Talk:Yasuke: Difference between revisions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information.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

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

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Japan: Biography / History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:47, November 12, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Biography task force. This article is supported by the History task force. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles Africa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "Assassin's Creed Shadows sparks Wikipedia edit war over Yasuke". nichegamer.com. May 15, 2024. Retrieved May 16, 2024. The Wikipedia page as it reads now, paints a more ambiguous picture as records of Yasuke6appear to be few and far between (the article even says he was "likely" of African origin). However the real excitement is happening in the Talk page for the article. Alexander Moore (May 16, 2024). "People Are Vandalizing the Wikipedia Page for Assassin's Creed Shadows Protagonist Yasuke". GameRant. Retrieved May 17, 2024. In the aftermath of Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed: Shadows reveal, disgruntled gamers are flocking to Wikipedia to alter the page of one of the game's protagonists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also added this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember: "Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the requested pages.

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

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

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

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

「◎巻十四

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you all for the recent pings.

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

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

To explain to a non-Japanese audience, a Samurai is a "bushi" (warrior) of high societal status who serves a noble. However, not everyone who serves a noble is a Samurai. To be a Samurai, one typically needs a family history or lineage of Samurai, marked by strong loyalty to their noble. Alternatively, exceptional service in battle or as a bodyguard could also earn one the Samurai status, particularly during the Sengoku Period, when Yasuke lived. - Recommended Reading: https://www.touken-world.jp/tips/21046/

Yasuke lacks crucial elements that define a Samurai, and thus does not deserve this respectful status/title. He does not come from a family of samurai (武家) and is not entitled to the samurai status by birth. Furthermore, his official service to Oda Nobunaga was not due to exceptional service in battle or as a bodyguard, but rather because his black skin piqued Oda Nobunaga's curiosity. - Source: https://kutsukake.nichibun.ac.jp/obunsiryo/book/005729777/

Yasuke was also not recognized as a Samurai by Akechi Mitsuhide and his army, as evidenced by his treatment during the incident at Honno-ji (already mentioned in this Talk). True samurai loyal to Oda Nobunaga would have fought to the death or committed suicide in the form of seppuku. Akechi Mitsuhide executed surviving Samurai to prevent any attempts at revenge. Yasuke, however, was allowed to live. Akechi Mitsuhide decided to release Yasuke to the temple for the southern barbarians (南蛮寺), deeming Yasuke as an animal who knew nothing. It is clear from this humiliating treatment that Yasuke was not taken seriously as a Samurai, for he did not have the loyalty nor pride that defines a Samurai.

Moreover, it is not sensible to try to define him using pre-existing Japanese words "Samurai", "Bushi", "Kosho" etc, given Yasuke's unique situation in Japan. Yasuke was different to other Japanese people in every aspect, and did not seamlessly integrate into Japan's society. As such, Yasuke is best described as a private servant or pet of Oda Nobunaga. He was chosen privately by Oda Nobunaga purely for his rare appearance, not for his family background, loyalty, or service in battle, as would be the case for a samurai. Sakamajiro (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)— Sakamajiro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Did you really make a new account just to post this 216.138.9.189 (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others have mentioned this but this place isn’t Reddit so refrain from making unrelated posts :) FYI, this is my first and only Wikipedia account. Sakamajiro (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)— Sakamajiro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The records of those who died in the Honnō-ji Incident as described in the Shinchō-kōki, along with explanations and literature about Yasuke, lead to the following conclusion:

If Yasuke had died in battle, he would likely have been recorded as a chūgen (middle-ranking servant) or kozō (menial servant).

[1] https://kokusho.nijl.ac.jp/biblio/100108970/699?ln=en

[2] https://note.com/46468892/n/n3a1fba30d081

[3] https://note.com/46468892/n/nec768a9fb69f

This is because he was not given a family name (myōji). The difference between a chūgen and a samurai was that samurai were permitted to carry two swords and were given family names by their lords. Chūgen were allowed to carry one sword.

Records show that capable chūgen and kozō could sometimes be promoted to samurai status, which conversely indicates that chūgen and kozō were not samurai. If promoted to samurai, they would have been given a family name by their lord.

Additionally, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who was also under Nobunaga's command during the same period, issued a status control order that outlined these distinctions.

The Kobayakawa family documents' Hitohaki-rei (status control order) shows classifications such as hōkōnin (retainer), samurai, chūgen, kozō, and arashiko.

[4] https://ee-arts.biz/database/jh308/516/

[5] https://imidas.jp/jidaigeki/detail/L-57-114-08-04-G252.html

[6] https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AD%A6%E5%AE%B6%E5%A5%89%E5%85%AC%E4%BA%BA

Given this information, if Yasuke had died in the Honnō-ji Incident, he would likely have been recorded as a chūgen or kozō. This could be considered evidence that Yasuke cannot be classified as a samurai. Phoepsilonix (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone follow up on E. Taylor Atkins's A History of Popular Culture in Japan's mentions of Yasuke and see what actual sources lead to this possible missunderstanding? Same goes for Jonathan López-Vera "A History of the Samurai: Legendary Warriors of Japan." referencing. These are the two academical sources on this article that claim he was a Samurai.

Can't find peer reviews on these as well. RustyRapier (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnYyYDpC00Y

In the video mentioned above, after obtaining the papers and books by the author of "African Samurai," specific issues with his statements are pointed out. It is also explained that primary sources about Yasuke are not hidden, but were originally very scarce. This is why it is clear that "African Samurai" is historical fiction. The fact that the author is manipulating public opinion by promoting it as historical non-fiction, even engaging in self-promotion on Wikipedia, is itself a significant problem. Phoepsilonix (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical documents reveal that in the 10th year of Bunmei (1478), social classes called "chūgen" (中間) and "komono" (小者) existed, which were distinct from the bushi(warrior, retainers) class. Furthermore, by the 5th year of Tenshō (1577), a classification system including "samurai" (侍), "komono" (小者), and "chūgen" (中間) had emerged. Given that the Honnō-ji Incident occurred in 1582, it is reasonable to assume that distinctions such as "samurai" and "chūgen" were already established within Oda Nobunaga's ranks.

https://wwwap.hi.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ships/w10/search?keyword=%E4%BE%8D%E3%80%80%E5%B0%8F%E8%80%85&resultoption=%E3%82%B3%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B3%E3%83%BC%E3%83%80%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B9%E8%A1%A8%E7%A4%BA&page=1&itemsperpage=200&sortby=jc_date&sortdesc=false&sortitem=%E5%92%8C%E6%9A%A6%E5%B9%B4%E6%9C%88%E6%97%A5%EF%BC%9A%E6%98%87%E9%A0%86

https://wwwap.hi.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ships/w10/search?keyword=%E4%B8%AD%E9%96%93%E5%B0%8F%E8%80%85&resultoption=%E3%82%B3%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B3%E3%83%BC%E3%83%80%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B9%E8%A1%A8%E7%A4%BA&page=1&itemsperpage=200&sortby=jc_date&sortdesc=false&sortitem=%E5%92%8C%E6%9A%A6%E5%B9%B4%E6%9C%88%E6%97%A5%EF%BC%9A%E6%98%87%E9%A0%86 Phoepsilonix (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• About Hitohaki-rei

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%BA%E6%8E%83%E4%BB%A4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_Edict Phoepsilonix (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://kanagawa-u.repo.nii.ac.jp/record/1971/files/41-08.pdf Phoepsilonix (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good, it's in line with what I saw in historian Raffaello Urbani's channel. The sources are no good.

Then these sources and "samurai" claims should be removed. Are revisionist wikipedians even going to allow it? RustyRapier (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone being an samurai even counts as a "political worldview". Not really a fan of declaring the edits vandalism. There are definitely both for and against the charactization Trade (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For added context, Trade is talking about this recent edit done by Kyoraki (talk · contribs) (also pinging AlphaBetaGamma who created Talk:Yasuke/FAQ). Thibaut (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"You have a worldview, I have the truth" said every fool ever. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you were agreeing with me or not Trade (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing. "A certain political worldview" simply boils down to "a worldview with which I disagree." Just being a bit too poetic about the danger of ignoring our own biases. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it weren't for UBI lacking common sense this disruption wouldn't have occurred, but that FAQ needs to be semi protected due to the fact it is being used by IPs and non autoconfirmed users to bypass protection. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to wonder if someone canvassing gave them this "tip". Your average SPA probably would not have figured this out Trade (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything can be part of politics, including a bucket (see Italy's War of the Bucket).

In this case, it's clearly in line with afrocentrism, promoting the notion that africans were major global influencers, even when historical analysis doesn't support the expected historical grandness and accompanying titles.

An opposing revisionist parallel would be denying that Thomas Alexandre Dumas, a napoleonic black man, wasn't a general and had a great role in his lifetime, the worldview supporting revisionism that he was a low rank, or something as baseless. RustyRapier (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of a FAQ should be to give a neutral summary of content dispute to uninvolved editors.--Trade (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, that vandalism against the FAQ is now reverted and it's up for RfPP as well. Have a good day. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was certainly a new one. Still some context on whom Lockley is and what exactly makes Yasuke a samurai would be an helpful addition--Trade (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a successful RfC to define Yasuke as a samurai a week ago, so I doubt it's getting overturned. Because so many people are pissed about the decision (including me), the page and other related things are becoming a target for SPA vandalism or disruption. I respect that Wikipedia has consensus to display that information because it has references to sources, so I'm taking the anger out on a different place in internet instead, but some people unfortunately engages in destruction of encyclopedia. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I also find interesting is that no one has mentioned the fact that this could very well be being influenced by paid actors, beyond other questionable motivations. A certain large video game company worth several billion dollars has a vested interest in Yasuke being identified as “samurai.” I’m not trying to claim that the content of this article will make or break the bank for this company, but it is interesting what lengths people will go to for mega-corporations.

Regardless, I genuinely don’t understand what the issue would be with admitting that Yasuke’s status and title is, at best, unclear. Either by presenting opposing sources or by presenting sources that state just that. Outright identifying him as samurai — from all of the evidence I have seen - seems questionable, at best, particularly in the lead. MWFwiki (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We all know Ubisoft is famous for their fidelity to history and their mastery of subtle language nuances. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A certain large video game company has no such "vested interest". They can make games about whatever they want. The very successful TV series "Afro Samurai" was based on Yasuke, and they had no "vested interest" either. So far the only attempted influence I've seen has come from certain perpetually angry culture war crowds.

