"
but this is not proven to be correct translation though, the original manuscript says in portuguese "tinha muitas forcas & algumas manhas boas" and the traditional Japanese translation has been treated the word "manhas" as more like "tricks" or "skills" hence Japanese word "芸".
It seems Oka's claim is to understand the word "manha" as "manner or talent" instead of something of physical techniques.
if it were mean of "good talents" or "good manner(demeanor)" would the writer put the word "algumas";"some" in English equivalent, to count that noun. not to mention that "boas manhas" seem to be 2-word-expression like "fine-manners" or "fine-skills" in that dictionary and the original manuscript is "(algumas) manhas boas". problem is that these 3 words are pretty general and are to be used daily: algumas = some or several, boas = good or fine, manha = skills or manners
so possible literal translation would be
1: "some good skills" or "some skills that were good"
2: "several good manners"
3: "some level of good-manners"
if anyone is familiar with ancient portuguese, please share your thoughts.
  • my opnion on Oka's claim:
very strange, Oka's claim is in decisive tone, clearly stating that she found "mis-translation" on her X post, as you can see in the above 2 references.
and, in the latter reference of X, the user of X questions her, is the word "manha" derived from the latin word "manus"? so that manha should be treated as "manners" instead of "skills". and Oka replies she does not know or she is not sure because she is not an expert of Lain or Romance derived languages.
now check it out on the dictionary Oka posted, her decisive claim is based on page 293 and just 1 page before that (in page 292), there is the description of the word "manha" , remember that "boas manhas" is the expression rather than the single word. so the dictionary first states meaning of the word itself and then shows the example-use and expressions related.
the very first line of manha , it clearly says that
Manha: parece que le(?) deriva do latim Manus → it seems that it derives from Latin (word) "Manus"
and yet Oka does not know this, why?
she did not even check what manha as word means, and claimed that the existing translation to be wrong? KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think the meaning of the Latin root is important. I don’t think that counts as ancient Portuguese, it is probably considered early modern- A lot of people make statements in decisive tone, especially on twitter. That dictionary might be too new, and really it would be best to have an expert translate it. The context seems manners, because apparently that was important to the Japanese at the time and is remarked upon by Europeans visiting. Also, from the context, it isn’t clear what skills Yasuke had and would have been seen. However, I don’t know any Portuguese. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, there is no record for content of "algumas manhas boas" which Yasuke had;
what skills Yasuke might have shown or what some-good-manners he was evaluated for.
it is just ,
"He(Yasuke) had A and B , (because of these) Nobunaga liked him ～"
A : clearly is "a lot of physical strength"
B : some (a few 'if counting' or middle degree of 'if not counting'), manhas (skills or manners ?), boas(good, fine)
you can see the translation and manuscript of this section here:
Talk:Yasuke/Archive 2#The Tono Notation
Because of the way manuscript continues, Japanese translation has been
"he was very strong and he could do a few tricks", of course done by the expert at the time,
Oka claimed that this is mistranslation and should be "had multiple good talents" without careful investigation of the very source she refered to.
There is no record of describing Yasuke's character like "good manner or demeanor", which Lockley kept insisting. Other possible expression "器量也" is also thought to be related to his healthy physical appearance. so this "algumas manhas boas" is almost the only key remains un-known, whether manhas might mean skills, manners, or characteristics one might have like calm or smart.
If anyone can show the Italian version of this section that would be helpful because someone said that this Portuguese version is rewritten due to the accident and Italian version remains original though it might not be perfectly equivalent. I am still curious what expression that it used for this part.
I see that this dictionary might not be good to refer, while I cannot find anything better. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 01:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I think it is difficult if one is translating old-fashioned Portuguese to Japanese and then to English. "Could do a few tricks" and "is talented" are phrases that could mean the same thing, but have different connotations. If Oka was talking on twitter, then it was probably in the context of the reaction to assassin´s creed. Without getting into a discussion on AC, a lot of the characterizations of Yasuke were based on a poor understanding of the historical context and were poorly phrased. If experts were responding to these poorly phrased statements and questions, that might explain their poor answers. In this case, if people were saying that Yasuke was a pet, then him doing tricks sounds to support that, in a way that him being talented does not.
I think we should less worry about what people say on twitter (it is where people put their worse foot forward) and think about the correct translation for the wikipedia article. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
If you dislike the existing translation of "tricks", maybe use "skills" or "performances" it would not twist (much) the meaning of the original text of Portuguese.
Even Oka's dictionary does not suggest the words like "talent, one's future potentials, or demeanor" in the entry of "manha". I can only assume that manha eventually gained the meaning of "manner" because someone with skill is thought to have learnt "manha", hence a person who has manha is like trained-person or skilled-person but not in modern sense of respectful behavior like demeanor instantly.
That dictionary seems to show straight conncections to the obvious "skill" or "ability" rather than invisible characteristics.
Here are some excerpt from page 292-293;
"com manha" : with ability
From "boas manhas" : "dancing, leaping, and all the oher good-manhas" which is inclined to the specific skills or performances.
Note that the other expression
"ma manhas" has "bad habits" as its meaning and this is the closest it gets to the modern sense of "manner" perhaps
check it out yourselves. KeiTakahashi999 (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Weapon-bearer

Does anyone know about this weapon bearer thing? This is Yasuke´s only explicitly named duty as a samurai. I haven’t been able to find out any information on this position. Literature I found about different bearers lists them as Monomachi, but none are called weapon-bearer. There are spear-bearers, and if weapons here means defensive weapons, there is also a helmet-bearer. Some sources refer to Yasuke as a sword-bearer, which seems to have been the job of a page. I think this is more important than if he is a samurai, because a samurai is such a wide category, and some authors claim it applies to people Chogen etc. However, weapon bearer is an explicit job. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The "weapon-bearer" to my understanding comes from an interpretation of a primary source (carried out by an already included secondary source?) of the sentence in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuke#cite_note-34
Is it monomachi or monomochi as in 物持ち? The position of weapon-bearer would be dougumochi as in here: https://kotobank.jp/word/%E9%81%93%E5%85%B7%E6%8C%81-580033 SmallMender (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
(Wading back in...)
There is a primary-source quotation from the Sonkeikaku version of the Shinchō Kōki that modern authors have apparently used as grounds for calling Yasuke "weapon-bearer", even though the source text itself doesn't use the specific title 道具持ち (dōgu-mochi). The primary-source text was discussed earlier here: Talk:Yasuke/Archive_4#c-Eirikr-20240725001500-J2UDY7r00CRjH-20240722082300.
@SmallMender, #cite_note_34 doesn't seem to exist as an anchor on the page. If you mean the cite note currently visibly numbered 34, that's the Yahoo! Japan article 【戦国こぼれ話】織田信長が登用した黒人武将・弥助とは、いったい何者なのか. This contains various problems, such as this bit:

信長は弥助を武士として身辺に置き、将来的には城持ちにまで引き立てようとしたという。
Nobunaga kept Yasuke nearby as a bushi [warrior], and was apparently going to promote him in the future to castle-owner.