Regardless, I genuinely don’t understand what the issue would be with admitting that Yasuke’s status and title is, at best, unclear. Outright identifying him as samurai —

Because it isn't unclear. As mentioned by someone in the closed RfC, the sourcing here seems to be pretty clear that "Yasuke was a samurai" is not in fact a minority view, it's the majority view. We have lots of reliable sources that say that he was a samurai, including:

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

In contrast to all this, opponents don't appear to have a single source other than WP:OR readings of primary sources that Yasuke was not a samurai. So therefore, the view in both scholarly sources and news sources is that Yasuke was a samurai. Symphony Regalia (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So all of the sources on the Japanese Wikipedia are not reliable?

Ahhh, the ol' "NPR" rule. Once enough secondary sources say something, unless you're an expert in primary sources, it doesn't matter.

There is clear revisionism going-on here, and you're a willing and active participant. MWFwiki (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, could you please be more specific about which sources on the Japanese Wikipedia you are referring to? So far the editors working on this article have not been able to find a single source that denies that Yasuke was a samurai, while there are a relatively large number of sources (including academic sources from experts in the field) that call him a samurai. Besides, are you sure that the "revisionist" here is not you? In 2016, 2017 and 2018, before the media frenzy about Yasuke, this article spoke of Yasuke as a samurai (July 2016, Nov 2016, Nov 2017, Mar 2019) and no one cared until 5 March 2019, when an unregistered user made this edit and Yasuke stopped being a samurai for Wikipedia (not just the English edition). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a long-time page watcher who largely refrained from the whole debate after the AC:Shadows reveal, if I may add my point of view: I don't believe it is fair to demand a devil's proof that "denies" Yasuke as a samurai in order for Wikipedia to be able to say his status was contested. Instead, I believe effort should be spent to survey how historians describe Yasuke where he is brought up. Lockley and Lopez-Vera can be considered subject experts who use the word "samurai" for him, which is great, but they are only two researchers. What words do other researchers of the period use when describing Yasuke? More importantly, what words do the Japanese experts of the period use for Yasuke? If we can't answer these questions, then we risk putting WP:UNDUE weight on Lockley and Lopez-Vera's views.

Actually, it is interesting that Gitz6666 brings up timestamps when Wikipedia started calling Yasuke a samurai. 15 July 2016 precedes all sources we have listed here, even Lockley's book, which was published in 2019! This really makes me wonder what Yasuke was called in reliable sources before Lockley wrote about him, and if the prevalence of news media calling Yasuke a samurai without qualification is a result of citogenesis that ultimately began right on this very article. _dk (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lockley's "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan" was published (if I'm not mistaken) by Hanover Square Press in April 2019, and was immediately covered by TIME. However, before Lockley there had been a book by Ivorian journalist and writer Serge Bilé, Yasuke, le samurai noir (Owen, 2018), which was covered by Le Monde and, in English, by Govamedia. As to Japanese historians, I agree that their views would be significant, but so far no one has been able to find anything. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is one source I can find that predates July 2016, and that is Thomas Lockley himself contributing an article in February 2016 called "The Story of Yasuke: Nobunaga's African Retainer" to Omon ronso, which seems to be a journal that undergoes a screening process from the Nihon University School of Law (where Lockley works). As such, it should be worthwhile to seek this paper out if his book is deemed unreliable due to its alleged lack of fact-checking. (I note that Lockley has not yet committed to call Yasuke a "Samurai" in the title of this 2016 work but "Retainer".) _dk (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AC haven't been historically accurate for a very long time Trade (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fluent in Japanese. The Japanese sources and historical records support that Yasuke was a samurai. It is recorded for instance that Yasuke was permitted to bare arms, and that he directly served a Lord (Nobunga) (the definition of 侍). Of course this does not matter, as we ultimately follow the sources and the sources from historians and subject matter experts are overwhemingly clear that Yasuke was a samurai.

There is no "revisionism". Again, the only attempted influence I've seen has come from certain perpetually angry culture war crowds who dislike Yasuke for... reasons. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also fluent in Japanese. Please share the sources you found so that we can all examine and WP:verify them for ourselves so that we can hopefully put this whole debate behind. _dk (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of 侍 I am referencing is from 新辞林。In particular 「帯刀し，武芸をもって主君に仕えた者。武士。」. Symphony Regalia (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know about 新辞林 (which doesn’t seem to be available online) but I’ve been able to confirm that the same exact definition can be found in the Daijirin (大辞林). Thibaut (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MWFwiki, please Assume good faith and don't idly speculate about editors being paid, when you have no evidence to that end. Please see Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not accusing editors of being paid. I was stating that it is curious that the idea of a multi-billion dollar company with a vested interest in this very discussion could be employing paid actors, given that we seem to be working backwards towards a given conclusion. What evidence should I gather? It's impossible to do so, obviously. It doesn't mean it's not happening. But regardless, I will refrain from broaching the topic any further, as it seems it might be sensitive for some. MWFwiki (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but that sounds like a conspiracy theory and the only ones I've seen who are working backwards from a given conclusion are those who are attempting to discredit Yasuke for personal reasons dispute very clear and overwhelming sourcing on this matter that existed before said game. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would first require reliable sources in opposition to the academic consensus - which so far have yet to be provided. Relm (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, we don't know what the academic consensus actually is: we only have the handful of sources brought up so far on the main [[Yasuke]] page, and in various scattered Talk threads. We are missing any proper survey of works that mention Yasuke. I think this discussion could benefit from such a list, breaking down details like:

• Title of the work, date, and URL if any
• Type of publication: is this an academic paper? a book? a pop-culture article in a magazine? etc.
• Author, and author's educational / professional / linguistic background (are they trained as an historian? as a journalist? Can they read Japanese? or classical Japanese? etc.)
• Source of the work's own details on Yasuke: is this a primary source? secondary? tertiary? further?

• If secondary / tertiary / further, what sources does this work use for its information on Yasuke?

For instance, if we look more deeply at @Symphony Regalia's list just above:

• The book by Lockley mentioned several times above.

• The Lockley / Girard book African Samurai. This work has no inline citations, and includes content that is clearly fiction, as exemplified with quotes further above. This work is problematic in reliability terms, which is why it is under discussion over at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley.

• Several academic reviews of Lockley's book.

• There's the review by Roger Purdy, which characterizes the book as "popular history and historical fiction".

• The book by Lopez-Vera linked in a previous comment.

• So far, this is one semi-solid source: the author has a degree in Japanese history, and the book is not a fictionalized biography. However, it also lacks inline citations.

• The Smithonian magazine.

• Tertiary source, non-academic, relying on Lockley / Girard.

• Time.

• Tertiary source, non-academic, relying on Lockley / Girard.

• The BBC.

• Tertiary source, non-academic, relying on Lockley / Girard.

• Britannica.

• Tertiary source, non-academic, entirely unsourced, contains speculations.

A list of what looks like seven sources boils down to two, of which the one underpinning many of the others is under discussion for reliability concerns.

A list of relevant works that clearly presents details like the above could go a long way towards clarifying the actual state of published views on Yasuke, and help us all to avoid this kind of citogenesis and source confusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This work has no inline citations, and includes content that is clearly fiction

Oh god, you're still repeating this nonsense claim? This is beyond inane. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the quotes from the Lockley / Girard book in my earlier reply to you? How is it "inane" to point out that African Samurai has reliability issues? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lockley's work is reliable, and has been reviewed by other historians and subject matter experts. Lopez, Smithsonian, Time, BBC, and Britannica are all considered reliable as well.

Yasuke being considered a samurai is supported by historical records and several reliable sources, and challenged by no one except a few editors who engage in original research. Wikipedia is not for editors to push their personal interpretation, personal research, and/or other personal beliefs. No amount of WP:OR or refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK will change this.

To paraphrase the other discussion: while the opposition has made arguments stemming from their deep, personal knowledge of Japanese history and readings of the primary sources, the guiding principle by which Wikipedia is edited states

"Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it"

Likewise, per WP:NPOV:

Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

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

we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.

Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided zero sources backing up your contention that the Lockley / Girard book is reliable, despite several users asking you directly for such sources.

Please provide sources showing that African Samurai has been reviewed by historians and deemed reliable. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the academic consensus is not provided.

There are quite a lot of papers and books even, who talk about the cultural exchange between Japan and Africans, starting with the Sengoku era and often started with sentences, that the first contact was based on the servants and slaves of European visitors.

the sources? October 2013 as part of Small Electronic Exhibitions Kaleidoscope of Books, No. 14. using material of the National Diet Library (NDL)'s collections

https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/

they even provide a english translation: https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/e/entry/14/2.html

But surely we dont have other sources:

Interracial Intimacy in Japan, Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900 by Gary P. Leupp, 2003

"In 1581, a mob in Kyoto broke down the door of a Jesuit residence in their eagerness to see an African slave, who had been born in Mozambique and brought to Japan by the missionary Alessandro Valignano. Several people were injured. Apparently embarrassed about the incident, the warlord Oda Nobunaga himself summoned the man, inspected his person carefully to ensure that his color was genuine, presented him with a gift of money, and then took him into his own service. <Yasuke>, as Nobunaga named him, subsequently accompanied his lord in battle. After the latter was trapped by Akechi Mitsuhide and forced to commit suicide in 1582, Yasuke was captured but released. (This was, after all, not his quarrel: <He is not Japanese,> noted Akechi)"

But Leupp, who clearly calls Yasuke a slave, is surely not a reliable source, except that we use Leupp already as one of our main sources in this article.

On Page 87 in Japan's Minorities. The Illusion of Homogeneity by J.G. Russel, 2009

We hear once again of Yasuke and the services he and other black people did under Nobunaga. Not as a samurai, but "as soldiers, gunners, drummers and entertainers." And he points at the works of Fujita 1987 and Leupp 1995.

Fujita is Fujita Satoru, just a japanese historian, who loves to write books about the clear terminology of terms in Japan and just a guy releasing a political-historical work 1987 about the Shogunat-system....surely some newsarticle knows more about the samurai-title. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sidenote, not sure, if it is Fujita Satoru, but he comes up as the sole historian of this time-era with the name Fujita releasing anything 1987. But it is a common name. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Yosuke was a slave when he met Nobunaga, although I don't remember reading this in the sources I've checked so far. If not a slave, probably he was a servant. The point of contention, however, is what he became after meeting Nobunaga, while at his service. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and while the Portuguese gave him to Oda simply as a servant and got him back after his service under Oda by Akechi Mitsuhide, who is in itself already a new and controversial making of a samurai out of just a ronin by Oda Nobunaga, we can add to this progress, that the Portuguese side and some retainers of Oda Nobunaga didn't saw him as a samurai.

Mitsuhide killed captured samurai, but he didn't killed Yasuke and called him an animal and not Japanese.

Sometimes you argued in this context of the delusion of the samurai definition in this era. And this is correct....the term became more flexibel, not with foreigners becoming samurai and i dont know about any source claiming this to be the reason for a lax terminology of the term in later times. Sources give as example for the change of definition of the term of samurai two Japanese powerful retainers, Mitsuhide and Hideyoshi who had to serve him for a long period as commoner and ronin and lead hundreds of men into battle for him, just to get the samurai status under Oda Nobunaga. ErikWar19 (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time we have people like Tetsuo Owada talking extensively about all the retainers of Oda Nobunaga and the conflict to just declare Hideyoshi and Mitsuhide as a samurai to highlight the controversy around Nobunaga in his actions in power against traditional values and he doesn't even mentioned once Yasuke as a even more controversial samurai-declearation of Nobunaga.

We know about the negative reactions about Hideyoshi, but the same people were suddenly apathetic and absolute silent about Yasuke. And the Portuguese former owners of Yasuke didn't even mentioned, that their servant was apparently made to nobility by Nobunaga, while there were still zero Portuguese visitors given any form of official status in Japan.

OR Yasuke was just one of hundreds of other non-samurai warriors, gunners, entertainers, servants in Japan in this era.-- ErikWar19 (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear academic consensus that Yasuke was a samurai, and none of these dispute that claim. Symphony Regalia (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the clear academic consensus would be the official publications of the National Diet Library (NDL) of Japan, who is calling these black people in Japan, like Yasuke, servants and slaves.

https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/

they even provide a english translation: https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/e/entry/14/2.html

the clear academic consensus talks about samurai and their dissolved definition of heritage NOT with Yasuke, but with Japanese people.

I already linked in a short search 2 realiable sources clearly stating Yasuke to be a slave. ErikWar19 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

slave and/or something else than a samurai.

It still remains a fact, that Yasuke being a samurai remains to be a minority view. -- ErikWar19 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page you linked refers to Yasuke explicitly as an 'African Priest' in the only mention of Yasuke. The very next paragraph it is listing an example where Africans and Indians both were praised for their service in a feudal conflict loading canons. The rest of the text is about the Edo period onward and is irrelevant. If anything this would serve as a source against what you claim.

Not all servants are slaves, not all Africans in Japan must be slaves. The source you linked is rather clear in stating Yasuke as having been a priest when serving with the Jesuits. Relm (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Relm, I assume you're talking about this page?

• https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/e/entry/14/2.html

This appears to be the translated English version of the Japanese text seen here:

• https://www.ndl.go.jp/kaleido/entry/14/2.html

I think this is the bit you're mentioning (problematic text bolded by me):

In Shinchō Kōki (信長公記, A Chronicle of Lord Nobunaga), a biography of ODA Nobunaga, there appears Kurobōzu (黒坊主, a black priest), who first attended the Jesuit priest Valignano and later served Nobunaga.

That 坊主 (bōzu) part is the problematic word: this can mean "monk", but it is also used to mean "boy, young man" as a mild pejorative. See also bilingual references like WWWJDIC, or Kenkyusha's J-E at Weblio. The historical term I've seen more commonly used to describe Yasuke in older Japanese texts is 黒坊 (kurobō at the time, kuronbō or kuronbo in the modern pronunciation), which is 黒 (kuro, "black") + 坊 (bō, "boy, young man"), where the bō is shortened from this same 坊主 (bōzu).

Here's the original Japanese from that page, with my translation:

織田信長の伝記である『信長公記』には、イエズス会司祭ヴァリニャーノが従者として連れており、その後信長に仕えることとなった「黒坊主」が登場します。
In the Shinchō Kōki chronicle about Oda Nobunaga, there appears a young black man (kurobōzu), who accompanied the Jesuit priest Valignano as an attendant and later served Nobunaga.

Translating the bōzu part as "priest" is a meaning error, and a rather bad one, given this context.

(I make no comment about @ErikWar19's claims, I simply wanted to point out that describing Yasuke as a "priest" here is an error on the part of the English translation of the NDL web page.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I forgot to add that 坊主 (bōzu) in any "religious figure" context refers to a Buddhist monk, so rendering this as "priest" in a context that also talks about the Jesuits is a double-mistake. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very biased attempt to skew historical facts where there are no sources of. Depictions of historical events need to be backed by reputable writers and long standing undisputable sources.Alexceltare2 (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We preferentially use recent scholarship rather than decades old sources, if newer publications are available. When referencing Wikipedia articles, you should avoid using old academic sources that may have a biased or less complete understanding of a topic that is better formed in modern scholarship instead due to the intervening years of academic research on the topic. Silverseren^C 23:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biased or less complete? You're twisting historical facts, sir. It's like saying "ancient hieroglyphs depict vocal sounds. but we think it depicts animals because it sounds cuter". There is no universal academic consensus to back your claims. Even books need citations and those are NOT the definitive source. -Alexceltare2 (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have pre-2020 citations on the subject you're welcome to add them if they deserve it, but there's no reason to remove existing citations just because they are post-2020. Arguably, recent scholarly sources are preferable for history articles (see WP:HISTRW). By the way, what happened in 2020? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666, you recently changed the image of the screen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasuke&diff=prev&oldid=1233672701

I just noticed that this means the text of the article becomes a bit confusing, particularly this bit:

"[...] while others believe that the dark-skinned man wrestling in the center is Yasuke and the one to his right, playing the role of a gyōji, is Oda Nobunaga."

The detailed image you switched to only shows two people. If a reader doesn't know what a "gyōji" is and doesn't click through to that article, the text thus sounds like Yasuke must be wrestling with Nobunaga himself.

Would it be possible to find, or create, a detailed image of the screen that shows the two wrestlers, and the gyōji? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this image overly detailed and nearly incomprehensible when reduced to a thumbnail. Moreover the caption ("Sumō Yūrakuzu Byōbu, drawn in 1605") lacked context and required the reader to consult the article text. If you disagree with my edit, feel free to undo it, but please improve the caption by adding information (e.g., "it has been suggested that the black sumo wrestler in the centre of the painting is Yasuke"). Alternatively, we could include both the full image of the painting and the close-up of the sumo wrestlers. A second alternative would be to create a cropped image showing the wrestlers and the gyōji, as you suggest. I'm not sure about the quality but we could try. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the image of the entire screen is visually difficult to parse.

I did not realize that that larger image was such low resolution: I agree that simply cropping that would result in a lower-quality image than the detailed one you found.

So rather than try to do any image editing, instead I have tweaked the image caption and the body text to clarify things, so hopefully readers do not come away with any misunderstanding that the other wrestler is Nobunaga. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If I'm not mistaken, per WP:ELMAYBE (No 5) we could link to the larger image within the caption, which would then become Detail from the Sumō Yūrakuzu Byōbu, drawn in 1605 .... This seems reasonable, as the image may be of interest to the reader, especially as the gyōji is mentioned in the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I'm not sure how we ended up with the article stating that he was a samurai and doesn't even have a cite on the word samurai to prove it. Remove it or prove it. There should be some documents saying that Yasuke was indeed granted the rank of samurai. This kind of thing has to be done officially and therefore had some official documents recorded. Stop using Lockley's book and Netflix anime as a source for him being a samurai. Those are fictions. Ezio's Assassin (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should create an Wikipedia:Requests for comment for that Trade (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done

Completed RfC on to include samurai or not

Some of many sources discussing Yasuke's history as a samurai

Have a nice day. Silverseren^C 22:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually statements in the lead are left uncited, as they are already sourced in the body of the article, though clearly this suggestion/guideline has been somewhat haphazardly applied on this article. XeCyranium (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His books were exposed as historical inaccurate source, so we should remove everything on the article that mentioned Lockley's information or opinions such as:

- "...depicts a black man wearing Portuguese high-class clothing. Author Thomas Lockley argues that it could be Yasuke." --- Just his opinion.

- "Thomas Lockley suggests that Nobunaga may have heard Valignano's group pronounce the name "Isake" (Jewish name "Isaac") and named him "Yasuke"" --- "may have heard", yeah... so it's just his assumption again. It's too opinionate to be on the article.

A lot other parts of the article are also citing Lockley's books that has already been exposed to be fictional. And on this talk page, people were using BBC, Times, CNN's articles as sources while those articles were also repeating what Lockley wrote in his books. Now we have people and media keep citing Lockley-media-Wikipedia in circle, while it's the same false information. We should stop this immediately. Ezio's Assassin (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a discussion going on at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about Lockley. Go over there if you want to argue about this, this isn't the right place for it. Silverseren^C 17:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently included in two categories Category:1580s missing person cases & Category:Missing person cases in Japan, perhaps on the basis that the article subject falls out of the historical record after the Honnoji Incident. This seems an inappropriate categorisation, given that we have no sources indicating that the subject was considered missing at the time. I will remove these categories, and the See Also link to List of people who disappeared. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a weird thing to have added. People fall off in both the historical record and the news all the time, but that's not the same thing as missing. Good removal. Silverseren^C 04:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this discussion here from a portion of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Thomas Lockley for those that are not following that page and as I did not see it discussed in the archives here or in the recent RfC.

Lockley appears as one of the authors in 『つなぐ世界史』2 近世 (2023) published by ja:清水書院. He has an article titled 信長の黒人「サムライ」弥助 (by ロックリー・トーマス ie. Lockley). In it, he writes the following on page 32:

この時代，武士とそれ以外の身分の垣根は曖味であり、本当に弥助が「サムライ」となったのかについては議論があるものの、少なくともその身一代においては、彼は間違いなく信長の家臣に取り立てられたと考えられている。

MTL:

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

You can see the article listed on Lockley's page here and you can buy it here. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. This is a surprise. Since Lockley is (correct me if I’m wrong) the source of the claim of Yasuke as samurai, I think this fundamentally complicates the notion, and we should reflect that complication in the article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure, given Lockley (user:Tottoritom) made conflict of interest editing on this article back in 2015 by citing his own to-be-published 2016 paper.[9] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, to my knowledge, he's still the main author being cited here, with other third hand sources like Britanica and the Smithsonian using him as their source as well. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case. If you look at the article there are two non-Lockley academic sources for the samurai claim (Lopez-Vera and Atkins) as well as the Smithsonian which seems to have talked to multiple historians.