This is an apparent misunderstanding / misattribution of an episode related in Lourenço Mexía's letter, as excerpted and translated earlier here: Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#c-Eirikr-20240524224800-X0n10ox-20240524024300. In that letter, Mexía described the gossip around town, that Nobunaga might make Yasuke a tono. But again, this was gossip from around town -- not anything that Mexía attributed to Nobunaga himself.
However, I don't see any other instances of 持ち in the Yahoo! Japan article, nor of the word 道具...? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, it seems like the sources were moved around. I should've used a permanent link. The source I had in mind is this one:
Kaneko, Hiraku (2009). 織田信長という歴史 － 「信長記」の彼方へ [The History of Oda Nobunaga: Beyond the Shinchōki] (in Japanese). Iwanami Shoten. p. 311. ISBN 978-4-585-05420-7.
It is currently used as an in-line citation for the quote from Shinchō Kōki of the Sonkeikaku Bunko (尊経閣文庫). SmallMender (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@SmallMender — ah, yes, in that case, please review my earlier post here (now archived) regarding the specific wording, particularly note 4. In a nutshell: Ōta himself would have known the title 道具持ち (dōgu-mochi, "tool/weapon-bearer"), so his decision to instead describe Yasuke using roundabout wording (「依時御道具なともたされられ候」 / "sometimes he was allowed to / was made to hold/carry the [master's] tools and other items") tells us that Yasuke did not have the "weapon-bearer" title.
As an alternative perspective, since this is apparently the text that appears only in the Sonkeikaku version, and this was possibly added by Ōta Gyūichi's fourth-generation descendant Ōta Yazaemon Kazuhiro (per Professor Kaneko's book), this wording could be understood as an even stronger indication that Yasuke was not acting in any official "weapon-bearer" capacity. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
If Kaneko is specifically saying the text about Yasuke is possibly added later, that should be put in the article. Do you know if dōgu-mochi is generic, or if it has connotations of a specific weapon. It seems some think it means sword and others think it means spear. Some of the few sources I found on google books are about castle towns. Unfortunately, they only allow snippets, so I can’t say what they say about the role, but maybe it is a position for daimyos, or just another name for a spear carrier. One of the few sources I found with the term uses it to describe Yasuke, calling him a porter of Nobunaga´s straight headed yari spear as well as a shikan samurai. https://www.google.de/books/edition/Samurai_Road/0jvJDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=d%C5%8Dgu-mochi&pg=PT197&printsec=frontcover Despite the few secondary sources on Yasuke, there seems some disagreement about him. It shows how much is interpretation and how it is communicated with confidence. Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
御道具　　　　When saying "item" politely
なと　　　　　etc.
もたさせられ　be made to have
候　　　　　　A word used to politely end a sentence
He was sometimes assigned the responsibility of carrying tools by Nobunaga or his close aides.
When talking about what tools are, weapons are most likely.
However, Nobunaga did not always fight.
He would ride around the territory on horseback, practice martial arts, and sometimes hold tea ceremonies with his acquaintances.
Just before the Honnoji Incident, Nobunaga entered the temple with several dozen of his close associates, carrying 38 tea ceremony utensils (tea bowls, tea whisks, etc.).
He then invites several celebrities as guests and holds a tea ceremony using the tools.
A tea ceremony cannot be held with just tools. Tea leaves and sweets are also needed. All of these are considered tools.
Money, clothes, and other daily necessities are also tools.
This goes without saying, but they probably transported it in a box or something.
Yasuke was said to be a strong man, so he would have been ideal for carrying heavy loads.
I think we can only imagine what they were carrying.
It must not be dropped and broken.
It's true that Yasuke had earned at least that level of trust.
Honestly, there may not be much point in thinking about this. Tanukisann (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I had forgotten.
In the early Edo period, special roles like this were given to certain samurai.
Yaribugyo, the person in charge of carrying the spears and swords used by the master.
Flag magistrate, in charge of showing the enemy and ally that the master is here.
Usually, in historical dramas, it is the page who holds the sword or spear near the master.
However, in times of war, this role was taken over by a samurai who had received special orders.
But as the world returned to peace, this role was soon abolished.
This is about the Tokugawa family, so it may not apply to the Oda family. Tanukisann (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I have read that Yaribugyo is the commander of spears. Ceremonial spear-carriers seem to have been common for persons of rank. When Captain Saris went from Hirado with Adams to meet the Shogun, a spear bearer was provided to carry the captain’s pike "as was the custom." https://archive.org/details/captainjvoyageof00saririch/page/120/mode/2up?q=pike
A black spear bearer is also seen in the Nanban byōbu in the article.
I was under the assumption that dōgu meant weapon in the context. I have read that the Japanese placed a lot of value on etiquette and ceremony. Specific things had specific people to carry them. It would be strange if the same person carried both Nobunaga´s sword and his tea set, especially since he had so many servants, but also because he would have his swords with him all the time, and probably one of his spear-bearers would be also around.
Tinynanorobots (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Kaneko doesn't say it definitively. Really, it's more of the same that Yuichi Goza states. Kaneko says that the possibility cannot be discounted that the reference to Yasuke was taken from the Ietada Diary, but also says that because the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript also includes a lot details of Yasuke's private life versus his public life, noting 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 which I translated as However, it would be difficult to simply disregard all of the above as creations added in the process of transcription. and that 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。 and my translation In particular, the account at the beginning of the fifth volume, which describes a deer hunt on February 13, is more a record of Nobunaga's private activities rather than his outwardly public ones.
Realistically Kaneko is saying that some of the accounts of more minute details of Nobunaga's life that are only present in the Sonkeikaku Bunko manuscript, but aren't in other manuscripts, are likely true because they deal with Nobunaga's private affairs rather than stuff that was widely publicly known. I doubt he intended this sentiment to extend to the Yasuke claim, but my doubts are irrelevant to what goes in the Wikipedia article. That said, if you wanna throw in that Kaneko believes it possible the account was added later on (or at the very least, says it isn't something that can be ruled out), go forth and do it. You can find the quotes from the Kaneko book above. Brocade River Poems 00:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
That seems to follow the pattern from academic sources I have read. The scholar will point out potential problems with a primary source, but then say why they say it is still useful. I believe Goza made a YouTube video where he goes in depth about Yasuke. He deserves credit for talking to the public the same way he would talk to scholars, but it is easy to misunderstand if you aren’t used to experts expressing doubts. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Here is one of my sources: Warfare in Japan[10] There are other sources that list the followers of a mounted samurai that are similar. Neither a sword bearer nor an equipment bearer is listed among them. Interestingly, the author puts "allows" in quotes suggesting perhaps that saying X was allowed to carrier his master's Y, might have been a typical phrasing. https://www.google.de/books/edition/An_Unabridged_Japanese_English_Dictionar/4WwuAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=d%C5%8Dgu-mochi&pg=PA177&printsec=frontcover This Dictionary says Dogumochi means Yarimochi. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I may just be misunderstanding what you are trying to use the source to suggest but from what I can tell reading the source it is referring to the Edo period rather than Sengoku Jidai. I think this is an important distinction given the context of the very rigid hierarchy established by the Bakufu reforms of the Tokugawa being discussed and how the text makes explicit mention of them when distinguishing the types of retainers. Furthermore it is stated on page 128 that "As 'bearers' (monomochi) their duty was faithfully to carry on to the battlefield and protect the objects assigned to them." Though the text on page 127 makes note of what a retinue was allowed to consist of, those reforms were from the later period, and it is explicitly stated in the context of individual cavalry soldiers rather than in the circumstances of a Diamyo or a higher ranking Samurai. In this light, it is possible that the Sakai house's cavalry under the reform were only permitted to have a spear bearer - rather than this being applicable to higher ranks as well. Though I am ignorant of the full details, it was a substantial part of the reforms of the Hideyoshi and early Tokugawa to regulate who could use certain weapons. Relm (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Citation of Translations

A lot of the quotes used in this article cite foreign language sources. Shouldn’t the translation be cited? Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Per the rules guidelines, you're not generally supposed to cite translations provided by editors IIRC. All of the translations have been provided, to my understanding, by editors. Per WP:RSUEQ The original text is usually included with the translated text in articles when translated by Wikipedians, and the translating editor is usually not cited. If you mean there is no citation to the original text, then you're right, it should be cited. Brocade River Poems 22:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Watanabe Daimon's article in Yahoo news

source: 織田信長に召し抱えられた黒人の弥助は、侍身分だったのか by ja:渡邊大門. PhD in Japanese history.

>では、弥助が侍だったのかといえば、これだけの情報では判断しづらいだろう。私宅、腰刀、扶持を与えたことが、そのまま侍と定義してよいものか疑問が残る。

>弥助の乏しい情報から推測すると、信長は出掛けるときに弥助を連れて行き、人々が驚く様子を楽しんでいたようであるので、召使いのような存在だったように思える。新しいもの好きの信長の好奇心を刺激したのだろう。

MTL:

>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.

>Judging from the little information we have about Yasuke, it seems that Nobunaga took him with him when he went out and enjoyed watching people's amazement, so Yasuke seems to have been something like a servant. No doubt this stimulated Nobunaga's curiosity about new things.

He seems to draw the same conclusion as Goza, but for a different reason. He says that even if the Sonkeikaku Bunko is correct, it is still questionable to conclude form it that Yasuke was a samurai.

I searched both the archive and the article and did not find the link or name of the author posted here in in ja wikipeida. If I somehow missed it and it was already discussed, I apologize. Note: I originally posted this in RfC but it may get more visibility as a new topic. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

tanukisann has introduced a similar article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#c-Tanukisann-20240905124800-Relmcheatham-20240905083400
There are other articles like this one too.
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/expert/articles/9c15bcbfd4bdd1e22e5d672e83cedf1b247b58e1
Hamada Koichiro
Researcher, Harima Research Institute, University of Hyogo
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/expert/articles/00b9dff9cd6151ac3d61c0460481db6a9e83d92d
Ikeda Nobuo
Economist
https://agora-web.jp/archives/240720162530.html 140.227.46.9 (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
You are right, this source was already mentioned before. Not by tanukisann but by other editors which I found after searching "Daimon" in the archive. I only searched his Japanese name originally and searched the link but did not think to search the for the English/Romanized name. Nevertheless, nobody seems to have actually quoted this line or drawn any attention to it. I obviously wasn't aware of it as I would have quoted it in the ongoing RfC from the beginning. Also searching for the URL did not work because they were all linked like [Url] instead of plain text. But I guess it is not really a "new" source in the way I believed. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
This one was previously discussed. I wouldn't translate it as questionable, he is essentially just abstaining from conclusion. He is also active on Youtube, where he was frequently repeated that he doesn't really have an opinion.
As far as his reliability I'm not entirely sure, but some of his Youtube content is moderately derogatory in a way that could imply bias (associating black people with slaves). Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Where was this discussed? I only see the source itself briefly mentioned, with no discussion of this specific quote or any of his other points. Also, he is clearly not simply abstaining from a conclusion, as he says right before that "it is difficult to judge from this information alone." Even if he was, that would in effect mean almost the same thing. Ie. If a historian who specialized in this period – having written multiple books about Nobunaga – says that he cannot form a conclusion from the information in primary sources, then that also tells us something. Although like I said that is not what I think he is doing. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Re-protect article

Article protection was removed in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&oldid=1246709537 and is still need (see eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&oldid=1246717994). J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree and have just asked semiprotection. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit about Yasuke's status not being disputed

@Gitz6666 I noticed your edit to the article adding that Yasuke's status is not disputed by historians. However, both Daimon (who is quoted in the article already from a different article in 2021) and Goza say that Yasuke's status cannot be determined. (see Talk:Yasuke#Watanabe_Daimon's_article_in_Yahoo_news) Both the tweet by Hirayama and comment by Lockley were written before these articles. Those comments are therefore outdated and in my opinion should be removed as while they may have been true at the time they are not true anymore. Even if these two sources would not be due wight to include in the article (a point I disagree on) it would still be incorrect to say they are not disputed by any historians. The rest of that section mostly looks good to me.