Regardless, I'd suggest we avoid splitting discussions over multiple noticeboards (i.e. keep discussion about reliability of Lockley on RSN, other content/sources about Yasuke here, and discussion about conduct at ANI) CambrianCrab (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>keep discussion about reliability of Lockley on RSN

This isn't about the reliability of Lockley. It is about a statement made by Lockley which was not discussed earlier and could be mentioned in the article.

>If you look at the article there are two non-Lockley academic sources

That may be the case. My main point was that Lockley is still one of the sources cited here which was implied not to be the case above. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few points.

• Re: the Smithsonian article, that relies entirely on Lockley for its statements about Yasuke and samurai status. The article quotes Natalie Doan, but only on other matters: none of her words touch on Yasuke and samurai-ness.
• Re: Atkins, I do not have that text myself and no preview is available. However, if the extent of Atkins's statements about Yasuke and samurai status are included in the quote currently visible in the "References" section, then he does not say that Yasuke is a samurai. Here's the quote, emphasis mine:

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, defending Azuchi castle from the traitorous Akechi forces in 1582, where Nobunaga committed ritual suicide (seppuku). 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.

His use of quotation marks here indicates that he is quoting others, not using that epithet directly himself.

• That leaves us with López-Vera, which consists of a short blurb about Yasuke described as a samurai, albeit without any citations, and no explanation of López-Vera's reasoning for calling Yasuke a samurai. I am fine with López-Vera's book being cited, provided that it is clearly attributed to López-Vera, and not in "wikivoice" as an unattributed statement of fact.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was strictly a response to the claim that Lockley is the main author being cited here, which does not seem to be the case for anything I saw in the article, and certainly isn't the case for the "samurai" title. Discussions about the reliability of the sources actually in use should take place under their own headers, either here or on RSN. CambrianCrab (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without comment on the reliability of Lopez-Vera's "History of the Samurai", noting that, while Lopez-Vera is an historian, Tuttle Publishing is a popular press, not an academic press. And the work, therefore, is not accurately described as an "academic source". Rotary Engine ^talk 10:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also really important to note that "Samurai" in these sources isn't even being defined at all. This reminds me of trying to find anything on "Ninjas" in English sources, and you find endless sources saying this or that about "Ninjas" and how they did or did not operate, and often never citing any kind of documentation (or citing other English books on the subject). With a lot of pop history sources you get people citing nothing, citing each other, and not defining anything. They seem more interested in telling a neat story than being accurate to minute details.

People just seem to imagine anyone with a sword in Feudal Japan is a "Samurai" and Japanese media often portrays them as having superhuman abilities in battle. Meanwhile it was a hereditary military nobility, and it's not something you can just enter into but something granted by a high ranking official. And for the matter, the reality is often much more mundane: William Adams was granted the status of Samurai, but he was really just a bureaucrat.

So you have to ask: how do any of these authors know Yasuke was a samurai? We know for a fact that there's no recorded sources saying this (otherwise they would just be cited directly). So it seems to just boil down to how various authors define a "samurai", and these pop-history writers seem to just loosely define it as anyone serving under Nobunaga would be a samurai whereas retainer would be more accurate. But writing a post on "The African Retainer in Japan" doesn't sound as catchy as calling him a Samurai and playing into people's imagination. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>People just seem to imagine anyone with a sword in Feudal Japan is a "Samurai"

I don't think that is the case. In my mind, one of the main things people in the west associate with "Samurai" is the so called "Samurai Code", including to commit suicide rather than surrender. So I think the "English Samurai" is actually more restrictive than the true samurai of eg. the early Edo period. The Yasuke argument is the first time I've heard the claim that in English, "samurai" basically just means anyone with a sword. Besides, Wikipeida is a WP:Global project, and "language determines only the form, not the content of articles." It shouldn't be based on what Wikipedians say English speakers think about a topic. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>People just seem to imagine anyone with a sword in Feudal Japan is a "Samurai"

I don't think that is the case. [...] The Yasuke argument is the first time I've heard the claim that in English, "samurai" basically just means anyone with a sword.

There is a lot of confusion in the English-language popular press on what exactly a "samurai" was, in different historical eras. Part of this is due to the effective conflation of samurai (hereditary social class) and bushi (professional warrior) during the Edo period (1603–1868), as laws implemented first by Toyotomi Hideyoshi and expanded upon by the following Tokugawa administration meant that the only people allowed to perform the role of bushi were those who had status as samurai.

We see this confusion expressed by Lockley himself, as he is quoted in the TIME article, "The True Story of Yasuke, the Legendary Black Samurai Behind Netflix’s New Anime Series" (emphasis mine):

"Lockley also explained that in Yasuke’s time, the idea of a “samurai” was a very fluid concept. “You don’t have to possess any particular killing skills to be a samurai,” the author said. “Anybody who took up weapons on behalf of a lord could technically call themself a samurai, or could be called a samurai.”"

Anyway, I think the English-language popular press, and Lockley himself to some extent, are responsible for propagating the idea that "pre-modern Japanese person wielding a sword" means "samurai". Consider even the common English-language collocation, "samurai warrior".

"It [article content] shouldn't be based on what Wikipedians say English speakers think about a topic."

I agree. At the same time, we must bear in mind how words might have different, or ambiguous, meanings. And we should strive for clarity in how our articles are written, and define our terms as needed to avoid confusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is another source that does not seem to be mentioned in the archives or RfC: "Christian–Muslim Relations in China and Japan in the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries" by James Harry Morris

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09596410.2017.1401797

The author's page: https://w-rdb.waseda.jp/html/100003282_en.html You can see he mainly deals in Japanese history and has written for multiple journals.

The journal is called Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations and appears to be affiliated with University of Birmingham: https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/activities/islam-and-christian-muslim-relations-journal (the page seemingly incorrectly states that the journal began publishing in 2018 when seems to go back to 1990.)

Here is the relevant quote on page 40:

Despite this, there is one potential Muslim who came to prominence during the period, Yasuke 弥助, the servant of the Visitor to Japan, Alessandro Valignano (1539–1606), and later retainer of Oda Nobunaga 織田信長 (1534–1582). Jesuit historian François Solier (1558–1638) describes Yasuke in his Histoire ecclésiastique des isles et royaumes du Japon (1627) as the Moorish servant of Valignano, who had come with him from India but originally hailed from Mozambique, whose people are properly described as kuffār (plural of Ar. kāfir, unbeliever). 

The author does not go into detail about the Samurai issue but I think it is clear that he believes that Yasuke was only a retainer as he goes into detail about the origins of Yasuke and quotes Lockley later in the page. Being that the article is about the status of Muslims in Japan it would be strange to leave out the fact that a potential Muslim was a Samurai if he believed that was the case while also mis-attributing his title as simply "retainer," which, although true of Samurai, is misleading. And being that he quotes from primary and secondary sources, including Lockley, it seems unlikely that he would have not seen the claim that he was a Samurai (based on his publication history I wouldn't be surprised if he had heard of Yasuke before writing this paper). Then as for why he still does not mention it to reject it, that may be because the article does not go into too much detail about him. This does not seem to be an issue though being that he still says more about Yasuke than Atkins, and we use him as a source currently. Quantitatively there are 550 words from Morris about Yasuke vs. 258 from Atkins and qualitatively Morris cites multiple primary sources including Histoire ecclésiastique des isles et royaumes du Japon from Solier, Lourenço Mexia, and the diary of Matsudaira Ietada, as well a secondaries like Lockley. Atkins groups Yasuke together with Will Adams while Morris treats Yasuke individually. Additionally, Atkins' book appears to be written for laymen and Morris' work is published in a journal. Morris' work appears to be the only one that has inline citations between Atkins, Lockley and Morris (correct me if I am wrong here). Being that the main reasoning being the RfC was that "since there have been no reliable sources furnished which contest the status of Yasuke as a samurai, it would be a violation of NPOV to depict it as contested," I feel it makes sense to mention this source here as the way I read it it does contest that claim.

Ping @Eirikr as you may find this interesting. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The core notion of the RfC was that there would need to exist a secondary source which specifically makes a point of saying Yasuke was not a samurai. Being a retainer in my understanding is separate from being or not being a samurai. However, the book is a really good find and could be used with attribution to write about Yasuke's role in respect to Nobunaga. SmallMender (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. While the resolution of the RfC itself does not state that other sources would have to explicitly state that Yasuke was not a Samurai, the point of other sources only describing Yasuke as a retainer seems to already have been brought up in the RfC, and it seems like that was not an accepted point being that the RfC does not mention it. It was a shame I was not researching this topic when the RfC was still active, as I don't agree with that assessment. Saying Yasuke was a retainer seems to me to be saying he was not a Samurai. Otherwise why not say that? I think that does contest that notion. As Lockley himself said, there is debate about whether Yasuke was a Samurai or not, and we know at least that he was a retainer. If a source only says he was a retainer that would appear to me as taking the latter side of the argument. Or taking the side that there is not enough information. I think the RfC is also disadvantaged in that at the time the commenters did not have the quote from Lockley that there is debate about whether Yasuke was a Samurai, with some saying he was and some saying he was only a retainer. To me that recontextualizes those that simply state he was retainer, especially sources like Morris that had access to and read Lockley's view. Being that that is one of the two sides of the debate, it seems reasonable that a source that 1. discusses Yasuke at some detail 2. quotes Lockley, and 3. describes Yasuke as only a retainer can be said to be contesting Lockley's view. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal ground, I also do not think the RfC was phrased and handled correctly as expecting sources to provide confirmation of a negative claim is a logical fallacy, on top of an over-reliance on tertiary sources which show signs of Circular reporting - traced to a single secondary source or its author. However, that ship has sailed.

Regarding Lockley, I think his claims across multiple items of academic and semi-academic work, including interviews, are logically in conflict. This is not to undermine his competency, but it makes it problematic for stating these claims in the article. For instance, in one of his written works (in Japanese) he firmly dismisses the notion that Yasuke could have carried Nobunaga's head away from Honnou-ji, even mentioning the source of the original claim is not reliable, however in the interview for TIME he affirms that notion and uses tradition of the Oda family as reference. It is not clear what brought upon the change in opinion, for instance.

What I think would help the Yasuke discussion:

- Have a separate section in the Yasuke article documenting with attribution the various roles Yasuke could have played in relation to Nobunaga

- Tidy up the Samurai article and hopefully split it into a general samurai article and one dedicated to the samurai nobility, considering there are multiple threads in the Talk section which discuss the bushi vs samurai dichotomy SmallMender (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The core notion of the RfC was that there would need to exist a secondary source which specifically makes a point of saying Yasuke was not a samurai, this view aligns poorly with WP:NPOV, which requires that articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources (emphasis added). If a view point does not appear in the predominance of sources, it should not be given disproportionate prominence; whether it is directly contradicted or not.

For comparison, the view that Yasuke was originally a Sudanese Dinka cattle man is a minority view which appears in Lockley (& Girard)'s works. That view should not be given undue prominence; despite an absence of sources which explicitly describe Yasuke as "not Dinka". Rotary Engine ^talk 10:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tidy up the Samurai article and hopefully split it into ...; wikt:samurai is an English loanword borrowed from Japanese "侍", and has a plain English meaning separate and distinct from the Japanese. Our en.Wikipedia article on that topic, and use of that loanword, should reflect the English meaning. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second point - the reason I suggested tidying up the Samurai article and splitting it into two is because multiple historical sources use the word "samurai" to mean 2 different things, even within the same source. The Japanese Wikipedia uses a similar distinction for bushi and samurai. The issue was raised over the years by several editors already, but so far the suggestion was only to disambiguate within a single article or without specific suggestions from what I have read so far. SmallMender (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the reply, and the intent. I will have a look at Talk:Samurai and may comment or respond there. Rotary Engine ^talk 13:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? I've not been following this much but that is absolutely absurd. If the vast majority of sources do not mention him as a samurai but only one or two do then we do not need a source that explicitly says he isn't one. See WP:FRINGE. Omittin him as a samurai in detailed coverage of him is akin to not supporting/contradicting the claim from the author. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it fascinating the number of sources coming up with the thought that Yasuke was Muslim. The Morris piece here is possibly the third such one I've become aware of.

• The Portuguese word cafre used in the Portuguese letters of the time to describe Yasuke specifically referred to people from southeast Africa who were not Muslim.
• The Arabic word كَافِر (kāfir) from which the Portuguese is derived specifically refers to "infidel, unbeliever, non-Muslim".
• Morris even acknowledges the Arabic term, and its meaning, and somehow still concludes that Yasuke was Muslim...??? I find that baffling.

→ Setting aside the Muslim confusion, this is a useful find, as an additional secondary source who has done further research, and is aware of Lockley, and appears to intentionally not describe Yasuke as a samurai. If Yasuke had indeed been a samurai, that would be an important aspect of his life, so not including any such description stands out as significant. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be the case that cafre is also a Portuguese loanword from Arabic meaning then "non-Christian" instead of non-Muslim? After all, it is Solier using the word, and he is Christian. See eg. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cafre#Portuguese and this note from Kafir:

>In modern Spanish, the word cafre, derived from the Arabic word kafir by way of the Portuguese language, also means 'uncouth' or 'savage'. See also https://pt.wiktionary.org/wiki/cafre, although that entry doesn't have the usage suggested by Morris, assuming he meant what I proposed.Then again it is a modern dictionary. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking into this some more, it doesn't seem common at all for Portuguese to use cafre to mean non-Christian in the 1500s. There is a review of the word during that time period here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03057070.2018.1403212 J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link! I'd done some looking into the term cafre earlier in composing responses in the thread at Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#Yasuke_mentioned_by_Portuguese; the sources I was finding stated that the term showed up in Portuguese only in the later 1500s, so a 1505 date (noted in the paper you linked) is substantially earlier.

I'll read that with some interest (albeit later 😄). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a short paragraph in this article discussing the terminology in 3.1 Terminology in Portuguese documents

doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/jpcl.25.1.04car

it is also available in this book https://books.google.com/books?id=7kEdgCHCtrQC&lpg=PA91&ots=yiy8WdemvG&lr&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q=cafre&f=false

but it is not limited to the 16th century

Interestingly, the example given in that article of cafre appears to be Mozambican Muslim, which kind of fits with what Morris might have been saying. Although I think you raise a good point about the issues with Morris' reasoning.

>Jorge, Hiamata in gentile, cafre born at the rivers of Cuama, and dwelling in this city [Goa] for denying our holy faith and saying blasphemy against the purity of our lady, adopting the sect of Calvin and that of Mohammed in a moorish land.

Although I'm not sure what "adopting the sect of Calvin and that of Mohammed" could refer to here.

J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added this source to the article back in May (it's still in there cited in the "birth and early life" section) regarding the possibility of Yasuke being Muslim, but I didn't feel that the source added anything beyond that. The source in my opinion doesn't have any bearing on the samurai dispute, which is largely semantic and based on the participants in these talkpage discussions having differing interpretations of what the word "samurai" means, due to the varying meaning of the word throughout Japanese history and in modern english. The central focus of this dispute seems to be whether or not the fact that primary sources do not describe Yasuke as "侍" means that he should not be described as a "samurai" (in the modern english definition of the term) in this article. This is obviously subjective and at this point neither side seems likely to convice the other. If there's approval I might reopen the second RfC, but even then I'm not sure that will settle the issue either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a Japanese, I would like to point out that the history books do not say that Yasuke's formidable strength surpassed that of ten men. This is simply a mistranslation of the word jūninriki (十人力, strength of ten men), which describes someone's strength as being very strong. Hyakuninriki (百人力, strength of a hundred men) and senninriki (千人力, strength of a thousand men) mean the same as jūninriki (十人力, strength of ten men).

Another word often mistranslated by English speakers is yaoyorozu no kami (八百万神, eight million kami), which describes Shinto, a polytheistic religion. It does not mean that there are 8 million kami in Shinto, but simply that there are many kami. SLIMHANNYA (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a native English speaker, but I think that in English his formidable strength surpassed that of ten men is a hyperbole. No one would understand it as an accurate factual description, and everyone would understand it as synonymous with "he was very strong". Since the meaning is the same, I wouldn't speak of mistranslation here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a figure of speech and properly attributed as a quote from the Shinchō Kōki. I doubt most people would understand this as an objective fact that he was literally stronger than ten people. A less direct translation using modern idioms (or contemporary idioms for that matter) just wouldn't make sense for a historical 16th century document. Yvan Part (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica has just published a new article about Yasuke, written by Lockley [10]. Leaving aside the samurai issue (Lockley basically restates his view: since Nobunaga made Yasuke a vassal, giving him a house, servants, a sword, and a stipend [...] historians think that this would contemporaneously have been seen as the bestowing of warrior or “samurai” rank), editors interested in Yasuke should check our article to see if it corresponds to Lockley's account. In fact, Lockley's article seems to be the best (more comprehensive, if not accurate) source we have on the subject. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up.

That seems to match his latest peer-reviewed work about Yasuke (full article). Thibaut (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Comprehensive, but not accurate" doesn't sound very good to me. 😄

Separately, I keep seeing Lockley mention that Yasuke had servants. Are there any other secondary sources that also make this claim? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 22:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they meant more comprehensive and also potentially more accurate, not that it wasn't accurate CambrianCrab (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this claim supported by any of the primary sources? Within the primary sources I only saw the following privileges granted to Yasuke:

- house/residence (私宅; secondary source interpretation required to understand usage in context - was it a residence? a regular house? any private quarters?)

- sword (sayamaki; secondary source interpretation required)

- stipend (扶持; was it a one-time payment or an ongoing stipend? again, secondary source interpretation required) SmallMender (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lockley in this article claims that Japanese historians agree Yasuke was a "samurai," yet he does not give any specific names. In fact, one well-known Japanese historian Daimon Watanabe, who is also the director of publishing company 株式会社歴史と文化の研究所 which publishes many peer-reviewed historical books, has written his own comprehensive factual report on Yasuke in response to popular media depictions and did NOT claim once Yasuke to be a samurai to which 侍 is ascribed. The closest he gets to attributing Yasuke a warrior status is when he writes "it is said that Nobunaga wanted to keep Yasuke as a 武士 [warrior] and bring him up to become a castle owner sometime in the future." (I see Google translate translates 武士 to samurai which may lead to confusion)

Lockley's claims about what these "Japanese historians think" needs to be scrutinized and validated with actual credible names. 天罰れい子 (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I am aware of, Yahoo Japan articles are normally not accessible outside of Japan. In such cases is an Archive mirror of the article acceptable?

Regarding the use of 武士 by Daimon Watanabe and the use of quotation marks by Lockley himself, I think in the near future it may help to better disambiguate 武士 and 侍 also on the English Wikipedia. Here is the suggestion I posted in Samurai: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Samurai&diff=prev&oldid=1234038781 SmallMender (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, thank you for that suggestion. I believe an Archive mirror should be generally okay but this Yahoo JP article should also be accessible to overseas given it is also cited by the main page. I also agree that the distinction between 侍 and 武士 is highly important and we should always make sure to check the original source in that regard.