Edit: I removed that portion and added Daimon and Goza, who are both repuatble historians. I made clear that no historian claims that Yasuke was not a samurai. Also, can you confirm that the current version of the Japan Times article says "Most telling to Lockley, however, is that no reputable Japanese historian has raised doubts about Yasuke’s samurai bonafides"? Because the full quote in the older version version I have is "Most telling to Lockley, however, is that no reputable Japanese historian has raised doubts about Yasuke’s samurai bonafides, including Sakujin Kirino, who served as a fact-checker for “African Samurai” and is one of the country’s foremost experts on the 1582 Honnoji Incident, for which Yasuke was believed to be present." and IIRC the part about Sakujin Kirino was removed. So I would like to know what version you have as it is possible the first half of the sentence was also changed. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

(I have just changed replaced "undisputed" with "undeniable", which is closer to the source NYT - There are very few historical documents about him, but there’s no doubt that he was a ‘samurai’ who served Nobunaga).
In the new section "2024 Controversy over Assassin's Creed Shadows" I have quoted Lockley and Yu Hirayama because they are cited by RS that deal with the subject of the section - Japan Times and New York Times respectively. I wouldn't include in that section each and every source that touches upon the subject of Yasuke's status as a samurai. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Yahoo news is also RS and deals with that question as well:
>Recently, there has been a big debate on X (formerly Twitter) as to whether Yasuke, the black man employed by Oda Nobunaga, was a samurai. Let me address this point.
It deserves to be in the same section. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Yahoo News itself is not a RS per WP:RS. It is mainly aggregated news and self-published material. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm trying to assume good faith here, but Yahoo news is a reliable source and is listed in WP:RSP. The part you mention about syndicated content is not relevant because this is not syndicated. I am surprised you would make this comment without looking at the article to see if it is syndicated or RSP to see if Yahoo is reliable. Can you explain what you meant here? J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I am referring to both self-published and syndicated content (per policy at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_aggregators).
Syndicated content doesn't become reliable just because Yahoo News is syndicating it, the original source must be evaluated. Self-published content functions similarly. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I disagree with this edit, which adds a sentence about Watanabe and Goza. Their views on Yasuke's samurai status are irrelevant to the section on the Assassin's Creed controversy.
Besides, their views are not covered by independent secondary sources. Watanabe's article (news.yahoo.co.jp) is inaccessible in the UK and EEA, and his expertise is unclear. Goza's article (agora-web.jp) is self-published. These two sources might be WP:FRINGE and in any case don't belong to the section on the Assassin's Creed controversy.
Finally, the sentence No reputable historain has claimed that Yasuke was not a samurai, while probably true, is not verifiable. This is Lockley's claim and should not be presented in wikivoice. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
>Their views on Yasuke's samurai status are irrelevant to the section on the Assassin's Creed controversy.
I think they are related as much as the two sources you added. Especially in the case of the Yahoo article, which is equally a response to the general controversy as Yu's comment. in fact it is more relevant, as Yu is only mentioned in a single line in the NYT artcile, and Watanabe's article is an entire article about the topic.
>Watanabe's article (news.yahoo.co.jp) is inaccessible in the UK and EEA
Here is an archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240805230955/https://news.yahoo.co.jp/expert/articles/e84f4104880e6f0c3c064ed37b6a954cdbc2192e
>his expertise is unclear
He has a PhD in history and has written multiple books about Nobunaga and the warring states period. Also Yahoo news is a Reliable source in any event. He is even quoted here on Wikipeida since at least 2023 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1174967885) perhaps earlier.
>sentence No reputable historain has claimed that Yasuke was not a samurai, while probably true, is not verifiable. This is Lockley's claim and should not be presented in wikivoice
It's not clear exactly what Lockley actually said here being that half of the sentence was removed since it was incorrect (at least I remember hearing that in RSN, but I have not verified that myself). He is not quoted directly and since the journalist in question seems to have misunderstood what he said about Kirino fact chekcking his book (assume that is what happened) it is also possible that he heard Lockley says something like "no historian I am aware of has published an article saying Yasuke was not a samurai" and the author rephrased it.
I will change the article to not say "No reputable historian has claimed that Yasuke was not a samurai" in wikivoice and instead just make clear that Goza and Watanabe are not saying that Yasuke was not a samurai. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
There is a difference between Lockley and Hirayama, on the one hand, and Watanabe and Goza, on the other. The opinions of the former were reported by reliable, independent sources in the context of their coverage of the video game controversy: The New York Times published a piece titled "The Fight Over a Black Samurai in Assassin’s Creed Shadows" [11] and reported Hirayama's opinion; The Japan Times published a piece titled "Gaming's latest culture war targets Yasuke, Japan's Black samurai" [12] and interviewed Lockley. These outlets clearly considered their views significant and WP:DUE WEIGHT requires us to represent them. The same cannot be said for Goza and Watanabe. Goza shared his views on a blog and Watanabe expressed his in (what is likely to be) an opinion piece in Yahoo News Japan. They participated in the video game controversy, but no reliable source discussing it has mentioned their views, making them not WP:DUE for inclusion. Can't you see the difference between these sources and their consequence on DUE WEIGHT? At the most, we could mention Goza's interview in the Sankei Shinbun [13], but then we should also provide some context and specify that is a right-wing, nationalist newspaper. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I see the difference. You are saying that even if we do include Goza and Watanabe, it should be in the context of Yasuke's status as samurai, not in reference to the video game, even though they both mention the video game in their posts. If you want, we can remove those two statements from this specific context. At the same time, however, quoting outdated sources such as Lockley's specific comment as rephrased by Japan Times that no historians doubt Yasuke being a samurai is simply an incorrect statement today and should definitely not be included. (Lastly, Note that "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." The only reason why this would not apply in this specific case is that the section is not really about Yasuke but about the video game controversy, of which you can argue Watanabe is not a specialist in as he is only a specialist in Japanese history, not video game controversies. I will remove those comments for now but I don't know if the above distinction actually makes a difference here as the NYT article established that historians' input is in some way related to the controversy.) J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Daimon Watanabe is a Japanese historian whose specialty is Japan's medieval period. Around the time of the Sengoku period.
https://researchmap.jp/read0210255?lang=en
Completed doctoral course at Bukkyo University Graduate School. He earned his doctorate in literature for his research and writings on the Akamatsu family, which was based in Harima. Harima is part of present-day Hyogo Prefecture.
He is one of Japan's experts in the study of the Akamatsu family, one of the feudal lords of the Sengoku period, and the powerful families and daimyo associated with it. Although he is not affiliated with the university, he holds a position equivalent to an advisor in a research group investigating the Akamatsu family.
The first of Watanabe's articles was written after the current issue occurred in 2024. I would like to point out that the second was written in 2021 and was written without any connection to the current issue.
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/expert/articles/e84f4104880e6f0c3c064ed37b6a954cdbc2192e
https://news.yahoo.co.jp/expert/articles/d194e53c49a9b820a56755a998831cd6ec13f430
In Japan, the Thomas Lockley issue, the Yasuke issue, and the video game issue are all discussed at the same table. That's why in Goza's interview, the reporter asks about Thomas Lockley, Yasuke, video games, and samurai all at once. The reporter is an amateur, so the content is like that. It has almost nothing to do with whether the Sankei Shimbun is right-wing or left-wing. Most of the words written in that article are probably Goza's words. Goza is a history expert, so he can talk in detail about Thomas Lockley and the samurai. He can only talk in general terms about Yasuke because he has no materials. When it comes to video games, he responds by talking about the relationship between history and pop culture.
From the Japanese perspective, no matter what the origin of the problem, the fact remains that their history is greatly misunderstood. I don't think it's appropriate to exclude it just because it includes the topic of video games.
If you want to check out an older statement in the Japan Times that Kirino was a fact checker for "African Samurai," please see here.
https://archive.md/ZQAwd 118.10.129.22 (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This page is being discussed on 5ch

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Japanese Wikipedia research report. The Japanese Wikipedia and the website 5ch, a relative of the English-language 4chan, are monitoring these discussions.

Some of the discussion on 5ch can be found here. Ctrl+f "弥助". seefooddiet (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been reading through things in various places. Looks like Japan's version of the Gamergate harassment group. SilverserenC 16:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Sounds about right.
Also another heads up, there are also similar posts on X about this article, that are basically equally toxic. Taking screenshots of comments made by individual editors, insulting the editors or their edit choices. Completely unacceptable.
I'm choosing to take the brunt of their attention to expose all this to enwiki. When they make posts like these the people who are being insulted should be made aware of them. seefooddiet (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it's a fun read. We see English-speaking people who are not familiar with Japanese ways of thinking and word usage plotting to turn Yasuke into a samurai through forceful logic. From the perspective of English-speaking people, they think that even if Japan's history is full of lies, they can be forgiven for doing whatever they want because it doesn't cause any inconvenience to them.
Bystanders watching the debate will probably think that Westerners are a terrible bunch of people.
By the way, I would like to point out that in Goza's interview, he said that we should be careful about calling Yasuke a samurai. The Japanese word ``cautious has two uses. One is the meaning listed in the dictionary, that is, to do it calmly so as not to make mistakes. Another way to use it is to deny it in a roundabout way, without saying it clearly. Goza wanted to deny the idea that Yasuke was a samurai, but since he doesn't have any materials, he can't say for sure that Yasuke was not a samurai, and even though he's never met Rockley, he doesn't know exactly what Rockley thinks. It's rude to deny it. That's why Goza said it that way. 153.235.156.75 (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I'll note that this comment has little to do with my original post and is more just an independent rant. I expressed no opinions on the Yasuke issue and personally care little about it. seefooddiet (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Questionable Source

This entire page is using Thomas Lockleys book as a source. His book is highly controversial and no reputable Japanese historian has concurred with his “findings”. 75.119.181.53 (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