With regards to your suggestion, I think that is a good starting point to make the distinction between Samurai and Warrior, though as far as common Japanese usage is concerned, I do not believe the two are used interchangeably nowadays if there is uncertainty, e.g. the distinction is clearly laid out in some popular museum web articles. As many Japanese people both in articles and social media (X) point out, it generally refers to a combatant servant that is higher social class/caste and fulfilled specific requirements, such as having surname, given a a fiaf of certain value, their own land, treated as a 侍 on field, etc. This was especially true in the Sengoku period as many were under the employment of a 大名. A 侍 is a 武士 but the reverse is not always true. 天罰れい子 (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the latest writing on the samurai matter from its scholarly originator should be followed by our article—that is, the controversy about Yasuke's samurai status should be reflected in our lead, just as Lockley reflects it in the lead of his new Britannica article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Said “scholarly originator” precedes the dispute statement with yet another unverified and baseless consensus “commonly held by Japanese historians,” as a way to strengthen the position on one side without direct proof. It is clear throughout the article that Lockley also opts out terms normally ascribed to Yasuke like 黒奴 (black slave or servant), which is what is explicitly written in the official translations of the Annual Jesuit reports by the National Diet of Japan (Japan legislature), instead opting for “attendant bodyguard” which is his own personal interpretation and fails to state that. 天罰れい子 (talk) 07:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lockley is someone who added themselves as a source to this very Wikipedia page, which I consider to be sketchy so we should see this person's writings as someone who is aware of what is on Wikipedia and may want to influence it and the viewpoint of English speakers on the topic. Is it possible this person has a quirky eccentric theory and they're trying to push it? We should treat this source with skepticism. Ultimately we cite sources based on their fact-checking and quality control of the publishers. Is it possible that Britannica is only relying upon him on this issue, and would have no one else on hand to fact-check this very niche issue? Why are we relying upon this one English speaker, when it should be an issue of consensus for Japanese historians? I consider this mostly a moutain in a mole-hill: It seems to be mostly Lockley who is really pushing the samurai status issue, and other sources are mostly pop-history pages talking about this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full title: Tsujiuchi, Makoto 1998, ‘Historical Context of Black Studies in Japan’, Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, December, pp. 95-100.

pdf: https://hermes-ir.lib.hit-u.ac.jp/hermes/ir/re/8322/HJsoc0300200950.pdf

Doesn't seem discussed in the archives. It actually is already cited in the main article but for a trivial unrelated point. Relevant quote:

I think this article can be said to be disputing that Yasuke was a Samurai. It is as close as you can get to saying that without saying it directly. And unless the RfC literally means that a statement must be made that Yasuke was not a Samurai and not that other authors dispute it, I think this is a valid example of disputing that claim.

That said, there are two problems with this source. The first is that it is not published in a history journal but a social studies journal which, while certainly related to history, probably does not carry as much weight as a solely history focused journal. Do note that the article itself is about history and this is not simply a passing mention of a historical event within a modern context. Also note that one of Tsujiuchi's main disciplines was history via https://fulbrightscholars.org/grantee/makoto-tsujiuchi which lists him as a visiting scholar to Duke University with the host department being the history department.

The second issue is that this paper was written before (to my knowledge) the first publishing of the quote from Azuchi Nikki, which based on what I gather from Talk:Yasuke#Requested removal of possible misattributed quote claiming to be from the Shinchō Kōki was first made available in 2009 via 織田信長という歴史―『信長記』の彼方へ . So it is missing a primary source, and one that would potentially change the author's view.

Nevertheless, I am posting this source here as it does demonstrate at least one author who seems to reject Lockley's view, the lack of which was a substantial reason from the RfC. To elaborate further on why I think this text disputes Lockley's view, the reason that the sources that say only that Yasuke was a retainer are not valid according to the RfC as being disputes of Lockely is that those two things are not mutually exclusive. However in this case I think these two things are mutually exclusive. The picture Makoto paints of Yasuke ("It is true that Yasuke was regarded as a beast and not a human being") isn't simply not commenting on the matter as was suggested of the sources that only use the term "retainer." His framing of Yausuke is completely incongruent with that of Lockley.

Lastly, while Tsujiuchi may not be a great source for the samurai dispute (at least, certainly not good enough for a wikivoice usage of him in that context), he may be useful as a source in terms of how Yasuke might have been viewed in historical Japan at the time.

The archives to mention Tsujiuchi here but do not discuss him at all. He was simply mentioned within the citation of another author. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One potential point of concern: Tsujiuchi renders the Japanese term kokudo here as simply "black fellow". This is a mistake, but with layers to it.

• Kokudo is spelled in kanji in the Japanese as 黒奴, an abbreviation of 黒人奴隷 (kokujin dorei, "black-person slave"). This does not mean "black fellow".
• That said, this term 黒奴 (kokudo) is not used in any of the primary materials I've seen so far, and only seems to appear describing Yasuke in modern Japanese texts as a translation of the Portuguese term cafre, used in the Jesuit letters of the 1500s to describe Yasuke. This translation into Japanese appears to be in error: we have discussed the term cafre elsewhere on this page (and in the page archives), and as best we've been able to tell so far, in the Portuguese usage of the late 1500s, this term did not include any inherent sense of "slave", and instead referred to Bantu peoples of the southeast of Africa (whether specifically non-Muslim or not is something I'm still unclear on, but this is also tangential to Tsujiuchi's points here).

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the point of mistranslation of 黒奴, I'm sure Tsujiuchi knows what it means as he is Japanese. Why he used the term when primary sources do not is a bit strange as you say. If I had to guess it is because of one of two reasons: 1. he is borrowing from the Portuguese translation into Japanese that you mention or 2. he is using it in his own words, not intended to be a quote from any of the primary sources. To see this, look at the other usages of kokudo in the text:

>>A black man came from a Christian country. His age seems somewhere around 26 or 27. He is as black as a cow, and looks healthy and talented. He is stronger than ten powerful men.

>This passage simply refers to the external appearance of the kokudo with allusive admiration and without representing his nature as inferior

It is clear that the usage of kokudo here is not intended to be a quote because it is all but certain that Tsujiuchi read the quoted text in Japanese which does not use the term kokudo there (as per your comment) and it is even likely that the translation he gives is his own. Yet he still uses kokudo here. So in terms of the quotation I don't think it is a problem as I don't think it is intended to even a be a real quotation in the first place. As for why he translates the term incorrectly it is more puzzling. I don't think it matters too much however because as I said he obviously knows what the term means himself so in terms of his credibility as far as demonstrating his understanding of the texts goes there is no issue. There is the slight chance that by fellow Tsujiuchi means something along the lines of "(obsolete) A person's servant or slave" or "(chiefly Southern US, derogatory) A black man." See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fellow. See also OED "Used as the customary title of address to a servant or other person of humble station. Obs." (It appears to still have been in use at the end of the 16th century. See full entry bellow). Note that Tsujiuchi's research topic as a Visiting Scholar in the US was "New Social Status of Ex-Slaves After the Civil War," so he might have been familiar with terms related to slavery, although this is just a guess.

OED "fellow" entry 10:

10. †a. Used as the customary title of address to a servant or other person of humble station. Obs.

In 14th c. it implied polite condescension, = ‘comrade’, ‘my friend’ (cf. mod.F. mon ami similarly used). In Shakspere’s time this notion had disappeared, but the word when addressed to a servant does not seem to have necessarily implied haughtiness or contempt, though its application to one not greatly inferior was a gross insult (cf. c).

c 1350 Will. Palerne 275 þemperour.. clepud to him þe couherde & curteysly seide; now telle me, felawe.. sei þou euer þemperour? c 1477 Caxton Jason 23 Vaissale or felawe [orig. vassal] thou hast done me now the most grettest dishonour. 15.. King & Hermit 328 in Hazl. E.P.P. I. 25 Unto the knave seyd the frere Ffelow, go wyȝtly here. 1580 Shaks. L.L.L. iv. i. 103 Thou fellow, a word. Who gaue thee this Letter? 1594 - Rich. III, III. ii. 108 Gramercie fellow: there, drinke that for me.

b. One of the common people. Obs. [examples excluded]

c. contemptuously. A person of no esteem or worth. [examples excluded]

d. A Negro. U.S. Obs.

1753 New Jersey Archives (1897) 1st Ser. XIX. 270 Run away.. a Mulatto Fellow named Anthony... Whoever takes up said Fellow.. shall have Three Pounds Reward, 1860 Bartlett Diet. Amer. (ed. 3) 144 Fellow or Black Fellow, a black man. Southern.

Note the usage in d. ("a Mulatto Fellow named Anthony") seems to imply "slave" more than "black man" as "Mulatto" makes the latter designation superfluous (and perhaps somewhat inaccurate).

It is also interesting to see "vassal" appear here, although it is coincidental.J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fuller context. I still find his usage puzzling. From what I can find in Japanese dictionaries, 黒奴 is not cited in written Japanese until the 1700s, making its use in the context of the 1500s a bit of an anachronism. See also the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten entry here, showing a date of 1787. Tsujiuchi also appears to conflate the neutral term 黒人 (kokujin, literally "black person") with the loaded term 黒奴 (kokudo, literally "black slave") towards the end of the earlier passage you quoted, when he states “The term "Negro" (kokujin, kokudo) was very often used to describe all kinds of dark-skinned people.” As Portuguese, negro does appear to be used in the Jesuit letters simply to mean "a black person", regardless of free / slave status, so maybe that's what Tsujiuchi meant here by including both Japanese terms in the parentheses?

Time (and mental bandwidth) allowing, I may read through the rest of the paper later to try to figure out the author's intent.

(Side note: Sadly, it seems that Tsujiuchi passed in 2000 at the age of 46 due to a traffic accident. See also his JA WP page at w:ja:辻内鏡人.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the word is not used in the 16th or early 17th century then that would appear to be an error on Tsujiuchi's part. Although note in that context he isn't really making a etymological comment about what words were used, he's just saying that all black skinned people were described by the same term without distinguishing between their countries of origin. It still is a strange sentence though as you say.

Searching in google books, I did find the term appear in Chinese in the form 常渴看黒奴九主之 which according to google books appears twice in 續修四庫全書第1021冊 on pages 39 and 131, which according to google books is from 1605. However, I didn't find the text myself and don't know what the context is. My guess is it is not related. Also, the OCR in that document seems really bad. Even in the quoted text I gave above, "渴" is not a name or surname and is probably an error.

In terms of the 1787 first appearance, I don't know if that is correct as it seems appear in the title of a painting by ja:平賀源内 who died in 1780, although it is possible the original title was different. I can't find a picture of that painting either. The general point still seems to be true however. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

_{"Crasset states that Yasuke was a servant brought from India when Alessandro Valignano came to Japan, while Solier states that he was from Mozambique, then a Portuguese colony."}

Mozambique was a dependency under Portuguese India during Yaskue's lifetime, I find this to be a pointless addition as neither of them would be technically wrong. IkuTurisas (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what "addition" you are talking about. Are you stating that Mozambique and India should be treated as identical locations, due to their administrative categorization by the Portuguese authorities? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure how you do not know which part of the text I am referring to, you can do ctrl + f to the part I mentioned there. Also yes, They are treated as the same location, I would highly doubt that it is a contradiction someone from Mozambique, which was a dependency, a literal region of Portuguese India, would not be also counted as being from Portuguese India, no? It is in the same way despite if you are from Saint Helena, you are also from the United Kingdom. IkuTurisas (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In modern English-language parlance, India is in South Asia, and Mozambique is in southeast Africa. Somewhere around 6,400km / 4,000mi and a chunk of the Indian Ocean separates the two.