For more on this subject, please see, e.g., the billions of spilled pixels on this page over the course of its existence. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
One could also look further to the reliable source noticeboard argument here: (1) where it was concluded that Lockley's co-authored book African Samurai was not a reliable source, but that as a scholar his peer reviewed work otherwise is.
Or the admin noticeboard discussion about the initial state of the talk page after the trailer (2) or the later RFC here (3).
Lockley is currently used sparingly on the page, and only from two sources:
1. A Britannica rewrite commissioned and overseen by an Encyclopedia Britannica editorial commission - which has much higher standards of review than a typical article.
2. A peer reviewed publishing in Japanese that Lockley did prior to his book.
When Lockley is not corroborated by other sources he is directly attributed with his theories. The only time Lockley is not directly attributed on the page is "Nobunaga's children attended the event and one of his nephews gave Yasuke a sum of money." which cites another scholar entirely unrelated to Lockley referring to the same source. Lockley, despite claims made about him online, is not the origin of the claim that Yasuke was a samurai; is not the person who edited wikipedia to say Yasuke was a Samurai; and has not yet had any of his scholarly work retracted. Relm (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
African Samurai was not found to be unreliable. Only that it is "popular history" and that any unique claims should be attributed, which is more or less not different to how we treat any source.
It was published by a respected publishing house, has overall positive academic reviews, and plenty of tertiary coverage.
Lockley is currently used sparingly on the page, and only from two sources
I would not say that it is sparingly. He is cited 3 or 4 times in the article, and most of his cited claims also exist in his book. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Respectfully, you are the only person to come away from the RSN with that conclusion.
You were the only dissenting voice at time of close. The general consensus was that the book's nature as popular history through biographical narration meant that Lockley's other works where he asserts those theories would be better sources to cite. The current page reflects this and is better for it. Relm (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
It was repeated throughout the thread by editors a number of times.
The general consensus was that the book's nature as popular history through biographical narration meant that Lockley's other works where he asserts those theories would be better sources to cite.
This does not imply that the book is unreliable. Purely academic works have preference for all sources. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
@Symphony Regalia, you appear to be misrepresenting the outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley -- a discussion you participated in. At that time, you seemed to agree with the outcome of the thread by voting +1 to end that RSN thread, while you were in the midst of the discussion with @J2UDY7r00CRjH, who made a compelling case for why Lockley and Girard's African Samurai is not a reliable source.
Please let that go. There are other works, much more objectively reliable and less problematic than African Samurai, that we can use. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I indeed voted to end the discussion because it had gone on long enough, but the outcome is not what you are stating and this is made obvious by some of the comments left by the other closing votes as well (the consensus for declaring African Samurai as unreliable was not there). Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Can you point to any other editors who held that opinion at the end of the discussion? At the time the consensus was described as follows:
>what follows from the general consensus here:
>• Lockley's coauthored and un-peer reviewed book is not suitable for citing when there are better sources which others have recommended be cited instead.
>• Lockley's more specific claims, if included in the article anywhere should be directly attributed
>as long as WP:RSCONTEXT is taken into account
Nobody besides you has disagreed with this conclusion to my knowledge. Meanwhile I Eiríkr, Relm and others all seemed to agree that it should not be used. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Also I see nothing controversial about it, and multiple historians occur with his findings (notably Yu Hirayama and Mihoko Oka)[14]. Also, whether a historian is Japanese or not is not at all relevant. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Oka Mihoko said, "I consider Lockley's books, both in Japanese and English, to be 'historical reading material' and not academic research."
Hirayama Masaru said, "Thomas Lockley is not a historian."
Goza Yuichi said, "However, based on reading his [Japanese] book Nobunaga to Yasuke: Honno-ji wo Ikinobita Kokujin Samurai [2017], I think it would be difficult to say that he maintains an objective distance from his subject, Yasuke, in this case." 1 2
Thomas Lockley admits.
An English-born scholar currently employed as an associate law professor at Japan’s Nihon University, Lockley is perhaps best known as the author of the 2019 book African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan, wherein he puts forth the claim, based on his own “informed research based assumptions” rather than any factual historical documents, that the historical Yasuke was not a mere retainer to Oda Nobunaga, but a full-blown Samurai in his own right.
Experts said, "We can't say for sure whether Yasuke was a samurai or not. There are too few materials."
How long will you continue to believe in independent research by amateurs over experts? 140.227.46.9 (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Oka Mihoko said, "I consider Lockley's books, both in Japanese and English, to be 'historical reading material'
You left out the part where he says "However, I know that in writing them he consulted a wide range of sources". He also professionally backs Lockley's word through つながる世界２.
Not only that, but Oka Mihoko also directly says that Yasuke is a samurai:

On that basis, if he “fought to the last with his sword” along with his Lord, I would say he was a samurai

Lastly, Lockley's research on Yasuke extends to more than just his books. He has done a number of thesis papers as well as talks at academic conferences on the matter.
Hirayama Masaru said...
Hirayama unequivocally says that Yasuke was a samurai.

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.

Thomas Lockley admits.
Lockley is also very clear that Yasuke was a samurai. Not only that, but as previously mentioned Lockley's book has been at multiple academic talks and is in Academic Libraries and in professional development reading groups, some of which are at highly reputable and respectable institutions such as Berkley. Lockley's book was reviewed by John Rodzvilla of Emerson College in "Library Journal. Mar 2019, Vol. 144 Issue 2, p128-128", with Rodzvilla writing:

"Lockley (Nihon Univ., Sch. of Law, Tokyo) and Girard (Cain’s Blood) use primary sources to piece together Yasuke’s immersion into Japanese culture with a novelistic history that takes place at the height of one of Japan’s most important cultural and political moments ... Highly recommended"

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

The overall reception of the book is generally positive and most of them recommend it.
Experts said
Experts are very clear that Yasuke was a samurai (experts such as Lopez-Vera, Atkins, and even Purdy, all of whom who I did not even include above, all refer to Yasuke as a samurai in their own voice as well). Not a single one has made the argument that he was not one. Symphony Regalia (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2024

change samurai to retainer ManuelRegien (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Nah. Duane Suave (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
We have already discussed this. If you have new information, we would be glad to see it. I will tell you though, that we have plenty of information already, and a lot of information has proven unreliable. Tinynanorobots (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Atkins Error

The quotation from Atkins´ book says "defending Azuchi castle from the traitorous Akechi forces". This is an error, does anyone have access to the book and can confirm that the book actually says that? Tinynanorobots (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tinynanorobots I have copy of E Taylor Atkin's A History of Popular Culture in Japan: From the Seventeenth Century to the Present, and confirm that the text quoted is as in that source. For the sentence containing "defending Azuchi castle", Atkins references Elisonas & Lamers' translation of Ota Gyuichi's Shincho Koki; and the letters of Luis Frois dated April 15 and November 5, 1582. For the later sentence containing "no known portraits", Atkins' footnote mentions both the erroneous inkstone box and the Sumo nanban byobu screen.
The error would seem to be largely in "defending Azuchi castle"; Oda Nobunaga is known to have committed suicide at Honnoji in Kyoto; Azuchi castle is some distance away. Looking at the sources referenced by Atkins: The Shincho Koki section on Yasuke & Frois' April 15 letter predate the Honnoji Incident. The November 5 letter of Luis Frois have Yasuke going to the residence of Nobunaga's heir. Our article on Nobutada has his residence as Myōkaku-ji temple, though he moved to the more defendable Nijo castle. All three locations are within a few miles of each other in Nakagyo Ward, Kyoto.
I think it would be best to elide the following text: , defending Azuchi castle from the traitorous Akechi forces in 1582, where Nobunaga committed ritual suicide (seppuku); leaving:
Impressed with Yasuke's height and strength (which "surpassed that of ten men"), Nobunaga gave him a sword signifying bushi status. Yasuke served as Nobunaga's retainer and conversation partner for the last year of the warlord's life [...] Although there are no known portraits of the "African samurai," there are some pictorial depictions of dark-skinned men (in one of which he is sumo wrestling) from the early Edo period that historians speculate could be Yasuke.
In Atkin's defence, the Honnoji Incident is around 20 years outside the period covered by his work. Rotary Engine talk 02:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
The quotation is correct and can be verified here. I'm not sure this is an error, though. The Azuchi castle was the capital of Nobunaga's domain, and it was demolished in 1582 by Akechi Mitsuhide after his assassination of Nobunaga in the Honno-ji Incident. "Defending Azuchi castle" could easily be interpreted as a synecdoche (by the way, just as Yasuke being given a "house" by Nobunaga could well mean that he was given a house, servants, a whole system of social relations and loyalties, as when one says the House of Medici, Windsor, etc. - only a historian could tell; thus, our Yasuke was also granted servants according to Thomas Lockley is questionable). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
The text of the quote speaks strongly against "Azuchi castle" being a synecdoche for Oda clan. In the one single usage of the term, it describes both Yasuke ... defending Azuchi castle (possibly a metaphor; but unlikely so) and Azuchi castle ... where Nobunaga committed ritual suicide (seppuku) (a literal reference to a particular, specific, place); this second part adding context. "Azuchi castle" does not work as a metaphor in that second part.
Given that it is known that Oda Nobunaga committed suicide, not at Azuchi castle, but at Honnoji (per all of the other reliable sources on the death of Oda Nobunaga); Atkins' text is, on this specific point, inaccurate.
There's also no evidence of "Azuchi castle" being used as a metaphor for "Oda clan" or "Oda Nobunaga" or similar. But even if it was, there's a question of providing our reader with information which is, on its literal reading, inaccurate. Why would we do so?
This section is about the quote from Atkins; questions of what 私宅 (private residence) implies are best raised in a separate section. Rotary Engine talk 15:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree with your interpretation and think your solution is the most expedient. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2024

Yasuke was not a samurai, he was a sword bearer, they are different titles and not equivalent to each other. Remove any reference stating Yasuke to be a samurai as this is not accurate and replace with sword-bearer 2604:3D09:567C:3900:CE4F:AF72:E903:D93C (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Yasuke/FAQ Q1 or the large number of other discussions on this. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
The lack of trustworthy source should be taken into consideration before claiming he was a samurai.
The page should at least point the uncertainty of those claims instead of arbitrary validating modern uncertain speculations. 2A01:E0A:AEF:4170:F6F:ED16:2032:2C29 (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern. We take it into consideration. However, there are more sources saying he is a samurai, than saying that he is a sword bearer (which is probably a samurai anyway). If you have sources, then we can make a change. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Michael Thornton in new source

source: Who is Yasuke, the real-life Black samurai at the center of the new video game ‘Assassin’s Creed Shadows’? Japanese history expert explains

The source quotes Michael Thornton, assistant teaching professor of history at Northeastern University, PhD in History, Harvard University.

>Samurai were a kind of vassal, people who were bound to a lord legally and, in return, got certain privileges, including a sword and stipend. Yasuke had those privileges, Thornton says, but there is ambiguity about whether Yasuke’s vassalage amounted to the category of samurai. Some critics say the definition of a samurai was tied to one’s family and its relationship to the lord, both of which Yasuke didn’t have.

>“To make this all more complicated, the 1580s are a time when the definition of a samurai is not even fixed within Japan,” Thornton adds. “Eventually, by the time we get to [the period of] ‘Shogun’ and a few years after that, there’s a very clear legal definition of what it means to be a samurai. Every family in Japan is categorized as either a samurai or something else, and there’s extensive census records and family registers.”

>Regardless of how Yasuke would have been technically defined under the very fluid social norms of the time, Thornton says there is documentary evidence that he served Nobunaga and had privileges that are markers of a samurai.

This brings the total number of published historians saying there is some degree of debate to whether there is enough information to 3, and 4 if we include that one Google groups mention, although this source is different from the other two in that Thornton is never himself quoted as saying directly that there is not enough information to decide whether Yasuke was a samurai, just that there is ambiguity, but this still leaves the possibility that he himself believes that Yasuke was in fact a samurai, despite this ambiguity, whereas the other 2 sources say that there is not enough information to conclude one way or another. He does however at the least represent this ambiguity as legitimate, although it would be nice if he were quoted directly in this article more instead of rephrased. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Noting that there seem to be some potential slight inaccuracies such as "Yasuke is given back to the Portuguese, who leave Japan with him in tow" which to my knowledge is not documented anywhere. This is not a direct quote from Thornton, however, so it could be bad rephrasing of what he said or was only meant to be his opinion and not meant as uncontroversial fact. I believe most sources think that Yasuke did in fact leave Japan, but AFAIK this is not stated in any primary source directly. Similarly, the article states that "Yasuke fled with Nobunaga’s son, but the assassins eventually caught up to them." According to Lockley "Instead of escaping, Yasuke rushed to the Oda clan’s new lord, Nobunaga’s eldest son, Nobutada, who was barricaded inside the nearby Nijō-goshō imperial villa" meaning that Nobutada was already at Nijo Castle, not that he fled with him. This is also not a direct quote and the same possibilities above apply. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a misrepresentation of the article. Thorton says that the term itself was more fluid then (prior to the Tokugawa Shogunate), but that was never a matter of debate as far as it concerns this article. Thorton also does not acknowledge any debate, the usage of "ambiguity" is by the writer in reference to critics of the video game.
As far as his opinion on whether Yasuke was a samurai or not, the article makes clear:

Regardless of how Yasuke would have been technically defined under the very fluid social norms of the time, Thornton says there is documentary evidence that he served Nobunaga and had privileges that are markers of a samurai.

He also believes there were non-Japanese samurai prior to Yasuke in what appears to be a reference to toraijin (due to long-standing connections between Japan, Korea and China). Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
What is clear is that Thornton is not quoted anywhere in that article as outright asserting Yasuke is a samurai. Thornton can be quoted directly calling Yasuke a "vassal." To claim otherwise is WP:OR or at a minimum misinterpreting the source. As you've stated, Thornton says Yasuke "had privileges that are markers of a samurai." In other words, this would be like saying Yasuke can be considered analogous to a samurai, or he fulfills the role of a samurai (keep in mind those italicized phrases are my own, not Thornton's.) Thornton uses more measured language, and the wiki article should indicate this perspective. As I have described in my response to RfC, wiki editors will have trouble finding sources which say Yasuke "was not" a samurai. However, it is not very hard to find sources which use measured language. The difference between saying Yasuke is a samurai versus "had privileges that are markers of a samurai" is significant, despite potentially being subtle at first glance. This perspective must be represented in the wiki article. WP:DUE. Green Caffeine (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
He is indeed saying that Yasuke was a samurai.

Regardless of how Yasuke would have been technically defined under the very fluid social norms of the time, Thornton says there is documentary evidence that he served Nobunaga and had privileges that are markers of a samurai.

Markers of what exactly? What exactly do those privileges mark about Yasuke in Thorton's view? The being of "a samurai". Not markers of being like a samurai. Not markers of being close to a samurai. Of a samurai.
Yasuke being a samurai is the majority view in reliable sources (other experts like Lockley, Vera, Hirayama, Mihoko, Atkins, and even Purdy state it directly), and the article should continue to reflect that. Thorton's view only adds to it. Symphony Regalia (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Once again your interpretation is an WP:OR reading of the source. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck... it is not for Wikipedians to decide it is a duck. The Thornton piece refers to Yasuke as a "vassal" more than once. No where does is it state that Yasuke is a samurai. It says Yasuke "had privileges that are markers of a samurai." I'm not sure what repeatedly boldfacing the word "samurai" does for your case. We cannot imply a conclusion not clearly stated in the source, and the Thornton piece cannot be construed as to explicitly state Yasuke is a samurai -- statements on Wikipedia must be verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly. All we can use from this source is indicate Yasuke was a "vassal" who had "privileges that are markers of a samurai." Are you advocating to exclude this perspective and this source from the Yasuke article? Additionally, obviously there are other sources which call Yasuke a samurai -- the Wikipedia article can certainly continue to reflect that. Which is why I am not saying the article should state Yasuke isn't a samurai. What I am saying is that both perspectives have due weight to be present in the article. Green Caffeine (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Thornton does not say that there is any "debate", which is the WP:OR that was attempted in this section.
As far as his belief on Yasuke being samurai, it is fine to quote him directly if it is ever added (I.E, "according to Thornton Yasuke had privileges that are markers of a samurai".
Lastly, the article itself says "real-life black Samurai" in the title (and it appears that the title was updated to include that). Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
You have already been pointed out.
Experts rarely admit that Yasuke is definitely a samurai, since the documents do not say that he is a samurai.
Experts rarely admit that Yasuke is definitely not a samurai, as there is no documentation stating that he is not a samurai.
Yasuke has become Oda Nobunaga's servant, so he may or may not have become a samurai.
A proper expert would be vague without making any assertions. This does not necessarily mean that Yasuke is a samurai.
They have expert knowledge and have read primary and secondary sources. Still, it is impossible to say with certainty whether Yasuke was a samurai or not. 118.10.129.22 (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
>the usage of "ambiguity" is by the writer in reference to critics of the video game.
No it isn't:
>Yasuke had those privileges, Thornton says, but there is ambiguity about whether Yasuke’s vassalage amounted to the category of samurai
Unless you think that "Thornton says" only is in reference to "Yasuke had those privileges?" But nobody writes like this.
>As far as his opinion on whether Yasuke was a samurai or not, the article makes clear:
Saying "Regardless of how Yasuke would have been technically defined under the very fluid social norms of the time" implies that Yasuke might not have been considered samurai at the time. Saying he "had privileges that are markers of a samurai" is not the same as saying that he was a samurai. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
No it isn't
Yes, it is. The usage of "ambiguity" is by the writer in reference to critics of the video game.
Saying "Regardless of how Yasuke would have been technically defined under the very fluid social norms of the time" implies that Yasuke might not have been considered samurai at the time.
It doesn't. He is saying that is irrelevant, that's the purpose of "regardless". Why? Because he makes his opinion on the matter very clear in the next sentence: Thornton says there is documentary evidence that he served Nobunaga and had privileges that are markers of a samurai.
.
Saying he "had privileges that are markers of a samurai" is not the same as saying that he was a samurai.
I've explained this above, but marker of what exactly? What exactly did those markers state about Yasuke in Thorton's view? The being "of a samurai". Not markers of being like a samurai. Not markers of being close to a samurai. Of a samurai. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
The last part of the article that Thornton spoke of, that Yasuke is central to Japan's leftist politics and its longstanding relationship with African-American leaders, is difficult to understand, but as a critique of Yasuke, it is generally not incorrect.
Although the article starts out regarding the game, it is correct that the center of all issues goes to what Yasuke's position was.
It is correct that Nobunaga wished and indeed received Yasuke from the Jesuits to add him to one of his subordinates rather than make him his slave. However, it is also correct that Yasuke's position after becoming Nobunaga's subordinate was not known.
Citing Hirayama's assertion that Yasuke fulfills the necessary requirements for a master-servant relationship, it would certainly be true to say that Yasuke fulfills the necessary requirements for a master-servant relationship. As Nobunaga promoted Hideyoshi to the rank of samurai, it was often the case that those of lower status were promoted. Therefore, there was a possibility that Yasuke could have been promoted to the samurai rank. This is an unquestionable fact.
However, there is a problem here. There is no documentation that Yasuke was ever promoted to the rank of samurai. The Japanese record even unimportant details with frightening accuracy. If Yasuke had become a samurai, he would certainly have recorded it. Hence the current controversy.
Thornton only states that Yasuke had the privilege of becoming a samurai, but does not say for sure whether he was a samurai or not.
It is written that Yasuke fled with Nobunaga's son, but this is obviously incorrect.
We do not know where in Kyoto Yasuke was staying or how he learned of the situation at Honnoji where Nobunaga was staying. We do not know whether he was able to enter Nobutada's Nijo Palace, where he was headed instead, or whether he was blocked when he reached the immediate vicinity. Yasuke may have resisted in front of the gate instead of going inside.
We do know that he resisted for a while and was urged to surrender, which he did. Since Akechi's vassals went out of their way to urge him to surrender, he was probably not considered a fighter among Oda's generals. If he had been considered a fighter, he would have been attacked with bows and arrows and guns and killed like the others.
It is also incorrect to say that they were returned to the Portuguese and that they left Japan with Yasuke.
It is certainly the most likely story, but there is no documentation to prove it.
Ultimately, we come back to the possibility that Yasuke may have been a samurai, but we cannot be sure because of the lack of documentation.
In this regard, the article interviewing Thomas Lockley is actually very revealing.
Gaming's latest culture war targets Yasuke, Japan's Black samurai
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2024/05/25/digital/yasuke-assasins-creed-samurai/
“There’s no piece of paper that says Yasuke was a samurai,” Lockley says, noting that some critics are simply misunderstanding how to interpret the historical record. “But then there’s no piece of paper that says anybody else was a samurai.”
In this, Lockley says there is no evidence for the claim that Yasuke was a samurai. In other words, there are no primary or secondary sources as defined by Wikipedia. He then goes on to say that some critics have misinterpreted the material. In other words, he denies those who claim to have documentation and evidence.
At the same time, Lockley also claims that there is no evidence that anyone was not a samurai. While there is no documentation to affirm that Yasuke was a samurai, there is also no documentation to deny that he was not a samurai. Since the possibility that Yasuke was a samurai has not been ruled out, this indicates that Lockley believes that Yasuke was a samurai.
As has been said many times before, Thomas Lockley's decision to call Yasuke a samurai was not based on literary sources, but on a definition based on his own research conducted with reference to literary sources, and in this respect is similar to Hirayama's claim.
Lockley's assertion is not wrong within the scope of his personal opinion. However, as long as it is an independent study without evidence, wikpedia cannot adopt it. We could publish it as his personal opinion.
Although there are scholars who say that Yasuke was a samurai, there is not a single source that clearly describes his position, so the most accurate description is currently that his exact information is unknown. 153.237.168.170 (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
It is funny how different people can read the same text and attribute different meanings. To me, Thornton says: Yasuke was not a slave, he had agreed to serve Nobunaga as a vassal; as for the samurai question, samurai status was fluid at the time, but there is evidence that Yasuke had privileges associated with samurai status. How this can be interpreted to mean that, according to Thornton, there is some degree of debate about Yasuke's samurai status, or that Yasuke can be considered analogous to a samurai but was not properly a samurai, or that Yasuke's position after becoming Nobunaga's subordinate was not known, is beyond me. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
A lot of this has been discussed already and is not relevant in general or to this specific discussion. I think you should reduce the length of this reply and think about what points you want to make that are clearly described and relevant to the source at hand. If you don't remove the unrelated points it's hard to understand what points you are making that are relevant and will generate rehashed debates eg. about Lockley or "Japan's leftist politics" etc. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
In this, Lockley says there is no evidence for the claim that Yasuke was a samurai. In other words, there are no primary or secondary sources as defined by Wikipedia.
Lockley's assertion is not wrong within the scope of his personal opinion. However, as long as it is an independent study without evidence, wikpedia cannot adopt it.
With all due respect, these are both incorrect statements and represent a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy.
The research and/or opinion of an expert, such as Vera, Lockley, Atkins, Purdy, Hirayama, Mihoko, etc (who all claim that Yasuke is a samurai or refer to him as one in their own voice), is a secondary source. And Wikipedia is built off of secondary sources.
Secondary sourcing is what Wikipedia values most. Articles based on primary sources are discouraged, because editors are for the most part not supposed to interpret primary sources themselves due to WP:OR concerns. We rely on experts for the interpretation of primary sources, and since the majority opinion among the experts is that Yasuke was a samurai, that is what Wikipedia must represent. Per WP:PSTS:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.