Stating that Yasuke "was brought from India" tells us that he was in India. Stating that Yasuke "was from Mozambique" tells us that he came from Mozambique.

These are different locations, and stating them separately tells us different things about Yasuke. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that our article may be misleading. It says Crasset states that Yasuke was a servant brought from India [...] while Solier states that he was from Mozambique. However, Crasset's "India" was actually "the Indies", which at the time might have included the island of Mozambique. So Crasset and Solier are not necessarily in contradiction. Compare Lockley in Britannica: Many sources say that Yasuke came with Valignano from “the Indies,” indicating that they probably met in Portuguese-controlled Goa or Cochin (modern-day Goa and Kochi in India), although in contemporary terms the Portuguese-held Island of Mozambique could also conceivably have been classed as “the Indies.”. So I suggest replacing the current text with the following:

Numerous sources suggest Yasuke accompanied Valignano from "the Indies," which, at the time, could have encompassed Portuguese-controlled Goa, Cochin (modern-day Goa and Kochi in India), or Mozambique. In 1627–1629, François Solier described Yasuke as a servant native of Mozambique. Thomas Lockley speculates that Yasuke might have also born among the Dinka people of what is now South Sudan.^[1][2]

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence would be better as two sentences, without the conjunction. Something like: Crasset describes Yasuke as a servant brought from India when Alessandro Valignano came to Japan. Solier wrote that he was originally from Mozambique, then a Portuguese colony. Rotary Engine ^talk 20:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article states Luís Fróis wrote of Yasuke as Cafre in his letters and provides the following source:

• "ハリウッドで映画化!信長に仕えた黒人、弥助とは何者だったのか?" [Movie made in Hollywood! Who was Yasuke, a black man who served Nobunaga?]. WARAKU web (in Japanese). Shogakukan. 30 August 2019. Archived from the original on 19 September 2023. Retrieved 12 September 2023.

The statement is verified but the source is not excellent. On the other hand, this good-quality academic source

• Thomas, David; Chesworth, John A. (2017). "South-East Asia, China and Japan". South and East Asia, Africa and the Americas (1600-1700). Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. Vol. 33. BRILL. p. 335. doi:10.1163/9789004335585_007. ISBN 978-90-04-32683-5.

says Solier describes the servant as native of Mozambique, a More Cafre (kāfir) or Moorish infidel.

Do we have another source attributing "Yasuke as Kafir" to Fróis? If not, I would replace Fróis with Solier and provide the source Thomas and Chesworth.

On a side note, I think we should support our explanatory footnote ("Cafre" is a word of Arabic origin and referred to the inhabitants of the area around the east coast of Africa (Swahili Coast) at the time) with a source, otherwise it looks like an OR. Alternatively, we may closely follow Thomas and Chesworth on this and have a More Cafre (kāfir) or Moorish infidel. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See [11] and [12]. Thibaut (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. So the text needs to be updated. The explanatory note is simply wrong and needs to be changed on the basis of the second source you provided and Eirikr analysed: in Portuguese parlance, Kafir were not (and have never been) "the inhabitants of the Swahili Coast"; besides, they were no longer the nomadic, non-Muslim Khoisan, but just someone with a dark skin tone, most of the time a slave (p. 8 of [13]).

As to the Luís Fróis, he needs to go. The question is whether to replace him with Father Lourenço Mexia (1539-1599) (and provide the primary source) or with François Solier (and provide the secondary source). The second option is more compliant with WP policy, the first one is questionable because it borders on OR. Perhaps we could also add them both, since the content of the primary source, while written in 16th century Portuguese, is still quite clear and accessible. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for a source for a quote, why not go to that source?

In this case, to cite a quotation from one of the Jesuit letters in Portuguese using the word cafre, then we should simply cite the relevant Jesuit letter. We don't need — and shouldn't use — a secondary source if all we are stating is "this document has this text in it". That is a straightforward statement of fact. Simply quoting directly from a primary source is not itself prohibited original research. See also the "Primary sources" subsection under Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, in particular point 3 (emphasis as in the original):

3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we can cite primary sources, but we should do so only when a secondary source supports the claim. The reason is not WP:V but WP:NPOV - how do we know the content represents a significant viewpoint that deserves inclusion in the article? A secondary source that mentions the claim helps us determine this. Once we've cited the secondary source, we can also provide the primary source for the "learned reader" who wish to delve deeper. As far as I know, this is common practice at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, and we should adhere to it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misunderstood something — I thought the claim here is "this Portuguese letter uses this word", in which case, surely we should just quote and cite the Portuguese letter?

At the top of this thread:

• "The article states Luís Fróis wrote of Yasuke as Cafre in his letters and provides the following source:"

If all we are looking for is evidence that the Jesuits described Yasuke as cafre in their letters, we should quote the letters. No?

Or is there some other claim at issue? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The letters are already discussed by secondary sources, including the fact that few primary sources are available. That alone should deal with WP:NPOV because multiple secondary sources discuss Frois and say that there are barely any other sources at all and all those few other sources are also discussed as well. So its impossible for it to be NPOV to state a fact from a primary source that has been described by secondary sources to be important. That is, "representing [...] all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" is not difficult when there are only a handful of sources in the first place. In terms of interpreting that statement, then I think you can run into issues with WP:OR. The interpretation of the usage of kafir is already given by other sources so that isn't a problem either. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Morris cited above, Lourenço Mexia also describes hims a kafir:

>Such comments, which are congruent with Lourenço Mexia’s 1581 description of Yasuke as a kafir (1598, 17), might suggest that Yasuke was a Muslim.

See Talk:Yasuke#Another_source_not_yet_mentioned for further discussion of Morris and kafir J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the Cartas themselves, Luis Fróes, in his letter dated 14 April 1581 clearly uses "Cafre" in the context of a man accompanying Valignano on a journey to Sakai. The relevant section is available at the bottom right of the page numbered 2 in the second volume of the Cartas, around 3/4ths through the document here.

No mesmo Domingo de Ramos mos partimos pera Vocayama & ao fair polla cidade de Sacay fora auia infinidade de gente que estava esperando pollas ruas pera verem a extraordinaria estarura do padre Visitador, & a cor do Cafre que hia comnosco, era tanta a gente, & tantos os fidalgos q comfer o Sacay tam livre com quanto a milutidao da nossa gente ...

And also later in the same letter, describing a meeting with Nobunaga:

Logoa segunda feira primeira oitava foi a gente tanta a nossa porta, por estar aqui Nobunanga no Miaco todos a ver o cafre que ve alguns principios de arroidos; & alguns feridos de pedradas, & outros que estavio pera fe matar, & quebravao as portas, & com avermuita gente de guarda as portas, com difficuldade se lhe podia resistir, & todos diziao que se mostrasse pera ganhar dinheiro, que polo menos ganharia hum homem com elle com grande facilidade oito ou dez mil cruzados em breve tempo, & he grande, & excessivo o deseio que tem de o ver, Nobunanga o mandou chamar, & levou lho o padre Organtino, fez estranha festa com elle fazendoo despir da cinta pera riba nao se podendo persuadir que era aquillo cousa natural se nao artificiosa : tambem o mandarao chamar os filhos de Nobunanga, & com cada hum delles ovve extraordinarias gracas, & hu sobrinho de Nounanga que agora he capitao de Ozaca lhe deu dez mil caixas, folgou em estremo de over, & temos bem de trabalho com svas vistas.

The document is scanned images of a book, so, unfortunately, not searchable. Portuguese is not my strongest suit, and the text uses an older font which makes transcription more difficult, but "cafre" is clearly used. Rotary Engine ^talk 20:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Yasuke/Archive_2#The_Tono_Notation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 20:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, found a better source.

• https://purl.pt/15229 — "CARTAS DOS JESUITAS"
• Click through the image there to https://purl.pt/15229/4/ — this shows and gives links to the PDFs for TOMO I (the Primeiro Tomo or "Volume 1" that you linked through above; also not OCRed, so just images), and TOMO II (the Segunda Parte or "Part 2" of the letters; this one is searchabe, albeit with caveats due to old spellings and scannos).

‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also later in his letter of 5 November 1582, describing the death of Nobunaga, Fróes again uses "cafre". Rotary Engine ^talk 21:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to adding a reference to Luís Fróis's letter. The article (in the latest draft following my recent edits) would then become A 1581 letter by Jesuit Lourenço Mexia, a 1582 letter by Jesuit Luís Fróis, and a later account from 1627 by François Solier all refer to Yasuke as cafre. If you could provide a wikified citation, that would be kind. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the cite & source currently used for Lourenco Mexia:'s letter:

Luis Fróes, 14 April 1581:

Fróes, Luis (1598). "Carta que o padre Luis Frões escreueo do Miàco a quatorze de Abril de 1581. a outro padre no mesmo Iapão.". Segunda parte das cartas de Iapão que escreuerão os padres, & irmãos da Companhia de Iesus. Livro primeiro (in Portuguese). Évora: Manuel de Lyra. pp. 2, 2v, 3v.

Luis Fróes, 19 May 1581:

Fróes, Luis (1598). "Carta do padre Luis Frões, escrita em Quitanòxo no Iapão a dezanoue de Maio de 81. a outro padre no mesmo Iapaõ.". Segunda parte das cartas de Iapão que escreuerão os padres, & irmãos da Companhia de Iesus. Livro primeiro (in Portuguese). Évora: Manuel de Lyra. p. 9v.

Luis Fróes, 5 November 1582; on the death of Nobunaga:

Fróes, Luis (1598). "Carta do padre Luis Froes sobre a morte de Nobunànga, pera o muito Reuerendo, padre Geral da Cõpanhia de IESUS, de Cochinoçú, aos cinco de Noue[m]bro de 1582". Segunda parte das cartas de Iapão que escreuerão os padres, & irmãos da Companhia de Iesus. Livro primeiro (in Portuguese). Évora: Manuel de Lyra. p. 65v.

NOTES:

1. Page numbers containing "v" are the reverse side of those numbered pages; this numbering system is used in the sourced site.

2. Froes doesn't mention Yasuke by name, so there's an assumption that that is who he means when he writes "cafre". This assumption appears to have also been made by most of our secondary sources. I'm inclined to this that it's reasonable in most cases, particularly if Valignano is also mentioned, but perhaps less so otherwise.

Rotary Engine ^talk 03:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP policy, we should always prefer a secondary source discussing primary source information rather than using the primary source itself. The only exception would be if the secondary source is comparatively poor as a source. But an academic source is on the highest tier, so we should be using that in the article. Silverseren^C 00:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps it would be best to have the policy explicitly named or linked here. Rotary Engine ^talk 00:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. If all we are stating is "this word is in this source", that is a plain statement of fact, and appears to fit into point #3 that I quoted above from the "Primary sources" subsection under Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. I am curious what other WP policy would contradict this one? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would consider translation and interpretation of meaning of that translation to be too close to the edge of what secondary sources need to be used for. And especially in this case where we already have a high quality secondary source making the analysis for us anyways. There is absolutely no need to use the primary source because of that. Silverseren^C 01:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  from WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD

  >Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.

  I since we are just going for a quotation, it is better to use the primary here.

  >And especially in this case where we already have a high quality secondary source making the analysis for us anyways

  Which source are you referring to? Is there an academic source that repeats Fróis' Kafir comment? Even if there is, I don't see why it is necessary, given we already have the interpretation from other secondaries about different primaries on the same point. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that any interpretation of what cafre means in the Portuguese or French of the time must be backed by a secondary source, much as @J2UDY7r00CRjH noted above. For purposes of citing the existence of the word in reference to Yasuke in the text of the Jesuit letters or the Solier work, surely we should refer to the primary sources themselves? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that any interpretation of what cafre means in the Portuguese or French of the time must be backed by a secondary source

  On whether or not the word meant "slave" in Portuguese at that time yes I agree (that's why I reverted this edit where a secondary source was replaced by a dictionary published in 1977, 1988 for the second edition). However, there seems to be some confusion in Thomas & Chesworth:

  Might be OR but I think Thomas and Chesworth confuse the meaning and etymology of the word Cafre or Caffre.

  In French (Solier's native language), Cafre means an inhabitant of Cafreria (Cafrerie, see Dictionnaire de Trévoux written by the Jesuits in 1721: [14], transcript), not an infidel (which is the literal translation of kāfir).

  That's why Solier wrote […] natif du Mozambic, & de ceux qu'on nomme proprement Cafres, habitans vers le Cap de Bonne eſperace. ("native of Mozambique, and of those who are properly called Cafres, inhabiting towards the Cape of Good Hope."

  And Solier didn't write "More Cafre", but valet more ("moor valet"), full transcript can be found here.

  Pinging @Yvan Part and @Seudo who took part in a previous discussion about Solier. Thibaut (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are right, he writes "valet more". However, according to J.H. Morris, Solier wrote "More Cafre" In marginal notes in the text and the index. This can be verified: I can see "More Cafre" in the marginal note at p. 444 [15] and "Cafre More, mené au Iapon" in the index [16]. According to WP:PRIMARYCARE, primary sources can be used for "straightforward descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source". I very much doubt that letters in 17th-century Portuguese and French qualify as such - see the extensive discussion among editors on this talk page. However, I wouldn't mind adding Fróis if we have an easily verifiable direct quote. Otherwise, since neither Fróis nor Mexia are major historical figures, we could simplify the article, avoid name-dropping, and have a generic all-inclusive "both contemporary letters by Jesuit fathers and a later account by François Solier". Would that be OK for everyone? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with not using a quote; as you note, that bulks up the text, and doesn't necessarily bring much value.

  If we are citing them as you suggest, I do recommend that we link to relevant source documents in the citation / ref section, with some indication to interested readers where they can find the specific text (page numbers, left or right columns, etc.). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 18:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While I'm fine with direct quotes and translations in the article, I would be very careful of where it would link to, like the current article does to kaffir. Tracking down two contemporary french dictionnaries [17] and [18] and some quick checks on early 17th century dictionnaries, none of them contain the word cafre, kaffir or caphre.

  All of them contain More or later Maure with the common definition being "someone native of Mauritania". Thresor de la langue françoyse 1606, Jean Nicot adds that the word "extended beyond its first limits(meaning) to almost everyone of the same faith" meaning muslims which runs contrary to the historical kaffir definition of a non-muslim. I'm afraid the 1721 definition for cafre linked by Thibaut is a bit anachronistic as the later definitions for More all seem to stick to the very strict "native from Mauritania" including the one in the same dictionnary which obviously doesn't apply to Yasuke.

  At least I wouldn't rely solely on Solier without a proper secondary source to link Solier's use of the word cafre and the historical kaffir definition because it's not as straightforward in french. Yvan Part (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, but we do have secondary sources linking Solier's cafre and the historical kafir - they are cited in the article [19] [20]. As to the Franch More, Thomas & Chesworth says More Cafre (kafir) or Moorish infidel. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidently deep debate about whether Yasuke was or was not a samurai. The sources quoted to suggest that he was a samurai are thin and relatively few, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are invalid. The mountain of evidence against the possibility that he was a samurai MUST be taken into account.

That the article presents Yasuke's samurai status as a fact and not as a possibility is highly alarming, and suggests deep cracks in Wikipedia's objective of neutrally presenting unbiased facts. The credibility of Wikipedia itself is increasingly suffering because of apparent agenda-laden "fact" imposition on at-best-uncertain matters like this one.

I hereby propose that (at least until some consensus is reached) the article be edited to indicate that all points about Yasuke's possible samurai status are framed as possible, not as certain, as is the case in many other articles about disputed matters. Gr33nshorts (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the last RFC on the topic, nobody was able to find even a single high-quality source overtly casting doubt on the idea that he was a samurai or casting it as controversial. I wouldn't be surprised if now there were some recent sources discussing the hubbub, but nobody actually managed to turn any up, and there's a fairly large number of academic sources overtly describing him that way. If you think there's uncertainty then you'll need to actually produce the sources you believe document that uncertainty, not just claim that they exist; without at least that much, there's nothing to discuss. The sources that call him a samurai can be found in the RFC (and, I believe, they've also been added to the article), so you'll want to find sources at least as good as those disputing them before calling for another RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We literally just had an RfC about this and the consensus was overwhelmingly that Yasuke should be represented as a samurai as the majority view presented in all the available sources. Silverseren^C 03:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren A post on Twitter with 3300 likes and 143 comments has disputed the RfC you were involved in. I believe it is good to have open communication so I am just pointing out the discussion. Maybe you can take a look?

https://x.com/iinchou125/status/1806581266390651324

Regards, NamelessLameless (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care what random Twitter users think? Also, we follow what the sources say. The fact that those claiming Yasuke wasn't a samurai couldn't (and still can't) present even a single reliable source making such a claim is something that's been brought up time and time again in these discussions. Furthermore, the closer of that RfC was quite clear on Lockley being far from the only source supporting the statement. Silverseren^C 04:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Twitter posts aren't reliable sources. Here's some sources that are, from the RFC: ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} Also, given the numerous discussions of Lockley above, see ^[7] Again, if you want to re-open discussions you need to find at least some WP:RSes of comparable quality, which nobody was able to do during the RFC itself. "Someone on Twitter is mad" doesn't mean anything. --Aquillion (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this Yasuke guy so I don't have much to say except point out that other people have disputed the sourcing of this article. Here are links to posts that I saw on X.

https://x.com/Mangalawyer/status/1812588750465359972

https://x.com/Mangalawyer/status/1810493719378014218

https://x.com/iinchou125/status/1806581266390651324

Thanks,

NamelessLameless (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t know how reliable this is but it’s also there [21]. Volunteer Marek 04:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love the claim that Yasuke, who has been depicted in Japanese media for decades as a samurai even into the black and white television era, is only being considered a samurai now because one person wrote about him being such recently. Do these people even know the history within Japan itself? Silverseren^C 04:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depiction in media is different from historical fact, it is very well possible for popular media to misrepresent a historical event (take Vikings with horns for example, a Hollywood myth. Emphasis should be placed on English and Japanese academia instead. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As mentioned above, Twitter posts aren't reliable sources; and none of those seem to actually be citing any, they just seem to dislike what the article says. Lots of people have opinions and feelings about articles; but if you want to propose changes, you'll need reliable sources to back them up. --Aquillion (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a COI tag to the article, since it does appear that a major contributor to this article has a conflict of interest. It got removed as “drive by”.

im gonna be careful about WP:OUTING here but it’s pretty easy to verify that the link is there. Volunteer Marek 05:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait nevermind, Lockley self identified with his account [22]. Here is the difference between last version they edits and current version [23]. Comparison is difficult because lots of material got moved around. Volunteer Marek 05:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't find the specific diff, however from discussions in other Talk threads I understood one of the critical changes was addition of the The African Samurai (2019) book as a reference shortly prior to its release. Whether it falls under WP:COI in the given context, I do not know. SmallMender (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly this edit. For reference, the COI guideline text at that time. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This one in 2015 when user:Tottoritom added a citation of Lockley's paper to be published in 2016. This is where the controversy surrounding Lockley/Tottoritom really exploded online. That said, I am not trying to argue about Lockley's study on Yasuke, as other Japanese experts have recently begun to endorse Yasuke's samurai theory. However, I believe this specific COI edit rightfully puts Lockley's academic integrity under scrutiny. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some lines in the 2015 edit do seem like they might be violating NPOV and OR, but when I scanned the latest version of the page they have been removed and/or replaced with citations from appropriate independent secondary sources. For instance, Lockley's own translation of 信長公記 (Shinchōkōki) is now replaced by text from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuke#cite_ref-26. SmallMender (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this specific COI edit rightfully puts Lockley's academic integrity under scrutiny No, this is not correct - and it borders on a violation of WP:BLPTALK. WP:SELFCITE is the relevant guideline, and it states that Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Arguably, the edit by Tottoritom (assuming they are Lockley, as they claim) is entirely consistent with WP:SELFCITE. A recent discussion on WP:SELFCITE did not reach a consensus on requiring editors to first declare a COI, and thus reveal their identity, before citing their own work. So Lockley's behaviour (who did disclose his identity, by the way) does not call into question his "Wikipedian integrity", let alone his "academic integrity". We do want academics to cite and add content based on their research if that material is relevant, reputably published, neutral, and not self-promotional. No academic helping to build an encyclopedia should be scorned for that. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is the timing, that Lockley cited his own writing in 2015 before that was even published in 2016, that means no one would be able to verify his claims contributed on Wikipedia. How could this not be an academic integrity problem? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 11:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]