Tertiary sources also help avoid the novel interpretation of primary sources, and the list of major tertiary sources claiming that Yasuke is a samurai is clear as well: CNN, Time, Britannica, The Smithsonian, BBC, New York Times, etc. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
General audience tertiary sources, such as the ones you mentioned (except maybe Britannica and Smithsonian), should not be given as much credit as academic secondary sources. Maxence1402 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
These news sites are usually reliable sources of information. But not this time.
This is a source of fake news that promotes the theories espoused by revisionist historians like Thomas Lockley. 153.235.156.75 (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think those are useful on the issue of whether there's academic debate as to who is a samurai, or to settle any such debate. Those news sites are simply repeating the views of people like Lockley because they're easier to convey to their readers. "Yasuke was a samurai" is easier to say than "Yasuke was a servant of some guy most of you haven't heard of, who met some of the vaguely set out criteria of being a samurai but we're not too sure as to whether he was a samurai". John Smith's (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Regarding what Thornton meant in this article, I think it was clear that in bringing up the ambiguity of the definition of samurai and pointing out a specific point that could be an issue in terms of Yasuke being a samurai (family line), Thornton was showing that there is some reason for debate on this point, even if he himself never explicitly gave his own opinion in terms of which interpretation his thinks is correct. In any case, I emailed Thornton to elaborate on if he was giving his own position or if he was just describing what other historians might reasonably say:
>I read the article published today in Northeastern Global news in which your were quoted, and found the detailed background very interesting. Could you clarify one thing though about the following line:
>>Samurai were a kind of vassal, people who were bound to a lord legally and, in return, got certain privileges, including a sword and stipend. Yasuke had those privileges, Thornton says, but there is ambiguity about whether Yasuke’s vassalage amounted to the category of samurai. Some critics say the definition of a samurai was tied to one’s family and its relationship to the lord, both of which Yasuke didn’t have. [...] Regardless of how Yasuke would have been technically defined under the very fluid social norms of the time, Thornton says there is documentary evidence that he served Nobunaga and had privileges that are markers of a samurai.
>It wasn't clear to me if you were saying other historians think there is ambiguity or if you also think there is ambiguity. And if you think that despite this ambiguity you think Yasuke was still a samurai or if you meant that he may have been a samurai but there is not enough material in the primary sources to draw a conclusion, but he was like a samurai in many ways? Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
This was his response:
>Hello:
>Thank you for your message. I can't tell who you are from your email (!) so apologies for not addressing you properly.
>To your question: I think both are true. Historians disagree about whether 'samurai' had a definite meaning in the late sixteenth century. (The word itself simply means 'one who serves' and was not necessarily the official or even customary term used to describe various categories of vassal.) Certainly there was an emerging consensus about the definition of a samurai (they had to live in towns, served a lord, had the right/obligation to bear arms, etc.) but many of these obligations were new in the last few decades of the sixteenth century, and were still in the process of being standardized or extended across Japan.
>And historians also disagree about how Yasuke fit into this emerging definition. Did it matter that he wasn't part of an established family line with a history of service? Plenty of families fell into and out of 'samurai' status during these years of warfare and violence as they either took up arms or decided to give them up and return to being farmers, for instance. It wasn't as though everyone who became a 'samurai' had an ancient claim to that status (although many of course did). As you point out, the key issue there is that we don't have many primary sources to draw a firm conclusion, either about Yasuke himself or about the more general definition of samurai status in c. 1580.
>Hope that helps!
>Michael
I later asked him some other questions that are not strictly related to elaborating on what he meant in the article. In one of the later posts he added this, which I think was mainly in reference to the later discussion I had, but I'm including it for completeness:
>I'm not really a samurai guy - I prefer to study the 93% of the population that weren't samurai, and I tend to focus on the latter part of the Tokugawa period - so take these observations with those caveats in mind. I have no objection to you sharing what I've written although I'm not sure how helpful it will be!
The other sections of the email are not strictly about what he meant in the article, and emails cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia as I understand it, but I can post the other email as well just for general interest if it is desired. I also think that what he explained here is the same as what he said in the article, just in more words: the definition of samurai was ambiguous at the time, some historians say Yasuke fit that definition and others may say he did not fit it exactly. He does not directly give weight to either argument over another. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Personally I preferred the version of the article a few months ago that said Yasuke was given rewards the equivalent to being a samurai, but never mind.

I think a paragraph or two on whether he was a samurai, using the sources that other users have provided, would be fine. No need to remove all references to him being a samurai, just indicate it's a subject of debate. Does anyone object to that? John Smith's (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

To claim that it's a subject of (scholarly) debate, we need academic sources actively engaging with the issue: publications that either deny he was a samurai or raise the issue and discuss different views. Currently, we lack such sources. All we have are an interview in a Japanese right-wing newspaper, a blog post, a brief Yahoo News Japan commentary, and a Google Group email. These sources are insufficient to establish a scholarly debate. This is both a matter of due weight - these sources may be fringe - and verifiability: it's likely that no such debate exists. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Why is the political leanings of the newspaper relevant? If it was a left-leaning newspaper, would it make it more credible? Besides, I thought there were a couple of historians that were unsure on the issue. John Smith's (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Yūichi Goza is a historian [15] while Daimon Watanabe is an independent researcher whose reliability I'm not able to assess. Regarding the political leanings of the newspaper, the Sankei Shimbun, I explained why I think it is relevant in the RfC (see here and in the previous comments). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
>Yūichi Goza is a historian while Daimon Watanabe is an independent researcher
To be clear, both are historians.
>whose reliability I'm not able to assess
How come? He has a PhD in history and has written multiple books on the time period. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the RfC, the "look, not even the Sankei Shimbun managed to find an expert willing to commit to the no-samurai thesis" point isn't relevant. First, because it's not the duty of any newspaper to support or debunk a particular theory. Your views on how motivated the Sankei would be to find people to present a particular position are the sort of thing one might say in a pub chatting over a beer. It's not an argument to be made here.
Second, I thought we'd moved past the "Yasuke wasn't a samurai" point and moved on to a more nuanced point about whether there was some scepticism about whether he was definitely a samurai, or it was a sort of grey area.
I'm not sure that I understand the difference between a historian and an "independent researcher". Someone who researches (and presumably writes about) history is a historian. You don't need to have a formal position at a university to be a historian. The only reason to ignore the views of someone like Daimon Watanabe would be if he's been discredited as not being a serious author. John Smith's (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
The Yasuke controversy is politically charged, and I find it significant that the only news organisation to publish a "dissenting view" is a right-wing newspaper with a reputation for whitewashing Japanese war crimes. In my view, this makes the source less reliable. It is also significant that the reputable academic they managed to find did not rule out the possibility that Yasuke could have been a samurai. As for Watanabe, he is not an academic, and the ja.wiki article describes him as a historian who has published a variety of works, ranging from academic papers to light reading materials for casual history enthusiasts. He is the president of a non-notable Institute for the Study of History and Culture (株式会社 歴史と文化の研究所), a private company whose website [16] makes it clear that is essentially a business activity. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Are any of those things you mention actual issues? There is no guideline that says you must be affiliated with a university to be reliable on history. The article he published was in Yahoo News and his "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" which was what WP:V defines as a subject matter expert. I'm not sure why the fact that he has published a variety of works, ranging from academic papers to light reading materials for casual history enthusiasts matters here either. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
It seems that a Korean linguist will publish a book. Maybe it can be used.
It's just a press release, but no release date has been decided yet.
弥助：侍伝説の歴史学的検証
https://x.com/Goryodynasty/status/1836683026065174542
https://x.com/Goryodynasty/status/1838556313980428485 140.227.46.9 (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
There is no reason why anyone should this seriously as the author isn't a subject matter he has demonstrated a lot of bias in the past. 5.148.105.141 (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Subject matter expert. 5.148.105.141 (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
With respect, you can't discount a source just because of its political leanings. If Sankei is on a Wikipedia list as not a trustworthy source, that's one thing. But you appear to be discounting it just because you don't agree with its politics.
More importantly, if I understand it correctly the newspaper is not being quoted to "prove" Yasuke is not a samurai or the issue is contentious. It's purely being used to report what someone has said on the subject.
Watanabe doesn't need to be an academic to be an historian. Not least because his view is not being presented as an authority but as an example of differing views. John Smith's (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Why isn’t a RS saying there is a debate evidence enough? I think us counting published sources and deciding the majority is OR, unless there is an obvious consensus. There appears to be a debate, but that debate isn’t so much about Yasuke, but about Samurai and Bushi. The Wikipedia article shouldn’t use the word debate, but there is a difference of opinion about what a samurai and a bushi are. It seems that some scholars are aware of the disagreement, but don’t have an opinion on it, in part because they haven’t studied it in detail.
I don’t see how you can consider Thornton fringe. What he is saying matches with what Lockley and others are saying, he just doesn’t come to the exact same conclusion. Yasuke did samurai things and was treated like a samurai, but was he officially a samurai? It is possible that the Japanese saw him as a commoner doing a bushi job. This context is important. Yasuke might not be a samurai, but that means that a lot of people thought to be samurai aren’t, that includes people like William Adams, but also many Japanese warriors. In a way, this issue is similar to saying that Julius Caesar wasn’t Roman Emperor, and arguably neither were his successors.
In summation, there are two academic positions:
Yasuke was a samurai
Yasuke was like a samurai, but we can’t be sure he was one in an official legal sense.
There is also a difference of opinion on samurai vs. bushi and degree of confidence. It is important to remember that scholarly consensus or received wisdom is opinion and subject to debate and change. The debate here though is more "what is a samurai?" or what is "bushi?" and less about the status of Yasuke or other foreigners who served in Japan. Recently, Thomas Conlan gave an interview on YouTube. At around the 41 minute mark, he talks about the meaning of samurai. The controversy that the interviewer refers has to do with another interview that was on the channel between Lockley and Cummins, but was put behind a paywall because of the harassment Lockley received at work.
Before, the debate has mostly been about what Gozu is saying, but if the question is not what these scholars are saying, but instead asking if they are Reliable Sources, then maybe we need to take the case to RSN?
Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure RSN would be the right place to discuss it. I don't think Gitz is actually arguing that Goza and Watanabe are not reliable, rather that they are fringe because they are not published in an academic journal. I'm not sure if that falls under the purview of RSN. Interestingly, WP:FRINGE does not say anything about needing to be published in an academic Journal. In fact, some aspect of FRINGE imply Watanabe and Goza are more reliable than Lockley and Atkins:
>Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view. However, there are at least two caveats: not every identified subject matter has its own academic specialization, and the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight.
Both Watanabe and Goza are more specialized in this area of Japanese history than Atkins and Lockley. Atkins is specialized in modern Japanese history and it's hard to say if Lockley is specialized in any specific area of history, but in any case he has not published nearly as much as Watanabe on the Warring States period and is not a professor of history like Goza. This isn't to say that being published in a journal (or an academic publishing company in the case of Atkins) is not relevant, just that FRINGE does not mention this as the barometer for something being fringe.
Lastly, FRINGE seems only to apply to "mainstream idea[s]." There is little research about Yasuke in general and only 5 or so sources published on whether he was a samurai (including Watanabe being in a "mainstream newspaper"). The topic hardly qualifies as a "mainstream idea." J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Re I don't see how you can consider Thornton fringe - Nobody said Thornton is fringe. I checked the thread: nobody.
Goza's and Watanabe could be WP:FRINGE. In that case, WP:FTN would be the place to discuss it. But there's absolutely no need for that. An interview in a Japanese right-wing newspaper, a blog post, and a short Yahoo News Japan article by an independent researcher are very weak sources, and WP:WEIGHT dictates that we shouldn't put them on the same footing as academic sources published by reputable outlets and mentioned/circulated by tons of news organisations. Theoretically, WP:NPOVN would be the place to discuss this, but I advise against pushing the issue further, which could be seen as disruptive (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:FORUMSHOP). There is simply no evidence of an academic debate on the issue you are passionate about. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
>Re I don't see how you can consider Thornton fringe - Nobody said Thornton was fringe. I checked the thread: nobody.
I think you may have replied to the wrong post. I never said this.
>short Yahoo News Japan article by an independent researcher are very weak sources
Why is the length of the article relevant? In any event, Watanabe's article has the most discussion about why or why not Yasuke could be a samurai, compared to Atkins book which is several hundred pages but only has one or two paragraphs on Yasuke IIRC and zero discussion of why he holds that cliam. Similarly, Lockely does not give his opnion for why he believes Yasuke was a samurai anywhere except a single line in the Britanica article, which is not as reliable as Yahoo news if I understand WP:RSP] correctly. (Unless he goes into more detail in the 2023 Japanese book, in any case there he says there is debate which I still don't understand why that is not taken seriosuly.) Similarly López-Vera does not explain his reason IIRC. So if we are going by length Watanabe and Goza would actually win here. And FRINGE explicitly mentions newspapers as a valid source.
>There is simply no evidence of an academic debate
...Execpt for academics debating it. Unless you mean "academic" strictly such that you are excluding Watanabe as he is not affiliated with a university. But FRINGE uses the term "scholar" which Watabanbe certainly is. And again as I said FRINGE itself only applies to "mainstream ideas" which this is not. So the entire thing may not apply to begin with. Also, nobody is saying to put "there is an academic debate about Yasuke being a samurai" in the article, just to include Watanabe's opinion. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
As far as FRINGE, it is more about the theory. The FRINGE policy is written with science in mind, not history, so it isn’t clear how to apply it, but I think there is a helpful quote:
>"Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes."
In this case, all the historians are dealing with evidence and trying to explain it. It is mainly the conclusion that is different. There are many points of agreement, and some historians are using a different set of facts. That is for example, Yu and Goza´s analysis is so similar, that one can’t be mainstream and the other fringe. The conclusion is one more of confidence. The idea that Yasuke is not a samurai because he is a pet or sword bearer, slave or nakama is fringe. It is also hard to argue that saying "we don’t know" constitutes a theory.
Your actual case against Goza seems to be that the publication is BIASED and QUESTIONABLE. That argument has merit, but it doesn’t mean that Goza should be excluded. Here is a machine translation from his blog, which is useable:
"According to this description, Yasuke was clearly treated as a retainer of Nobunaga, i.e. a samurai. Some opinions have been seen online that because he was not given a surname, he was not a samurai, but a Nakama (a samurai servant below a samurai), but it is difficult to imagine that a Nakama would be given a sword and a house. It seems reasonable to interpret this as meaning that he was planned to be given a surname at some point. In addition, Yasuke is said to have sometimes served as Nobunaga's tool carrier, so it is thought that he was a close attendant to Nobunaga.
As mentioned above, the missionary Lorenzo Messiah wrote about the rumor that "people say that (Nobunaga) will make him (Yasuke) his lord." The word "lord" probably means that Yasuke will receive a fief and have vassals, even if he does not become the lord of a castle and a province."
What he is saying is closer to what Lockley and Yu are saying than non-experts people on the internet. The machine translation is weird though. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Objectivity of wikipedia

Knowing that sources advocating that yasuke was a samurai are really doubtful and challenged by many, I'm wondering why the safe keepers of this page persist in presenting Yasuke as a samurai without highlighting that there's an ongoing controversy.

Why not adding a "controversy on the samurai title" section that would list elements supporting the claims and disproving them ? (I think that comment from Dr Robert Tuck summarizes well the "doubtfulness of those sources https://groups.google.com/g/pmjs/c/mrXyZacOqdY/m/O0UwRPnUAwAJ)

That way, wikipedia would stay purely factual and objective on the matter. 2A02:678:5C6:4300:F117:4928:5E06:68CF (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

As I've understood Dr. Tuck's post there, he is talking solely about the book African Samurai, written jointly by Thomas Lockley and Geoffrey Girard.
That particular title is not used directly as a source anywhere in the Yasuke article. Consequently, I don't think that Dr. Tuck's post is all that relevant anymore, with regard to our article? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
The source "Yasuke" from encyclopedia Britannica quoted in this article acknowledges that the title of samurai is being disputed right at the beginning.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yasuke
I believe this page should reflect this level of objectivity instead of affirming, without further development, that yasuke was a samurai.
According to some historian like Yūichi Goza, https://agora-web.jp/archives/240721081916.html , he had the samurai title only by name without some of the privilege it comes with (leading men into battle, ...) 194.154.200.228 (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
That is a misunderstanding of what Goza is saying. It helps if one has little background knowledge on Samurai. A lot of samurai commanded troops in battle, but it wasn’t really a class privilege, but rather a role during battle. Most experts that have expressed an opinion on the matter say that Yasuke had an attendant/bodyguard role. What exactly this means, I don’t know. It does suggest that he was near Nobunaga during battles and protected him off the field. There is also evidence that, especially in the Warring States period, that samurai wasn’t really a title. Even in the Edo period, samurai covered a whole range of people, which could cover some very high ranking people. Historians don’t really have a consensus on who was a samurai, and tend to use modern definitions retroactively. Goza is saying that Yasuke probably wasn’t a great warrior or general, but had a position of some status. Goza thinks that Yasuke was possibly in Nobunaga´s entourage because he was entertaining. This view is based on a translation that may be wrong. Tinynanorobots (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. What you're saying makes a lot of sense and comforts me into thinking this page is lacking a certain distance when affirming that yasuke was a samurai. Showing that the title didn't really exist at the time or is up to dispute (as done by britannica.com) seems indeed judicious. 194.154.200.228 (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent discoveries about Thomas Lockley

Although the contents written by Thomas Lockley have been deleted from this Wikipedia page, some of them still remain. Some people still believe what Lockley claims. Therefore, although it may not be necessary for many people, I would like to provide some information. Naoto is an ordinary person who runs an English school, but he reported that he read a paper published by Thomas Lockley at Nihon University in 2016. This paper was Lockley's first source of information when he edited Yasuke's article on Wikipedia. This paper is a peer-reviewed paper from Nihon University, but it is not currently available to the public and can only be read by people who meet certain conditions. Unfortunately, this report is written in Japanese. If you are interested, please check the information using a translation site. The contents of the paper are written in English.

Key points from the report include: "This paper is written more like an essay than a treatise. Lockley has interpreted some facts to his advantage, and much of the content of the paper is a product of his imagination and imagination." "Verification of the source is difficult because no page numbers of the references are given." "An examination of the references cited in the paper revealed that the content claimed by Lockley does not exist." "Lockley claims that Yasuke may have had a wife, but his basis for this is the example of a Dutch man from the Edo period, and historical verification is a mess." Naoto hasn't finished reading the 400-page paper, but comments, "How could researchers from Nihon University have peer-reviewed it?" https://x.com/japanese_naoto/status/1840717440847868397

The person who went to see the book has written several blog posts. Since they are general public, they cannot be used as a source of information, but you may want to read them for reference. These are written not only in Japanese but also in English, so everyone can read them. https://japanese-with-naoto.com/2024/07/10/perfidious-historian-thomas-lockley/ https://japanese-with-naoto.com/2024/07/17/dreamy-history-assassin-1/ https://japanese-with-naoto.com/2024/07/22/dreamy-history-assassin-2-thomas-lockleys-cinderella-complex/ https://japanese-with-naoto.com/2024/07/29/definition-of-historian/ 153.236.255.103 (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Reading though this, it seems the main relevant point from that post is that apparently, in Lockley's 2016 paper, he wrote the following:
>While the Oda forces were travelling back to Azuchi, (3) Matsudaira Ietada made his second diary entry concerning Yasuke. He wrote of his surprise at Yasuke's new high-status, commenting once again on his size and color. Matsudaira even speculated, somewhat ironically perhaps, that Yasuke's stipend might even be equal to his own, which if correct would have made him a man of considerable wealth. cvii This indicates that Yasuke was probably handsomely mounted, clothed, attired, and armed as well as being placed in a position of favor near his lord. In this era it was customary for even important lords to have only two or three personal attendants, cviii so Yasuke's position at his side is highly significant.
>cvii: Matsudaira, 家忠日記第 2 巻 .
>cviii: Crasset, Histoire de l'Église du Japon.
>in: Thomas Lockley, The story of Yasuke: Nobunaga's African retainer, 桜文論叢 vol.91, 2016, 112p
>As far as I know, there is no such entry in the Ietada Diary. I have no idea what the basis for this is, and Lockley's entry is a real mystery. It says "a second entry," but there is only one entry about Yasuke in the Ietada Diary. Perhaps Lockley has confused it with The Chronicles of Nobunaga. I would like to think that this is not the case.
[...]
>The Sakurabunronso, in which Lockley's paper is included, is currently in the process of being digitized at the National Diet Library and is therefore not available for viewing. This process is expected to be completed at the end of November. I hope that everyone will be able to read it at that time.
The quote about the second Ietada entry does indeed not seem to be mentioned anywhere else in the literature to my knowledge. I could be wrong on that point but I feel like it would be mentioned by eg. Yu or Goza in their posts if it had been cited before, and I think Lockley himself would cite it in the Britannica article. I also could not find it by searching portions of that text in the talk page archive. So that's definitely an interesting point to consider. I don't think we can say anything more about this until the actual paper is published as we cannot rely on Naoto's post in terms of what Lockely wrote in his 2016 paper.
The other somewhat relevant point is more discussion about Lockley's claim of Yasuke having servants or owning slaves, which has seen some discussion earlier. He seems to elaborate on why he thinks that in the 2016 paper, according to Naoto's reading of it. I think we will have to wait until the paper is published until we can say anything else about that either.
While the post obviously has a certain aim and we obviously cannot cite it as a source here, there are also points that could be relevant to the article once it is published so thanks for pointing out this article. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I will note that this user is citing a X account with 155 followers, who complains that they were blocked by one of the Japanese historians that has affirmed that Yasuke was a samurai.
The blog of the X user is a personal blog and it cites Youtubers, contains all manner of unverified attacks, and one of the posts even opens with a derogatory image. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_447?wprov=srpw1_0#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley
This blog post was discussed during the RSN. Please see it for more information on how Lockley's scholarship is used by the page. Relm (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The person who introduced me to the SNS post has written in advance that the author of the report is an ordinary person. It means that they understand that the author is not a scholar and cannot be used as a source. Even non-scholars can read the paper and report on what it was about. The content is subjective, so there is no need to trust everything. You only need to focus on information that is clearly considered to be factual.
What is certain is that multiple people have pointed out that there are parts of Thomas Lockley's claims that are questionable. 140.227.46.9 (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
There's one more thing I can say.
The paper first used by Thomas Lockley when he edited Wikipedia, and which is the basis for claims such as the existence of servants who followed Yasuke, is currently being converted into a PDF document at the National Diet Library. It is said that it may be released next month. 140.227.46.9 (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Naoto isn’t only not a scholar, he starts out with Poisoning the well, and always assumes malice on the part of Lockley. He also doesn’t understand how history works. History involves a lot of speculation and hypothesis. Lockley isn’t a trained historian, so it would make sense that he isn’t especially good at it. He doesn’t express himself as precisely as he should all the time. This doesn’t make all his work unusable for wikipedia.
> "Lockley claims that Yasuke may have had a wife" (emphasis added by me)
Using "claims" here instead of "says" makes it seem that Lockley is making a stronger statement than he is. The key word is may. This is a hypothesis, and what historians do. Comparing it to a similar situation is also normal historical practise. Lockley may be making too much of a leap here, but this is nothing sinister. Naoto claims that people bow to Yasuke in the game because they think he is a buddha, but they bow because he is a samurai. Japanese bow to each other even today. It is the equivalent of people doffing their hat for the village squire. See this video by a researcher:[17]
In short, Naoto´s article isn’t only uncitable, it is misleading and doesn’t even point us in a direction for further research. It is mostly an attack on a person, and doesn’t show a good knowledge of history. You haven’t pointed out anything new, and there doesn’t seem to refer to anything that is in the article that should be changed. The claim that Yasuke had servants is in the primary sources, and while it is possible that it was added, there is no reason to think that it was, nor that if it was, that it is false. Tinynanorobots (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Yasuke had servants is in the primary sources,
In which sources? There are no primary sources that mention such things. 140.227.46.9 (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
According to https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yasuke, Ōta Gyūichi wrote that. It only appears in one version of the manuscript. They were hand copied, so it is possible that the certain information were left out of some copies, or that certain information was added. The claim is attributed to Lockley in the wikipedia article. He says that it is unpublished, which makes it hard to verify. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Please don't get angry. I don't remember how many times this story has come up, but the source material is Maeda's version of Shinchō Kōki. It says that he was given three things: a stipend, a short sword, and a personal residence. No servants included.
Furthermore, this document was created to preserve Nobunaga's life for future generations, and is treated as a secondary source in Japanese history books. 114.149.209.162 (talk) 09:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The document referred to is the Sonkeikaku Bunko (Maeda-clan) version of the Ota Gyuichi's Shincho Koki. The text, which is available in Kaneko Hiraku'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) is:
◎巻十四
二月二十三日、きりしたん国より黒坊[主]まいり候、[年之]齢廿六七と相見へ、惣之身之黒キ事牛之ことく、彼男器量すくやかにて、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に珍寄之者[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).
The underlined sections are the text unique to the Sonkeikaku Bunko version. They do not include mention of servants.
But, we are, perhaps, now at a divergence from the topic of this section. Rotary Engine talk 09:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
It may come as a surprise, but you are free to say that you don't like naoto and don't want to read what he writes. You don't have to read it. I know I can't use it as a source of information this time. However, selecting information based on the likes and dislikes of the author is not appropriate on Wikipedia.
To add a bit of information, journal articles published by Japanese universities are generally of a low standard, although this depends on the school. Some articles with such terrible content make one wonder how they could have been approved for peer review. They are on a completely different level to peer-reviewed articles in prestigious academic books. This cannot be said to be necessarily a bad thing, and there is an advantage in that one can write freely without worrying too much about restrictions. However, since peer-reviewed papers are generally considered to be trusted, it is possible that something as terrible as this case is published to the world. 153.148.110.237 (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I encourage you to be more sceptical of Naoto. A lot of the things he complains about are easily explainable by either an honest misunderstanding, or a lack of historical training on Lockley´s part. I haven’t heard of peer review books before. I am also not sure that Lockley´s article was peer-reviewed. This review of the book calls it a special issue. I know peer reviewed journals sometimes post non peer reviewed work. As far as the lack of page numbers, that is more common in science than in history, because historians cite thicker books more often. Without a suggested change to the wikipedia article, then I think this topic is off-topic. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The papers being talked about here are peer-reviewed papers. I don't know who could read and understand Lockley's paper.
The claim that Yasuke had servants is also expanded on in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Lockley seems convinced. We may find out why. It will be interesting to read.
https://researchmap.jp/7000004775/published_papers/18205512?lang=en
Separately, a book examining African samurai written by a Korean scholar is scheduled to be released soon.
https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B0DHZX7LCY
Let's talk again once the PDF conversion is complete and published, and once the English version of the review book is released. 110.131.150.214 (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yasuke/Archive_6&oldid=1250966979"